Sony’s failed war against Internet piracy may doom other copyright lawsuits

[Non-Euclidean]

Posting here, because its Tech Industry.

In case you missed it, SCOTUS tossed a judgement that Cox owed Sony, because some users were downloading/pirating stuff. In a fantastic twist, this ruling was based on Sony's mid 80s win that BETAMAX (and VHS) usage was allowable since there was non-infringing uses. So Cox was found not liable since the purpose of providing internet access isn't only for pirating.

Sony and other major record labels recently suffered a thorough defeat at the Supreme Court in their attempt to make Internet service providers pay huge financial penalties for their customers’ copyright infringement. Sony’s loss is certain to have wide-ranging effects on copyright lawsuits, offering protection for ISPs, their customers, and potentially other technology companies whose services can be used for both legal and illegal purposes.

In Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, the Supreme Court ruled that cable Internet firm Cox is not liable under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) when its customers use their broadband connections to download or upload pirated materials. Music copyright holders claimed that once Cox was informed that specific users repeatedly infringed copyrights, it should have terminated their accounts.

A jury agreed with Sony in 2019, hitting Cox with a $1 billion verdict. While the damages award was overturned by an appeals court in 2024, that court gave Sony a partial win by finding that Cox was guilty of contributory copyright infringement—a type of secondary liability for contributing to others’ infringement.

Cox was facing the prospect of another damages trial until the Supreme Court took up its case and unanimously ruled in its favor on March 25 of this year. The court found that Cox isn’t liable for its customers’ misdeeds because it did not induce them to infringe copyrights and did not “tailor” the broadband service so that it could be used for infringement.

Article @

Sony's failed war against Internet piracy may doom other copyright lawsuits

Cable firm Cox's Supreme Court win may help all tech providers, not just ISPs.

arstechnica.com

 

[turbineseaplane]

How are we supposed to feel about this as general/normal people and users?

So much of this stuff is too complex for me to get a sense of what the real story is and how it impacts normal people.

 

[poorcody]

From the ArsTechnica.com article:

Marquette University Law Professor Bruce Boyden told Ars that based on the Cox ruling, a company’s contribution to infringement “has to be intentional” through “either actively inducing infringement or designing or tailoring your service for infringement, and nothing else qualifies for contributory infringement.” This “really narrows contributory infringement to the extent that that’s followed” by lower courts, he said.

Seems pretty reasonable to me. The music labels were trying to put the burden of stopping pirating on ISP's back. That would be a huge responsibility that ultimately would significantly raise ISP costs. Think of all the illegal things that go on that they would have to police.

 

[turbineseaplane]

From the ArsTechnica.com article:

Seems pretty reasonable to me. The music labels were trying to put the burden of stopping pirating on ISP's back. That would be a huge responsibility that ultimately would significantly raise ISP costs. Think of all the illegal things that go on that they would have to police.

What has actually stopped infringement is "offering a compelling alternative at an attractive price".

I know the rights holders, across industries, seem to hate that since they'd prefer to get you stuck with no options so they can jack up the prices indefinitely.

 

[surferfb]

What has actually stopped infringement is "offering a compelling alternative at an attractive price".

I know the rights holders, across industries, seem to hate that since they'd prefer to get you stuck with no options so they can jack up the prices indefinitely.

Exactly. Most people won’t pirate if acquiring the content is easy and reasonably priced. See Spotify/Apple Music now or the iTunes Store in the 2000s. The streaming TV/movie people in particular seem to have forgotten the second part.

Charging more and more and more and adding more and more ads is going to lead to more and more people to investigate “alternatives” whether that’s canceling services or piracy. (To be clear, I’m not saying piracy is moral or correct to do, but it’s reality of how people behave.)

 

[turbineseaplane]

Exactly. Most people won’t pirate if acquiring the content is easy and reasonably priced. See Spotify/Apple Music now or the iTunes Store in the 2000s. The streaming TV/movie people in particular seem to have forgotten the second part.

Charging more and more and more and adding more and more ads is going to lead to more and more people to investigate “alternatives” whether that’s canceling services or piracy. (To be clear, I’m not saying piracy is moral or correct to do, but it’s reality of how people behave.)

Amen sailor!

Sorry, I had to remove my eye patch real quick to read this.

 

[Non-Euclidean]

What has actually stopped infringement is "offering a compelling alternative at an attractive price".

aka, not being the vilest rent seeking SOBs on the planet.

 

[turbineseaplane]

aka, not being the vilest rent seeking SOBs on the planet.

Bingo! Imagine that!

A fair price and value = people will actually do it!