> Cox Communications v. Sony Music, 607 U.S.___ (2026), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the liability of an internet service provider for its subscribers engaging in copyright infringement.
> Cox Communications was sued by multiple music labels for lax enforcement of its users engaged in sharing the labels' copyrighted music, arging Cox finacially benefitted from these users. A jury trial found Cox to be liable. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the court dismissed findings that Cox engaged in vicarious infringment, but held that Cox was still liable for contributory infringement, with Cox potentially owing several million dollars to the labels.
> In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court found that Cox Communication was not contributorily liable for the actions of its users, reversing the Fourth's decision.
Hilariously (and appropriately), the decision cites Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., also known as the "Betamax case."
> (a) “The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another.” Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 434.
> In Sony, copyright owners sued the maker and the retailers of the Betamax video tape recorder. Id., at 422. The tape recorder could be used to record copyrighted television programs for later personal viewing, which would not constitute infringement. Id., at 449. On the other hand, it could also be used to reproduce and sell copyrighted television programming, which would constitute infringement. Ibid. The lower court found the Betamax maker liable because the tape recorder was “not suitable for any substantial noninfringing use” and infringement “was either the most conspicuous use or the major use of the Betamax product.” Id., at 428 (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court reversed, concluding that “[t]he Betamax is . . . capable of substantial noninfringing uses”—like personal use—so “sale of such equipment to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement.” Id., at 456.
> The lower court found the Betamax maker liable because the tape recorder was “not suitable for any substantial noninfringing use” and infringement “was either the most conspicuous use or the major use of the Betamax product.”
I don't know anyone who sold television recordings, it was always for personal use. How could the lower court get this so wrong? Was this just one uninformed judge? Or was this actually less certain at the time?
I had a relative who setup a kinda "blockbuster" type service recording things and offering them out for rental. It really took off for VHS when he got HBO and recorded movies and then rented those. It wasnt a very lucrative hustle but it was an instance of what they didnt want to have happen
I suppose that selling is not necessary, distribution is. Record a movie off cable TV, share with your friends, and lo and behold, they're not going to buy the licensed VHS tape! And maybe even not going to subscribe to cable TV! Losses, losses everywhere.
Time shifting for personal use is expressly legal (making a personal copy). It was also an early form of ad-blocking, because a VHS recorder could stop recording at a set time, thus skip a block of commercials, and then continue. There were suits about that, too.
Yes, but then the question becomes: which tactics does MPAA and the like will now resort to. Because we know they won't exactly say 'I guess that's it then'.
Just to try and understand the decision, an analogy that’s coming to mind would be like saying a van manufacturer wouldn’t have liability if it’s used in a bank robbery. However if the manufacturer sold it with the intent for the buyer to use it for bank robbery (the manufacturer having the intent in this case, as well as the robber themselves), then they could become partially liable.
In this case, there is a safe harbor where ISPs can avoid liability by enforcing a policy against their customers that eventually cuts them off for repeated infringement. Cox stepped outside of this safe harbor by not following their own policy. But the court says that doesn't automatically make them liable.
There already is a specific law shielding gun manufacturers from liability from simple sales, which Democrat heavy states and locales do a lot of work to test the edges of and chip away at: the PLCAA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_... which was passed in 2005 in light of mendacious lawsuits taking up a notable amount of courts' time.
Yeah. The courts are inconsistent here. If they want to hold service providers responsible, they also must make arms producer responsible, and politicians too.
I was exactly writing that! That's a huge news and so much to feed on for the next, presumably Democratic, administration.
How the heck can gun manufacturer prove they sell their product without intent to harm, where overwhelming amount of USED guns are used to accompany crime? Sure one may argue they sell guns for self defense but if self-defense never comes (you never need to use the gun) then its hard to argue your point should be taken into consideration.
Because intent isn't something that you can acquire from the actions of third parties
Second, the VAST majority of guns in the US sit in gun safes and closets and never shoot anyone.
Finally, shooting someone is not necessarily an illegal action -- gun manufacturers market their products for self defense or sporting reasons -- I have never seen one market their products for use in criminal acts.
> I doubt even 1% of the guns have been used in a crime.
Guns are used to inflict harm. Why would the arms producer not be held accountable? He produced the gun. The gun is the tool to cause harm, injury, potentially death. If service providers are held responsible for users, arms producers must also be held accountable. Financially too.
>> Guns are used to inflict harm. Why would the arms producer not be held accountable?
Notably by criminals who have never, and will never abide by the copious amounts of federal and state laws that currently regulate how people are able to use guns. If that is the case, how does holding manufacturers responsible for something completely out of their control make sense?
Its like saying car manufacturers should be responsible for drunk drivers who kill others in collisions. Because they should've known their cars would be used by someone to do something dangerous and against the law?
The gun companies have incentive to sell as many guns as they can, to the consumerist base of gun hobbyists.
There are 500M guns in the US because it's a hobby based on buying and collecting.
Due to the amount of guns in circulation, it is common for guns to be stolen.
Therefore, there are more "illegal" guns in circulation due to the consumerist nature of gun owners, and the companies making money on selling these guns.
Without a large amount of guns in circulation, there would not be a similarly large amount of illegal guns in circulation, as they almost all came from a factory somewhere.
I like guns but I am so tired of people acting like the 2nd amendment insists it's their right to treat firearms like goddamn funkopops.
In states with legal marijuana, we set limits on the number of plants one can keep on their property, yet there is no limit to how many firearms one can poorly store for a slightly competent criminal to come collect under their nose. No liability for poorly storing them either unless it's in the immediate vicinity of a toddler.
You are oversimplifying the situation beyond the entire point of this ruling --
Cox internet is sometimes used to commit copyright infringement, but it is designed and marketed for legal purposes. Guns are also sometimes used for illegal purposes, but they are designed and marketed for legal purposes.
Even the lowest estimates (the National Crime Victimization Survey) estimates annual defensive gun uses in the US at 60-80k per year. Highest estimates are at around 2 million.
But even then, most usage is at ranges, and far outstrips crime usage.
I don't think it matters in the light of this ruling. Cox could have argued that 99.9% of their data packets are Netflix and downloads of free Linux ISOs, yet neither court nor the ruling cares.
> where overwhelming amount of USED guns are used to accompany crime
I do not think this holds up to a factual analysis if you look at any cross section of defensive gun use reports. I don't think that parts actually relevant here though. If you were to use a similar standard as the USSC court applies here: Impressions don't matter to qualify for inducement. The action must be actively invited.
To win, Cox did not need to prove that they sold their product without intent to infringe. To win, the plaintiff would have had to prove that Cox had intent. The difference in burden of proof is in practice massive.
So, merely selling 'with intent' for the van to be used in a robbery I don't think meets the bar as the opinion is written. In particular, I read "...which can be shown only if the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement;"
In that vein, merely selling a tool even if a predominant use or intention of that tool is infringement, the infringement must be actively induced or invited by the seller. This is also affirmed in detail in the USSC opinion: "The Court has repeatedly made clear—see Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 222 U. S. 55, Sony, and Grokster—that mere knowledge that a service will be used to infringe is insufficient to establish the required intent to infringe."
This is the primary part of the opinion, the first 7 of 27 pages. I'm still reading the rest and will update when finished. (Concurring Opinion and Dissents I believe)
===
The meat of the opinion has some interesting elements as well:
* "Internet service providers, such as Cox, have limited knowledge about how their Internet services are used and who uses them. They do know which IP address corresponds to which subscriber’s account, but they cannot distinguish one individual user from another...However, because online infringement is so widespread, pursuing each individual infringer does little to stem the tide.": mere IP logs are not enough to establish liability, perhaps. More importantly, it is opined that individual fishing expeditions dont actually serve the end of eliminating infringement. This does not absolve individual liability, but it becomes important later.
* "Holding Cox liable merely for failing to terminate Internet service to infringing accounts would expand secondary copyright liability beyond our precedents ... The Fourth Circuit’s holding thus went beyond the two forms of liability recognized in Grokster and Sony. It also conflicted with this Court’s repeated admonition that contributory liability cannot rest only on a provider’s knowledge of infringement and insufficient action to prevent it.": This points to another case where Circuit and District courts have been ignoring the instruction of higher courts, in this case, inventing new liabilities where none existed. This doesn't go so far as to repudiate entirely the idea of fishing expeditions having teeth, but it places a clear guardrail around expanding liability without laws establishing such.
===
The Sotomayor concurrence on judgment states that the Justice does not believe the methods used by the majority opinion are correct, but still agrees with the judgement because of insufficient information presented by Sony. I think the analysis gone into in this section is flawed, but it is also not precedential since it is not the Order part of the opinion. I am also out of time to poke at that part for the moment. It does relate this case to the closest recent big case on secondary liability though, that of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, so its worth reading even if the justifying analysis I think does not fit.
The big difference I guess is whether you think negative jurisdiction (limiting what the government can do) vs positive jurisdiction (further enabling the government) is more important, but considering HN and the exhortations against divisive commentary, I'd rather not dive into the weeds arguing that part here.
> The provider of a service is contributorily liable for a user’s infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement
So they try to hold the provider responsible. While I disagree with this, I can at the least understand some rationale behind it, even though this is inconsistent. For instance, if someone uses a gun to shoot down someone, why is the company providing the gun not held accountable here? They should also be forced to pay compensation damage to people being harmed here. But this is besides the point I am trying to make.
The thing is that I do not want to be held accountable under such a law. I believe when it comes to information, courts should not be allowed to restrict me or anyone else in any way, shape or form. I want a free society. That means flow of information can never be restricted by any such actors. Granted, this is not possible right now anywhere on Planet Earth as far as I am aware, and I understand the implication of this too (no more secrets possible), but I want this 100%. Yet I can't have that because courts restrict me, and all those who want the same, arbitrarily so. IMO this also means that such courts must be changed. Right now we have corporate courts where the money addiction flows in. I understand this system and the problems of this system. This is why there must be a transition starting from the society, to no longer make it possible to restrict service providers here in any way, shape or form. The same would apply to democracy - I don't want to accept indirect democracy run by lobbyists. I want to be in charge, in proportion to my vote, at all times, of every decision (I am ok delegating this to representatives, mind you, but not automatically and not always; in indirect democracy you vote for some representative who can then do whatever he wants to. I am not ok with this. How many former Trump voters would, right now, want Trump to be gone from power, or in prison? I think many would, considering the damage he caused and is still causing).
> if someone uses a gun to shoot down someone, why is the company providing the gun not held accountable here?
The gun company will claim they sold for self defense or just for a hobbyist's collection - They'll claim that the gun owner used it for something else is not their responsibility. Same for any or product that can be used to kill someone with.
> if someone uses a gun..why is the company providing the gun not held accountable here?
They absolutely can be held accountable. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has carve-outs for: negligent entrustment - when a dealer or manufacturer provides a firearm knowing it will be used for a crime; negligence per se - when a seller knowingly violated state or federal laws in the sale or marketing of the product (and that sale was a proximate cause of the harm); defects in design; breach of contract/warranty.
However, selling a product for lawful use, whether a gun, truck, or Internet connectivity, does not make the seller liable if the consumer decides to use that otherwise lawful product for crimes. There has to be some assumption of agency (and liability) on the part of the individual who is clearing ethical/moral hurdles to do wrong.
I don't see how this unanimous court decision conflicts with that theory in the context of the ISP - in fact, I think it's a reinforcement of some common sense.
If Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion, it is guaranteed to be a fundamentally flawed decision. He is reprehensible in the truest sense of the word.
I wouldn't trust him to correctly determine the color of the sky. Even if it seems to be the right ruling in general, I'm sure once the text is examined closely, there's going to be something truly abhorrent in it that will negatively affect the lives of millions. Because that's what he does.
Even with Sotomayor's concurrence, I have no faith in the decision as it has been tainted by his association with it. I'm positive the ruling will end up damaging our democracy even if it's not readily apparent now.
Thomas is beyond the worst justice in American history, he's one of the worst people, period.
This isn't good. They can still sue you, but now they need proof that you as an individual behind that public IP did it. This will only incentivize them to join the push for ID requirements.
There is a very important consideration here that this opinion doesn't really touch on, but I think is invited down the road for future cases and legislation: Can you compel the speech of a third party to aid in exploratory evidence gathering (aka fishing expeditions) without a clear, well defined, and particular, cause of action at court to issue a subpoena?
In most classic U.S. jurisdiction, no, you cannot. Compelled activity or speech is generally frowned upon. The most important part of this case, IMO, was the Supreme Court constraining the Fourth Circuit's interpretation of contributory liability and attempting to turn the DMCA system into one for enabling those fishing expeditions.
For those like myself who wanted context:
> Cox Communications v. Sony Music, 607 U.S.___ (2026), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the liability of an internet service provider for its subscribers engaging in copyright infringement.
> Cox Communications was sued by multiple music labels for lax enforcement of its users engaged in sharing the labels' copyrighted music, arging Cox finacially benefitted from these users. A jury trial found Cox to be liable. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the court dismissed findings that Cox engaged in vicarious infringment, but held that Cox was still liable for contributory infringement, with Cox potentially owing several million dollars to the labels.
> In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court found that Cox Communication was not contributorily liable for the actions of its users, reversing the Fourth's decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_Communications,_Inc._v._So...
Hilariously (and appropriately), the decision cites Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., also known as the "Betamax case."
> (a) “The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another.” Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 434.
> In Sony, copyright owners sued the maker and the retailers of the Betamax video tape recorder. Id., at 422. The tape recorder could be used to record copyrighted television programs for later personal viewing, which would not constitute infringement. Id., at 449. On the other hand, it could also be used to reproduce and sell copyrighted television programming, which would constitute infringement. Ibid. The lower court found the Betamax maker liable because the tape recorder was “not suitable for any substantial noninfringing use” and infringement “was either the most conspicuous use or the major use of the Betamax product.” Id., at 428 (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court reversed, concluding that “[t]he Betamax is . . . capable of substantial noninfringing uses”—like personal use—so “sale of such equipment to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement.” Id., at 456.
> The lower court found the Betamax maker liable because the tape recorder was “not suitable for any substantial noninfringing use” and infringement “was either the most conspicuous use or the major use of the Betamax product.”
I don't know anyone who sold television recordings, it was always for personal use. How could the lower court get this so wrong? Was this just one uninformed judge? Or was this actually less certain at the time?
I had a relative who setup a kinda "blockbuster" type service recording things and offering them out for rental. It really took off for VHS when he got HBO and recorded movies and then rented those. It wasnt a very lucrative hustle but it was an instance of what they didnt want to have happen
I suppose that selling is not necessary, distribution is. Record a movie off cable TV, share with your friends, and lo and behold, they're not going to buy the licensed VHS tape! And maybe even not going to subscribe to cable TV! Losses, losses everywhere.
They were right. I never sold a taped VCR, but my parents used it to time shift Saturday morning cartoons every week.
Time shifting for personal use is expressly legal (making a personal copy). It was also an early form of ad-blocking, because a VHS recorder could stop recording at a set time, thus skip a block of commercials, and then continue. There were suits about that, too.
Glad to have one less reason to incentivize ISPs to monitor every single thing we do on the internet.
They are already incentivized enough by selling the data, more incentives won't change anything.
The ruling said that they don’t have to.
Going with your point, it does not say they can’t monitor and then sell the list of pirates to Sony/etc. for some extra income.
They just didn’t like doing it for free.
Yes, but then the question becomes: which tactics does MPAA and the like will now resort to. Because we know they won't exactly say 'I guess that's it then'.
I wonder if OpenAI, et.al were eagerly awaiting this verdict because once an ISP is liable...well I'm sure you can extrapolate from there.
Just to try and understand the decision, an analogy that’s coming to mind would be like saying a van manufacturer wouldn’t have liability if it’s used in a bank robbery. However if the manufacturer sold it with the intent for the buyer to use it for bank robbery (the manufacturer having the intent in this case, as well as the robber themselves), then they could become partially liable.
Have I got that right?
In this case, there is a safe harbor where ISPs can avoid liability by enforcing a policy against their customers that eventually cuts them off for repeated infringement. Cox stepped outside of this safe harbor by not following their own policy. But the court says that doesn't automatically make them liable.
MGM vs Grokster is a good decision to read to understand the boundaries of contributory infringement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,....
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/913/
That's my understanding. Basic carrier vs service stuff. What I wonder is how this might impact gun manufacturers.
There already is a specific law shielding gun manufacturers from liability from simple sales, which Democrat heavy states and locales do a lot of work to test the edges of and chip away at: the PLCAA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_... which was passed in 2005 in light of mendacious lawsuits taking up a notable amount of courts' time.
Yeah. The courts are inconsistent here. If they want to hold service providers responsible, they also must make arms producer responsible, and politicians too.
Well this is a copyright case and guns aren’t. Couldn’t that be a big reason for the difference?
I was exactly writing that! That's a huge news and so much to feed on for the next, presumably Democratic, administration.
How the heck can gun manufacturer prove they sell their product without intent to harm, where overwhelming amount of USED guns are used to accompany crime? Sure one may argue they sell guns for self defense but if self-defense never comes (you never need to use the gun) then its hard to argue your point should be taken into consideration.
Because intent isn't something that you can acquire from the actions of third parties
Second, the VAST majority of guns in the US sit in gun safes and closets and never shoot anyone.
Finally, shooting someone is not necessarily an illegal action -- gun manufacturers market their products for self defense or sporting reasons -- I have never seen one market their products for use in criminal acts.
Well, I have never seen Cox advertising their internet cable as a way to download pirated movies, but here we are.
There are around ~500 millions guns in the US according to a quick Google.
There's a lot of crime in the US, but I doubt even 1% of the guns have been used in a crime.
Also you can buy a gun and just shoot it at a range.
> I doubt even 1% of the guns have been used in a crime.
Guns are used to inflict harm. Why would the arms producer not be held accountable? He produced the gun. The gun is the tool to cause harm, injury, potentially death. If service providers are held responsible for users, arms producers must also be held accountable. Financially too.
>> Guns are used to inflict harm. Why would the arms producer not be held accountable?
Notably by criminals who have never, and will never abide by the copious amounts of federal and state laws that currently regulate how people are able to use guns. If that is the case, how does holding manufacturers responsible for something completely out of their control make sense?
Its like saying car manufacturers should be responsible for drunk drivers who kill others in collisions. Because they should've known their cars would be used by someone to do something dangerous and against the law?
The gun companies have incentive to sell as many guns as they can, to the consumerist base of gun hobbyists.
There are 500M guns in the US because it's a hobby based on buying and collecting.
Due to the amount of guns in circulation, it is common for guns to be stolen.
Therefore, there are more "illegal" guns in circulation due to the consumerist nature of gun owners, and the companies making money on selling these guns.
Without a large amount of guns in circulation, there would not be a similarly large amount of illegal guns in circulation, as they almost all came from a factory somewhere.
I like guns but I am so tired of people acting like the 2nd amendment insists it's their right to treat firearms like goddamn funkopops.
In states with legal marijuana, we set limits on the number of plants one can keep on their property, yet there is no limit to how many firearms one can poorly store for a slightly competent criminal to come collect under their nose. No liability for poorly storing them either unless it's in the immediate vicinity of a toddler.
You are oversimplifying the situation beyond the entire point of this ruling --
Cox internet is sometimes used to commit copyright infringement, but it is designed and marketed for legal purposes. Guns are also sometimes used for illegal purposes, but they are designed and marketed for legal purposes.
Just curious, do you feel the same way about knife manufacturers? Or automotive makers?
By that logic Toyota should be liable if someone uses a Tacoma to ram a crowd.
Strawman argument. Inflicting harm does not automatically equal a crime. And you're also disregarding the use of guns as a deterrent.
Even the lowest estimates (the National Crime Victimization Survey) estimates annual defensive gun uses in the US at 60-80k per year. Highest estimates are at around 2 million.
But even then, most usage is at ranges, and far outstrips crime usage.
I don't think it matters in the light of this ruling. Cox could have argued that 99.9% of their data packets are Netflix and downloads of free Linux ISOs, yet neither court nor the ruling cares.
Statistically speaking, most guns are not used for crime, and even among uses, crime is probably small compared to military or even hunting etc.
This is an instance of begging the question "if the overwhelming amount of used guns are used to accompany crime then how can you argue otherwise".
But there's no substance to your premise. 400 million owned guns, 50,000 deaths a year, it's a long way from the overwhelming majority.
Absolutely. I would also agree that 99% of data delivered by Cox is not pirated movies.
> where overwhelming amount of USED guns are used to accompany crime
I do not think this holds up to a factual analysis if you look at any cross section of defensive gun use reports. I don't think that parts actually relevant here though. If you were to use a similar standard as the USSC court applies here: Impressions don't matter to qualify for inducement. The action must be actively invited.
Guns stolen = crime. Guns purchased = self defense.
That's not at all what this ruling says?
To win, Cox did not need to prove that they sold their product without intent to infringe. To win, the plaintiff would have had to prove that Cox had intent. The difference in burden of proof is in practice massive.
it would help if all cases of self defense were cataloged. Right now it only hits the stats if a crime is not averted.
So, merely selling 'with intent' for the van to be used in a robbery I don't think meets the bar as the opinion is written. In particular, I read "...which can be shown only if the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement;"
In that vein, merely selling a tool even if a predominant use or intention of that tool is infringement, the infringement must be actively induced or invited by the seller. This is also affirmed in detail in the USSC opinion: "The Court has repeatedly made clear—see Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 222 U. S. 55, Sony, and Grokster—that mere knowledge that a service will be used to infringe is insufficient to establish the required intent to infringe."
This is the primary part of the opinion, the first 7 of 27 pages. I'm still reading the rest and will update when finished. (Concurring Opinion and Dissents I believe)
===
The meat of the opinion has some interesting elements as well:
* "Internet service providers, such as Cox, have limited knowledge about how their Internet services are used and who uses them. They do know which IP address corresponds to which subscriber’s account, but they cannot distinguish one individual user from another...However, because online infringement is so widespread, pursuing each individual infringer does little to stem the tide.": mere IP logs are not enough to establish liability, perhaps. More importantly, it is opined that individual fishing expeditions dont actually serve the end of eliminating infringement. This does not absolve individual liability, but it becomes important later.
* "Holding Cox liable merely for failing to terminate Internet service to infringing accounts would expand secondary copyright liability beyond our precedents ... The Fourth Circuit’s holding thus went beyond the two forms of liability recognized in Grokster and Sony. It also conflicted with this Court’s repeated admonition that contributory liability cannot rest only on a provider’s knowledge of infringement and insufficient action to prevent it.": This points to another case where Circuit and District courts have been ignoring the instruction of higher courts, in this case, inventing new liabilities where none existed. This doesn't go so far as to repudiate entirely the idea of fishing expeditions having teeth, but it places a clear guardrail around expanding liability without laws establishing such.
===
The Sotomayor concurrence on judgment states that the Justice does not believe the methods used by the majority opinion are correct, but still agrees with the judgement because of insufficient information presented by Sony. I think the analysis gone into in this section is flawed, but it is also not precedential since it is not the Order part of the opinion. I am also out of time to poke at that part for the moment. It does relate this case to the closest recent big case on secondary liability though, that of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, so its worth reading even if the justifying analysis I think does not fit.
The big difference I guess is whether you think negative jurisdiction (limiting what the government can do) vs positive jurisdiction (further enabling the government) is more important, but considering HN and the exhortations against divisive commentary, I'd rather not dive into the weeds arguing that part here.
This is huge. Sony is trying to make Cox into law enforcement to do their biddings. The Supreme Court struck that down.
so just ask again tomorrow?
If sony equipment was used in facilitating the copyright violation, would that make Sony liable?
That was already decided in an old case about Betamax recorders, quoted on the front page of the linked article.
> The provider of a service is contributorily liable for a user’s infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement
So they try to hold the provider responsible. While I disagree with this, I can at the least understand some rationale behind it, even though this is inconsistent. For instance, if someone uses a gun to shoot down someone, why is the company providing the gun not held accountable here? They should also be forced to pay compensation damage to people being harmed here. But this is besides the point I am trying to make.
The thing is that I do not want to be held accountable under such a law. I believe when it comes to information, courts should not be allowed to restrict me or anyone else in any way, shape or form. I want a free society. That means flow of information can never be restricted by any such actors. Granted, this is not possible right now anywhere on Planet Earth as far as I am aware, and I understand the implication of this too (no more secrets possible), but I want this 100%. Yet I can't have that because courts restrict me, and all those who want the same, arbitrarily so. IMO this also means that such courts must be changed. Right now we have corporate courts where the money addiction flows in. I understand this system and the problems of this system. This is why there must be a transition starting from the society, to no longer make it possible to restrict service providers here in any way, shape or form. The same would apply to democracy - I don't want to accept indirect democracy run by lobbyists. I want to be in charge, in proportion to my vote, at all times, of every decision (I am ok delegating this to representatives, mind you, but not automatically and not always; in indirect democracy you vote for some representative who can then do whatever he wants to. I am not ok with this. How many former Trump voters would, right now, want Trump to be gone from power, or in prison? I think many would, considering the damage he caused and is still causing).
> if someone uses a gun to shoot down someone, why is the company providing the gun not held accountable here?
The gun company will claim they sold for self defense or just for a hobbyist's collection - They'll claim that the gun owner used it for something else is not their responsibility. Same for any or product that can be used to kill someone with.
Let's not forget sports, which is a huge segment of the gun-owning public - trap, skeet, biathlon, PRS, USPSA/IPSC, High Power/CMP, etc.
> if someone uses a gun..why is the company providing the gun not held accountable here?
They absolutely can be held accountable. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) has carve-outs for: negligent entrustment - when a dealer or manufacturer provides a firearm knowing it will be used for a crime; negligence per se - when a seller knowingly violated state or federal laws in the sale or marketing of the product (and that sale was a proximate cause of the harm); defects in design; breach of contract/warranty.
However, selling a product for lawful use, whether a gun, truck, or Internet connectivity, does not make the seller liable if the consumer decides to use that otherwise lawful product for crimes. There has to be some assumption of agency (and liability) on the part of the individual who is clearing ethical/moral hurdles to do wrong.
I don't see how this unanimous court decision conflicts with that theory in the context of the ISP - in fact, I think it's a reinforcement of some common sense.
> Opinion (Thomas) | Concurrence (Sotomayor)
If Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion, it is guaranteed to be a fundamentally flawed decision. He is reprehensible in the truest sense of the word.
I wouldn't trust him to correctly determine the color of the sky. Even if it seems to be the right ruling in general, I'm sure once the text is examined closely, there's going to be something truly abhorrent in it that will negatively affect the lives of millions. Because that's what he does.
Even with Sotomayor's concurrence, I have no faith in the decision as it has been tainted by his association with it. I'm positive the ruling will end up damaging our democracy even if it's not readily apparent now.
Thomas is beyond the worst justice in American history, he's one of the worst people, period.
Most opinions from the Supreme Court are unanimous.
This isn't good. They can still sue you, but now they need proof that you as an individual behind that public IP did it. This will only incentivize them to join the push for ID requirements.
They aren't suing some broke 23 year old. What they can collect is less than their lawyer fees.
At worst, universities crack down harder on torrents, but that was always an option for labels.
There is a very important consideration here that this opinion doesn't really touch on, but I think is invited down the road for future cases and legislation: Can you compel the speech of a third party to aid in exploratory evidence gathering (aka fishing expeditions) without a clear, well defined, and particular, cause of action at court to issue a subpoena?
In most classic U.S. jurisdiction, no, you cannot. Compelled activity or speech is generally frowned upon. The most important part of this case, IMO, was the Supreme Court constraining the Fourth Circuit's interpretation of contributory liability and attempting to turn the DMCA system into one for enabling those fishing expeditions.
> They aren't suing some broke 23 year old. What they can collect is less than their lawyer fees.
You may not be old enough to remember this, but that's exactly what they did in the 2000's
There's a lot more 23 year olds to this time around. I don't think you can intimidate them down this time.
They didn't exactly intimidate them down last time either. Piracy decisively won the war on piracy.