Supreme Court Weighs Internet Piracy liability in cox Case, Potential for Broad Impact
WASHINGTON D.C. – The Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case that could considerably reshape how internet service providers (ISPs) are held responsible for copyright infringement committed by their customers. The case,Sony Music Entertainment v. Cox Communications,centers on whether ISPs can be held liable for “willful blindness” too copyright violations,even without directly facilitating the infringing activity.
Cox Communications argued before the court that simply knowing about copyright infringement occurring on its network isn’t enough to trigger liability. Their lawyer, Rosenkranz, detailed the company’s existing anti-infringement efforts, stating Cox sends out “hundreds of warnings a day” adn “suspends thousands of accounts a month.” He further emphasized the company collaborates with universities to address piracy.
A key argument presented by Cox focused on the source of the most frequent infringement notices. Rosenkranz asserted that the “highest recidivist infringers” weren’t individual households, but rather “universities, hotels, and regional ISPs that purchase connectivity from Cox to resell it to local users.” He warned that if Sony wins, these entities would be “most likely to be cut off first” due to the volume of piracy notices they receive.
The court explored the implications of a ruling for Cox. Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the incentive for the company to continue anti-piracy measures if knowledge alone isn’t enough to establish liability. “What incentive would you have to do anything if you won?” she asked. Rosenkranz responded that Cox acts as a “good corporate citizen” and undertakes measures beyond legal requirements, though he conceded the company would face no liability risk going forward with a favorable ruling.
Justice Elena Kagan raised concerns about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor provisions, which currently shield ISPs from liability if they take steps to combat infringement. She suggested the safe harbor would become “seem to do nothing” if the court sides with Cox,questioning,”Why would anybody care about getting into the safe harbor if there’s no liability in the first place?”
The court also considered the possibility of Sony pursuing individual infringers directly. Cox’s lawyer pointed out this as an alternative to suing ISPs. The outcome of the case is expected to have a wide-ranging impact on the responsibility of ISPs to police copyright infringement on their networks and could potentially lead to a meaningful crackdown on internet piracy. A decision is expected in the coming months.
