## ISPs Urge Supreme Court to Dismiss Liability for Copyright Infringement: A Clash over the Internet’s Future
In a critical legal showdown that could influence the Internet’s future, four prominent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have submitted a brief to the US Supreme Court, asserting that they should not be made accountable for monitoring copyright infringement on their networks. The ISPs—Altice USA (Optimum), Frontier Communications, Lumen (CenturyLink), and Verizon—are backing Cox Communications in its challenge to reverse a $1 billion copyright infringement judgment granted to Sony and other music copyright holders.
This ongoing case, which commenced in 2018, poses significant inquiries regarding the level of accountability ISPs should bear for user actions, especially concerning the unlawful downloading and distribution of copyrighted content. The ruling could have extensive repercussions on ISP operations and the enforcement of copyright laws in the digital era.
### Background of the Legal Dispute
The legal conflict initiated when Sony and other music copyright holders took legal action against Cox Communications, alleging that the ISP neglected to implement sufficient measures against habitual copyright infringers on its network. The plaintiffs contended that Cox failed to adequately combat piracy, despite knowledge that some users were involved in illegal file sharing. In December 2019, a jury in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia decided in favor of the record labels, awarding them $1 billion in damages.
Cox contested the verdict, and in 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit overturned the $1 billion ruling, concluding that Cox was not liable for vicarious infringement as it did not directly gain from its users’ illegal actions. However, the court maintained the jury’s ruling of willful contributory infringement, asserting that Cox had knowingly contributed to the infringement by failing to address repeat offenders. The case was remanded for a new trial to determine damages.
Currently, Cox is requesting the US Supreme Court to consider the case, with several other ISPs joining the battle to argue that the 4th Circuit’s decision could have dire consequences for the Internet’s future.
### ISPs’ Fears: Widespread Terminations and Flawed Detection Techniques
In their **amicus curiae** (friend of the court) brief, the ISPs contend that assigning them liability for copyright infringement on their networks would compel them to conduct “mass Internet evictions,” terminating service to users alleged of piracy. They assert that this would adversely affect innocent individuals who depend on Internet access for vital services such as education, healthcare, and business operations.
The ISPs further emphasize that the automated systems utilized by copyright holders to identify infringement on peer-to-peer networks are “notoriously inaccurate.” These systems frequently produce false positives, implying that innocent users could be wrongfully accused of piracy, resulting in loss of Internet access. The ISPs assert that the 4th Circuit’s decision would necessitate service terminations based solely on these erroneous claims to evade crippling financial repercussions.
### Financial Liability and the Internet’s Future
The ISPs caution that the potential financial liability imposed by the 4th Circuit’s ruling is substantial. They could face liability of up to $150,000 in statutory damages for each infringed work, which could swiftly escalate to billions of dollars in damages. For instance, in a recent lawsuit against Verizon, the same plaintiffs pursued $2.6 billion in damages.
The ISPs argue that the looming threat of financial liability detracts from their initiatives to enhance Internet accessibility for underserved populations. They claim that the ruling could hinder Congress’s objective of connecting all Americans to the Internet by compelling ISPs to allocate resources away from network expansion and towards defending against copyright infringement litigations.
### The Twitter Precedent: Aiding and Abetting Liability
In their brief, the ISPs reference the US Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in **Twitter v. Taamneh**, which dismissed claims that social media platforms bore liability for aiding and abetting terrorism by failing to curtail ISIS’s use of their services. The Court determined that simply providing a communication service to wrongdoers does not equate to “substantial assistance” unless the service provider actively engages in the wrongdoing.
The ISPs argue that the same principle should be applicable in the Cox matter. They maintain that offering Internet service to a user involved in copyright infringement is not synonymous with actively aiding and abetting that infringement. The ISPs believe they should not be made liable for user actions unless they are directly engaged in the illegal conduct.
### Sony’s Argument: Vicarious Liability and the Challenges of Pursuing Individuals
Conversely, Sony and other record labels argue that ISPs ought to be held responsible for user conduct because pursuing individual infringers is often challenging, if not unfeasible. The labels assert that IS
