Supreme Court Sides with ISPs in Billion-Dollar Music Piracy Lawsuit

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in favor of Cox Communications, rejecting a billion-dollar music piracy lawsuit brought by major record labels. The court decided that internet service providers (ISPs) cannot be held directly responsible for copyright infringement committed by their users.

This decision overturns a previous ruling that held Cox liable for its users illegally sharing thousands of songs. That earlier ruling resulted in a staggering $1 billion infringement verdict in 2019, a sum now vacated.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, stated, "Countless people use the Internet for legal activities, but some use it to illegally share copyrighted works, such as songs and movies. Under our precedents, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights."

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) expressed disappointment with the ruling. Chairman Mitch Glazier stated that copyright law must protect creators from harmful infringement and suggested policymakers examine the ruling's impact. He did clarify that the ruling is narrow, applying only to ISPs and not websites hosting infringing content.

Cox hailed the decision as a "decisive victory" for internet providers and their users. They asserted that ISPs are not copyright police and should not be held liable for their customers' actions.

Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group jointly sued Cox in 2018, arguing the ISP was legally responsible for enabling digital piracy. The labels claimed Cox ignored hundreds of thousands of piracy notices and never permanently terminated infringing subscribers.

In December 2019, a jury found Cox liable for enabling the infringement of over 10,000 songs, awarding the labels over $99,000 per song, totaling $1 billion. While an appeals court ordered a recalculation of the fine, Cox still faced potentially hundreds of millions in damages.

Cox argued that the labels' case threatened internet access for millions by forcing ISPs to terminate users to avoid massive legal damages. The labels countered that Cox prioritized profits over legal compliance.

The Supreme Court sided with Cox, stating that an ISP is only responsible if it intended its service to be used for infringement, not merely if it was aware of infringing activity.

Justice Thomas noted that Cox sent warnings and suspended accounts accused of file sharing, emphasizing that "Cox simply provided Internet access, which is used for many purposes other than copyright infringement."

Thomas cited landmark rulings like the 1984 VCR decision and the 2005 Grokster/Morpheus case, clarifying that "mere knowledge" of illegal use is insufficient to sue a service's creator.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a separate opinion, agreeing with the outcome but expressing concern that the ruling could "eviscerate" the existing framework for ISPs handling user infringement. Sotomayor warned that the decision could allow ISPs to freely provide internet to infringers without fear of liability or any obligation to prevent infringement.

You can read the Supreme Court's entire decision here.

---

Related Articles

• Ye Settles Copyright Lawsuit Over 'Fuk Sumn' Sample
• Vinyl Records Spin Back to Glory: Taylor Swift Leads Billion-Dollar Resurgence
• Hip-Hop Heavyweights Unite: Killer Mike, T.I., and Travis Scott Fight Rap Lyrics as Evidence in Death Penalty Case