Supreme Court Wipes Out Record Labels' $1 Billion Piracy Judgment Against Cox

[usonian]

https://torrentfreak.com/supreme-court-wipes-out-record-labels-1-billion-piracy-judgment-against-cox/

The Supreme Court has reversed the billion-dollar copyright verdict against Cox Communications, concluding that an Internet service provider cannot be held contributorily liable for infringement merely because it kept providing service to subscribers it knew had been flagged for piracy. The landmark ruling is a major victory for internet providers and a major disappointment for the record labels that started the case.

When a Virginia jury ordered internet provider Cox to pay $1 billion in damages for failing to take appropriate actions against pirating subscribers, shockwaves rippled through the ISP industry.

The verdict, in favor of major record labels including Sony and Universal, was a catalyst for many other ‘repeat infringer’ lawsuits. This resulted in yet more multi-million dollar claims and awards, with many still in the pipeline today.

Meanwhile, Cox did everything it could to fight the verdict, all the way up to the Supreme Court, which formally heard the case last December. The panel had to decide whether an ISP can be held liable for not taking any action in response to piracy notices, which the Court answered today with a clear no.

For rightsholders, the ruling removes the primary legal tool they have used to pressure ISPs to terminate infringers more aggressively. For ISPs, however, it resolves years of uncertainty about how far they have to go in response to copyright infringement notices.

IMO, this applies to ISP's ( who can terminate users' access to the internet) and not, for example to site operators like DU, but IANAL.

Some in's and out's at the link, such as the "IP Address problem" and “knowledge” of future infringement .. whatever that all means.

[bucolic_frolic]

1. Legalize crime, you get fewer lawsuits that way. /nt

[LearnedHand]

2. No this is a good decision

Trying to force ISPs to pay up for users’ supposed copyright infringement is like forcing the electric company to pay for any crime committed where there’s electricity.

[Ms. Toad]

3. Your assessment appears to be correct.

The Court’s decision is narrow, applying only to ‘contributory infringement’ cases involving defendants like Cox that do not themselves copy, host, distribute, or publish infringing material or control or induce such activity.

DU hosts content.