WASHINGTON – the Supreme Courtโค is โhearing arguments in a case that could reshape how internet service providers are held accountable for copyright infringement by their customers, potentially impacting millions of users. The case, โข Sony Music Entertainment v.Cox Communications, centers onโค whether Cox knowingly profited from widespread musicโ piracy on its network and failed to adequately address it, and could clarify the legal responsibilities of ISPs in policing online copyright violations.
The dispute โขstemsโข from aโ years-long legal battle between Sony Music and Cox, with music โฃcompanies arguing that Cox โคdeliberately ignored repeated copyright infringement by its subscribers to retainโฃ customers and revenue. Trade associations for the music industry contend that lawsuits againstโ ISPs โwere a last resort after โฃattempts to โcollaborate on solutions failed. The outcome of the case couldโข determine whether ISPs face greater financial penalties for failing to curb piracy on their โคnetworks, โand could โฃinfluence future strategies for combating online copyright infringement.
According โto court documents, peer-to-peer file sharing -โ a common method for music piracy – once accounted for as much as 21% of all traffic on Cox’s network, Sony alleges. Sony’s lawyers highlighted an email from a Cox manager overseeing compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act โ(DMCA) who reportedly wrote, “F the dcma!!!”โข
The core of the legal question is whether โฃCox can be held liable for โฃ”knowing” about and benefiting from its customers’ illegal โactivity. “Cox has no one but โคitself to โฃblame for having made the intentional choice not to โฃtake even minimal steps to โaddress its customers’ repeatโ infringement,” Sony’s lawyers wrote in a brief to the court.
Though,Cox โmaintains it should not be held โขresponsible for the actions of individual users. According to an amicus brief filed in โขthe case, the โlower courts found that “Cox was not found liable for merely knowing that its customers engagedโ in โinfringement,” but rather “was subjected to enhanced statutory damages because it knowingly engaged in a campaign to flout โคits legal obligations โin the interest of preserving revenue.”
The case is being closely watched โby โthe music industry, internet โservice โคproviders, and digital rights advocates, as it could set a precedent for future copyright enforcement efforts and the โresponsibilities of โinternet intermediaries. A decision isโ expected in the coming months.
