The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in a case concerning the potential liability of internet service providers (ISPs) for copyright infringement committed by their users. The dispute involves the music entertainment industry and Cox Communications, an ISP serving over six million customers.
Music Industry's Arguments
A coalition of music labels, representing various artists, initiated legal action against Cox Communications. The coalition alleges that Cox should be held responsible for copyright violations perpetrated by its internet users, particularly those identified as repeat infringers.
The coalition contends that Cox received numerous notifications regarding specific IP addresses repeatedly engaging in music copyright infringement. They argue that Cox's failure to terminate internet access for these IP addresses indicates the company's responsibility.
In its legal briefs, the coalition stated that many of Cox's anti-infringement measures appeared insufficient and that the company allegedly disregarded violations. The coalition highlighted Cox's '13-strike policy' for potential customer termination, where actions were based on the number of complaints received about a user. A manager overseeing Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) compliance at Cox was quoted as stating, "F the dmca!!!" The coalition asserted that Cox "made a deliberate and egregious decision to elevate its own profits over compliance with the law."
A jury and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the music industry coalition, awarding damages exceeding one billion dollars.
Cox Communications' Defense
Cox Communications argues it should not be liable for the actions of its customers. The company states it did not encourage copyright infringements, its terms of service prohibit illegal activities, and it does not gain additional revenue when customers use its internet for copyright infringement.
In its briefs, Cox indicated that less than 1% of its users engage in music copyright infringement and that its internal compliance measures addressed issues for 95% of that specific group. Cox further asserted that an adverse ruling could necessitate the termination of internet services for entire households, businesses, and even regional ISPs, potentially impacting tens of thousands of homes and businesses, merely due to alleged infringement by an unidentified person using the connection.
A decision in this case is anticipated by the summer.