Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

SunshineTheCat

https://archive.is/mEgaK

ls612

9-0 against the record labels. This effectively ends a long running strategy of trying to milk ISPs for people torrenting without a VPN. At the same time it likely puts things like the *Arr stack at more risk given their more tailored nature.

Mindless2112

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf

thot_experiment

A tiny victory. Copyright should not be more than a decade. This intellectual property system is one of the worst things to happen in modern society is what I would have said a few years ago, now I got bigger problems but I'm still mad.

selectively

Rare good decision from SCOTUS.

kmeisthax

So... does that mean we don't have to care about takedown notices anymore? Like, the only reason to comply with such an onerous and censorious takedown regime was specifically to disclaim contributory copyright liability that SCOTUS just unanimously decided to erase. Is it such that as long as people aren't stupid and don't market their services as an infringement facilitator, which most don't, that they don't have to honor 512 takedown notices now? Conversely, services dumb enough to actually market themselves as infringement tools probably can't get rid of their liability by the 512 safe harbor. So there's no reason to actually honor a DMCA takedown request anymore.

strogonoff

It’s interesting to see how as soon as intellectual property theft starts to be critical for powerful interests the legal system magically gets more lenient about copyright enforcement. The balance between public good and protecting IP ownership of the creatives (which is, paradoxically, also part of the public good) has to be struck and enforced consistently.

Kye

Without the login wall: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...

busymom0

> They said that Cox had ignored bad actors, helping 60,000 users distribute more than 10,000 copyrighted songs for free This is such a tiny number for a company which provides internet to over 6 million homes. I was expecting it to be in millions or at least hundreds of thousands.

scott_w

Just to try and understand the decision, an analogy that’s coming to mind would be like saying a van manufacturer wouldn’t have liability if it’s used in a bank robbery. However if the manufacturer sold it with the intent for the buyer to use it for bank robbery (the manufacturer having the intent in this case, as well as the robber themselves), then they could become partially liable. Have I got that right?

Sparkle-san

Glad to have one less reason to incentivize ISPs to monitor every single thing we do on the internet.

tencentshill

This isn't good. They can still sue you, but now they need proof that you as an individual behind that public IP did it. This will only incentivize them to join the push for ID requirements.

bickfordb

I wonder what effect this will have on file sharing services like Megaupload?

shevy-java

> The provider of a service is contributorily liable for a user’s infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement So they try to hold the provider responsible. While I disagree with this, I can at the least understand some rationale behind it, even though this is inconsistent. For instance, if someone uses a gun to shoot down someone, why is the company providing the gun not held accountable here? They should also be forced to pay compensation damage to people being harmed here. But this is besides the point I am trying to make. The thing is that I do not want to be held accountable under such a law. I believe when it comes to information, courts should not be allowed to restrict me or anyone else in any way, shape or form. I want a free society. That means flow of information can never be restricted by any such actors. Granted, this is not possible right now anywhere on Planet Earth as far as I am aware, and I understand the implication of this too (no more secrets possible), but I want this 100%. Yet I can't have that because courts restrict me, and all those who want the same, arbitrarily so. IMO this also means that such courts must be changed. Right now we have corporate courts where the money addiction flows in. I understand this system and the problems of this system. This is why there must be a transition starting from the society, to no longer make it possible to restrict service providers here in any way, shape or form. The same would apply to democracy - I don't want to accept indirect democracy run by lobbyists. I want to be in charge, in proportion to my vote, at all times, of every decision (I am ok delegating this to representatives, mind you, but not automatically and not always; in indirect democracy you vote for some representative who can then do whatever he wants to. I am not ok with this. How many former Trump voters would, right now, want Trump to be gone from power, or in prison? I think many would, considering the damage he caused and is still causing).

rimunroe

Funnily enough the only time I ever got in trouble for torrenting anything was when Cox was my ISP circa 2009. I'd been torrenting some PSP game and my connection went down. When I called the helpline they explained what happened and said they'd restore access once I confirmed I'd deleted the downloaded file.

nekusar

I have to pay property tax forever for a house I supposedly own. If I dont pay that, the government sues and takes my house. Basically I never actually own my house. (Of course, we have "Evil Communist China" where there is no property tax, and people own their homes and can live there. Id argue they're more free than we are.) But copyrights and patents and trademarks? There's no tax on those "properties". And gee, companies are the ones to likely own these properties, not individuals.

nashashmi

If sony equipment was used in facilitating the copyright violation, would that make Sony liable?

djoldman

For those like myself who wanted context: > Cox Communications v. Sony Music, 607 U.S.___ (2026), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the liability of an internet service provider for its subscribers engaging in copyright infringement. > Cox Communications was sued by multiple music labels for lax enforcement of its users engaged in sharing the labels' copyrighted music, arging Cox finacially benefitted from these users. A jury trial found Cox to be liable. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the court dismissed findings that Cox engaged in vicarious infringment, but held that Cox was still liable for contributory infringement, with Cox potentially owing several million dollars to the labels. > In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court found that Cox Communication was not contributorily liable for the actions of its users, reversing the Fourth's decision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_Communications,_Inc._v._So...

jetrink

Hilariously (and appropriately), the decision cites Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. , also known as the "Betamax case." > (a) “The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another.” Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 434. > In Sony, copyright owners sued the maker and the retailers of the Betamax video tape recorder. Id., at 422. The tape recorder could be used to record copyrighted television programs for later personal viewing, which would not constitute infringement. Id., at 449. On the other hand, it could also be used to reproduce and sell copyrighted television programming, which would constitute infringement. Ibid. The lower court found the Betamax maker liable because the tape recorder was “not suitable for any substantial noninfringing use” and infringement “was either the most conspicuous use or the major use of the Betamax product.” Id., at 428 (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court reversed, concluding that “[t]he Betamax is . . . capable of substantial noninfringing uses”—like personal use—so “sale of such equipment to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement.” Id., at 456.

ww520

This is huge. Sony is trying to make Cox into law enforcement to do their biddings. The Supreme Court struck that down.