While the idea of giving the whole internet a slap on the wrist might be a hard one to get our head around, that's exactly what happened after the Supreme Court made a landmark decision on a massive music piracy case.
Copyright and the internet are a musical minefield, and as we're sure TikTok and YouTube will tell you, it's no laughing matter. After Cox Communications was ordered to pay $1 billion for failing to properly police music piracy, the case rumbles on to the Supreme Court on December 1.
Groups representing musicians and entertainers claim that the high court failing to hold service providers accountable would "spell disaster for the music community." On the flip side of this, Cox Communications warns that clamping down too hard could "jeopardize internet access for all Americans.”
Despite being the largest private broadband company in America, Cox Communications is sure to feel the sting of its $1 billion fine. The proposed payout came after record companies maintained that the internet behemoth helped 60,000 customers distribute over 10,000 copyrighted works for absolutely nothing.
Advert
Back in 2019, Cox took the case to the Supreme Court and asked it to intervene after Sony Music Entertainment and around 50 other record labels sued amid allegations that the internet provider didn't do enough to stop piracy and failed to cut off repeat offenders.
As reported by USA Today, this bit Cox on the backside when a jury sided with the music industry and handed down the $1 billion judgment. It was then thrown out by the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered a new trial based on reduced violations.
While the Supreme Court denied Sony Music Entertainment and the others' request to review whether the Court of Appeals was right to throw out one copyright violation and hear whether Cox could appeal for “materially contributing” to copyright infringement, things are moving forward.
Cox claims that for it to be liable, it must’ve actively assisted piracy instead of just failing to prevent it.
Antipiracy software flags when someone is downloading or distributing copyrighted music, and although it's raised to a service provider, Cox says that being punished for allowing a user's service to continue "after receiving automated notices accusing an unknown user at a home or business” or sharing music “defies common law and common sense.”
In a filing, Cox Communications says that it would have to cut off the internet to homes, military barracks, hospitals, and more based on a 'bare accusation' against one user at an IP address, adding: "That notion turns internet providers into internet police and jeopardizes internet access for millions of users."
Cox is supported by the Department of Justice, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, and the likes of X and Google. The ACLU backed up Cox's argument about removing the internet “based merely on notices from copyright owners – which are nothing more than untested, unverifiable allegations."
Highlighting the problem with this blanket ruling, it added: “Parents’ internet access, for example, may be terminated based on the conduct of their children – over even their children’s friends.
“A hospital that offers internet access to dozens or even hundreds of patients and their families could find critical access shut off.”
Still, a brief from the Motion Picture Association supports the music industry as it maintains Cox could've done more: "Cox has no one but itself to blame for having made the intentional choice not to take even minimal steps to address its customers’ repeat infringement.”
Sony alleges that peer-to-peer file sharing made up 21% of all Cox's traffic at one point. If that wasn't enough, one email from a Cox manager in charge of overseeing compliance supposedly clapped back at the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as he told colleagues: “F the dcma!!”