WASHINGTON – TheSupreme Courton Dec. 1 grappled with how to stop music from being illegally copied and shared without jeopardizing internet access for users who have done nothing wrong.
The court heardCox Communications' argumentthat putting too much of the onus on internet service providers to prevent piracy will lead to broad service cutoffs.
Internet companies wouldn't be able to avoid being sued unless they terminate service for anyone using the same connection after an IP address has been flagged by an anti-piracy company, said Joshua Rosenkranz, the attorney representing Cox.
"That could be entire towns, universities or hospitals," he said of the potential "cataclysmic" consequences.
The lawyer representing the music industry countered that Cox is manufacturing a worst-case scenario after failing to take reasonable steps to respond to repeat offenders of peer-to-peer file sharing – the most common way music is pirated.
Cox accused of helping 60,000 customers illegally share music
The world's leading recording companies and music publishers say Cox helped 60,000 customers distribute more than 10,000 copyrighted works for free, contributing to a problem that robs the industry of billions of dollars a year.
Cox asked theSupreme Courtto intervene after it was sued by Sony Music Entertainment and more than 50 other record labels.
In 2019, a jury sided with the music industry and said Cox owed $1 billion in damages.
The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the damages, ordering a new trial based on reduced violations.
The Supreme Court declined the record labels' request to review whether the lower court was right to throw out one type of copyright violation and agreed to hear Cox's appeal over whether the company can still be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement.
'You did nothing'
Cox argues that to be liable, it has to actively assist piracy − not just fail to prevent it.
But Sony's lawyers highlighted an email from a Cox manager overseeing compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, who told his colleagues: "F the dcma!!!"
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she's troubled by the evidence she said shows Cox didn't even try to act on the notices it got from an antipiracy company about users downloading or distributing copyrighted music.
"You did nothing," she said.
Rosenkranz, the attorney for Cox, disputed that characterization. He also argued, however, that an internet service provider can't be held liable even if it fails to act when repeatedly notified about a violation.
If that's the case, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked, what incentive does Cox have to stop piracy?
Rosenkranz said Cox wants to be a good corporate citizen.
Cox backed by Justice Department, X and ACLU
Cox has the backing of theDepartment of Justice, tech companies likeXandGoogle,and the American Civil Liberties Union.
An attorney for the Justice Department agreed that a ruling for Cox would eliminate an incentive for the company to help stop piracy. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, Deputy Solicitor General Malcom Stewart said, if it would prevent "extremely overbroad" terminations of service.
Justice Samuel Alito pushed that point, saying the lower court's decision threatens internet access to universities and entire regions.
"I really don't see how your position works in that context," Alito told Paul Clement, the attorney representing the record labels.
Clement said the court could carve out exceptions for situations like that.
Asked by Barrett what recourse the music industry has if they lose, Clement said record labels will be in "very, very dire straits." Music companies will have little ability to go after piracy on a mass scale and are unlikely to get voluntary cooperation from internet service providers, he said.
Trying to go after individual violators directly, he said, is a "teaspoon solution to an ocean problem."
A decision in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment is expected by the end of June or early July.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Supreme Court debates curbing music piracy without cutting internet