Supreme Court Hears Copyright Battle Over Online Music Piracy

At issue is whether internet providers can be held liable for repeated copyright infringements of users, with potentially billions of dollars on the line.

The Supreme Court on Monday grappled with the practical implications of a closely watched copyright clash testing whether internet providers can be held liable for the piracy of thousands of songs online.

Leading music labels and publishers who represent artists ranging from Bob Dylan to Beyoncé sued Cox Communications in 2018, saying it had failed to terminate the internet connections of subscribers who had been repeatedly flagged for illegally downloading and distributing copyrighted music.

At issue is whether providers like Cox can be held legally responsible and be required to pay steep damages — a billion dollars or more — if they know that customers are pirating the music but do not take sufficient steps to terminate their internet access.

Justices from across the ideological spectrum on Monday raised concerns about whether finding for the music industry could result in internet providers being forced to cut off access to large account holders such as hospitals and universities because of the illegal acts of individual users.

“What is the university supposed to do in your view?” asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., a conservative, suggesting it would be difficult to track down bad actors without the risk of losing service campuswide. “I just don’t see how it’s workable at all.”

“The internet is so amorphous,” added Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal, saying that a single “customer” could represent tens of thousands of users, particularly in rural areas where an entire region might be considered a “customer.”

After nearly two hours of argument, a majority of justices seemed likely to side with Cox and to send the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for review under a stricter standard. Several justices suggested the company’s “mere knowledge” of the illegal downloads was not sufficient to hold Cox liable.

The arguments kicked off a busy December for the Supreme Court, which is scheduled to hear a series of major cases over the next two weeks, including one that will test President Trump’s power to fire independent regulators.

Courts have long held that people can be liable for providing another person or entity the tools to commit copyright infringement. Two decades ago, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the file-sharing company Grokster could be held responsible for the violations of its users.

But in a pair of more recent cases unrelated to copyright law, the justices declined to hold technology platforms liable for problematic content posted by their users. The rulings in 2023 did not resolve the question of what responsibility platforms should have for content posted on their sites. In the rulings, the justices were not divided along ideological lines.

Free speech advocates, including the A.C.L.U., have urged the Supreme Court to side with Cox in the case heard on Monday, warning of a chilling effect on free expression if internet companies could be on the hook for hefty penalties for the actions of their users. They have argued that such a ruling could result in speech-related lawsuits against other kinds of intermediaries, including bookstores and social media platforms.

While music piracy is not the existential threat to the industry it was when the internet was newer, and before paid streaming services became popular, illegal uploading and downloading of music has become faster than ever, and continues to rob artists of their exclusive rights, their lawyers told the court. They said that Cox ignored bad actors, helping 60,000 users distribute more than 10,000 copyrighted songs for free in order to keep subscriber payments flowing.

“It is beyond dispute that Cox provided the service to known infringers, with substantial knowledge that what they themselves called ‘habitual abusers’ would continue to infringe,” Paul D. Clement, a former solicitor general, told the justices on behalf of the music industry, led by Sony Music Entertainment.

After a 12-day trial in 2019, a jury found Cox liable for all 10,017 songs at issue, and awarded Sony $1 billion in damages. The company appealed.

Cox Communications provides internet service to more than six million homes and businesses in more than a dozen states. The company warned of widespread disruptions in access if the justices ruled against it.

Cox said it could be required to terminate access for households, hotels and coffee shops if the lower court decision is affirmed.

“Turning internet providers into internet police” will “wreak havoc with the essential medium through which modern public engages in commerce and speech,” the company’s lawyer, E. Joshua Rosenkranz, said on Monday.

Decades ago, Congress offered service providers some protection from liability while trying to preserve copyrights in the digital age. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act shields providers from some lawsuits, but only if the companies carry out anti-piracy policies.

Cox requires users to electronically sign an agreement acknowledging the risk of suspension or termination if they illegally download copyrighted works. Under its policy, Cox can cut off service after a user receives a total of 13 notices for infringement, according to court filings.

In its lawsuit, the music industry argued that Cox should be held liable for not cutting off service to subscribers who received three or more notices. Cox terminated just 32 users for repeated copyright infringement, the industry said. On the other hand, it had “no qualms” about terminating nearly 620,000 subscribers for nonpayment during the same period.

“While Cox stokes fears of innocent grandmothers and hospitals being tossed off the internet for someone else’s infringement,” the industry said, it had continued to provide service for those “habitual offenders” flagged for illegal downloads.

Several justices pushed back on Cox’s claims that it had taken sufficient steps to track down bad actors. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, often a key vote, asked what incentive the company would have to try to stop copyright infringement if it prevailed in this case.

“Why would you bother to send out any notices in the future?” she asked. “What would your obligation be?”

Mr. Rosenkranz said the company was a “good corporate citizen” and did “all sorts of things that the law does not require us to do.”

The company argues that courts have said that it has to be aware of bad behavior and purposefully act to further the illegal activity in order to be held liable. Failing to take steps to prevent the infringement, the company said, is not enough.

For instance, in a case involving the social media platform then known as Twitter, the Supreme Court said in its 2023 ruling that it did not generally think “internet or cell service providers incur culpability merely for providing their services to the public writ large.”

The Fourth Circuit upheld the jury’s finding of “willful contributory infringement” by Cox, saying there was sufficient evidence that the company was to blame for copyright infringement on its network.

But the court ordered a new trial on a separate issue and vacated the $1 billion judgment, saying Cox did not profit from subscribers downloading and distributing the copyrighted songs.

The Trump administration is backing Cox’s position, citing the government’s interest in ensuring broad availability of communications services online.

Related Content