Post
But in a pair of more recent cases in 2023 unrelated to #copyright #law, #SCOTUS declined to hold #technology platforms liable for problematic #content posted by their users, but did not ultimately resolve the question of whether platforms are ever responsible for such content.
Meanwhile, AI harvests & steals other peoples IP and creative work with impunity.
#Music labels & publishers sued Cox Communications in 2018, saying the company had failed to cut off the #internet connections of subscribers who had been repeatedly flagged for illegally downloading & distributing copyrighted music.
At issue for #SCOTUS was whether providers could be held legally responsible & required to pay steep damages—a billion dollars or more in Cox’s case—if they knew that customers were pirating music but did not take sufficient steps to terminate their access.
In its opinion released Wednesday, #SCOTUS said a company was not liable for “merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.”
Writing for the court, Justice #ClarenceThomas said a provider like Cox was liable “only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement” & if it, for instance, “actively encourages infringement.”
#law #music #copyright #IntellectualProperty #internet #business
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote separately to say that she agreed with the outcome but for different reasons.
Courts have long held that people can be liable for providing another person or entity with the tools to commit #copyright infringement. 2 decades ago, for instance, the #SCOTUS unanimously ruled that the file-sharing company Grokster could be held responsible for the violations of its users.
But in a pair of more recent cases in 2023 unrelated to #copyright #law, #SCOTUS declined to hold #technology platforms liable for problematic #content posted by their users, but did not ultimately resolve the question of whether platforms are ever responsible for such content.
In the Cox case, #FreeSpeech advocates urged the #SCOTUS to side with the #InternetProvider, warning of a chilling effect on free expression if #internet companies could be on the hook for hefty penalties for the actions of their users. The advocates argued that such a ruling could result in speech-related lawsuits against other kinds of intermediaries, including #bookstores & #socialmedia platforms.
Cox Communications provides #internet service to >6 million homes & businesses in more than a dozen states. During oral arguments in December, justices from across the ideological spectrum raised concerns that siding with the #music industry could result in #InternetProviders like Cox being forced to cut off access to large account holders such as hospitals & universities because of the illegal acts of individual users.
@Nonilex
They should pay. They can afford it. Of course the "Supremes" allow corporate theft.
A minimalist social node dedicated to high-fidelity exchange and digital autonomy. CoreSignal strips away the noise of the modern web to provide a clean, functional space for meaningful connection within the Fediverse
