https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/11/supreme-court-may-decide-whether-isps-must-terminate-users-accused-of-piracy/The Supreme Court signaled it may take up a case that could determine whether Internet service providers must terminate users who are accused of copyright infringement. In an order issued today, the court invited the Department of Justice's solicitor general to file a brief "expressing the views of the United States."In Sony Music Entertainment v. Cox Communications, the major record labels argue that cable provider Cox should be held liable for failing to terminate users who were repeatedly flagged for infringement based on their IP addresses being connected to torrent downloads. There was a mixed ruling at the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit as the appeals court affirmed a jury's finding that Cox was guilty of willful contributory infringement but reversed a verdict on vicarious infringement "because Cox did not profit from its subscribers' acts of infringement."
>>1364194That ruling vacated a $1 billion damages award and ordered a new damages trial. Cox and Sony are both seeking a Supreme Court review. Cox wants to overturn the finding of willful contributory infringement, while Sony wants to reinstate the $1 billion verdict.The Supreme Court asking for US input on Sony v. Cox could be a precursor to the high court taking up the case. For example, the court last year asked the solicitor general to weigh in on Texas and Florida laws that restricted how social media companies can moderate their platforms. The court subsequently took up the case and vacated lower-court rulings, making it clear that content moderation is protected by the First Amendment.
>>1364195Record labels vs. ISPsCox has said that letting the piracy ruling stand "would force ISPs to terminate Internet service to households or businesses based on unproven allegations of infringing activity, and put them in a position of having to police their networks." Cox said that ISPs "have no way of verifying whether a bot-generated notice is accurate" and that even if the notices are accurate, terminating an account would punish every user in a household where only one person may have illegally downloaded copyrighted files.Record labels urged the court to reinstate the vicarious infringement verdict. "As the District Court explained, the jury had ample evidence that Cox profited from its subscribers' infringement, including evidence 'that when deciding whether to terminate a subscriber for repeat infringement, Cox considered the subscriber's monthly payments,' and 'Cox repeatedly declined to terminate infringing subscribers' Internet service in order to continue collecting their monthly fees,'" the record labels' petition said.Another potentially important copyright case involves the record labels and Grande, an ISP owned by Astound Broadband. The conservative-leaning US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled last month that Grande violated the law by failing to terminate subscribers accused of being repeat infringers. The 5th Circuit also ordered a new trial on damages because it said a $46.8 million award was too high. Grande and the record labels are both seeking en banc rehearings of the 5th Circuit panel ruling.
the one time you actually want an isp to win
It's literally over.
Torrents are literally just filesharing. There is no stealing or privacy being done. It's no different than somebody buying Linkin Park's hybrid theory album and sharing it with friends.
Weird that Cox was sued instead of saying, Comcast, ATT or spectrum.I wonder if any multimedia conglomerates own the other three. I wonder if Sony USA is owned by one.
Have you ever considered buying things? What's the point in earning money if you're not going to spend it?
>>1364278> What's the point in earning money if you're not going to spend it?The point is to retire
>>1364285So you have money when you become old and retarded? Doesn't sound like an efficient way to spend it.
>>1364289Imagine passing something to your kids instead of giving all your money to Hollywood Jewry.
>>1364289You would rather be old and have no money?
>>1364310When you're old and retarded, you won't really be able to make the most out of all that saved money. At retirement age, just start eating cave mushrooms or something.
>>1364311u ever see old people working at the hardware store? is that anyone's plan?
>>1364278Yea I buy things all the time, buy you can't actually own ethereal virtual bits of information that only exist as logical references on computing devices, so its not something that can really be sold in the first place.
>>1364310Yea being old with money puts a giant target on your back and is half the reason old people get slapped with conservatories at the first sign of illness.
>>1364278How do you actually buy music so that you own it forever?And before you post something retarded, like buy a CD think for a minute
>>1364278nowadays artists dont even release physical albums
>>1364311you're already retarded. the money you save for your retirement is to cover medical costs. after 50 you get a new health issue every week
>>1364517No, that is what insurance is for dummy.
This is a blantant example of intellectual property owners stealing money from households using the judicial system.
>>1364637insurance never covers everything you need as an old fuck. especially in the us
