A pivotal case is before the United States Supreme Court regarding whether the court will address how internet service providers (ISPs) deal with copyright infringement allegations. In a significant move, the court has asked the Department of Justice to express its position on the matter, signaling an impending landmark judgment on the long-running war between record labels and ISPs.
Are ISPs the new copyright enforcers? The Supreme Court may decide
The crux of the matter is Sony Music Entertainment v. In a legal battle, major record labels are pitted against ISPs over whether or not the latter should be held responsible for users found to be repeatedly infringing upon copyrights. A jury previously found Cox Communications guilty of willful contributory infringement, but an appeal of a vicarious infringement claim was unsuccessful. The reversal overturned a $1 billion damages award, resulting in a retrial on damages.
Cox is trying to reverse the initial contributory infringement verdict, and Sony wants the bulk of damages awarded in the original trial restored. The case has been petitioned by both the parties to the Supreme Court. Citing the piracy ruling, Cox argues it would effectively require ISPs to be its enforcers, terminating services on the mere hearsay of unverified claims. The company pointed out that punishing an entire household for possible isolated incidents is dangerous.
It is part of a larger question surrounding how ISPs seek to balance their responsibilities as service providers with expanding demands to combat piracy. In the other case, regarding Grande Communications Inc., a Texas ISP, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeal found that the ISP had been a non-hosting liability for not terminating its users accused of piracy. A retrial was ordered, however, because the award of $46.8 million was judged to be excessive.
Cox and Grande say enforcing terminations without verifiable evidence is too heavily burdened on ISPs and could punish innocent users. However, record labels say that ISPs make money by keeping paying customers on their radar for infringement for the sake of revenue, not copyright compliance.
Image credit: Marcela Laskoski/Unsplash