Sony Tells SCOTUS That People Accused of Piracy Aren't 'Innocent Grandmothers' (arstechnica.com)
- Reference: 0179809910
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/10/16/2111255/sony-tells-scotus-that-people-accused-of-piracy-arent-innocent-grandmothers
- Source link: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/10/sony-tells-scotus-that-people-accused-of-piracy-arent-innocent-grandmothers/
> Record labels Sony, Warner, and Universal yesterday [1]asked the Supreme Court to help it boot pirates off the Internet . Sony and the other labels filed [2]their brief (PDF) in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, a case involving the cable Internet service provider that rebuffed labels' demands for mass terminations of broadband subscribers accused of repeat copyright infringement. The Supreme Court's [3]eventual decision in the case may determine whether Internet service providers must terminate the accounts of alleged pirates in order to avoid massive financial liability.
>
> Cox has [4]argued (PDF) that copyright-infringement notices -- which are generated by bots and flag users based on their IP addresses -- sent by record labels are unreliable. Cox said ISPs can't verify whether the notices are accurate and that terminating an account would punish every user in a household where only one person may have illegally downloaded copyrighted files. Record labels urged the Supreme Court to reject this argument.
>
> "While Cox waxes poetic about the centrality of Internet access to modern life, it neglects to mention that it had no qualms about terminating 619,711 subscribers for nonpayment over the same period that it terminated just 32 for serial copyright abuse," the labels' brief said. "And 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. By its own admission, the subscribers here were 'habitual offenders' Cox chose to retain because, unlike the vast multitude cut off for late payment, they contributed to Cox's bottom line." Record labels were referring to a portion of Cox's brief that said, "Grandma will be thrown off the Internet because Junior illegally downloaded a few songs on a visit."
[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/10/sony-tells-scotus-that-people-accused-of-piracy-arent-innocent-grandmothers/
[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-171/379664/20251015121635831_24-171%20Sony%20Response%20Brief.pdf
[3] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/06/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-isps-must-disconnect-users-accused-of-piracy/
[4] https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-171/373201/20250829115733612_250829a%20Brief%20for%20efiling.pdf
They are going after the wrong target. (Score:4, Insightful)
The ISP is the wrong target to go after here. I'll use a car analogy.
The ISP is like the road system. It's how you get to websites on the Internet. The websites, they are like the warehouse/business that provides goods and services.
Therefore, Sony should be going after the websites themselves. You could even argue they should go after the hosting companies, aka the landowner, as accomplices but even that's stretching it. The Landlord isn't responsible for the actions of their tenets.
So basically, fuck Sony.
Re: They are going after the wrong target. (Score:2)
Why stop at the ISP, when you could really make a statement and also go after the power companies who provide the electricity to those homes? Make them live in the stone age! /s
And really, the environment is at fault (Score:2)
All that oxygen and plants and animals and stuff. If those didn't exist, then there would be no infringment. As such, Mother Nature herself should be sued into oblivion.
Re: (Score:3)
From Sony's perspective, the ISP is the absolute *best* target here. Not only is the ISP a bottleneck through which almost-all copyright infringement happens now (thus making it the perfect place to greatly block it), but Sony gets to make some other business incur all the costs and consequences of enforcement, including eating the profit loss, while Sony rakes it in .
Sony doesn't care in the slightest if entire households are harmed because one member infringes in secret, nor if that harm is actually very
Re: (Score:1)
From an innocent grandfather,
can you get pirate downloads from legit websites,
I thought I had to use my vpn and torrent.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on your local laws.
Where I live, it's the sharing and not the downloading that's illegal. Rip streams all you want, the issue of legality is on the host... but use a torrent app and you are sharing, which is illegal.
why enable them? (Score:2)
Just don't buy the content.
Don't download it either.
Read a fucking book. Go outside and smell the flowers. You gave them this "power." You can also take it away by not playing.
Best,
Accusations ... (Score:2)
... are not proof. Take granny to court.
Reset the social contract that is copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Reset copyright to 14 years, one time renewable for another 14 for a hefty fee, worth it for blockbusters and bestsellers, not for anything else. And no more "moral rights"; derivative works should always be allowed if they are not blatant copies. If some Star Wars or Harry Potter fanfic book or movie is shitty, then the market will take care of that. And if is not shitty but good, then the public will be well served with new content they will enjoy. That was the purpose of copyright, once. Let's make it so again.
While major media companies are wiping their arse with the social contract that is copyright, I do not feel one tiny bit of obligation to uphold my end of it, and I will turn to piracy when and where I can. Screw them.
Re: (Score:3)
Also high time they any false clams are properly punished. If the DMCA is used to lay claim to something that isn't theirs then the consequences should be appropriate, like also cutting off Sony from the internet. This is their argument so lets make it apply to them too. Also everyone involved in the Malware scandals from top to bottom of the organisation should be in jail, 20 years seems appropriate.
Accusation = Punishment (Score:4, Informative)
Legally mandated punishment of an individual without being convicted of a crime... because a corporation says they are guilty.
No charges filed. No trial. No conviction. No chance to defend against the accusations.
Just punishment because the corporation says so.
A system that makes the courts unnecessary.
I can't imagine why the courts would not be in favor of this.. /s
Re: (Score:2)
> A system that makes the courts unnecessary. I can't imagine why the courts would not be in favor of this.. /s
Courts were created to defend the powerful and wealthy. But Cox is not poor and powerless.
The problem here is the one Cox identified. The demand is that they shut off service based on the IP address, not the user. They want Cox to shut off service to everyone who uses that IP address whether they had any connection to the copyright infringement or not. When the bill isn't paid, everyone using the IP address is responsible.
That said, I would expect the court to side with Sony. The people inconvenienced are
Sorry Sony (Score:3)
I could care less about your perceived woes. I remember when you infected my computer. Screw you.
Re: (Score:2)
> I could care less about your perceived woes.
Really? Why do you care about them?
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't
Speaking as an innocent grandmother (Score:2)
I baked you some cookies, Sony. They have shit in them. Eat them, then die!
Are you insinuating my grandmothers a dirty pirate (Score:2)
Are you insinuating my grandmothers a dirty pirate?
Go pound sand
Do you remember what Sony did? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sony infected consumers with malware, deliberately, as corporate policy.
I give Sony just as much respect as they give me. None at all.
Re:Do you remember what Sony did? (Score:4)
Yep. CEO should have gone to prison for that one. But no, Sony is above the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony did this twice, as I recall. After being hit with a class action lawsuit and forced to do reparations, they just went out an did this a second time. And got hit with a class action lawsuit a second time, too.
Probably most of the decision-makers who were involved in those decisions have moved on by now. It's probably safe to assume that this is a different Sony. Does that mean they deserve a benefit of the doubt? Absolutely not, since all evidence here indicates that the new boss is the same as the
Re: (Score:2)
> Probably most of the decision-makers who were involved in those decisions have moved on by now. It's probably safe to assume that this is a different Sony.
Its the same person. Remember?