US Supreme Court says ISPs aren’t liable for their users’ piracy — top judiciary body unanimously rules that Cox Communications did not commit copyright infringement

a person pirating music from the internet using Napster from the early 2000s
(Image credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Cox Communications after Sony Music Entertainment and several other labels sued the company for copyright infringement back in 2018. The internet service provider (ISP) actually lost the case back then after the music labels said that the company did not terminate its subscribers despite being repeatedly flagged for downloading and sharing pirated music. This ended with the jury awarding the plaintiffs $1 billion in statutory damages, although this was overturned on appeal, according to Engadget.

“Countless people use the Internet for legal activities, but some use it to illegally share copyrighted works, such as songs and movies…In this case, however, instead of suing those infringers, the copyright owners sued petitioners, Cox Communications, Inc., and its subsidiary, who provided the internet connections that the infringers used,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the decision. “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 used by some to infringe copyrights.”

Article continues below

Google Preferred Source

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

TOPICS
Jowi Morales
Contributing Writer

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.

  • coolitic
    It's nice to have ISPs be the good guys for once.
    Reply
  • S58_is_the_goat
    Yaaaaar matey 🏴‍☠️
    Reply
  • cyrusfox
    Like trying to sue the highway owners for what some drivers are doing. Never made much sense, not the right parties to hold accountable.
    Reply
  • SomeoneElse23
    I thought the picture of someone using napster on a CRT was funny and a flash from the past.
    Reply
  • chaos215bar2
    cyrusfox said:
    Like trying to sue the highway owners for what some drivers are doing. Never made much sense, not the right parties to hold accountable.
    It's like trying to sue the gas station a thief used to fuel the getaway vehicle.

    Except not even, because piracy is not theft. And for most, piracy is either a result of not having the funds to have even purchased the thing or of a legal customer experience so bad, committing a crime is a worthwhile alternative.
    Reply
  • SethHoyt
    ISPs should NEVER take adverse action against a user for those DMCA notices. I uncovered a dirty little secret once when doing some BitTorrent protocol testing. I accessed metadata for some random torrents but hadn't downloaded nor shared a single byte of content. I wasn't concerned about copyright issues for simply communicating with trackers so I didn't think anything of it until I started getting takedown notices.

    I had to go back and check whether I'd somehow transferred content but no, it was only tracker metadata and nothing copyrighted. That's when I realized the third party companies these media companies pay to do this nonsense are simply setting up fake trackers as honeypots to see who accesses them. The real problem is that there is nothing illegal about that! This constitutes a serious abuse of the DMCA takedown provision, and I feel like someone with standing like ISPs overburdened with those false notices needs to sue the media companies for the abuse!

    ISPs are well within their rights to ignore these notices unless there is actual proof of infringement going on, not this wholesale automated garbage. An expert should have to send them a notarized affidavit swearing to specific knowledge of infringement under penalty of perjury otherwise no adverse action is warranted whatsoever.
    Reply