The Supreme Court heard arguments arguments on the previous day concerning a billion-dollar internet piracy lawsuit that might determine whether internet service providers (ISPs) bear responsibility for the digital infringement committed by their subscribers who opt not to compensate for that recent Sabrina Carpenter song.
TL;DR
- Supreme Court heard arguments on a billion-dollar internet piracy lawsuit against Cox Communications.
- Sony and music publishers claim Cox is accountable for subscribers' copyright infringement.
- Cox argues liability could force ISPs to cut off internet access for many Americans.
- Justices seemed skeptical of Cox's defense against "willful contributory infringement."
Sony and a consortium of other music publishers assert that Cox Communications bears accountability for its clientele's persistent infringement of copyright statutes. Cox, a provider of internet connectivity to 6 million residences and enterprises, contends that if deemed liable, it might compel all Internet Service Providers to discontinue web access for Countless Americans.
How we got here: In 2019, a court ruled against Cox and awarded Sony $1 billion in damages for the 10,017 songs at issue. An appeals court threw out the monetary award and ordered a new trial based on reduced violations. Cox turned to SCOTUS, arguing against the initial ruling that it had participated in “willful contributory infringement,” and saying a new trial could result in an even bigger penalty.
The arguments
- Record companies contend that Cox received a multitude of alerts regarding IP addresses infringing on copyrights and failed to take action. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, also known as DMCA (a nod to Napster), prohibited the online downloading and dissemination of copyrighted music; however, an electronic message from a Cox executive responsible for supervising the law's enforcement states, “F the dmca!!!”
- Cox contended that judicial precedents have established that for contributory infringement, businesses need to possess knowledge of the violations and actively promote the unlawful acts, something Cox asserts it never engaged in. According to Reuters, the justices seemed skeptical that position.
Big Tech’s big interest:Google and X are backing Cox, with X stating that if creators can sue AI platforms when people use their technology for violating copyright laws, the company would “have no choice but to constrain their actions” to avoid potential liability.
Don’t worry, SCOTUS isn’t expected to rule until the summer, so there’s still plenty of time to add malware illegal music to your laptop.—DL
This report was originally published by Morning Brew.
