13 ms·
Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music
https://archive.is/mEgaK https://archive.is/mEgaK
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/607/24-171/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/607/24-171/
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- bickfordb 6mo agoI wonder what effect this will have on file sharing services like Megaupload?
- supertrope 6mo agoIn terms of legality Megaupload messed up by directly participating in copyright infringement. They paid people to upload copyrighted movies. Cox doesn't reward people for copyright infringement. The lawsuit against them argued they failed to take enough precautions (for example cutting off subscribers upon receiving an accusation from a third party) and that should make them liable. In practice Megaupload is not an established company. Other consumer file storage services such as Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive, Apple iCloud are trillion dollar companies with deep legal benches and lobbying muscle. YouTube seeded the service with pirated content and Google helped fight off a copyright lawsuit by finding evidence that one rights holder uploaded their own video and then claimed infringement.
- SunshineTheCat 6mo agohttps://archive.is/mEgaK https://archive.is/mEgaK
- ls612 6mo ago9-0 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.
- pfdietz 6mo agoAnd a slapdown to the lower courts being reversed.
- tbrownaw 6mo ago> At the same time it likely puts things like the *Arr stack at more risk given their more tailored nature. Well, those would be in the same position now that they previously were I think.
- akersten 6mo ago> 9-0 against the record labels. Love to see it. I'm still mad about the Sony rootkit[0] and the people sued for absurd amounts over downloading a few MP3s back in the 00's. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
- tracker1 6mo agoI still haven't bought a Sony labelled product since... though I may or may not have consumed Sony content. They've definitely lost more than they gained.
- dylan604 6mo ago> They've definitely lost more than they gained. That's a pretty good sized ego you got yourself there. The number of people that cared about the rootkit in the general populace was insignificant to Sony. Only tech nerds like us even knew about the rootkit or how insane it was to use. Unless you were a huge flagship purchaser of Sony's latest/greatest each year, they don't even notice you when you buy a TV or any other item. People barely remember the studio getting hacked and releasing a film
- Mindless2112 6mo agohttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- thot_experiment 6mo agoA 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.
- f1shy 6mo agoLeave it in 2, like patents. Even 3 could be tolerated. But current standard is crap.
- ronsor 6mo agoThe reason copyright doesn't get fixed or removed is largely because the general public is worried more about other things and the big rightsholders continue their monthly payments—err, lobbying. Though AI might change that. In the end, large corporations get what they want.
- thmsths 6mo agoThe general public also get sold on the rosy idea that copyright (and patents to a certain extent), protect the little guy, that thanks to this mechanism their work will not be stolen by opportunistic freeloaders. It also resonates with the "one day I will strike rich" mentality. What they usually "forget" to tell you is that your IP is absolutely worthless if you don't have the resources to defend it in court, which in turns actually advantages freeloaders who either have relatively low costs to sue (patent trolls are basically an example of this) or enough money that they don't feel the pain if they lose. The current system basically incentivizes suing over IP NOT creating it.
- bit-anarchist 6mo agoTo add to the list of things that they "forget" to tell you, is that the real origin of copyright is fundamentally tied to censorship as well [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright Overall, IP seem to be a massive mistake.
- 6mo ago
- selectively 6mo agoRare good decision from SCOTUS.
- baggy_trough 6mo ago[flagged]
- brumbelow 6mo ago[flagged]
- kmeisthax 6mo agoSo... 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.
- intrasight 6mo agoThis is about moving bits through the pipes and not the resources that those pipes are moving.
- elpool2 6mo agoIt seems like you would still have to remove the infringing content, but no need to disconnect or ban the user who shared it. But if you’re a pure ISP and not hosting content on your own servers, then I guess, yeah DMCA doesn’t really apply to you?
- burnt-resistor 6mo agoThis was what GFiber appeared to be doing until it sold out to private equity. I got about 60 DMCA notice emails about torrents that never reached seeding state. About 25% of them were false accusations with wrong titles unrelated to activity by anyone on my network.
- elpool2 6mo agoActually, it looks like there is something in the law that only provides DMCA safe harbor to providers that have a policy of terminating accounts of repeat infringers. I'm still not sure if an ISP would even need that safe harbor though.
- 6mo ago
- strogonoff 6mo agoIt’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.
- prepend 6mo agoHow is IP “theft” more important now than 20 years ago?
- VanTheBrand 6mo agoAI training
- prepend 6mo agoAI training might be copyright infringement. But there’s no cases or laws to establish that. I don’t think this case or anything else has been affected by AI training on copyrighted material, if it is deemed infringing.
- mywittyname 6mo agoIt's been demonstrated that some companies, even F10 ones, have been using pirated content to train their AI.
- prepend 6mo agoYes, but not demonstrated that that training is illegal.
- red-iron-pine 6mo agowhy is "training" consumption more legal than "recreational" consumption? stealing bread to feed the birds vs stealing bread to feed your mom -- both are still stealing
- Kye 6mo agoWithout the login wall: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-supreme-court-backs-cox-fight-over-pirated-music-2026-03-25/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
- indolering 6mo ago[flagged]
- downrightmike 6mo agoIf it isn't on the net, it can't go through prism
- ImJamal 6mo ago9-0 rulings happen all the time. I couldn't find an easy to consume list so I asked AI to provide the percentage and it said 65–75% of rulings in a term are 9-0.
- JeremyNT 6mo agoI believe it's the second half of parent's comment that is doing the heavy lifting. A 9-0 ruling written by Clarence Thomas which puts basic human rights (internet access) above civil liability - try asking a chatbot to find many of those.
- ls612 6mo agoI think around 50% are 9-0 and then 30% are either 7-2 or 8-1. The contentious cases are the remainder.
- busymom0 6mo ago> 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 6mo agoJust 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?
- achandlerwhite 6mo agoThat's my understanding. Basic carrier vs service stuff. What I wonder is how this might impact gun manufacturers.
- joering2 6mo ago[flagged]
- dionian 6mo agoit would help if all cases of self defense were cataloged. Right now it only hits the stats if a crime is not averted.
- vetrom 6mo ago> where overwhelming amount of USED guns are used to accompany crime I do not think this holds up to a factual analysis if you look at any cross section of defensive gun use reports. I don't think that parts actually relevant here though. If you were to use a similar standard as the USSC court applies here: Impressions don't matter to qualify for inducement. The action must be actively invited.
- creantum 6mo agoGuns stolen = crime. Guns purchased = self defense.
- JCTheDenthog 6mo ago
- Sparkle-san 6mo agoGlad to have one less reason to incentivize ISPs to monitor every single thing we do on the internet.
- plagiarist 6mo agoThey are already incentivized enough by selling the data, more incentives won't change anything.
- MBCook 6mo agoThe ruling said that they don’t have to. Going with your point, it does not say they can’t monitor and then sell the list of pirates to Sony/etc. for some extra income. They just didn’t like doing it for free.
- iugtmkbdfil834 6mo agoYes, but then the question becomes: which tactics does MPAA and the like will now resort to. Because we know they won't exactly say 'I guess that's it then'.
- Forgeties79 6mo agoThe MPAA has limited options given they aren’t any sort of government entity with any real enforcement power. All they can do is keep suing as they hope for a different outcome and/or try new forms of DRM.
- red-iron-pine 6mo agothe US Gov rolls over for anyone with enough money -- trump takes bribes the MPAA has money, and they will go after the government to fix their problem
- tencentshill 6mo agoThis 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.
- johnnyanmac 6mo agoThey aren't suing some broke 23 year old. What they can collect is less than their lawyer fees. At worst, universities crack down harder on torrents, but that was always an option for labels.
- vetrom 6mo agoThere is a very important consideration here that this opinion doesn't really touch on, but I think is invited down the road for future cases and legislation: Can you compel the speech of a third party to aid in exploratory evidence gathering (aka fishing expeditions) without a clear, well defined, and particular, cause of action at court to issue a subpoena? In most classic U.S. jurisdiction, no, you cannot. Compelled activity or speech is generally frowned upon. The most important part of this case, IMO, was the Supreme Court constraining the Fourth Circuit's interpretation of contributory liability and attempting to turn the DMCA system into one for enabling those fishing expeditions.
- MadnessASAP 6mo ago> They aren't suing some broke 23 year old. What they can collect is less than their lawyer fees. You may not be old enough to remember this, but that's exactly what they did in the 2000's
- johnnyanmac 6mo agoThere's a lot more 23 year olds to this time around. I don't think you can intimidate them down this time.
- MadnessASAP 6mo ago
- shevy-java 6mo ago> 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).
- socalgal2 6mo ago> if someone uses a gun to shoot down someone, why is the company providing the gun not held accountable here? The gun company will claim they sold for self defense or just for a hobbyist's collection - They'll claim that the gun owner used it for something else is not their responsibility. Same for any or product that can be used to kill someone with.
- 6mo ago
- rimunroe 6mo agoFunnily 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.
- RustyRoss 6mo agoLol. Did they force you to pinky swear that you'd deleted it?
- bombcar 6mo agoIn my experience they're very careful about what you say so that the recording allows them to say you did what was needed. This is assuming you didn't answer for "your little brother", etc.
- rimunroe 6mo agoThey waited on the line until I said I'd deleted it and then immediately reactivated my connection.
- nashashmi 6mo agoIf sony equipment was used in facilitating the copyright violation, would that make Sony liable?
- Jolter 6mo agoThat was already decided in an old case about Betamax recorders, quoted on the front page of the linked article.
- SAI_Peregrinus 6mo agoPer this ruling, only if Sony had intent to facilitate copyright violation by making the equipment.
- nekusar 6mo agoI 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.
- megaman821 6mo agoWhat? You pay property tax because local services schools, streets, police and fire fighters need to be funded. Having a property in the area is a pretty great proxy for using some of these services, hence the property tax.
- nekusar 6mo agoI was expecting that as a response. There is no reason why tax has to be done as property tax. Property tax demeans actual ownership of a place for us to live. (And why the hell do corporations get away with no tax on intellectual property, or even pay on profits, whereas we humans pay on revenue and property?) Worse yet, property taxes also enshrine the idea that the community's schools in poor areas deserve poor education. Do children in poor areas deserve poor education? Cause that's how you end up with "great and slum schools". And the police in my area? Its sheriffs. And meh. I dont want them to keep getting military playthings. Street? That's what gas tax and EV tax is for. And those built in with gas tax funds per gallon, aka use tax. Or vehicle registration tax. Fire fighters? We have volunteer fire fighters. I'm seeing a whole lot of tax and tax and tax, and shit for return on this forced investment. And property tax HAS had people end up homeless. 1 family homeless due to property tax is 1 too many.
- mmahd7456 6mo agoVolunteer firefighters, public schools, and police/sheriffs still need equipment and facilities. Whether you call it property tax or "public services" tax, it amounts to the same thing. The community needs a way to fund the shared community services, and there has to be some sort of metric that determines how much each citizen contributes to the fund.
- djoldman 6mo agoFor 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._Sony_Music_Entertainment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_Communications,_Inc._v._So...
- jonny_eh 6mo agoI wouldn't normally side with a cable company, but they're up against Sony Music, so I'll allow it. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
- shiroiuma 6mo agoYep, on the evil scale, Sony Music definitely ranks well ahead of Cox Cable. Now, if this were Comcast vs. Sony Music, it would be a closer call, but I still think Sony would have the edge.
- jibal 6mo agoI realize I'm in the minority but I side with whomever I think is right under the law, regardless of my (sometimes extreme) feelings about the parties and even about the law.
- lazyasciiart 6mo agoA case only reaches the Supreme Court if there is confusion over who is right under the law. The Supreme Court decision itself is not a definitive guide to which side is right under the law, as they’ve overturned themselves multiple times. So how do you decide which party to side with?
- jetrink 6mo agoHilariously (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.
- purpleflame1257 6mo agoThey were right. I never sold a taped VCR, but my parents used it to time shift Saturday morning cartoons every week.
- nine_k 6mo agoTime shifting for personal use is expressly legal (making a personal copy). It was also an early form of ad-blocking, because a VHS recorder could stop recording at a set time, thus skip a block of commercials, and then continue. There were suits about that, too.
- da_chicken 6mo agoThe Betamax case that GP mentions is the same case that established that time-shifting is not copyright infringment. The law and courts were previously both mute on the subject.
- 6mo ago
- ww520 6mo agoThis is huge. Sony is trying to make Cox into law enforcement to do their biddings. The Supreme Court struck that down.
- russellbeattie 6mo ago[flagged]
- anikom15 6mo agoMost opinions from the Supreme Court are unanimous.
- maxwg 6mo ago> Holding Cox liable merely for failing to terminate Internet service to infringing accounts Imagine giving the power to rightsholders to terminate anyone's internet service with e.g, a DMCA takedown. I'm sure that won't be abused at all, and is a very necessary step to protecting "artists"
- dmvjs 6mo agoso just ask again tomorrow?
- doomboiardee 6mo agoI wonder if OpenAI, et.al were eagerly awaiting this verdict because once an ISP is liable...well I'm sure you can extrapolate from there.
- elicash 6mo agoThere are important factual differences compared to the challenges against OpenAI, but I think yes this decision does ultimately offer them some new legal protection against whatever customers decide to do with their tools.
- doomboiardee 6mo agoThat's a good point too and one I wasn't even trying to make. I was thinking more in terms of how the big LLM players trained their models using torrents etc.
- elicash 6mo agoAh, yes, I get what you meant now, makes sense.
- JasserInicide 6mo agoOk while superficially great news but the supreme cynic in me is starting to think: what if the RIAA et al go to ISPs and saying they will pay them to continue monitoring this stuff and if they bring them to court, sue them and win they will give them a cut of the winnings? Would something like this even be financially feasible i.e. a profit motive inserted somewhere into the equation that ISPs would continue monitoring torrent activity?
- cogman10 6mo ago> Would something like this even be financially feasible No. The entire reason they went after Cox is because cox has deep pockets and there was a possibility that Cox would just settle and work with them rather than fighting this all the way to the supreme court. The problem sony has is the maximum money they can claim from an individual is just way less than what they can get from a business. Almost certainly enough to justify the legal fees.
- awright96 6mo ago[dead]
- pessimizer 6mo ago> what if the RIAA et al go to ISPs and saying they will pay them to continue monitoring this stuff and if they bring them to court, sue them and win they will give them a cut of the winnings? This is not a profitable business for anyone but low-level scumbags who are also lawyers (so they do not have to pay for lawyers.) Related, the music industry loses not a dime to piracy. If all piracy stopped tomorrow, they wouldn't likely make an additional cent. Which means that all money they spend to fight piracy is a loss - which is why they tried to make examples out of people and publicize it i.e. if we will go after this poor single mom, we will certainly go after you. But they would not go after you, because they're not going to spend that kind of money. Which is the reason for going after ISPs and search engines, to make it their responsibility. Meaning that they would have to pay for the monitoring, they would be cutting off people's internet (which is almost scarier than a copyright violation suit in the age of monopoly and blacklists.) The RIAA could just sit back and spend nothing, just send lists of IPs to ISPs to be cut off, and watch piracy disappear. With the shield of a SCOTUS judgement, ISPs could cut off internet as quickly as youtube bans for DMCA, with no consequences. The situation now is that they can go after individuals, but nobody is obligated to help. It's all on their dime.
- shmerl 6mo agoIf anyone wonders, that's a good result. Sony was in the wrong here.
- jklinger410 6mo agoA rare W for Cox here.
- marysminefnuf 6mo agoThe supreme court’s conservative majority likes cox it seems.
- Pxtl 6mo agoWhen AI trainers are making a complete mockery of copyright law I have trouble caring about piracy in general.
- mrweasel 6mo agoRight, because apparently you can just train an AI on the downloaded data and then you're apparently fine to pirate anything you want.
- shevy-java 6mo agoI think if the courts would have ruled differently then arms producers would have to be held accountable and liable too, at all times. After all they contributed to a problem, which would be comparable to the court case here if one follows the "logic" presented by Sony.