Supreme Court Hears Copyright Battle Over Online Music Piracy (nytimes.com)
- Reference: 0180256003
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/12/02/0517211/supreme-court-hears-copyright-battle-over-online-music-piracy
- Source link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/01/us/politics/supreme-court-copyright-music-piracy.html
> Leading music labels and publishers who represent artists ranging from Bob Dylan to Beyonce sued Cox Communications in 2018, saying it had failed to terminate the internet connections of subscribers who had been repeatedly flagged for illegally downloading and distributing copyrighted music. At issue is whether providers like Cox can be held legally responsible and be required to pay steep damages -- a billion dollars or more -- if they know that customers are pirating the music but do not take sufficient steps to terminate their internet access.
>
> Justices from across the ideological spectrum on Monday raised concerns about whether finding for the music industry could result in internet providers being forced to cut off access to large account holders such as hospitals and universities because of the illegal acts of individual users. "What is the university supposed to do in your view?" asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a conservative, suggesting it would be difficult to track down bad actors without the risk of losing service campuswide. "I just don't see how it's workable at all."
>
> "The internet is so amorphous," added Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, saying that a single "customer" could represent tens of thousands of users, particularly in rural areas where an entire region might be considered a "customer." After nearly two hours of argument, a majority of justices seemed likely to side with Cox and to send the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for review under a stricter standard. Several justices suggested the company's "mere knowledge" of the illegal downloads was not sufficient to hold Cox liable.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/01/us/politics/supreme-court-copyright-music-piracy.html
Re: (Score:2)
It's about money to the recording industry. It's not artists suing.
Botnets (Score:2)
They are already a thing with AI scrapers, spamming and DDOS, soon copyrighted material will be laundered through them as well. This will also lead to the rise of Wardriving again.
The labels didn't think this through (Score:3)
IPv4 and NAT make it very difficult to nail particular users with the kind of speed. When law enforcement sends search warrants to an ISP, it can take weeks or months for the ISP to find time to dig through their logs and find the exact customer. I think federal law also requires a certain amount of money to exchange hands to cover the burden to a business having to execute a search warrant on behalf of law enforcement in cases like that where both the cops and business need to ensure a limited, scope search and seizure.
The RIAA's argument is "we're so important, we can give you a list of a few MP3s and an IPv4 address and tell you to sort it out or we'll sue." It doesn't take a genius to realize that the SCOTUS is likely to turn a baleful eye toward an argument that amounts to "we can trash due process because we're a business."
I'd wager the RIAA has a higher chance of a 9-0 "GTFO" ruling than a mixed bag.
the proof of the files being copyrighted or even r (Score:2)
the proof of the files being copyrighted or even right IP's it not good and may not hold up in a court room.
Re: (Score:3)
> It doesn't take a genius to realize that the SCOTUS is likely to turn a baleful eye toward an argument that amounts to "we can trash due process because we're a business."
On the other hand I wouldn't have thought being brown and speaking Spanish were probable cause for someone being a criminal but here we are.
This is still a thing? (Score:2)
I'll be honest, I'm kinda surprised this is still a thing. It's not 2001 anymore, Napster isn't really around anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
> I'll be honest, I'm kinda surprised this is still a thing. It's not 2001 anymore, Napster isn't really around anymore.
Is what still a thing?
Napster is just a fond memory, but now I can torrent whole albums at 24/192 in seconds on my gigabit connection (though I actually only get a couple hundred Mb/s through my VPN service). I can usually find copies of the movies I download at 2160p. Yeah, it's a thing alright.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised someone with this take thinks they're informed enough to talk on this subject so that's both of us!
Cox paid up (Score:3)
It was a simple matter of Cox buying Thomas a 2026 Winnebago.
They're gonna make NAT illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
Just watch. They *are* that stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that'd be one way to increase IPv6 adoption!
Re: (Score:2)
> Well, that'd be one way to increase IPv6 adoption!
That's always been a curiosity to me - why haven't the big industries pushed for IPv6 adoption? I mean they lost their cases because of NAT hiding families or more behind a single IP address (mobile users are hidden behind CGNAT).
You would think they would push for the rapid adoption of a technology that would let them individually identify a device which would let them for the most part identify a single user. (Sure some people still have shared computers -
Re: (Score:2)
> That's always been a curiosity to me - why haven't the big industries pushed for IPv6 adoption?
In the overall scheme of things the entertainment industry is not that big, and approximately nobody else will appreciate being rushed.
Re: (Score:2)
Too stupid to enforce something like that as well.
Re: (Score:2)
To say nothing of VPNs.