Secondly, the fees payable for the use of the copying machines did not, or were not intended to,
bring a profit to the [University]. But I do not think that this difference is critical. ... [T]he
unqualified supply of the books and the machines amounted to an invitation to users of the
library to make such use of the machines by photocopying of the books or substantial portions
thereof as they saw fit.In the circumstances, it was of little importance whether or not the University authorities knew
in fact that users of the machines were doing acts comprised in the authors’ copyrights. This
knowledge or lack of it would not change the terms of the invitation extended by the supply of
books and machines....[T]he University was entitled to assume that users would obey the law, including the law of
copyright, but such an assumption on its part would not qualify the invitation which it extended.Brennan, then, was a user of the library on the occasion in question. He apparently had sufficient
right to be there to make him at least a licensee of the library’s facilities. He was a graduate of
the University and the library was not exclusively an undergraduate or student library. He went
there and used the library book or books and the library copying machine in terms of the
invitation apparently extended to him. In my opinion, the appropriate finding in these
circumstances is that the University authorized his acts. ...EXAMPLE 2:Record companies claimed that the manufacturers of double-tape double-
speed audiotape-recorders “authorized” buyers to copy sound recordings, in
which the companies owned the copyrights, without authority and sued them
for an injunction.This claim was rejected in the United Kingdom in CBS Songs Ltd v. Amstrad
Consumer Electronics plc [1988] A.C. 1013 (U.K.: House of Lords). The
court held that, while buyers might infringe copyright if they copied commercial
music tapes without authority, the makers or sellers of the tape-recorders did
not purport to grant buyers any authority to infringe copyright and so did not
“authorize” infringement:Copying may be lawful or unlawful. Every tape recorder confers on the operator who
acquires a blank tape the facility of copying; the double-speed twin-tape recorder
provides a modern and efficient facility for continuous playing and continuous
recording and for copying. No manufacturer and no machine confers on the purchaser
authority to copy unlawfully. The purchaser or other operator of the recorder
determines whether he shall copy and what he shall copy. By selling the recorder
Amstrad may facilitate copying in breach of copyright but do not authorise it.- Knowingly assisting or encouraging infringement may make a
person liable, in some jurisdictions, as a contributory infringer
A similar conclusion to that in the CBS Songs v. Amstradcase, just noted, was
reached in the United States by relying on a doctrine known as “contributory
infringement”. When motion picture distributors sued to prevent the sale of
Sony video-cassette tape recorders, they argued that Sony, by supplying such
VCRs, “contributed” to the infringement of movie copyrights by home users.
The Supreme Court, by a narrow majority, in Sony Corp. v. Universal City
Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (U.S.: Supreme Court, 1984)disagreed:152