https://www.npr.org/2025/12/01/nx-s1-5626213/supreme-court-music-industry-internet-providershttps://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/30/supreme-court-case-music-piracy-cox-sony/87481019007/The Supreme Court on Monday hears a billion-dollar case about whether internet providers can be liable for their users' committing copyright violations using its services.The legal battle pits the music entertainment industry against Cox Communications, which provides internet to over 6 million residences and business.A coalition of music labels, which represent artists such as Sabrina Carpenter, Givēon, and Doechii, sued Cox alleging that company should be responsible for the copyright violations of internet users that Cox had been warned were serial copyright abusers.The coalition argues Cox was sent numerous notices of specific IP addresses repeatedly violating music copyrights and that Cox's failure to terminate those IP addresses from internet access means that Cox should face the music.In its briefs, the coalition argued many of Cox's anti-infringement measurements seem superficial and the company willingly overlooked violations.
The coalition points out that Cox had a 13-strike policy for potentially terminating infringing customers, under which Cox acted against a customer based on how many complaints it received about a particular user. The Cox manager who oversaw the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the law at issue in this case, told his team to "F the dmca!!!""Cox made a deliberate and egregious decision to elevate its own profits over compliance with the law," the coalition asserts.The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and a jury agreed with the coalition, with the jury awarding the coalition more than a billion dollars in damages.Cox argues it should not be liable for its customers' actions as it never encouraged the copyright infringements, its terms of service prohibit illegal activities, and it does not make additional money when customers use its internet to infringe on copyrights.In its briefs, Cox specified that less than 1% of its users infringe on music copyrights and that its internal compliance measures "got 95% of that less than 1% to stop." It asserts that if the Supreme Court does not side with them, then "that means terminating entire households, coffee shops, hospitals, universities, and even regional internet service providers (ISPs)—the internet lifeline for tens of thousands of homes and businesses—merely because some unidentified person was previously alleged to have used the connection to infringe."A decision in the case is expected this summer.
Did OP properly license that photo and text?
Those users were training AI. Case dismissed.
>>1461637>which represent artists such as Sabrina Carpenter, Givēon, and Doechiiliterally who?
I hate Copyright law and I hate everyone and everything related to it. Burn the whole system down!
>>1461669Shut up slave, I'm going to own the copyright to your genetic code one day
Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld said it best “The Left loves their New Buzzword Censorship, but like with any issue, it’s always PROJECTION! It’s like when REP. Rashida Tlaib calls you Hitler but yet she is the one who looks like she has a small mustache.”
>>1461726>'m going to own the copyright to your genetic code one dayOwning someone's genetic code won't give you that needed extra chromosome, anon.
is music piracy even an issue nowadays? everything is free on youtube, spotify, and bandcamp
>>1462799Record companies have long held that any listen at all could have been a paid listen, and therefore any time someone hears it without paying, they're stealing money from the record company. The idea that if someone was forced to pay then they just wouldn't listen at all is entirely alien to them. I'm sure internally they consider anyone using adblock as thieves too.
