MESSAGE
| DATE | 2025-12-01 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Copyright Wars being sent to the Supreme Court...
|
From hangout-bounces-at-nylxs.com Mon Dec 1 12:43:02 2025
Return-Path:
X-Original-To: archive-at-mrbrklyn.com
Delivered-To: archive-at-mrbrklyn.com
Received: from www2.mrbrklyn.com (www2.mrbrklyn.com [96.57.23.82])
by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 005F016410E;
Mon, 1 Dec 2025 12:43:00 -0500 (EST)
X-Original-To: hangout-at-nylxs.com
Delivered-To: hangout-at-nylxs.com
Received: from mailbackend.panix.com (mailbackend.panix.com [166.84.1.89])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(Client did not present a certificate)
by mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC2DF164104
for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 12:42:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [166.84.1.2])
by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4dKrpS02M1z4VMM
for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 12:42:55 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=panix.com; s=panix;
t=1764610976; bh=tEfVdQjMBr/tDHNPogv3QWuxD39I4rZeYYd1rWLV7Gk=;
h=Date:From:To:Subject;
b=nx3IdsGmYLHr1I05LiiTRlKO3zplDHZSPIfo5EZUBYzMf6TMNCP34fahrmm7oqFCD
OMhg9evjei65qVfUQp+LvcFUCvPasuSCrKd54xayLSpFFHOY0keqkWqd2/bzxj9hxH
9GA9gTgAI1xj/ByiZnJ4roFKH6Aop0cVai/hK7rA=
Received: by panix2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 20529)
id 4dKrpS3h46z1ZT4; Mon, 1 Dec 2025 12:42:56 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 12:42:56 -0500
From: Ruben Safir
To: NYLXS
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] Copyright Wars being sent to the Supreme Court...
X-BeenThere: hangout-at-nylxs.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30rc1
Precedence: list
List-Id: NYLXS Tech Talk and Politics
List-Unsubscribe: ,
List-Archive:
List-Post:
List-Help:
List-Subscribe: ,
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0233236659=="
Errors-To: hangout-bounces-at-nylxs.com
Sender: "Hangout"
--===============0233236659==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
US Supreme Court wrestles with copyright dispute between Cox and
record labels
US Supreme Court wrestles with copyright dispute between Cox and
record labels By Blake Brittain December 1, 202512:17 PM ESTUpdated
19 mins ago General view shows the United States Supreme Court, in
Washington General view shows the United States Supreme Court, in
Washington, U.S., February 8, 2024. REUTERS/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/File
Photo Purchase Licensing Rights , opens new tab
WASHINGTON, Dec 1 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday
grappled with a bid by Cox Communications to avoid financial
liability in a major music copyright lawsuit by record labels that
accused the internet service provider of enabling its customers to
pirate thousands of songs. The justices during arguments in the
case appeared skeptical of Cox's assertion that its awareness of
user piracy could not justify holding it liable for contributory
copyright infringement. But the justices also questioned whether
holding Cox liable for failing to cut off infringers could impact
a wide range of innocent internet users.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue Report Ad "We are being put to
two extremes here," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. "How do we announce
a rule that deals with those two extremes?" Cox has appealed a
lower court's decision to order a new trial to determine how much
the Atlanta-based company owes Sony Music (6758.T) ,
Warner Music Group (WMG.O), Universal Music Group
(UMG.AS) , opens new tab and other labels for contributory copyright
infringement. Cox said the retrial could lead to a verdict against
it of as much as $1.5 billion. Cox, the largest unit of privately
owned Cox Enterprises, has argued it should not be held responsible
for piracy by its users of music owned by the labels in a case
being closely watched by internet service providers, or ISPs.
A ruling in favor of
the labels, according to Cox, could force it to cut off internet
access for "entire households, coffee shops, hospitals, universities"
and others "merely because some unidentified person was previously
alleged to have used the connection to infringe." 'LAISSEZ-FAIRE
ATTITUDE' Some justices appeared to agree with the labels that Cox
was particularly lax in addressing user infringement. "Your client's
sort of laissez-faire attitude towards the respondents is probably
what got the jury upset," Sotomayor told Cox attorney Joshua
Rosenkranz. A jury in Alexandria, Virginia, found in 2019 that
Cox owed the labels $1 billion for its secondary liability for the
copyright infringement by its customers of more than 10,000
copyrights. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals threw out the damages award in 2024 after reversing the
jury's finding on one form of secondary liability. 00:03 UK lawmaker
Siddiq gets jail in absentia in Bangladesh graft case The video
player is currently playing an ad. You can skip the ad in 5 sec
with a mouse or keyboard ISPs are generally not liable for user
infringement under U.S. law if they take reasonable measures to
prevent it. But the labels accused Cox of failing to address
thousands of infringement notices and failing to cut off internet
access for repeat infringers or take other measures to deter piracy.
The labels have argued that Cox's lack of action to protect their
copyrights was egregious enough to justify the infringement finding.
The jury, in awarding $1 billion to the record labels, found Cox
liable both for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement,
two forms of secondary copyright infringement liability. The 4th
Circuit ordered a retrial on the size of the award after affirming
the jury's finding of contributory infringement but reversing its
finding on vicarious liability. Contributory infringement involves
holding parties liable for someone else's infringement because they
knew about it and contributed to it. Vicarious infringement involves
holding parties liable for someone else's infringement because they
had the ability to control the infringement and benefited financially
from it. A GUN ANALOGY The justices questioned Cox's argument that
it could not be held responsible for contributory infringement when
it knew only that some users infringed and did not act affirmatively
to enable it. "If I'm a gun dealer, and I'm selling to someone
who says to me, 'I want to kill my wife with this gun,' I think
the common law would say you knew what he was going to do with the
gun, you joined in," Sotomayor said. "Why isn't your continuing to
provide internet service the same?" "What incentive would you have
to do anything if you won?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked. "You
would have no liability risk going forward." Justice Elena Kagan,
on the other hand, questioned whether a win for the labels could
cause Cox to stop responding to infringement notices altogether.
"If you win, it seems to me that the best response that Cox could
have is just to make sure that it doesn't read any of your notices
again," Kagan told Paul Clement, the lawyer representing the labels,
"because all of your position is based on Cox having knowledge" of
the infringement. The justices also questioned the labels on the
breadth of their contributory liability argument. Clement argued
that an ISP must know that a user is "substantially certain" to
infringe to be responsible for failing to act. U.S. Deputy Solicitor
General Malcolm Stewart, representing President Donald Trump's
administration, argued in support of Cox on Monday. Justice Samuel
Alito said that the administration has told the Supreme Court "that
the decision of the 4th Circuit would threaten universal internet
access," noting a hypothetical situation in which an ISP shuts down
a university's internet account shared by thousands of students
and staff members based on a single user's infringement. "I really
don't see how your position works in that context," Alito told
Clement. Justice Neil Gorsuch also suggested that a lack of action
by Congress to define contributory liability could be a "flag of
caution in expanding it too broadly." Alphabet's (GOOGL.O) ,
Amazon (AMZN.O), Microsoft (MSFT.O)
, tab and other internet-focused tech companies supported
Cox in a joint filing to the Supreme Court. Music, film and book
industry trade groups filed briefs in support of the labels.
Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington; Editing by Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
--===============0233236659==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Hangout mailing list
Hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout
--===============0233236659==--
--===============0233236659==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
US Supreme Court wrestles with copyright dispute between Cox and
record labels
US Supreme Court wrestles with copyright dispute between Cox and
record labels By Blake Brittain December 1, 202512:17 PM ESTUpdated
19 mins ago General view shows the United States Supreme Court, in
Washington General view shows the United States Supreme Court, in
Washington, U.S., February 8, 2024. REUTERS/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/File
Photo Purchase Licensing Rights , opens new tab
WASHINGTON, Dec 1 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday
grappled with a bid by Cox Communications to avoid financial
liability in a major music copyright lawsuit by record labels that
accused the internet service provider of enabling its customers to
pirate thousands of songs. The justices during arguments in the
case appeared skeptical of Cox's assertion that its awareness of
user piracy could not justify holding it liable for contributory
copyright infringement. But the justices also questioned whether
holding Cox liable for failing to cut off infringers could impact
a wide range of innocent internet users.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue Report Ad "We are being put to
two extremes here," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. "How do we announce
a rule that deals with those two extremes?" Cox has appealed a
lower court's decision to order a new trial to determine how much
the Atlanta-based company owes Sony Music (6758.T) ,
Warner Music Group (WMG.O), Universal Music Group
(UMG.AS) , opens new tab and other labels for contributory copyright
infringement. Cox said the retrial could lead to a verdict against
it of as much as $1.5 billion. Cox, the largest unit of privately
owned Cox Enterprises, has argued it should not be held responsible
for piracy by its users of music owned by the labels in a case
being closely watched by internet service providers, or ISPs.
A ruling in favor of
the labels, according to Cox, could force it to cut off internet
access for "entire households, coffee shops, hospitals, universities"
and others "merely because some unidentified person was previously
alleged to have used the connection to infringe." 'LAISSEZ-FAIRE
ATTITUDE' Some justices appeared to agree with the labels that Cox
was particularly lax in addressing user infringement. "Your client's
sort of laissez-faire attitude towards the respondents is probably
what got the jury upset," Sotomayor told Cox attorney Joshua
Rosenkranz. A jury in Alexandria, Virginia, found in 2019 that
Cox owed the labels $1 billion for its secondary liability for the
copyright infringement by its customers of more than 10,000
copyrights. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals threw out the damages award in 2024 after reversing the
jury's finding on one form of secondary liability. 00:03 UK lawmaker
Siddiq gets jail in absentia in Bangladesh graft case The video
player is currently playing an ad. You can skip the ad in 5 sec
with a mouse or keyboard ISPs are generally not liable for user
infringement under U.S. law if they take reasonable measures to
prevent it. But the labels accused Cox of failing to address
thousands of infringement notices and failing to cut off internet
access for repeat infringers or take other measures to deter piracy.
The labels have argued that Cox's lack of action to protect their
copyrights was egregious enough to justify the infringement finding.
The jury, in awarding $1 billion to the record labels, found Cox
liable both for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement,
two forms of secondary copyright infringement liability. The 4th
Circuit ordered a retrial on the size of the award after affirming
the jury's finding of contributory infringement but reversing its
finding on vicarious liability. Contributory infringement involves
holding parties liable for someone else's infringement because they
knew about it and contributed to it. Vicarious infringement involves
holding parties liable for someone else's infringement because they
had the ability to control the infringement and benefited financially
from it. A GUN ANALOGY The justices questioned Cox's argument that
it could not be held responsible for contributory infringement when
it knew only that some users infringed and did not act affirmatively
to enable it. "If I'm a gun dealer, and I'm selling to someone
who says to me, 'I want to kill my wife with this gun,' I think
the common law would say you knew what he was going to do with the
gun, you joined in," Sotomayor said. "Why isn't your continuing to
provide internet service the same?" "What incentive would you have
to do anything if you won?" Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked. "You
would have no liability risk going forward." Justice Elena Kagan,
on the other hand, questioned whether a win for the labels could
cause Cox to stop responding to infringement notices altogether.
"If you win, it seems to me that the best response that Cox could
have is just to make sure that it doesn't read any of your notices
again," Kagan told Paul Clement, the lawyer representing the labels,
"because all of your position is based on Cox having knowledge" of
the infringement. The justices also questioned the labels on the
breadth of their contributory liability argument. Clement argued
that an ISP must know that a user is "substantially certain" to
infringe to be responsible for failing to act. U.S. Deputy Solicitor
General Malcolm Stewart, representing President Donald Trump's
administration, argued in support of Cox on Monday. Justice Samuel
Alito said that the administration has told the Supreme Court "that
the decision of the 4th Circuit would threaten universal internet
access," noting a hypothetical situation in which an ISP shuts down
a university's internet account shared by thousands of students
and staff members based on a single user's infringement. "I really
don't see how your position works in that context," Alito told
Clement. Justice Neil Gorsuch also suggested that a lack of action
by Congress to define contributory liability could be a "flag of
caution in expanding it too broadly." Alphabet's (GOOGL.O) ,
Amazon (AMZN.O), Microsoft (MSFT.O)
, tab and other internet-focused tech companies supported
Cox in a joint filing to the Supreme Court. Music, film and book
industry trade groups filed briefs in support of the labels.
Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington; Editing by Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
--===============0233236659==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Hangout mailing list
Hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout
--===============0233236659==--
|
|
