{"id":83877,"date":"2025-07-01T09:02:23","date_gmt":"2025-07-01T09:02:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=83877"},"modified":"2025-07-01T09:02:23","modified_gmt":"2025-07-01T09:02:23","slug":"supreme-court-grants-coxs-bid-to-reexamine-liability-for-pirating-subscribers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/?p=83877","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Grants Cox\u2019s Bid to Reexamine Liability for Pirating Subscribers"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"supremecourt\"Last summer, Cox Communications filed a petition at the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting a review<\/a> of the Fourth Circuit ruling that held the company contributorily liable for pirating subscribers.<\/p>\n

The internet provider ultimately challenged the $1 billion verdict<\/a> from a Virginia jury in 2019, which went in favor of a group of major record labels, including Sony and Universal.<\/p>\n

As Cox petitioned the Supreme Court<\/a>, the music companies filed their own petition, hoping to expand the verdict. Specifically, they argued that the ISP should also be held liable for vicarious copyright infringement. <\/p>\n

From the outset it was clear this would be a pivotal case with potentially broad consequences for many other ISPs and rightsholders dealing with similar copyright issues. After considering the arguments from both sides and the U.S. Government, the Supreme Court announced its decisions today.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court Grants Cox\u2019s Petition<\/h2>\n

In the latest order list<\/a> released this morning, the Supreme Court grants Cox\u2019s petition for a writ of certiorari. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\"granted\"<\/center><\/p>\n

By granting Cox\u2019s petition, the Supreme Court agrees to review crucial questions surrounding contributory copyright infringement. This includes a potential re-evaluation of how ISPs are required to respond to copyright infringement notices and what an appropriate \u201crepeat infringer policy\u201d entails.<\/p>\n

Specifically, Cox presented the following question to the Supreme Court:<\/p>\n

\u201cDid the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a service provider can be held liable [\u2026] merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Contributory copyright infringement requires a finding that ISPs have \u201cknowledge\u201d of and \u201cmaterially contribute\u201d to piracy activities. However, Cox questions whether these elements are triggered upon mere receipt of multiple piracy notices from third-party rightsholders. <\/p>\n

In addition, Cox also raised concerns about the jury\u2019s \u201cwillfulness\u201d ruling, which resulted in the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work. The ISP countered that knowledge of subscribers\u2019 copyright infringements is not necessarily willful, if the company did not know that its own conduct was illegal.<\/p>\n

Key Input from U.S. Solicitor General<\/h2>\n

The highly anticipated decision comes just weeks after the U.S. Solicitor General filed an influential amicus brief<\/a>, urging the Supreme Court to take precisely this path. <\/p>\n

The Solicitor General argued that an ISP is not automatically liable for copyright infringement if it merely fails to terminate subscribers after receiving multiple notices. It warned that the Fourth Circuit\u2019s verdict could have \u201cbroad negative implications for ISPs and their subscribers,\u201d potentially leading to disconnections of many innocent users. <\/p>\n

The brief also strongly argued that Cox\u2019s actions were not \u201cwillful,\u201d stating that \u201cwillfulness\u201d generally requires knowledge or reckless disregard for the defendant\u2019s own unlawful conduct, not just that of third parties.<\/p>\n

While the reasoning of the Supreme Court is currently unknown, the decision matches the advice of the U.S. Solicitor General. This also applies to the separate cross petition filed by the record labels.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court Denied Labels\u2019 Petition<\/h2>\n

In the same order batch this morning, the Supreme Court denies the labels\u2019 petition for a writ of certiorari. Again, without providing any details for its reasoning. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\"denied\"<\/center><\/p>\n

The record labels were seeking to hold Cox vicariously liable, arguing that it profited directly from piracy by declining to terminate repeat infringers to keep their subscription fees. <\/p>\n

The lower court previously dismissed this claim, but the labels asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue in their own cross-petition. This request was denied.<\/p>\n

The denial is in line with the Solicitor General\u2019s assessment that the Fourth Circuit correctly concluded Cox did not derive a direct financial benefit from the alleged infringements, or that its stance towards piracy acted as a draw to potential customers. <\/p>\n

The record labels previously rebuffed the U.S. Government position, characterizing it as bewildering<\/a>, but that didn\u2019t yield a result.<\/p>\n

Path Forward<\/h2>\n

With Cox\u2019s petition granted, the case will now be scheduled for oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the upcoming term. This highly anticipated hearing will offer both sides the opportunity to present their arguments in detail. <\/p>\n

Needless to say, this case will continue to be watched closely by internet providers and copyright holders alike. <\/p>\n

Today\u2019s orders ensure that Cox\u2019s liability for contributory infringement will be reviewed in detail. At the same time, the battle over vicarious liability, at least for now, appears to be settled in favor of ISPs.<\/p>\n

\u2014<\/p>\n

A Cox spokesperson released the following statement after publication:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are pleased the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to address these significant copyright issues that could jeopardize internet access for all Americans and fundamentally change how internet service providers manage their networks. Today\u2019s development supports our goal of protecting consumers, preserving open internet access, and ensuring that broadband remains a reliable resource for the communities we serve. We look forward to presenting our arguments to the Court.\u201d<\/p>\n

RIAA, representing the labels, released the following remark:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are confident that on full review of the record, the Court \u2013 like the trial and appellate courts did before it \u2013 will find that Cox\u2019s willful failure to follow well-settled law contributed to massive infringement of the plaintiffs\u2019 copyrights and will return the case to the trial court for final determination of damages.\u201d<\/p>\n

From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\n

Powered by WPeMatico<\/a><\/small><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last summer, Cox Communications filed a petition at the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting a review of the Fourth Circuit ruling that held the company contributorily liable for pirating subscribers. The internet provider ultimately challenged the $1 billion verdict from a Virginia jury in 2019, which went in favor of a group of major record labels, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":83878,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[308],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-83877","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-torrent"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83877","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=83877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/83877\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/83878"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=83877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=83877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=83877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}