WASHINGTON − 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 world’s leading recording companies and music publishers say Cox helped 60,000 customers distribute more than 10,000 copyrighted works for free, contributing to a problem that robs the industry of billions of dollars a year.
Jury said cox owed $1 billion in damages
Cox asked the Supreme Court to intervene after it was sued by Sony Music Entertainment and more than 50 other record labels for not taking reasonable steps to prevent piracy and not cutting off service for repeat offenders.
In 2019, a jury sided with the music industry and said Cox owed $1 billion in damages.
The Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the damages, ordering a new trial based on reduced violations.
The Supreme C
Supreme Court weighs internet provider’s liability for customer piracy
The Supreme Court is considering a case that could reshape how copyright law applies to internet service providers. The question before the justices: Can an internet provider be held liable for its customers’ copyright infringement, even if the provider didn’t directly participate in the illegal activity?
The case, Cox v. Sony Music Entertainment, centers on Cox Communications and its response to copyright notices about music and movies illegally shared by its customers. Sony and other copyright holders argue Cox knowingly allowed widespread piracy to occur on its network and should pay damages. Cox contends it should not be held responsible for the actions of its users.
What’s at stake?
The outcome could substantially impact how internet companies handle copyright infringement claims. A ruling against Cox could lead providers to proactively monitor user activity and quickly cut off service to those suspected of piracy.
Advocates for a free and open internet warn that such measures could lead to censorship and the stifling of legitimate online activity. They argue that requiring providers to police their customers’ behavior would be a massive undertaking with the potential for errors.
Who is weighing in?
Several groups have filed briefs with the court, offering their perspectives. Google and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief supporting Cox, arguing that holding internet providers liable for customer actions would “create a chilling effect on free expression.”
In a joint filing with other free speech advocates, the ACLU amplified Cox’s argument about the potential collateral damage caused by cutting off service “based merely on notices from copyright owners – which are nothing more than untested, unverifiable allegations.”
“Parents’ internet access, such as, may be terminated based on the conduct of their children – over even their children’s friends,” the groups wrote. “A hospital that offers internet access to dozens or even hundreds of patients and their families could find critical access shut off.”
Music industry says Cox barely tried to stop piracy
Groups on the other side say such “doom-and-gloom” predictions present a false choice.
Cox had less drastic ways of stopping piracy but didn’t use them, lawyers for the Motion Picture Association said in a brief supporting the music industry.