|
I've studied it too, Nate. It is precisely that fact that video recorders were deemed to be (quote) "capable of substantial non-infringing uses" (ie time shifting) which led to the court giving its 5-4 decision in favour of Sony. Time shifting was deemed to be fair use and since the video recorder was capable of this, it was ruled not to be a device which existed solely to infringe copyright.
The important thing, however, is that although the actual recorder was ruled not to be a "copyright infringing device" that does not mean that all uses of it are so. Clearly, for example, using a video recorder to make a duplicate of a commercial videotape is a use which infringes copyright, as is (perhaps less clearly) taping an LP which you haven't bought (although taping your own LPs was, I believe, ruled to fall into the "fair use" clause of copyright law).
It all boils down to "intent". Taping off the radio for strictly personal use may indeed be deemed fair use, but selling that cassette commercially, or even giving it to a friend almost certainly is not.
These issues are never "black and white".
|