Court seems dubious of billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement; SCOTUSblog, December 2, 2025

Ronald Mann, SCOTUSblog; Court seems dubious of billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement

 "My basic reaction to the argument is that the justices would be uncomfortable with accepting the broadest version of the arguments that Cox has presented to it (that the ISP is protected absent an affirmative act of malfeasance), but Sony’s position seems so unpalatable to them that a majority is most unlikely to coalesce around anything that is not a firm rejection of the lower court’s ruling against Cox. I wouldn’t expect that ruling to come soon, but I don’t think there is much doubt about what it will say."

US Supreme Court wrestles with copyright dispute between Cox and record labels; Reuters, December 1, 2025

 Blake Brittain , Reuters; US Supreme Court wrestles with copyright dispute between Cox and record labels

"The U.S. Supreme Court grappled on Monday with a bid by Cox Communications to avoid financial liability in a major music copyright lawsuit by record labels that accused the internet service provider of enabling its customers to pirate thousands of songs.

The justices appeared skeptical of Cox's assertion that its mere awareness of user piracy could not justify holding it liable for copyright infringement. They also questioned whether holding Cox liable for failing to cut off infringers could impact a wide range of innocent internet users."

Cox Communications v. Sony Music Oral Argument; C-SPAN, December 1, 2025

 C-SPAN ; Cox Communications v. Sony Music Oral Argument

"The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, a case about Sony's lawsuit against internet service provider Cox Communications, and whether such companies may be held liable for their users' copyright infringements. Sony and other record companies and publishers sued Cox, alleging it was liable for its subscribers downloading and distributing copyrighted songs. A federal jury found Cox liable and awarded $1 billion in statutory damages. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury's finding of willful infringement but vacated the damages award. The Trump administration supported Cox in the dispute and, along with attorney Joshua Rosenkranz, argued on behalf of the company. Veteran Supreme Court attorney Paul Clement argued on behalf of the respondent, Sony Music."

Supreme Court to Hear Copyright Battle Over Online Music Piracy; The New York Times, December 1, 2025

 Ann E. Marimow , The New York Times; Supreme Court to Hear Copyright Battle Over Online Music Piracy

"The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday in a closely watched copyright clash testing whether internet providers can be held liable for the piracy of thousands of songs online.

Leading music labels and publishers who represent artists ranging from Bob Dylan to Beyoncé sued Cox Communications in 2018, saying it had failed to terminate the internet connections of subscribers who had been repeatedly flagged for illegally downloading and distributing copyrighted music.

At issue is whether providers like Cox can be held legally responsible and be required to pay steep damages — a billion dollars or more — if it knows that customers are pirating the music but does not take sufficient steps to terminate their internet access."

Contributory Copyright Liability Back Before the Supreme Court; Marquette University Law School, November 28, 2025

 Bruce E. Boyden, Marquette University Law School ; Contributory Copyright Liability Back Before the Supreme Court

"The case itself is no trifling matter. Cox, a cable company that provides broadband internet access to its subscribers, is appealing a $1 billion jury verdict holding it liable for assisting some of those subscribers in engaging in copyright infringement. The case arose from an effort by record labels and music publishers to stem the tide of peer-to-peer filesharing of music files by sending notices of infringement to access providers such as Cox. The DMCA bars liability for access providers as long as they reasonably implemented a repeat infringer policy. But who’s a repeat infringer? The notices were an effort to get access providers to take action by giving them the knowledge of repeat infringements necessary to trigger the policies.

According to the evidence presented at trial, however, Cox was extremely resistant to receiving or taking action in response to the notices. The most colorful bit of evidence (and yet another example of how loose emails sink ships) was from the head of the Cox abuse and safety team in charge of enforcing user policies, who screamed in a team-wide email: “F the dmca!!!” (This was followed by an email from a higher-level executive on the chain: “Sorry to be Paranoid Panda here, but please stop sending out e-mails saying F the law….”) The Fourth Circuit ultimately held that because Cox didn’t reasonably implement its repeat infringer policy, it lost its statutory immunity, and then at trial the jury found Cox contributorily liable for the infringements that it had been notified about, which the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

The question before the Court is whether the lower courts applied the right test for contributory copyright liability, or applied it correctly. (There’s a second question, about the standard for willfulness in determining damages, but I didn’t address that one.) There’s a couple of things that make this issue difficult to disentangle; one has to do with the history of contributory infringement doctrine, and the other is a technical issue about what, exactly, is being challenged on appeal."

Copyright Piracy at the Supreme Court In Cox v. Sony: is an internet provider liable for digital thieves?; The Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2025

 The Editorial Board, The Wall Street Journal; Copyright Piracy at the Supreme Court" In Cox v. Sony, is an internet provider liable for digital thieves?

"If a college student pirates music files, can his broadband provider be liable for his copyright infringement? That’s the question before the Supreme Court on Monday in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, which tugs at the tension between protecting intellectual property and the internet."

Court to consider billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement; SCOTUSblog, November 25, 2025

 Ronald Mann , SCOTUSblog; Court to consider billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement

"The court will hear its big copyright case for the year during the first week of the December session, when on Monday, Dec. 1, it reviews a billion-dollar ruling against Cox Communications based on its failure to eradicate copyright infringement by its customers."

Victory! Ninth Circuit Limits Intrusive DMCA Subpoenas; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), August 18, 2025

 TORI NOBLE, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Victory! Ninth Circuit Limits Intrusive DMCA Subpoenas

"Fortunately, Section 512(h) has an important limitation that protects users.  Over two decades ago, several federal appeals courts ruled that Section 512(h) subpoenas cannot be issued to ISPs. Now, in In re Internet Subscribers of Cox Communications, LLC, the Ninth Circuit agreed, as EFF urged it to in our amicus brief."

Character.AI Confirms Mass Deletion of Fandom Characters, Says They're Not Coming Back; Futurism, November 27, 2024

MAGGIE HARRISON DUPRÉ , Futurism; Character.AI Confirms Mass Deletion of Fandom Characters, Says They're Not Coming Back

"The embattled AI companion company Character.AI confirmed to Futurism that it removed a large number of characters from its platform, citing its adherence to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) and copyright law, but failing to say whether the deletions were proactive or in response to requests from the holders of the characters' intellectual property rights...

That's not surprising: Character.AI is currently facing a lawsuit brought by the family of a 14-year-old teenager in Florida who died by suicide after forming an intense relationship with a Daenerys Targaryen chatbot on its platform...

It's been a bad few months for Character.AI. In October, shortly before the recent lawsuit was filed, it was revealed that someone had created a chatbot based on a murdered teenager without consent from the slain teen's family. (The character was removed and Character.AI apologized, as AdWeek first reported.) And in recent weeks, we've reported on disturbing hordes of suicide, pedophilia, and eating disorder-themed chatbots hosted by the platform, all of which were freely accessible to Character.AI users of all ages."

What’s Happening with AI and Copyright Law; JD Supra, November 4, 2024

AEON Law, JD Supra; What’s Happening with AI and Copyright Law

"Not surprisingly, a lot is happening at the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) law.

Here’s a roundup of some recent developments in the area of copyright law and AI.

Copyright Office Denies AI Security Research Exemption under DMCA...

Former OpenAI Employee Says It Violates Copyright Law...

Blade Runner Production Company Sues Tesla for AI-Aided Copyright Infringement"

Public Knowledge, iFixit Free the McFlurry, Win Copyright Office DMCA Exemption for Ice Cream Machines; Public Knowledge, October 25, 2024

Shiva Stella , Public Knowledge; Public Knowledge, iFixit Free the McFlurry, Win Copyright Office DMCA Exemption for Ice Cream Machines

"Today, the U.S. Copyright Office partially granted an exemption requested by Public Knowledge and iFixit to allow people to circumvent digital locks in order to repair commercial and industrial equipment. The Office did not grant the full scope of the requested exemption, but did grant an exemption specifically allowing for repair of retail-level food preparation equipment – including soft serve ice cream machines similar to those available at McDonald’s. The Copyright Office reviewed the request as part of its 1201 review process, which encourages advocates and public interest groups to present arguments for exemption to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it illegal to bypass a digital lock that protects a copyrighted work, such as a device’s software, even when there is no copyright infringement. Every three years, the Copyright Office reviews exemption requests and issues recommendations to the Librarian of Congress on granting certain exceptions to Section 1201. The recommendations go into effect once approved by the Librarian of Congress."

OpenAI Faces Early Appeal in First AI Copyright Suit From Coders; Bloomberg Law, September 30, 2024

Isaiah Poritz , Bloomberg Law; OpenAI Faces Early Appeal in First AI Copyright Suit From Coders

"OpenAI Inc. and Microsoft Corp.‘s GitHub will head to the country’s largest federal appeals court to resolve their first copyright lawsuit from open-source programmers who claim the companies’ AI coding tool Copilot violates a decades-old digital copyright law.

Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the programmers’ request for a mid-case turn to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which must determine whether OpenAI’s copying of open-source code to train its AI model without proper attribution to the programmers could be a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act...

The programmers argued that Copilot fails to include authorship and licensing terms when it outputs code. Unlike other lawsuits against AI companies, the programmers didn’t allege that OpenAI and GitHub engaged in copyright infringement, which is different from a DMCA violation."

How John Deere Hijacked Copyright Law To Keep You From Tinkering With Your Tractor; Reason, January 8, 2024

 LUKE HOGG , Reason; How John Deere Hijacked Copyright Law To Keep You From Tinkering With Your Tractor

"For nearly 25 years, Section 1201 has been hanging over the developers and distributors of tools that give users more control over the products they own. The ways in which John Deere and other corporations have used the copyright system is a glaring example of regulatory capture in action, highlighting the absurdity of a system where owning a product doesn't necessarily convey the right to fully control it. There are certainly circumstances where the manufacturers are justified in protecting their products from tampering, but such cases should be handled through warranty nullification and contract law, not through exorbitant fines and lengthy prison sentences."

U.S. Copyright Office Consultation Triggers Massive “Upload Filter” Opposition; TorrentFreak, February 16, 2022

Ernesto Van der Sar, TorrentFreak; U.S. Copyright Office Consultation Triggers Massive “Upload Filter” Opposition

"Late 2020, Senator Thom Tillis released a discussion draft of the “Digital Copyright Act” (DCA), which aims to be a successor to the current DMCA.

The DCA hints at far-reaching changes to the way online intermediaries approach the piracy problem. Among other things, these services would have to ensure that pirated content stays offline after it’s taken down once.

This “takedown and staydown’ approach relies on technical protection tools, which include upload filters. This is a sensitive subject that previously generated quite a bit of pushback when the EU drafted its Copyright Directive.

To gauge the various options and viewpoints, the Copyright Office launched a series of consultations on the various technical tools that can help to detect and remove pirated content from online platforms.

This effort includes a public consultation where various stakeholders and members of the public were invited to share their thoughts, which they did en masse."

Copyright could be the next way for Congress to take on Big Tech; The Verge, February 13, 2020

Adi Robertson, The Verge; Copyright could be the next way for Congress to take on Big Tech

"By the end of the year, Tillis — who chairs the Senate’s intellectual property subcommittee — plans to draft changes to the DMCA. He and co-chair Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) kicked off the process this week with an introductory hearing, speaking to eight legal experts and former congressional staffers. The hearing helped set the stage to re-fight some long-running battles over the balance between protecting copyrighted content and keeping the internet open — but at a time where internet companies are already facing a large-scale backlash.

The 1998 DMCA attempted to outline how copyright should work on the then-nascent internet, where you could almost freely and infinitely copy a piece of media. But it’s been widely criticized by people with very different stances on intellectual property."

Current copyright regime makes entertainment industry boring; The Daily Texan, June 18, 2017

Usmaan Hasan, The Daily Texan; Current copyright regime makes entertainment industry boring

"The current system of copyright and intellectual property protections quells artistic expression gives consumers the short end of the stick.

Mickey Mouse, as a property of Disney, enjoys bipartisan support in Congress. He was created in 1928, and under the existing copyright regime of the time, Disney’s right to Mickey should have ended in 1956 at the soonest, 1984 at the latest. Yet with some Disney magic, without fail, Congress expands copyright protections every time the Mickey is about to lapse into the public domain.

The hypocrisy coming from Disney is staggering. It has gained its immense wealth by monetizing properties in the public domain – like Cinderella, a centuries old fairy tale owned by no one – lobbying for copyright protections for those properties, and then reworking properties while constantly expanding the lifetime of their protections. It is a company that has managed to exercise artistic reinterpretation of cultural touchstones while making it nearly impossible for others to do the same. In fact, Disney has made its wealth by making movies on at least 50 works in the public domain."

Sandy Hook father Lenny Pozner on death threats: ‘I never imagined I’d have to fight for my child’s legacy’; Guardian, May 2, 2017

Hadley Freeman, Guardian; 

Sandy Hook father Lenny Pozner on death threats: ‘I never imagined I’d have to fight for my child’s legacy’

"Pozner realised quickly that there was no point in arguing with these hoaxers, so instead he attacks through copyright law. Every day, he Googles Noah’s name to see if anyone has put up a photo or video of his son without his permission and, if so, he files copyright claims. Thanks to Pozner’s dedication and experience as an IT consultant, he has scrubbed Noah’s search results of toxic-hoaxer content. He has sued other hoaxers for invasion of privacy, and successfully petitioned a Florida university to fire a professor, James Tracy, for hoaxing. (Tracy has sued for wrongful termination.) He also founded the HONR Network, which helps grieving families deal with online abuse, and it lobbies YouTube, Google and Facebook to stop hosting such abuse. "

Thanks to copyright law, Donald Trump Jr.’s controversial Skittles photo is now gone; Boston Globe, 9/28/16

Nicole Hernandez, Boston Globe; Thanks to copyright law, Donald Trump Jr.’s controversial Skittles photo is now gone:

"Copyrights: Even in the digital age, you must respect them.

Donald Trump Jr.’s controversial Skittles image that was tweeted last week has been taken down after a report from the copyright holder, according to a message that now replaces the photo."

Hacker Lexicon: What Is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?; Wired, 6/6/16

Kim Zetter, Wired; Hacker Lexicon: What Is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? :

"THE CALL FOR copyright reform in America has grown so loud that Congress has finally heard it. Lawmakers have ordered a slate of studies to look into how to fix what has become a broken system, and activists are cautiously optimistic that this could be the first step toward reform. The source of the fracture? The Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The DMCA was passed in 1998 as an anti-piracy statute effectively making it illegal to circumvent copy protections designed to prevent pirates from duplicating digital copyrighted works and selling or freely distributing them. It also makes it illegal to manufacture or distribute tools or techniques for circumventing copy controls.

But in reality the controversial law’s effects have been much broader by allowing game developers, music and film companies and others to keep a tight control on how consumers use their copyrighted works, preventing them in some cases from making copies of their purchased products for their own use or from jailbreaking smartphones and other devices to use them in ways the manufacturers dislike.

The DMCA has two problematic sections: section 1201, which deals with the circumvention of copy-protections, and section 512, which allows a copyright holder to send a so-called takedown notice to web sites and others believed to be infringing a copyright."

Revealed: How copyright law is being misused to remove material from the internet; Guardian, 5/23/16

Alex Hern, Guardian; Revealed: How copyright law is being misused to remove material from the internet:

"Censorship by copyright

The motivation of Ashraf can only be guessed at, but censorship using the DMCA is common online. The act allows web hosts a certain amount of immunity from claims of copyright infringement through what is known as the “safe harbour” rules: in essence, a host isn’t responsible for hosting infringing material provided they didn’t know about it when it went up, and took it down as soon as they were told about it.

In practice, however, this means that web hosts (and the term is broadly interpreted, meaning sites like YouTube, Twitter and Google count) are forced to develop a hair-trigger over claims of copyright infringement, assuming guilt and asking the accused to prove their innocence.

As such, a very easy way to remove something from the internet is to accuse its creator of infringing copyright. Worse, the potential downside of such a false claim is minimal: the accused would have to first file a counterclaim, proving they own the copyright; then file a private lawsuit, and prove material damage; and then track down the offending party to actually recover any monies granted by the court.

That doesn’t happen all that often.

But in recent years, big web companies have started funding lawsuits themselves, to fill the gap in the law and tilt the scales a bit further in favour of content creators wrongly accused."