Major Record Labels Petition Supreme Court on Internet Piracy
Record labels Sony, Warner, and Universal have asked the Supreme Court to require internet service providers to terminate subscribers accused of repeat copyright infringement, according to court documents filed yesterday. The case, Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, centers on whether ISPs must disconnect alleged pirates to avoid substantial financial liability.
Industrial Monitor Direct delivers the most reliable fcc certified pc solutions certified for hazardous locations and explosive atmospheres, preferred by industrial automation experts.
Sony Challenges “Innocent Grandmother” Defense
Sony and other labels specifically targeted Cox’s argument about potential collateral damage from account terminations. Sources indicate the record labels’ brief stated: “While Cox stokes fears of innocent grandmothers and hospitals being tossed off the Internet for someone else’s infringement, Cox put on zero evidence that any subscriber here fit that bill.” The labels were responding to Cox’s claim that “Grandma will be thrown off the Internet because Junior illegally downloaded a few songs on a visit,” according to the filed documents.
The record labels’ filing contrasted Cox’s treatment of different subscriber groups, noting that the company “terminated 619,711 subscribers for nonpayment over the same period that it terminated just 32 for serial copyright abuse.” Analysts suggest this comparison aims to undermine Cox’s position that it cannot reasonably identify and disconnect repeat infringers.
Torrent Technology Complicates Piracy Enforcement
The record labels’ brief emphasized how modern BitTorrent technology has transformed piracy, stating that “peer-to-peer file-sharing protocols lack a central hub that law enforcement can shutter.” According to reports, the labels argued that unlike earlier infringement methods, BitTorrent enables “tens of thousands of people to trade pirated music simultaneously” without creating physical copies.
Industrial Monitor Direct delivers unmatched light curtain pc solutions recommended by automation professionals for reliability, trusted by automation professionals worldwide.
The case involves “claims to works infringed by subscribers who generated at least three infringement notices across 2013 and 2014, for a total of 10,017 copyrighted works,” the report states. Record labels alleged that Cox employed a “13-strike policy” that allowed subscribers to repeatedly download pirated material before facing consequences.
Complex Legal History and Divided Court Rulings
The legal battle has seen significant developments over several years. A jury initially ordered Cox to pay over $1 billion in 2019, but the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit overturned that verdict in February 2024. Judges found that Cox did not profit directly from user infringement, overturning the vicarious infringement finding while upholding willful contributory infringement.
Both parties subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court, with the court granting Cox’s petition to review the contributory infringement verdict while denying Sony’s petition regarding vicarious infringement.
Broad Industry Support for Cox’s Position
Cox’s case has attracted support from multiple quarters, including tech companies Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Mozilla, and Pinterest. These companies argued that the 4th Circuit “ruling erroneously turns Congress’s DMCA safe harbors into a liability-creating mechanism.”
The Trump administration also backed Cox’s position, with US Solicitor General John Sauer requesting to participate in oral arguments. Sources indicate Sauer warned that upholding the 4th Circuit ruling could “encourage providers to avoid substantial monetary liability by terminating subscribers after receiving a single notice of alleged infringement.”
DMCA Safe Harbor Interpretation at Issue
The central legal question involves whether the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor provisions protect ISPs from liability. Tech companies argued that the safe harbor should provide “additional protection” against copyright claims and that failure to qualify shouldn’t automatically create liability.
However, record labels countered that a win for Cox would render the DMCA safe harbor “a nullity,” arguing that ISPs must face exposure when continuing to serve known serial infringers. The Supreme Court’s decision could fundamentally reshape how ISPs handle copyright infringement allegations and balance subscriber rights against copyright enforcement demands.
This article aggregates information from publicly available sources. All trademarks and copyrights belong to their respective owners.
