Supreme Court Seeks US Views in $1 Billion Music Copyright Case

I came across some interesting articles about a large upcoming music copyright case and how it relates to the issue of ISPs and internet providers being liable for their infringing customers. The Supreme Court of the United States has asked the federal government their thoughts about large music companies (Sony, Warner and Universal) suing an internet provider (Cox Communications Inc) for failing to shut down accounts of users who downloaded and distributed songs without permission. Cox refused to cancel subscribers’ internet service even after the music labels claimed that these same subscribers were infringing their copyrights.

Orignally a federal jury in Virginia found in 2019 that Cox willfully enabled subscribers to copy more than 10,000 works using peer-to-peer networks. The jury awarded close to $100,000 for each infringement. Both sides now look to the Supreme Court for review after the federal appeals court struck down part of a $1 billion jury verdict against Cox and ordered a new trial on damages.

If the SCOTUS takes up this case, which it seems it will, it will be extremely noteworthy to see how it is decided as it will have major consequences to the duties of ISPs going forward and their customers. If ISPs are held accountable for failing to take action against those who infringe on music copyright while using their internet services then the “common carrier” exception will be in trouble in the United States. One can’t help but think of the SOCAN v CAIP (2004) case in Canada that affirmed the “common carrier exception” through the “mere conduit” principle. If the SCOTUS does not reaffirm this principle in the US it could lead to some very severe consequences for ISPs and their users. It could require ISPs to have to police their users and potentially cut off internet access if they are accused of infringement, which is notoriously difficult to prove and takes a lot of effort. The following article (below) expands on the importance of the decision in this case and the danger of eliminating the “common carrier” exception in the US. It also provides some more context for this case and its implications.