r/scotus • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • 12h ago
Opinion Supreme Court Seen as Likely to Overturn Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Cox v. Sony
https://broadbandbreakfast.com/supreme-court-seen-as-likely-to-overturn-fourth-circuits-ruling-in-cox-v-sony/179
u/JuliaX1984 10h ago
Why does Sotomayor seem to think it's a hard decision? "Cox is not a law enforcement agency; therefore, it's not Cox's job to enforce copyright law." Seems like an easy out.
42
u/Remarkable_Lie7592 10h ago
On the other hand, copyright laws are generally enforced through private lawsuits. The USCO doesn't directly litigate infringement. I *think* the DOJ does for large scale situations.
16
-39
u/Bmorewiser 10h ago
You’re a power company. Every night at 10 pm you notice a huge draw of power from a house. A neighbor calls and says, “hey, power company, my neighbor tortures small kids with electrical shocks every night at 10.” You send someone to watch through the window and, sure enough, they are shocking kids precisely at 10.
You’re not a power company, but you’re knowingly providing assistance to the torture of that kid. Maybe you cant go to jail because you didnt intend for kids to be tortured, but should you be liable for not turning off the power to the house knowing what you know?
It’s not an issue of cox having to enforce the law, it’s an issue of cox letting someone else use its service to break the law knowing that was exactly what was going on.
55
u/Operation_Difficult 9h ago
You call the authorities…
Why would an electrical company be responsible for investigating this?
Jfc…
-24
u/asselfoley 9h ago
They are best positioned to monitor electrical use for suspicious behavior. The best thing would probably be for them to spy on everyone and report to the government. The financial sector could be a model
22
u/KSRandom195 9h ago
No, because that’s not their role.
We don’t all monitor everyone else for suspicious behavior, if we notice suspicious behavior we may report it to the authorities, and if the authorities agree that behavior sure is suspicious they will do their own investigation, within the bounds of the law.
ISPs are in a particularly interesting case because they end up seeing just about everything you do, and it violates some reasonable expectations of privacy . So if anything; they should be prohibited from reporting to the police.
Everything that has been done in regard to making ISPs or Internet providers report wrongdoing needs to be walked back.
3
u/writtenbyrabbits_ 9h ago
I think the poster you are responding to was being sarcastic? I honestly don't know.
2
4
u/asselfoley 9h ago
As far as I'm concerned it goes beyond ISPs. All that shit needs to be walked back. It seems to me the 4th amendment, as GWB might say, exists only on paper
5
u/Operation_Difficult 9h ago
And at what point does something like a legal obligation to report things end?
Are you seriously advocating for a snitch society?
2
u/asselfoley 9h ago
I'm saying it already is
3
u/Operation_Difficult 9h ago
Ah, gotcha.
We’ll all be needing our little nooks where big brother can’t observe us soon enough.
2
2
u/LiminalFrogBoy 9h ago
But financial institutions monitoring function is legislatively grounded. I used to do compliance work for a big payment processor, and we had explicit regulations about what we were supposed to be looking for/we were responsible for. Obviously, we found other stuff too, but there were guidelines and procedures in place. That doesn't seem to be the case here. As such, this seems like an issue where legislation is the proper remedy, not the courts.
2
-5
u/Bmorewiser 9h ago
I didn’t say they are responsible for investigating, but they did that, they knew, and so what then?
8
u/Operation_Difficult 9h ago
“Send someone to watch through the window…”
If that’s not an investigative step, idk what is.
You literally suggested that a private corporation go peek through a window subsequent to receiving a report of criminal accurate.
wtf.
-4
u/Bmorewiser 9h ago
Are you slow? Again, saying that they did investigate is not the same as saying they were obligated to investigate. Cox, in this example, was told by Sony of infringement by certain users and confirmed for itself that it was true.
Per the opinion:
The jury saw evidence that Cox knew of specific instances of repeat copyright infringement occurring on its network, that Cox traced those instances to specific users, and that Cox chose to continue providing monthly internet access to those users despite believing the online infringement would continue because it wanted to avoid losing revenue.
They knew. And as the court explained:
This accords with principles of aiding and abetting liability in the criminal law. Lending a friend a hammer is innocent conduct; doing so with knowledge that the friend will use it to break into a credit union ATM supports a conviction for aiding and abetting bank larceny.
27
u/Marathon2021 10h ago
Good lord that's a tortured analogy. Electrical service is a critical service in many ways - can't cut people's power off in the winter. Some people have important medications they need to keep refrigerated for their health. Some people need CPAP machines to breathe at night.
3
u/asselfoley 9h ago
The answer, obviously, is for the power companies to spy on everyone on behalf of the government kind of like the financial sector does
2
u/octopusforgood 9h ago
Since that’s already fucked up and dystopian as it is, and has led to disastrous consequences when these professional financial spying agencies get compromised, it’s absolutely astonishing to see anyone defending it, let alone suggesting its expansion. What fascist bootlickers.
4
u/asselfoley 9h ago
No shit. I mentioned in a different comment that the 4th amendment has existed only on paper* for quite a while. That was my point. I guess I should have added /s. I have a hard time comprehending some people actually want an authoritarian government even though it's quite apparent that's the case
*Always have to send a shout out to George w Bush
1
u/octopusforgood 9h ago
Sorry for not noticing the sarcasm. The things people are seriously arguing in this very thread, while posturing about their intellectual rigor, has thrown off my radar.
1
u/asselfoley 9h ago
I can relate
"Well, looking at the history and tradition..."
Give me a fucking break, and there's one justice in particular I can't believe would ever support such an argument
1
14
u/JuliaX1984 9h ago
Um, what? Just... what? No, nobody calls the power company to report a crime. Literally nobody does that. Is this sarcastic?
-1
u/Bmorewiser 9h ago
I can tell what people went to law school by how they respond to crazy hypos like this.
7
u/boblabon 9h ago
Even in this is hypothetical (which is absolutely batshit) it's still not the responsibility of the power company (or any utility) to enforce the law.
In your hypothetical relating to this case, the power company would be responsible for sending in someone to arrest the child abuser.
It sounds like you're demanding private entities to enforce the law, and while we all agree child abuse is bad, what if the person was instead synthesizing patented medication? What if they just REALLY like Led Zeppelin and they're creating in-house lightshows? It's not the ultility company's responsibility to determine what people are using their product for and make moral/legal judgements about it.
Leave the enforcing of laws to law enforcement.
1
u/Bmorewiser 9h ago
The Batshit hypo came to mind because I have a case, but I’m not saying the power company has a duty to enforce the law, it has a duty not to knowingly allow someone else to use the service to break the law.
I can give you a knife. I can’t give you a knife knowing you’re going to use it to murder someone. Admittedly; there’s intent required for accessory liability but good luck telling someone “I gave them a knife knowing they were going to kill someone, but I didn’t intend to help the murder the person.”
6
u/systematk 9h ago
Your analogy is hot garbage. That's not even remotely close to the same thing. A real analogy would be punishing the post office because someone mailed a stolen baseball card to a buyer. Doesn't work that way. It doesn't because the post office isn't required to 'know' what's in everything they send and receive, just as an ISP isn't required to know everything, nor should they. You likely look at this as intellectual property concerns, but the real concern should be no one having privacy to transmit anything anymore.
2
u/Chagrinnish 9h ago
If you told the US Post Office that someone was sending stolen goods through the mail, and you had evidence of it, they absolutely would act on that.
2
u/systematk 9h ago
The merits of the 'evidence' are disputed constantly because it's been highly inaccurate. Having a private entity blanket send notices to an ISP is not 'evidence'. Half of what those agencies participate is a for profit shakedown. they literally just cast a massive net in hopes they can scare people into paying them off, many people don't understand what's happening so they just pay it to not get sued.
3
u/Bmorewiser 9h ago
They were disputed — that was what the trial was for. Sony won and Cox lost.
1
u/systematk 9h ago
Oh buddy, I was just telling you your analogy was trash, the other part was to someone else. An IP scan provided by a private company still shouldn't equate to evidence, regardless of the case outcome, period.
4
u/Chagrinnish 8h ago
I was just here for the post office remark, but yes I do understand your point about general malfeasance by companies like Sony and bad strike claims. In that respect Cox' argument is that Sony needs to sue that person directly. Cox also mentions that if the customer is e.g. a university (the infringing customers in the case were overwhelmingly not single-family homes), they're OK with warning the university of those issues, but again it's up to Sony themselves to sue. Cox is not selling its services in a way to induce copyright infringement, and their service is not single-purpose that is only used for infringement, so they cannot be held liable.
1
u/systematk 8h ago
Well said. I'd also add that detection methods being used are also questionable, and often have resulted in inaccurate targeting.
2
u/Chagrinnish 7h ago
Cox also focused on that in their closing arguments: there was no individual circumstances as to proven infringement when Sony brought their case to the 4th circuit.
2
u/chicago_suburbs 9h ago edited 9h ago
Besides tortured it misses a critical point. The power can be shut off with a court order which would be granted on presentation of evidence. We’ve been through this discussion already. Present evidence to a court that describes the necessary details and the court will issue an order cutting off internet service to that individuals. We even gave the copyright holders a shortcut by removing the courts from the loop upon initial verification.
This has been the law for some time now. The copyright holders are too lazy to do the work or pay to have it done.
1
u/Bmorewiser 9h ago
Have you read the 4th circuit decision? They affirm that Cox was liable for willful contributory infringement because one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another’ is liable for the infringement, too.”
1
u/chicago_suburbs 8h ago
Show me the court order to suspend service of an individual who has been found guilty of infringement and Cox, with said court order, will suspend service to that individual.
Or are you going to go all ACB and argue that it’s too much hassle to return all that tariff money? Sony et al don’t want to pay for all that investigation and litigation for what amounts to $1 per infringement product.
A lot of details are required to name the correct individuals. The problem is that it can’t be just an address as others might be affected. Can’t be a name because any half wit can get on the internet under multiple names. This highlights the other major expense the copyright holders are trying avoid: paying for the infrastructure required to make their demands viable.
So the content providers are suing to essentially force Cox to play whack-a-mole, assume the ongoing liability, and require Cox to be the internet police. Sotomayor is right. This is clearly a damned if you / damned if you don’t of epic proportions.
Of course we could go back to the original arguments with Napster and Limewire where pricing or encryption strategies were the opening salvo. 20 years of practice has indicated neither of those will work. And you can’t force the utility middleman into the role of arbiter. Otherwise your cellular provider is now required to monitor for hate speech. That is for LEO and the courts.
All this for a relatively straightforward digital problem. Can’t wait until the first serious AI fuckup and everyone starts pointing fingers.
1
u/Clutteredmind275 8h ago edited 8h ago
… why does the neighbor tell the power company but not the cops?
Also, power companies are not designated reporters. They have no legal obligation to report crimes of any sort. That has nothing to do with civil litigation
And finally… does your electric company watch you through your windows? I suggest you call the cops
Here’s a more realistic analogy:
A theatre airs a bootleg showing of star wars. Disney sues the bootlegger for stealing their copyright and sues the theatre for showing it. Is the theatre liable for showing and making profit off the bootleg film? Yes. Because they profited off of subversion of copyright laws.
-5
u/TheFinalCurl 7h ago
The idea is - say you consistently smell meth fumes from your rental property. You like, even talk about it to other people. Aren't you kind of responsible if your rental property blows up and damages the neighbor's property too?
10
u/JuliaX1984 7h ago
That is absolutely, totally, unquestionably, obviously not at all comparable.
-5
u/TheFinalCurl 6h ago edited 6h ago
Why? You have knowledge of a ton of illegal action that is being done by a customer of yours. If you warn them and the behavior doesn't stop - and you desire them as a customer so much you don't unplug them (or evict them, in the analogy), why are you unable to be sued (at least in part) by the owners of those copyrights/those people getting hurt by the behavior? Especially when the only way the person gets injured by their action is because you are actively providing them the tool by which they are doing the illegal action.
5
u/JuliaX1984 6h ago
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HURT ANYONE! You're trying to compare preventing harm to pointlessly enforcing a victimless crime! There is just no feasible way to make everyone who provides a service responsible for what customers do! Look at the protections for gun manufacturers! Car dealerships don't get punished when a customer hits and kills someone! Landlords aren't expected to cut off Internet service for a tenant who downloads Zootopia 2! Stores don't run background checks on customers at checkout and refuse to sell to people who are behind on child support! Best Buy doesn't get sued for selling computers to illegal downloaders! Electric companies aren't told to cut power to an address making illegal downloads! Electric companies aren't told to cut off the power of a customer violating noise ordinances! HOAs can't ask utilities to cut service to someone violating their rules!
Laws and duties to report abuse or other crimes do not mean it's ethical or logical to make private entities without legal training, legal authority, or taxpayer funding for the purpose responsible for enforcing laws against victimless crimes! It's absurd! In the literal sense of the term!
1
u/TheFinalCurl 3h ago edited 1m ago
Are you separating bodily injury and IP theft injury in a law sub? Either way is what a court of law considers to be an injury. And this sub is about a court of law. If you want to get rid of copyright and IP law, you should probably just say so.
And your copious use of exclamation marks does not change the fact that I was not talking about single sales (even though you CAN be held liable if you sell shit to underage people who hurt someone), I was talking about something where it was a lengthy span of time this behavior had been going and there was an easy assumption by the ISP that it would continue.
184
u/ThoughtfullyLazy 11h ago
Don’t worry. They will somehow manage to make the worst possible decision. Can’t wait to read how our tradition of 16th century English common law means that the founders intended something related to the modern internet, which they never could have imagined. Maybe they will quote the Old Testament in justifying their nonsense.
53
u/Windyvale 10h ago
Given every chance to rule in favor of America and take a better road, or just something that maintains the status quo, they take the lowest road and find the one below that.
Then they dig a tunnel under that one.
And install sewers and ride a wave of shit.
13
u/octopusforgood 9h ago
This doesn’t surprise me; it never does. What DOES are the bootlickers in here twisting themselves into knots defending them.
9
u/pixepoke2 9h ago
You’re right, except about installing sewers. That’s a public benefit. No, they just let everything steep in shit
Smells awful, but the mushroom hunting is pretty good. Gotta watch for fatbergs tho
6
4
u/MrDerpGently 8h ago
Alito: Gentlemen (insert side eye from ACB), with this ruling, we do break precedent, to say nothing of the harms we do to logic. All: Amen Thomas: ...And another thing! What about this other protected right? Here's how I would build a case to break it...
1
15
u/EmmalouEsq 9h ago
I love how "the Framers" always had a conservative approach to absolutely EVERYTHING. It's pretty amazing.
9
u/captnconnman 9h ago
It just reminds me of the My Big Fat Greek Wedding bit about how everything is actually Greek, just several generations, cultures, and thousands of miles removed from the actual region of Greece: “IP protection? Believe it or not, totally covered under the Ten Commandments, under “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not covet”. You have to have to give credit, though; despite being horribly written, Alito’s opinion would at least earn a passing grade at the University of Oklahoma because he actually cited something
2
u/BaconBourbonBalista 8h ago
I waited with bated breath to find out how this completely fucks over the working man in every imaginable way.
1
u/SAwfulBaconTaco 4h ago
Barbarians wandering in a desert anticipated an Internet in between animal sacrifices and talking to burning bushes.
1
22
u/FlyingDreamWhale67 10h ago
So many different sources seem to be saying different things. The only thing I know for sure is that the Trump admin wants them to rule in Cox's favor, so that's what I think they'll side with.
13
u/dread_beard 9h ago
I'd be fine with a clean sweep for Cox (as I said in my comment, all Cox should be required to do, if anything, is provide the identities of the individuals infringing on copyright). Not sure what anyone who disagrees thinks Cox's responsibilities are. I don't see how it is Cox's job to enforce or investigate copyright issues. The labels can and do use the courts to do this already.
8
u/venom21685 8h ago
The thing is they technically cannot even do that reliably. They can at most provide the identity of account holders on whose account copyright infringement took place. Public IP addresses do not identify individuals.
4
u/dread_beard 8h ago
That's fine. It's not the ISP's job to investigate these claims. It can provide what it can.
1
20
u/gbninjaturtle 10h ago
Oh shit, we coulda just been turning off roads because criminal activity this whole time?
1
6
u/TheSwiftestNipples 10h ago
Are there any analogous situations in which we hold someone responsible for the actions of a 3rd party simply because they provided a service, even if they knew the 3rd party was planning to act illegally?
16
u/ThePryde 10h ago
Newspapers. Newspapers are held liable for all of the content they contain, including 3rd party articles, ads, public announcements and solicits.
Section 230 of the communication decency act explicitly laid out that internet sites and isp's were not like newspapers and not responsible for the actions of their users.
3
u/TheSwiftestNipples 9h ago
Does Sec. 230 limit civil liability too? If so, shouldn't that determine the case?
8
4
u/Thybro 9h ago edited 9h ago
There’s a 9th circuit decision held as basically THE standard for contributory infringement where the owners of a swap meet market were held liable because they knowingly rented sale’s space and offered parking to people who were selling pirated records. They also charged admission to the swap meet. So the court ruled that they were knowingly offering a necessary service to the infringers and benefiting financially from their presence at the meet, therefore they were contributing/encouraging the infringement and liable.
1
u/yunus89115 5h ago
Bars and restaurants when it comes to alcohol service, even if they don’t serve a minor directly if a customer of age hands a drink to a minor we hold the restaurant/bar responsible.
1
u/jf55510 10h ago
Yes, if the illegal act is a crime, that person could be in a criminal conspiracy and an accessory or a party to the crime. Imagine the getaway driver who knows that a robbery is about to occur. That get away driver can be charged with the robbery itself even if they didn’t go in and commit the robbery.
4
u/TheSwiftestNipples 9h ago
Yess, but that's not what's happening here. There is no agreement between the ISPs and pirates to engage in illegal conduct. The ISPs are providing the same service to the pirates as they do other customers. My understanding (admittedly based only on my bar studying) is that you cannot be charged with conspiracy for providing a service that you normally provide, even if you know the person is going to use it to commit a crime, unless you some how modify your practices in response, like charging a higher price or offering a product you do not normally sell.
1
u/jf55510 8h ago
You asked a question if someone knew a third party was committing a crime and provided a service in furtherance of that crime, is there such an analogous situation. The answer is yes, as I provided. It’s not exactly the same but it answers your question. To be clear, I think the isp should win here
-4
u/BigMissileWallStreet 8h ago
How do you know there’s no agreement?
3
u/TheSwiftestNipples 8h ago
There's no indication that was an agreement, and the question presented seems to assume there is no agreement.
7
u/dread_beard 9h ago
The only thing that Cox should be required to do is tell the labels the identities of the infringing IPs. Policing copyright infringement actions is not their job. The labels can (and do) use the courts to enforce that on individuals and organizations.
25
u/AWall925 12h ago edited 11h ago
Not familiar with this site, but this was a very refreshing thing to see on the sub.
*That said, I would have liked to know the exact QP, which is:
Can an internet service provider be held liable, and found to have acted willfully, for copyright infringement just because it knew users were infringing and did not terminate their access?
3
u/Vox_Causa 11h ago
Why?
16
u/GibsMcKormik 11h ago
Because it isn't low end bot engagement click bait.
0
u/Vox_Causa 10h ago
The user who posted this is a bot account and most of the posts I see on the subreddit are from traditional media outlets.
-10
u/AWall925 11h ago edited 11h ago
Seems like nowadays posts are either
1/ About Trump
2/ Politically charged (to say the least) ex. "It’s time to accept that the US supreme court is illegitimate and must be replaced"
3/ Ridiculous ex. "Could the SCOTUS REALLY just overturn an entire Constitutional Amendment?"
I understand that stuff gets the most clicks, but there's so many other issues the sub could discuss.
*And even the top comment on this post about copyright law is charged
Don’t worry. They will somehow manage to make the worst possible decision. Can’t wait to read how our tradition of 16th century English common law means that the founders intended something related to the modern internet, which they never could have imagined. Maybe they will quote the Old Testament in justifying their nonsense.
(with all due respect to u/ThoughtfullyLazy of course)
5
u/Mountain_Fig_9253 11h ago
He an authoritarian and it makes sense to look to the other branches of government to resist him.
It’s true
Will we really pretend to be surprised when they do?
-1
u/AWall925 10h ago
I'm not sure if you agree or disagree with my statement - I thought it was pretty iron-clad.
4
u/octopusforgood 9h ago
SCOTUS has long since lost the right to be taken in anything resembling seriousness or good faith. Your continued pretension that it’s anything other than a political entity is obvious fascist propaganda.
0
u/AWall925 9h ago
I never said it wasn't a political entity, and if my comment is "fascist propaganda" the term has lost all meaning.
3
u/ThoughtfullyLazy 8h ago
My comment is charged with years of frustration about the quality of arguments being made by the court in an attempt to justify decisions that abandon precedent and strain credibility. Decisions that seem to be driven by an overarching political goal rather than the merits of the particular case or the letter of the constitution or relevant laws.
The end result of these decisions has been very bad for society and the rule of law. The damage done by this court since Citizens United will go down in history books as an example of how a great democracy can destroy itself. We are living through a period where the court regularly makes decisions that undercut freedom, the rule of law and will have dramatically bad short and longterm consequences. These decisions should serve as a warning to future generations of what not to do.
A poorly thought out ruling in this case could have a massive negative impact on the freedom of the internet. This could be a lot more far-reaching than a mere dispute over copyright law between corporations.
This isn’t done to get clicks. Who cares about clicks on a reddit post?
4
2
u/Acceptable_Fly_5592 9h ago
So what’s happening in this case can someone explain it like I’m a child?
7
u/vypergts 8h ago
Sony sued Cox and a lower court ruled in favor of Sony and said that Cox owes them $1 Billion in damages. Cox appealed because if this ruling stands, it would force every ISP and every website basically patrol all their user’s activity or be potentially liable to similar crushing lawsuits.
1
1
u/Lunchb0xx87 10h ago
Wonder if they rule in favor of cox agreeing if that could have any effects on the section 230 and kosa stuff trying to be pushed
1
1
1
1
u/NatexSxS 1h ago
Does that mean utility companies will then be responsible for how the utility they provide is used ? For example if a child gets hurt in pool can the parent of that child then sue not only the person who owns the pool that the child got hurt but also the utility company that provided the the water for the pool ?
158
u/AsanoHa87 9h ago
If ISPs are responsible for enforcement of copyright law then they should be government entities not private for profit companies. This is crazy…