SCOTUS Tackles Illegal File Sharing, Internet Music Piracy, and Copyright Law; Reason, December 7, 2025

 DAMON ROOT, Reason; SCOTUS Tackles Illegal File Sharing, Internet Music Piracy, and Copyright Law

"A decision in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment won't be coming our way until sometime next year, so until then, we'll just have to wait and see."

Court seems dubious of billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement; SCOTUSblog, December 2, 2025

 Ronald Mann, SCOTUSblog; Court seems dubious of billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement

 "My basic reaction to the argument is that the justices would be uncomfortable with accepting the broadest version of the arguments that Cox has presented to it (that the ISP is protected absent an affirmative act of malfeasance), but Sony’s position seems so unpalatable to them that a majority is most unlikely to coalesce around anything that is not a firm rejection of the lower court’s ruling against Cox. I wouldn’t expect that ruling to come soon, but I don’t think there is much doubt about what it will say."

US Supreme Court wrestles with copyright dispute between Cox and record labels; Reuters, December 1, 2025

Blake Brittain , Reuters; US Supreme Court wrestles with copyright dispute between Cox and record labels

"The U.S. Supreme Court grappled on Monday with a bid by Cox Communications to avoid financial liability in a major music copyright lawsuit by record labels that accused the internet service provider of enabling its customers to pirate thousands of songs.

The justices appeared skeptical of Cox's assertion that its mere awareness of user piracy could not justify holding it liable for copyright infringement. They also questioned whether holding Cox liable for failing to cut off infringers could impact a wide range of innocent internet users."

Cox Communications v. Sony Music Oral Argument; C-SPAN, December 1, 2025

C-SPAN ; Cox Communications v. Sony Music Oral Argument

"The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, a case about Sony's lawsuit against internet service provider Cox Communications, and whether such companies may be held liable for their users' copyright infringements. Sony and other record companies and publishers sued Cox, alleging it was liable for its subscribers downloading and distributing copyrighted songs. A federal jury found Cox liable and awarded $1 billion in statutory damages. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury's finding of willful infringement but vacated the damages award. The Trump administration supported Cox in the dispute and, along with attorney Joshua Rosenkranz, argued on behalf of the company. Veteran Supreme Court attorney Paul Clement argued on behalf of the respondent, Sony Music."

Supreme Court to Hear Copyright Battle Over Online Music Piracy; The New York Times, December 1, 2025

Ann E. Marimow , The New York Times; Supreme Court to Hear Copyright Battle Over Online Music Piracy

"The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday in a closely watched copyright clash testing whether internet providers can be held liable for the piracy of thousands of songs online.

Leading music labels and publishers who represent artists ranging from Bob Dylan to Beyoncé sued Cox Communications in 2018, saying it had failed to terminate the internet connections of subscribers who had been repeatedly flagged for illegally downloading and distributing copyrighted music.

At issue is whether providers like Cox can be held legally responsible and be required to pay steep damages — a billion dollars or more — if it knows that customers are pirating the music but does not take sufficient steps to terminate their internet access."

Contributory Copyright Liability Back Before the Supreme Court; Marquette University Law School, November 28, 2025

Bruce E. Boyden, Marquette University Law School ; Contributory Copyright Liability Back Before the Supreme Court

"The case itself is no trifling matter. Cox, a cable company that provides broadband internet access to its subscribers, is appealing a $1 billion jury verdict holding it liable for assisting some of those subscribers in engaging in copyright infringement. The case arose from an effort by record labels and music publishers to stem the tide of peer-to-peer filesharing of music files by sending notices of infringement to access providers such as Cox. The DMCA bars liability for access providers as long as they reasonably implemented a repeat infringer policy. But who’s a repeat infringer? The notices were an effort to get access providers to take action by giving them the knowledge of repeat infringements necessary to trigger the policies.

According to the evidence presented at trial, however, Cox was extremely resistant to receiving or taking action in response to the notices. The most colorful bit of evidence (and yet another example of how loose emails sink ships) was from the head of the Cox abuse and safety team in charge of enforcing user policies, who screamed in a team-wide email: “F the dmca!!!” (This was followed by an email from a higher-level executive on the chain: “Sorry to be Paranoid Panda here, but please stop sending out e-mails saying F the law….”) The Fourth Circuit ultimately held that because Cox didn’t reasonably implement its repeat infringer policy, it lost its statutory immunity, and then at trial the jury found Cox contributorily liable for the infringements that it had been notified about, which the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

The question before the Court is whether the lower courts applied the right test for contributory copyright liability, or applied it correctly. (There’s a second question, about the standard for willfulness in determining damages, but I didn’t address that one.) There’s a couple of things that make this issue difficult to disentangle; one has to do with the history of contributory infringement doctrine, and the other is a technical issue about what, exactly, is being challenged on appeal."

Copyright Piracy at the Supreme Court In Cox v. Sony: is an internet provider liable for digital thieves?; The Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2025

The Editorial Board, The Wall Street Journal; Copyright Piracy at the Supreme Court" In Cox v. Sony, is an internet provider liable for digital thieves?

"If a college student pirates music files, can his broadband provider be liable for his copyright infringement? That’s the question before the Supreme Court on Monday in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, which tugs at the tension between protecting intellectual property and the internet."

Court to consider billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement; SCOTUSblog, November 25, 2025

Ronald Mann , SCOTUSblog; Court to consider billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement

"The court will hear its big copyright case for the year during the first week of the December session, when on Monday, Dec. 1, it reviews a billion-dollar ruling against Cox Communications based on its failure to eradicate copyright infringement by its customers."

Content Creators Want Congress To Revamp Decades-Old Copyright Law; Inc., September 25, 2025

BEN BUTLER , Inc., Content Creators Want Congress To Revamp Decades-Old Copyright Law

"“There’s a growing practice of using the [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] takedown tools built into platforms to restrict and shut down competition [which] are considered traditionally unfair trade practices,” Kayla Morán, a lawyer specializing in trademark and contract law, said last week during a hearing examining content creators and entrepreneurship before the House Committee on Small Business...

As content creation becomes more lucrative, creators can protect their IP by filing as LLCs, Morán said, shifting the liability from the person to the business. LLCs protect business assets from the owner of the business, creating a distinction between the two. Social media accounts can be protected as business assets, thus giving creators more legal protections if a podcast name gets stolen, for example, or in cases of impersonation.

But filing as an LLC as opposed to being a sole proprietorship requires registration fees and higher costs, which vary by state. And filing as an LLC doesn’t prevent the IP from being stolen, it would protect it from being pursued as an asset in a personal lawsuit against the creator. 

Morán and Christina Brennan, who runs a social media management company, said entrepreneurs they work with don’t have the knowledge of contract law and how taxes on social media earnings work.

One way to help bridge the disconnect, Morán suggests, would be for the Small Business Administration to provide guidance, plus access to lawyers that can advise on common challenges that bubble up for content creators, like with protecting IP."

Victory! Ninth Circuit Limits Intrusive DMCA Subpoenas; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), August 18, 2025

TORI NOBLE, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Victory! Ninth Circuit Limits Intrusive DMCA Subpoenas

"Fortunately, Section 512(h) has an important limitation that protects users.  Over two decades ago, several federal appeals courts ruled that Section 512(h) subpoenas cannot be issued to ISPs. Now, in In re Internet Subscribers of Cox Communications, LLC, the Ninth Circuit agreed, as EFF urged it to in our amicus brief."

SDNY Order Renews Possibility of Digital Millenium Copyright Act as Legal Recourse for News Organizations in the Age of AI; The National Law Review, December 23, 2024

Dan Jasnow of ArentFox Schiff LLP  -  AI Law Blog, The National Law Review; SDNY Order Renews Possibility of Digital Millenium Copyright Act as Legal Recourse for News Organizations in the Age of AI 

"Key Takeaway: The Intercept’s Case Against OpenAI Will Clarify the Future of DMCA Protection Against AI Developers

Until now, other DMCA claims against AI developers have largely failed — most of these cases have not proceeded past the motion-to-dismiss stage — but the order allowing The Intercept’s claim to proceed renews the possibility that the DMCA may be a viable claim against AI developers. For rights holders, 1202(b) provides distinct causes of action against AI developers with different evidentiary requirements than traditional copyright infringement claims. For developers, 1202(b) is another legal risk to be managed, particularly in the wake of the order in The Intercept case."

Character.AI Confirms Mass Deletion of Fandom Characters, Says They're Not Coming Back; Futurism, November 27, 2024

 MAGGIE HARRISON DUPRÉ , Futurism; Character.AI Confirms Mass Deletion of Fandom Characters, Says They're Not Coming Back

"The embattled AI companion company Character.AI confirmed to Futurism that it removed a large number of characters from its platform, citing its adherence to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) and copyright law, but failing to say whether the deletions were proactive or in response to requests from the holders of the characters' intellectual property rights...

That's not surprising: Character.AI is currently facing a lawsuit brought by the family of a 14-year-old teenager in Florida who died by suicide after forming an intense relationship with a Daenerys Targaryen chatbot on its platform...

It's been a bad few months for Character.AI. In October, shortly before the recent lawsuit was filed, it was revealed that someone had created a chatbot based on a murdered teenager without consent from the slain teen's family. (The character was removed and Character.AI apologized, as AdWeek first reported.) And in recent weeks, we've reported on disturbing hordes of suicide, pedophilia, and eating disorder-themed chatbots hosted by the platform, all of which were freely accessible to Character.AI users of all ages."

What’s Happening with AI and Copyright Law; JD Supra, November 4, 2024

AEON Law, JD Supra; What’s Happening with AI and Copyright Law

"Not surprisingly, a lot is happening at the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) law.

Here’s a roundup of some recent developments in the area of copyright law and AI.

Copyright Office Denies AI Security Research Exemption under DMCA...

Former OpenAI Employee Says It Violates Copyright Law...

Blade Runner Production Company Sues Tesla for AI-Aided Copyright Infringement"

Public Knowledge, iFixit Free the McFlurry, Win Copyright Office DMCA Exemption for Ice Cream Machines; Public Knowledge, October 25, 2024

 Shiva Stella , Public Knowledge; Public Knowledge, iFixit Free the McFlurry, Win Copyright Office DMCA Exemption for Ice Cream Machines

"Today, the U.S. Copyright Office partially granted an exemption requested by Public Knowledge and iFixit to allow people to circumvent digital locks in order to repair commercial and industrial equipment. The Office did not grant the full scope of the requested exemption, but did grant an exemption specifically allowing for repair of retail-level food preparation equipment – including soft serve ice cream machines similar to those available at McDonald’s. The Copyright Office reviewed the request as part of its 1201 review process, which encourages advocates and public interest groups to present arguments for exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it illegal to bypass a digital lock that protects a copyrighted work, such as a device’s software, even when there is no copyright infringement. Every three years, the Copyright Office reviews exemption requests and issues recommendations to the Librarian of Congress on granting certain exceptions to Section 1201. The recommendations go into effect once approved by the Librarian of Congress."

OpenAI Faces Early Appeal in First AI Copyright Suit From Coders; Bloomberg Law, September 30, 2024

 Isaiah Poritz , Bloomberg Law; OpenAI Faces Early Appeal in First AI Copyright Suit From Coders

"OpenAI Inc. and Microsoft Corp.‘s GitHub will head to the country’s largest federal appeals court to resolve their first copyright lawsuit from open-source programmers who claim the companies’ AI coding tool Copilot violates a decades-old digital copyright law.

Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the programmers’ request for a mid-case turn to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which must determine whether OpenAI’s copying of open-source code to train its AI model without proper attribution to the programmers could be a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act...

The programmers argued that Copilot fails to include authorship and licensing terms when it outputs code. Unlike other lawsuits against AI companies, the programmers didn’t allege that OpenAI and GitHub engaged in copyright infringement, which is different from a DMCA violation."

OpenAI Faces Early Appeal in First AI Copyright Suit From Coders; Bloomberg Law, September 30, 2024

Isaiah Poritz , Bloomberg Law; OpenAI Faces Early Appeal in First AI Copyright Suit From Coders

"The programmers argued that Copilot fails to include authorship and licensing terms when it outputs code. Unlike other lawsuits against AI companies, the programmers didn’t allege that OpenAI and GitHub engaged in copyright infringement, which is different from a DMCA violation."

OpenAI’s GPT Store Is Triggering Copyright Complaints; Wired, April 4, 2024

Kate Knibbs, Wired ; OpenAI’s GPT Store Is Triggering Copyright Complaints

"It is easy to find bots in the GPT Store whose descriptions suggest they might be tapping copyrighted content in some way, as Techcrunch noted in a recent article claiming OpenAI’s store was overrun with “spam.” Using copyrighted material without permission is permissable in some contexts but in others rightsholders can take legal action."

How John Deere Hijacked Copyright Law To Keep You From Tinkering With Your Tractor; Reason, January 8, 2024

LUKE HOGG , Reason; How John Deere Hijacked Copyright Law To Keep You From Tinkering With Your Tractor

"For nearly 25 years, Section 1201 has been hanging over the developers and distributors of tools that give users more control over the products they own. The ways in which John Deere and other corporations have used the copyright system is a glaring example of regulatory capture in action, highlighting the absurdity of a system where owning a product doesn't necessarily convey the right to fully control it. There are certainly circumstances where the manufacturers are justified in protecting their products from tampering, but such cases should be handled through warranty nullification and contract law, not through exorbitant fines and lengthy prison sentences."

Study: 87% of Classic Video Games Are Endangered, Mostly Due to Copyright Laws, ExtremeTech, July 12, 2023

 Josh Norem , ExtremeTech; Study: 87% of Classic Video Games Are Endangered, Mostly Due to Copyright Laws

"In a perfect world, you'd be able to find these pieces of history at your local library, just like you do for books and movies. According to the study's authors, outdated copyright laws prevent that from happening."

How fake copyright complaints are muzzling journalists; BBC News, March 1, 2023

BBC News; How fake copyright complaints are muzzling journalists

"Journalists have been forced to temporarily take down articles critical of powerful oil lobbyists due to the exploitation of US copyright law, according to a new report.

At least five such articles have been subject to fake copyright claims, including one by the respected South African newspaper Mail & Guardian, according to the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

The claims - which falsely assert ownership of the stories - have been made by mystery individuals under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a law meant to protect copyright holders."