Defending Artistry by Deleting "Dead Capital:" Sony, Grokster, and the Supreme Court's Lost Opportunity to Eradicate the "Substantial Non-Infringing Use" Doctrine
The administration of copyright law manages the trade-off between the benefits derived from encouraging the creation of works and artistic protection and the cost of restricting access. Copyright law cannot work without a strong legal system that strictly reads the rights granted to those seeking the law's protection and against those seeking to find creative ways to avert the law's protections. Ironically, certain technology providers want protection against others' infringement on their technological creations, but they accept that their businesses base themselves on eroding the value of another's hard work and innovation. Sony allows technology companies to hide behind the "substantial non-infringing use" doctrine. This shield not only erodes the value of sound recordings and musical compositions, but it also diminishes respect for the very foundation of copyright law in the digital age. Sony betrays the public good in failing to adequately protect artists and their music industry patrons. It is time that the Court firmly reevaluate copyright infringement doctrine in the post-Sony marketplace.
Joshua E. Carpenter,
Defending Artistry by Deleting "Dead Capital:" Sony, Grokster, and the Supreme Court's Lost Opportunity to Eradicate the "Substantial Non-Infringing Use" Doctrine,
9 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw/vol9/iss3/2