DeepSeek V3.2 vs GLM-4.7

The 1984 case is *Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.*, often called the "Betamax case." Justice John Paul Stevens’s opinion for a 5-4 majority established that the sale of VCRs did not constitute contributory copyright infringement because they were capable of substantial non-infringing uses, such as time-shifting [1]. This saved the technology that MPAA's Jack Valenti infamously denounced. The 2013 case is *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.*, involving Thai student Supap Kirtsaeng, who resold in the U.S. textbooks lawfully purchased abroad. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in his favor, upholding the **first-sale doctrine** [2]. This doctrine, summarized as "if they bought it, they owned it," allows the owner of a lawfully made copy to resell or dispose of it without the copyright holder's permission. It historically enabled video rental chains like Blockbuster to lend purchased tapes. *Kirtsaeng* is frequently compared to *Sony* for its profound impact on the information economy by limiting copyright holders' control over downstream distribution of physical goods. The Business Software Alliance (BSA), arguing against applying the first-sale doctrine to foreign-made goods, contended that such a ruling would cause significant negative economic consequences for U.S. copyright holders, specifically a **substantial loss of revenue in foreign markets** [3][4]. They warned that if the first-sale doctrine applied globally, publishers and software companies would be forced to raise prices domestically or cease low-price sales abroad to prevent arbitrage, undermining their ability to segment markets and maximize profits internationally. ## References [1] Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984). [2] Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013). [3] Brief for the Business Software Alliance et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (No. 11-697). [4] Supreme Court Decision Analysis: *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons* and the First-Sale Doctrine.

The 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case is *Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.*, where a last-minute vote change by Justice John Paul Stevens (who switched from dissent to the majority) saved the Betamax VCR technology [1]. MPAA president Jack Valenti had famously testified that the VCR was to the American film producer as the "Boston Strangler" was to the woman home alone [1]. The 2013 case involving a Thai student and imported textbooks that is compared to *Sony* for its impact on the information economy is *Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.* [2]. The legal doctrine linking these cases is the **First Sale Doctrine**, summarized by the principle that "if they bought it, they owned it" [3]. This doctrine exhausts the copyright owner's distribution rights once a specific copy is lawfully sold. Historically, this interpretation allowed video rental chains like Blockbuster to purchase physical copies of movies and rent them without paying additional royalties to copyright holders [3]. In the 2013 case, the Business Software Alliance argued that applying the First Sale Doctrine to foreign-manufactured goods would destroy **geographic market segmentation** [4]. They warned that the negative economic consequence would be the collapse of differential pricing, forcing publishers to raise prices in developing nations to prevent arbitrage, thereby harming foreign consumers and reducing the global availability of affordable content [4]. ## References [1] Smithsonian Magazine, "The Betamax Case and the Rise of the VCR" [2] Oyez, "Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc." [3] Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, "First Sale Doctrine" [4] SCOTUSblog, "Business Software Alliance Amicus Brief in *Kirtsaeng v. Wiley*"