Supreme Court Wants US Input On Whether ISPs Should Be Liable For Users' Piracy (arstechnica.com) 31
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Supreme Court signaled it may take up a case that could determine whether Internet service providers must terminate users who are accused of copyright infringement. In an order (PDF) issued today, the court invited the Department of Justice's solicitor general to file a brief "expressing the views of the United States."
In Sony Music Entertainment v. Cox Communications, the major record labels argue that cable provider Cox should be held liable for failing to terminate users who were repeatedly flagged for infringement based on their IP addresses being connected to torrent downloads. There was a mixed ruling at the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit as the appeals court affirmed a jury's finding that Cox was guilty of willful contributory infringement but reversed a verdict on vicarious infringement "because Cox did not profit from its subscribers' acts of infringement." That ruling vacated a $1 billion damages award and ordered a new damages trial. Cox and Sony are both seeking a Supreme Court review. Cox wants to overturn the finding of willful contributory infringement, while Sony wants to reinstate the $1 billion verdict.
The Supreme Court asking for US input on Sony v. Cox could be a precursor to the high court taking up the case. For example, the court last year asked the solicitor general to weigh in on Texas and Florida laws that restricted how social media companies can moderate their platforms. The court subsequently took up the case and vacated lower-court rulings, making it clear that content moderation is protected by the First Amendment.
In Sony Music Entertainment v. Cox Communications, the major record labels argue that cable provider Cox should be held liable for failing to terminate users who were repeatedly flagged for infringement based on their IP addresses being connected to torrent downloads. There was a mixed ruling at the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit as the appeals court affirmed a jury's finding that Cox was guilty of willful contributory infringement but reversed a verdict on vicarious infringement "because Cox did not profit from its subscribers' acts of infringement." That ruling vacated a $1 billion damages award and ordered a new damages trial. Cox and Sony are both seeking a Supreme Court review. Cox wants to overturn the finding of willful contributory infringement, while Sony wants to reinstate the $1 billion verdict.
The Supreme Court asking for US input on Sony v. Cox could be a precursor to the high court taking up the case. For example, the court last year asked the solicitor general to weigh in on Texas and Florida laws that restricted how social media companies can moderate their platforms. The court subsequently took up the case and vacated lower-court rulings, making it clear that content moderation is protected by the First Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah that about sums it up, eh?
The idea that an "accusation" is sufficient for anything even close is ludicrous. Prove it in court, then we'll talk.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, its insane that to consider "accusation" as a threshold for anything here.
But frankly, even a conviction, or even serial convictions shouldn't be the threshold here.
The internet is becoming over time an essential service, like telephone and electricity. To outright take away someones right to use it, should require something FAR beyond mere copyright infringement to even considering suspend someone's right to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, car manufacturers will be liable for speeding, and mail services reponsible for stolen/illegal goods being shipped.
They are Internet Service *Providers* (Score:4, Insightful)
not Internet Service Police.
Policing should not be their job. It should never be their job.
Why isn't that obvious???
Re: (Score:3)
I think it has to do with "common carrier" status. A common carrier has to treat everyone equally. They don't want to do that, but they don't want to be held responsible for what content they choose to carry either.
Re: (Score:2)
Was AT&T responsible for phone scams or prank calls?
It's got nothing to do with common carrier (Score:3)
They also want to be able to dox and harass their opponents. Again, without getting banned.
They do not, of course, want to extend any of this to said opponents.
None of this matters, because Section 230 of the CDA explicitly protects the creators of a software based communication platform f
Re: (Score:2)
They also want to be able to dox and harass their opponents. Again, without getting banned.
A bit late for one of them [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:2)
The case isn't about platforms, it is about ISPs where common carrier status does matter. If ISPs aren't treated as common carriers, than they could be held liable for piracy committed by their users.
I also don't think there's as much money on the piracy side of the battle as folks here would like to imagine. Comcast owns Universal, which is a big IP holder, and I really can't see them flying the Jolly Roger on this one.
Treating them as common carrier (Score:2)
I say "unless you're paying attention" because they've struck down dozens of laws & rules that would've increase everyone's pay, gave us cleaner and safer water and air, and stopped businesses from abusing us.
But hey, ignorance is bliss. Until it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't think of my comment as "right wing", nor do I think of myself as such. I do think if an web site wants to be immune from responsibility for what it carries, it cannot police it beyond what is proscribed by law. If a web site. or social media, or any other site curates its content, it should be held responsible for what it publishes. How does this differ from traditional media? Maybe I'm missing something.
That's actually worse (Score:2)
Propaganda works unless you're hyper aware of it to an almost unhealthy degree...
Re: (Score:2)
It IS obvious, as are most of the other simple legal arguments people are posting (such as the whole innocent until proven guilty bit).
So obvious, in fact, that I suspect "asking for input" really means "soliciting the interested parties to bribe against each other."
Re: (Score:2)
Those tour bus sized RVs don't come cheap you know!
In the spirit of..... (Score:1)
Stupid ideas (Score:5, Insightful)
The MPAA / RIAA have decided it's too much work to go after individual copyright infringers, so they
want to put the burden of policing the entire internet onto the ISP's themselves.
For them, it's far easier to sue one entity ( and more profitable ) than it is to go through the process
of unmasking every John / Jane Doe on the internet whom they accuse of copyright infringement.
-emphasis on accuse-
Until someone has been found guilty and exhausted all appeals, they are considered innocent until
proven otherwise in this Country. ( At least, that's how it's -supposed- to work )
You don't get to start doling out punishments until the aforementioned court processes have concluded.
( Which are expensive. Thus the reason they don't want to bother going that route. )
Re: (Score:1)
The MPAA / RIAA have decided it's too much work to go after individual copyright infringers, so they want to put the burden of policing the entire internet onto the ISP's themselves.
This feels intentionally obtuse. The copyright holders go after the ISPs because they don't know which user has had a specific IP address assigned to them - But they do know which ISP has ownership of that IP address.
Furthermore, the ISP does not want to responsible for unmasking the personal data of their users - So they
Re: Stupid ideas (Score:2)
Accused? (Score:1)
Not "found guilty of"?
It seems that Sony has stolen the plot of my new movie. It is about the beginnings of a new corporatist police state where the right to due process under the law no longer exists.
I say: Unplug their Internet.
Re:Accused? (Score:1)
accused of copyright infringement with no trail an (Score:2)
accused of copyright infringement with no trail and poor standard of evidence?
Uh... NO (Score:2)
I can barely trust the ISPs to provide an accurate invoice, why would I trust them with getting the law correct?
If ISPs are liable for repeat offenders (Score:5, Insightful)
Then copyright holders need to be liable for false reports. Preferably criminally liable, for whoever puts their name to the complaint without verifying it is valid. At the very least, any lawyers (and it's always a lawyer) who put their name to a false complaint should be automatically disbarred, absent any evidence of deliberate deception against them.
Re: (Score:1)
There's a Supreme Court? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We call them gratuities now, thank you very much. https://www.scotusblog.com/202... [scotusblog.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps I'm being too generous, but I don't think you are stupid enough to truly believe anything you just said.
Copyright vs. Guns (Score:3, Interesting)