Supreme Court Sides With Internet Provider In Copyright Fight Over Pirated Music
- Reference: 0181102276
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/26/03/25/1717205/supreme-court-sides-with-internet-provider-in-copyright-fight-over-pirated-music
- Source link:
> The Supreme Court unanimously said on Wednesday that a major internet provider [2]could not be held liable for the piracy of thousands of songs online in a closely watched copyright clash. Music labels and publishers sued Cox Communications [3]in 2018 , saying the company had failed to cut off the internet connections of subscribers who had been repeatedly flagged for illegally downloading and distributing copyrighted music. At issue for the justices was whether providers like Cox could be held legally responsible and required to pay steep damages -- a billion dollars or more in Cox's case -- if they knew that customers were pirating music but did not take sufficient steps to terminate their internet access.
>
> In its opinion [4]released (PDF) on Wednesday, the court said a company was not liable for "merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights." Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said a provider like Cox was liable "only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement" and if it, for instance, "actively encourages infringement." Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote separately to say that she agreed with the outcome but for different reasons. [...]
Cox called the court's unanimous decision a "decisive victory" for the industry and for Americans who "depend on reliable internet service."
"This opinion affirms that internet service providers are not copyright police and should not be held liable for the actions of their customers," the company said.
[1] https://slashdot.org/~JackSpratts
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/us/politics/supreme-court-cox-music-copyright.html
[3] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/08/03/235207/record-labels-file-billion-dollar-piracy-lawsuit-against-isp-cox
[4] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf
This is the correct decision (Score:2)
The music labels know that they are unnecessary and headed for the dustbin of history, so they tried to extort some money from rich companies
Music labels are evil and deserve to die
Re:This is the correct decision (Score:4, Interesting)
Meanwhile, the big artists are selling their entire catalogs for hundreds of millions of dollars, right before those copyrights become unenforceable.
Re: (Score:3)
> The music labels know that they are unnecessary and headed for the dustbin of history, so they tried to extort some money from rich companies
People have been saying this since Napster's heyday. The thing is, the labels act as gatekeepers to a massive promotional network, and as long as they're the ones who decide if anyone will actually discover your music in the first place - they'll continue to exist.
Yeah, every once in a great while some musician gets their start going viral on YouTube or TikTok, but then they usually end up signing with a label anyway because that's where the money is.
Re: (Score:1)
"Releasing music independently is more accessible than ever, and many independent artists have achieved mainstream success without the backing of a record label. With streaming platforms, digital distributors, and social media, artists no longer need record labels to launch a successful career." - [1]https://noiseyard.com/en/blog-... [noiseyard.com]
[1] https://noiseyard.com/en/blog-for-musicians/how-to-release-music-independently
I think SCOTUS were concerned about a trap (Score:2)
the broader implications of this are huge.
are automakers responsible when someone breaks the speed limit and kills someone?
after all they're the ones who make vehicles that are, from the persepective of many, unnecessarily powerful.
what about guns? or any other product & service that can be used for harm or theft?
Re: (Score:3)
Are gun makers responsible for what people do with guns? No, because congress specifically excluded gun manufacturers from product liability. Maybe internet providers need to pay bigger bribes.
Re: (Score:3)
So ISPs should be responsible for what their users do?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, which raises the question especially in the cause of this court's prevailing theory that the law should be read in the context of Congresses other positions at the time, if PLCAA's existence should imply the congress did not believe liability would not extend to product manufacturers otherwise.
This is the right decision here, because to decide any otherway really would invite chaos. I mean what if drive some nails partly into a baseball bat, and beat someone half to death, are the hardware and spor
Re: (Score:3)
> Are gun makers responsible for what people do with guns? No, because congress specifically excluded gun manufacturers from product liability.
That's a wild take on what the law actually is. Ford isn't liable if somebody runs their F-150 through a crowd, bed bath and beyond isn't liable because somebody filled their pressure cooker with black powder, and SC Johnson and Clorox aren't responsible if somebody mixes some household cleaners and gasses their building.
Firearm manufacturers have a specific protection against bullshit civil suits like that because there's a lot of people with a political agenda suckering victims of crime into hopeless la
Re: (Score:2)
Gun manufactures are responsible for the only product that, when used as designed, kills people.
Re: (Score:2)
Killing people is not only legal, but very much ethical in cases such as self-defense.
Re: (Score:2)
> the broader implications of this are huge. are automakers responsible when someone breaks the speed limit and kills someone? after all they're the ones who make vehicles that are, from the persepective of many, unnecessarily powerful. what about guns? or any other product & service that can be used for harm or theft?
I think SCOTUS answer in this case can be safely extrapolated to all those things. Tool makers are not responsible for tool abuse. That this is even a question to begin with makes me shake my head.
Re: (Score:2)
> The toll company goes to the rental agency and says, "this is your car, pay up!". The rental agency pays the toll company, and then bills their customer. This is the sane way to handle things.
Should the ISP pass everybody who feels they are owed something's bills along, or just the MAFIAA? Should they be liable for bogus bills? You seem to want them to be liable so it would be sensible for them to independently verify them first. Of course that would require metering end examining everyone's usage, in which case you might as well just make them the internet police straight up. So was that your plan, or did you not think many steps ahead here?
Re: (Score:2)
What about phone companies? If somebody plots a murder or a terrorist act over a phone landline, or a mobile phone network, is the company liable?
Really, this question is absurd.
Re: (Score:1)
> the broader implications of this are huge. are automakers responsible when someone breaks the speed limit and kills someone? after all they're the ones who make vehicles that are, from the persepective of many, unnecessarily powerful. what about guns? or any other product & service that can be used for harm or theft?
yes. therefore you never saw most cars with a 200mph top speed. yes again. therefore SOMEONE must be liable as you glance down at the body with a bullet through it. so are these events "inevitable" at all? does claiming they are "inevitable" remove one's responsibility for suffering and/or death? I wonder..... .
These 2 star wars clips come to mind (Score:2)
Record companies losing in the short term:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhBx0nuYEZU
Record companies lobbying congress for DMCA V 2.0 because it ain't over yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWb07Xh4jaA
A Surprising Result From This Crew (Score:2)
Given that the Roberts Court is one of the most corporate-friendly in history, this decision comes as something of a surprise.
Nonetheless, it appears to be largely concordant with the so-called [1]"Betamax case" [wikipedia.org] from the early 1980's which established the principle of significant non-infringing uses as a defense and, despite passage of the DMCA, still largely informs the contours of contributory infringement.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
Re: A Surprising Result From This Crew (Score:2)
Which corporation though? They are corporate friendly, but in this particular case they chose the ISP instead of the record companies.
Re: (Score:2)
> They are corporate friendly, but in this particular case they chose the ISP instead of the record companies.
Which makes good sense, since record companies are on their way out, but ISPs are here to stay.
Good (Score:3, Interesting)
more free movies & music for the poor
I encourage the piracy of movies & music & software, the only people that will bother to pirate that stuff is poor because people with disposable income will just buy it and the poor should not be making the rich richer
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> more free movies & music for the poor I encourage the piracy of movies & music & software, the only people that will bother to pirate that stuff is poor because people with disposable income will just buy it and the poor should not be making the rich richer
I can agree with it. If someone can't afford what I've created and it helps them have a better life, I'm all for it. What does piss me off is where I see people steal my work and make a profit off of it. I'd happily license it for very small fee, but they figure why bother if they can just take it for free? It's not worth going to court over it because the cost likely far outweighs any verdict, and then I'd have to collect.
Consider Windows (Score:4)
Most software and music piracy is done using the Windows OS. Most of that is running either on CPUs by Intel or AMD. Are Microsoft, Intel, or AMD, complicit in this piracy given that their products are used for it?
Good. Now copyright terms (Score:4, Insightful)
95 year copyrights are an abomination.
It's time to make the copyright PRIVILEGE work for *US* again.
We give creators copyright for a reasonable 5 years to allow them to make a profit (almost nothing makes money after that) and in return we get the creation for other creators to create with.
THAT'S HOW COPYRIGHT IS MEANT TO WORK !
Go back to the original term of 14 years + renewal (Score:2)
The original copyright term in the United States, established by the Copyright Act of 1790, was
14 years from recording the title, with a14-year renewal option if the author was still alive. It applied only to maps, charts, and books. This was later extended to 28 years in 1831, plus renewal.
Make the renewal fee 20% of all future profits.
A Broken Clock is Right Twice a Day (Score:1)
These days, I'll take the wins however they happen.
Someone let YouTube know (Score:2)
Now perhaps YouTube can stop issuing false copyright strikes when the claimant doesn't even have a valid claim to make. Loads of YouTube musicians get claims all the time on their original music, based on utterly fabricated claims from thin air, and all of the money instantly goes to the false claimer. Now that the service provider is not responsible, perhaps YT can stop being the arbiter of whose video contains whose media.
This is the right decision (Score:5, Insightful)
If I used my city's water or sewer to operate a meth lab, are they responsible for my actions?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Totally agree with your apt comparison. Now, in the same vein, are message forums liable for statements made by its users?