![\"supremecourt\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/supremecourt-1.jpg\")
The Supreme Court case between several major record labels and Cox Communications is a landmark legal battle.<\/p>\nThe Supreme Court case between several major record labels and Cox Communications is a landmark legal battle.<\/p>\n
The outcome will determine how Internet providers should deal with pirating subscribers on their networks.<\/p>\n
Should alleged pirates be disconnected from the Internet after repeated third-party allegations of copyright infringement? Or does that go too far?<\/p>\n
In its opening brief<\/a>, Cox argued that the company should not be held liable for contributory copyright infringement because it failed to terminate subscribers after multiple warnings. The U.S. Government, various tech companies, and other interested parties<\/a>, supported Cox\u2019s position.<\/p>\n Earlier this month, the major record labels, including Sony and Universal Music, countered these arguments in their response brief<\/a>. Describing Cox as a company that willingly prioritized profits over piracy, they argued that the $1 billion verdict<\/a> against the ISP should be upheld.<\/p>\n One of the key briefs supporting the record labels comes from a group of former members of Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office. These people have direct experience with administering U.S. copyright law, including the DMCA, which is central to the Supreme Court case. <\/p>\n The brief argues that Cox is trying to rewrite contributory infringement law in a way that contradicts what Congress intended. If Cox gets its way, the DMCA safe harbor structure will be effectively rendered toothless because an ISP that doesn\u2019t act against piracy will face no repercussions.<\/p>\n \u201cIn practical terms, the change in law Cox asks this Court to impose would effectively eliminate service provider exposure to liability for the vast majority of online infringements,\u201d the brief reads.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The amici clearly have the required expertise and their previous work as lawmakers and copyright experts carries weight. At the same time, it should be noted that some have since moved on to new positions at organizations that have a direct interest in the legal showdown. <\/p>\n For example, Karyn A. Temple, who signed the letter as the former Register of Copyrights at the U.S. Copyright Office, is now the Motion Picture Association\u2019s (MPA) Global General Counsel<\/a>. Maria A. Pallante, another former Register of Copyrights, is currently President and CEO<\/a> at the Association of American Publishers (AAP). <\/p>\n Another signee, Jacqueline C. Charlesworth, moved on from the U.S. Copyright Office and currently works as a litigator in copyright cases involving leading music companies, songwriters, and recording artists<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Motion Picture Association (MPA) also submitted an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court\u2019s decision. Representing the major movie studios, Netflix, and Amazon, it describes Cox\u2019s push for an inducement-only standard as a \u201ctectonic change\u201d based on \u201cprofound misreadings\u201d of established law. <\/p>\n MPA argues that Cox can be held liable for not taking action against subscribers for whom it has received multiple piracy notices. This is the entire reason why the DMCA safe harbor exists. <\/p>\n \u201cCox\u2019s brief is strewn with doom-and-gloom predictions that, absent the rule it seeks, Cox will be forced to an intolerable choice: indiscriminately terminate internet access for grandparents and military barracks, on the one hand; or risk crushing liability, on the other. That is a false dichotomy.\u201d <\/p>\n \u201cCox could have taken many steps short of terminating internet service as part of a graduated system for addressing known instances of repeat infringement by its customers,\u201d MPA\u2019s brief adds. <\/p>\n According to the MPA, at times Cox chose not to follow its own graduated response scheme, labeling it a decision to keep generating revenue from subscribers who were repeatedly flagged as copyright infringers.<\/p>\n While most amici focus strictly on how copyright law should be interpreted, there\u2019s also a clear outlier. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), a non-profit organization fighting sexual abuse and exploitation, warns that Cox\u2019s arguments for broad ISP immunity could inadvertently harm the fight against CSAM.<\/p>\n \u201cIf Petitioners and their amici successfully establish an all-contexts rule that they can never be liable for anything that can be characterized as \u2018inaction,\u2019 internet platforms could sit on their hands while knowingly profiting from criminal child sexual abuse material,\u201d they write.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n A central theme in this Supreme Court challenge is whether ISPs can be held liable for \u201cinaction\u201d. In this case, that refers to not terminating Internet access of allegedly pirating subscribers.<\/p>\n NCOSE is advocating for a Supreme Court decision narrowly focused on copyright law. While acknowledging and, to a degree, supporting the position of the record labels, the group\u2019s primary goal is to avoid an outcome affecting liability in general.<\/p>\n \u201cThis case should only be about the distinct question of contributory infringement of copyright\u2014not blanket rules governing the liability of internet platforms for facilitating or assisting wrongdoing.\u201d <\/p>\n In addition to these three briefs, the Supreme Court received several more that side with the record labels. These largely focus on the same issues, arguing against Cox\u2019s push to limit liability for Internet providers. <\/p>\n For example, the brief from SoundExchange, A2IM, AFM, and SAG-AFTRA warns that Cox\u2019s proposed interpretation of liability would leave the music industry with no viable option to fight online piracy.<\/p>\n \u201cTo adopt Petitioners\u2019 myopic view of contributory infringement would spell disaster for the music community, as it would deprive musicians and those who represent them of the only feasible means of challenging mass online infringement,\u201d they write. <\/p>\n The full list of all opposition briefs, available below, underlines the importance of this landmark case and a Supreme Court decision destined to shape the future of U.S. copyright law. With all key arguments now on record, the Supreme Court will hear both sides during oral arguments in early December. <\/p>\n \u2014<\/em><\/p>\n Here is a list of the amici curiae who filed briefs supporting the record labels in the Supreme Court case against Cox Communications.<\/p>\n \u2013 The Copyright Alliance <\/a><\/p>\n \u2013 The Motion Picture Association, Inc. (MPA) <\/a><\/p>\n \u2013 Prof. Bruce E. Boyden<\/a><\/p>\n \u2013 The Association of Amicus Counsel (AAC) <\/a><\/p>\n \u2013 The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE)<\/a><\/p>\n \u2013 Intellectual Property Law Scholars<\/a><\/p>\n \u2013 Former Members of Congress and Registers and General Counsels of the U.S. Copyright Office<\/a><\/p>\n \u2013 SoundExchange, Inc., The American Association of Independent Music, et al.<\/a><\/p>\n \u2013 National Music Publishers\u2019 Association (NMPA), Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), et al.<\/a><\/p>\n \u2013 The Authors Guild, Sisters in Crime, Romance Writers of America, The Songwriters Guild of America, et al.<\/a><\/p>\n From: TF<\/a>, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.<\/p>\nFormer Members of Congress and the Copyright Office<\/h2>\n
![\"eliminate\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/eliminate.png\")
<\/center><\/p>\n![\"signees\"](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/names.png\")
<\/center><\/p>\nMotion Picture Association (and others)<\/h2>\n
National Center on Sexual Exploitation<\/h2>\n
![\"why](\"https:\/\/www.cryptocabaret.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/ncose.png\")
<\/center><\/p>\nMore Amici Support the Record Labels<\/h2>\n