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."

$1 billion Supreme Court music piracy case could affect internet users; USA TODAY, November 30, 2025

 Maureen Groppe , USA TODAY; $1 billion Supreme Court music piracy case could affect internet users

"The entertainment industry’s seemingly losing battle to stop music from being illegally copied and shared in the digital age hits the Supreme Court on Dec. 1 in a case both sides say could have huge consequences for both the industry and internet users.

A decision by the high court that fails to hold internet service providers accountable for piracy on their networks would “spell disaster for the music community,” according to groups representing musicians and other entertainers.

But Cox Communications, the largest private broadband company in America, argues too tough a standard could “jeopardize internet access for all Americans.”"

The Supreme Court Is About to Hear a Case That Could Rewrite Internet Access; Slate, November 28, 2025

 MICHAEL P. GOODYEAR, Slate; The Supreme Court Is About to Hear a Case That Could Rewrite Internet Access

"Imagine losing internet access because someone in your household downloaded pirated music. We rely on the internet to learn, discover job opportunities, navigate across cities and the countryside, shop for the latest trends, file our taxes, and much more. Now all of that could be gone in an instant.

That is not a dystopian fantasy, but a real possibility raised by a case the Supreme Court will hear on Monday. In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the justices will decide whether an internet provider can be held responsible for failing to terminate subscribers accused of repeat copyright infringements. The ruling could determine whether access to the internet—today’s lifeline for education, work, and civic life—can be taken away as punishment for digital misdeeds. Cox’s indifference to repeat infringement is condemnable, but a sweeping ruling could harshly punish thousands for one company’s bad faith."

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."

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."

5th Circuit rules ISP should have terminated Internet users accused of piracy; Ars Technica, October 11, 2024

 JON BRODKIN, Ars Technica; 5th Circuit rules ISP should have terminated Internet users accused of piracy

"Music publishing companies notched another court victory against a broadband provider that refused to terminate the accounts of Internet users accused of piracy. In a ruling on Wednesday, the conservative-leaning US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit sided with the big three record labels against Grande Communications, a subsidiary of Astound Broadband.

The appeals court ordered a new trial on damages because it said the $46.8 million award was too high, but affirmed the lower court's finding that Grande is liable for contributory copyright infringement."

Record labels sue Verizon for not disconnecting pirates’ Internet service; Ars Technica, July 15, 2024

JON BRODKIN , Ars Technica; Record labels sue Verizon for not disconnecting pirates’ Internet service

"Major record labels sued Verizon on Friday, alleging that the Internet service provider violated copyright law by continuing to serve customers accused of pirating music. Verizon "knowingly provides its high-speed service to a massive community of online pirates," said the complaint filed in US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Universal, Sony, and Warner say they have sent over 340,000 copyright infringement notices to Verizon since early 2020. "Those notices identify specific subscribers on Verizon's network stealing Plaintiffs' sound recordings through peer-to-peer ('P2P') file-sharing networks that are notorious hotbeds for copyright infringement," the lawsuit said."

Court Orders ISPs to Block Websites of Three Sites Streaming Copyrighted Video Programming; Lexology, May 12, 2022

 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP - Jeff Lanning, Lexology; Court Orders ISPs to Block Websites of Three Sites Streaming Copyrighted Video Programming

"The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued three virtually identical Default Judgement and Permanent Injunction Orders against Israel.tv, Israeli-tv.com, and Sdarot.tv for copyright infringement. The three orders include directions requiring all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the United States of America to block access to the named websites. In addition, the court ordered third parties to cease providing services of any kind used in connection with the defendants’ operations, including web hosting and banking.

The cases were filed by “movie, television, sports and news content producers and providers in Israel” alleging copyright infringement against the owners and/or operators of the websites, which are “re-broadcasting and streaming, in the United States, Hebrew-language television and online channels and content.”"

Copyright could be the next way for Congress to take on Big Tech; The Verge, February 13, 2020

Adi Robertson, The Verge; Copyright could be the next way for Congress to take on Big Tech

"By the end of the year, Tillis — who chairs the Senate’s intellectual property subcommittee — plans to draft changes to the DMCA. He and co-chair Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) kicked off the process this week with an introductory hearing, speaking to eight legal experts and former congressional staffers. The hearing helped set the stage to re-fight some long-running battles over the balance between protecting copyrighted content and keeping the internet open — but at a time where internet companies are already facing a large-scale backlash.

The 1998 DMCA attempted to outline how copyright should work on the then-nascent internet, where you could almost freely and infinitely copy a piece of media. But it’s been widely criticized by people with very different stances on intellectual property."

European court of justice rules Pirate Bay is infringing copyright; Guardian, June 15, 2017

Alex Hern, Guardian; European court of justice rules Pirate Bay is infringing copyright

"The European court of justice (ECJ) has ruled that BitTorrent site The Pirate Bay is directly infringing copyright, in a move that could lead to ISPs and governments blocking access to other torrent sites across Europe.

The ruling comes after a seven-year legal battle, which has seen the site, founded in Sweden in 2003, blocked and seized, its offices raided, and its three founders fined and jailed."

While EU Copyright Protests Mount, the Proposals Get Even Worse; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), June 1, 2017

Jeremy Malcolm, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); While EU Copyright Protests Mount, the Proposals Get Even Worse

"This week, EFF joined Creative Commons, Wikimedia, Mozilla, EDRi, Open Rights Group, and sixty other organizations in signing an open letter [PDF] addressed to Members of the European Parliament expressing our concerns about two key proposals for a new European "Digital Single Market" Directive on copyright.

These are the "value gap" proposal to require Internet platforms to put in place automatic filters to prevent copyright-infringing content from being uploaded by users (Article 13) and the equally misguided "link tax" proposal that would give news publishers a right to compensation when snippets of the text of news articles are used to link to the original source (Article 11)."

Prenda Law principal pleads guilty to federal charges in porn copyright case; ABA Journal, March 7, 2017

Stephanie Francis Ward, ABA Journal; 

Prenda Law principal pleads guilty to federal charges in porn copyright case

"A defendant in the Prenda Law case, which involved alleged shakedowns of people accused of illegally downloading pornography, pleaded guilty Monday to federal conspiracy charges of money laundering, mail fraud and wire fraud. 

John L. Steele, the defendant, previously bragged about earning millions from suing people for illegal downloads, the Star Tribune reports. Federal prosecutors claim that Steele and Paul Hansmeier, a Minneapolis attorney, created two fake businesses to acquire copyrights for the pornographic films, some of which they filmed themselves, and posted the materials to file-sharing websites. Then they and other lawyers filed John Doe lawsuits against the downloaders and subpoenaed Internet service providers to identify defendants.

The government asked for a sentence of eight to 10 years. But according to the Star Tribune, prosecutors could agree to something shorter if Steele cooperates with them, which presumably would involve testifying against Hansemeier.

Between April 2011 and December 2012, Steele and Hansmeier, along with lawyers who worked for them, collected more than $6 million in settlements, according to the article."

Appeals Court Gives Internet Service Providers Big Relief in Copyright Disputes; Hollywood Reporter, 6/18/16

Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter; Appeals Court Gives Internet Service Providers Big Relief in Copyright Disputes:

"On Thursday, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals issued a long- and eagerly-awaited opinion in a case brought by major record labels against the video-sharing site Vimeo. The decision will be cheered by those in the tech community by providing some immunization from copyright liability.

Capitol Records and others sued the Barry Diller-owned Vimeo in 2009 — a virtual generation ago in the digital world. At the time, Viacom was fighting with YouTube over how to interpret the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which allows ISPs to escape copyright claims so long as they remove infringements expeditiously and not have actual knowledge of infringements on their networks. The since-settled YouTube controversy slowed the Vimeo case, which dealt with videos posted of the "lip dub" variety, showing users who choreographed elaborate lip-synching spectacles to popular music. Ultimately, Capitol Records et. al. v. Vimeo figures to be just as important as Viacom v. YouTube...

The case is now remanded back to the district court to sort out, but the decision may save Vimeo tens of millions of dollars in liability, and more importantly, become a new guiding post for copyright owners and digital service providers. Here's the full opinion."

Digital Rights Groups: DMCA Reform Should Target Takedown Abuse, Errors; Intellectual Property Watch, 4/3/16

William New, Intellectual Property Watch; Digital Rights Groups: DMCA Reform Should Target Takedown Abuse, Errors:

"EFF’s written comments were filed as part of a series of studies on the effectiveness of the DMCA, begun by the Copyright Office this year. This round of public comments focuses on Section 512, which provides a notice-and-takedown process for addressing online copyright infringement, as well as “safe harbors” for Internet services that comply.

“One of the central questions of the study is whether the safe harbors are working as intended, and the answer is largely yes,” said EFF Legal Director Corynne McSherry. “The safe harbors were supposed to give rightsholders streamlined tools to police infringement, and give service providers clear rules so they could avoid liability for the potentially infringing acts of their users. Without those safe harbors, the Internet as we know it simply wouldn’t exist, and our ability to create, innovate, and share ideas would suffer.”

As EFF also notes in its comments, however, the notice-and-takedown process is often abused. A recent report found that the notice-and-takedown system is riddled with errors, misuse, and overreach, leaving much legal and legitimate content offline. EFF’s comments describe numerous examples of bad takedowns, including many that seemed based on automated content filters employed by the major online content sharing services."

Paper Finds Little Success In ‘Three-Strikes’ IP Enforcement Programmes; Intellectual Property Watch, 9/10/13

Intellectual Property Watch; Paper Finds Little Success In ‘Three-Strikes’ IP Enforcement Programmes: "“Evaluating Graduated Response,” authored by Rebecca Giblin of the Monash University Faculty of Law, is available here. The abstract of the paper reads: “It has been more than three years since the first countries began implementing ‘graduated responses’, requiring ISPs [internet service providers] to take a range of measures to police their users’ copyright infringements. Graduated responses now exist in a range of forms in seven jurisdictions. Right-holders describe them as ‘successful’ and ‘effective’ and are agitating for their further international roll-out. But what is the evidence in support of these claims?” The paper looks at schemes in France, New Zealand, Taiwan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Ireland and the United States and evaluates “the extent to which they are actually achieving the copyright law’s aims,” it says."