"Some justices were skeptical of arguments that ISPs should have no legal obligation under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to terminate an account when a user's IP address has been repeatedly flagged for downloading pirated music. But justices also seemed hesitant to rule in favor of record labels, with some of the debate focusing on how ISPs should handle large accounts like universities where there could be tens of thousands of users."
"You didn't try to work with universities and ask them to start looking at an anti-infringement notice to their students. You could have worked with a multi-family dwelling and asked the people in charge of that dwelling to send out a notice or do something about it. You did nothing and, in fact, counselor, your clients' sort of laissez-faire attitude toward the respondents is probably what got the jury upset."
"A jury ordered Cox to pay over $1 billion in 2019, but the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit overturned that damages verdict in February 2024. The appeals court found that Cox did not profit directly from copyright infringement committed by its users, but affirmed the jury's separate finding of willful contributory infringement. Cox is asking the Supreme Court to clear it"
Supreme Court justices questioned whether Internet service providers must terminate accounts of broadband users repeatedly accused of copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Justices expressed skepticism that ISPs have no legal obligation while showing reluctance to adopt record labels' strict demands. The justices debated how to handle large institutional accounts such as universities where many users share a connection. Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized Cox for not working with universities or multi-family dwellings to curb infringement. A jury had ordered over $1 billion in 2019; the 4th Circuit overturned damages but upheld willful contributory infringement.
Read at Ars Technica
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]