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."

$1 billion Supreme Court music piracy case could affect internet users; USA TODAY, November 30, 2025

Maureen Groppe , USA TODAY; $1 billion Supreme Court music piracy case could affect internet users

"The entertainment industry’s seemingly losing battle to stop music from being illegally copied and shared in the digital age hits the Supreme Court on Dec. 1 in a case both sides say could have huge consequences for both the industry and internet users.

A decision by the high court that fails to hold internet service providers accountable for piracy on their networks would “spell disaster for the music community,” according to groups representing musicians and other entertainers.

But Cox Communications, the largest private broadband company in America, argues too tough a standard could “jeopardize internet access for all Americans.”"

The Supreme Court Is About to Hear a Case That Could Rewrite Internet Access; Slate, November 28, 2025

MICHAEL P. GOODYEAR, Slate; The Supreme Court Is About to Hear a Case That Could Rewrite Internet Access

"Imagine losing internet access because someone in your household downloaded pirated music. We rely on the internet to learn, discover job opportunities, navigate across cities and the countryside, shop for the latest trends, file our taxes, and much more. Now all of that could be gone in an instant.

That is not a dystopian fantasy, but a real possibility raised by a case the Supreme Court will hear on Monday. In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the justices will decide whether an internet provider can be held responsible for failing to terminate subscribers accused of repeat copyright infringements. The ruling could determine whether access to the internet—today’s lifeline for education, work, and civic life—can be taken away as punishment for digital misdeeds. Cox’s indifference to repeat infringement is condemnable, but a sweeping ruling could harshly punish thousands for one company’s bad faith."

During Wildfires, Los Angeles Libraries Offer Community Lifelines; American Libraries, January 22, 2025

Rosie Newmark , American Libraries ; During Wildfires, Los Angeles Libraries Offer Community Lifelines

"Since multiple wildfires erupted in and around Los Angeles on January 7, tens of thousands of residents have been displaced or remain on evacuation watch, as fire-fanning winds threaten to continue. The Palisades and Eaton fires, among others, have killed 28 people and destroyed or damaged more than 16,000 structures—including destruction of the Los Angeles Public Library’s (LAPL) Palisades Branch Library. Several more libraries in evacuation or evacuation warning zones remain closed.

Amid the disaster, library systems, including Altadena (Calif.) Library District (ALD), Los Angeles County Library (LACL), and LAPL, are spearheading efforts to help community members as well as library staffers through fundraising and onsite support. The American Library Association (ALA) has also set up a relief effort through its ALA Disaster Relief Fund.

In addition to physical losses, community members are experiencing the mental and emotional toll of the crisis. Across the area, library workers have witnessed people using their facilities not only as a center for resources such as internet access and recovery information, but also simply a quiet space to cry and process losses, according to California Library Association President Genesis Hansen."

Disconnected: 23 Million Americans Affected by the Shutdown of the Affordable Connectivity Program; CNet, July 28, 2024

Joe Supan, CNet ; Disconnected: 23 Million Americans Affected by the Shutdown of the Affordable Connectivity Program

"Jackson got her first home internet connection through the Affordable Connectivity Program, a pandemic-era fund that provided $30 to $75 a month to help low-income households pay for internet. In May, the $14.2 billion program officially ran out of money, leaving Jackson and 23 million households like hers with internet bills that were $30 to $75 higher than the month before. 

That's if they decided to hang on to their internet service at all: 13% of ACP subscribers, or roughly 3 million households, said that after the program ended they planned to cancel service, according to a Benton Institute survey conducted as the ACP expired. 

For as long as the internet has existed, there's been a gap between those who have access to it -- and the means to afford it -- and those who don't. The vast majority of federal broadband spending over the past two decades has gone toward expanding internet access to rural areas. Case in point: In 2021, Congress dedicated $90 billion to closing the digital divide, but only $14.2 billion went to making the internet more affordable through the ACP; the rest went to broadband infrastructure...

"The biggest barrier to home broadband is cost. There are more people who don't have access to home internet because of cost than there are people who don't have access because the infrastructure doesn't exist."

Angela Siefer, executive director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance"

Bridging the Digital Divide: Advancing Access to Broadband for All; American Bar Association (ABA), June 3, 2024

Emily Bergeron, American Bar Association (ABA); Bridging the Digital Divide: Advancing Access to Broadband for All

"The “digital divide” is the disparity in access to and utilization of information and communication technologies between different groups based on socioeconomic status, geographic location, age, education, or other demographic characteristics. This divide often manifests as unequal access to the internet and digital devices, leading to disparities in opportunities, information, health care, education, and participation in government and the digital- and knowledge-based economy. The COVID-19 pandemic brought considerable focus to the digital divide. Individuals with broadband access could work, attend school, shop, and consult with their doctors from the comfort of their homes, while those lacking access had few options...

Eight out of 10 white adults have a broadband connection at home, whereas smaller percentages of Black and Hispanic adults—precisely 71 percent and 65 percent—indicate the same. Notably, Black adults are more likely than white adults to believe that a lack of high-speed internet at home puts people at a significant disadvantage when connecting with medical professionals, with 63 percent of Black adults expressing this view compared to 49 percent of white adults. The perspective of Hispanic adults, at 53 percent, does not significantly differ from that of individuals from other racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Despite federal efforts to expand broadband access in Tribal lands, a significant disparity persists. Approximately 18 percent of people in these areas still lack broadband services, while this figure is only 4 percent for non-Tribal areas. The gap widens further in rural regions, where about 30 percent of individuals on Tribal lands lack broadband access compared to 14 percent in non-Tribal areas...

The digital divide is not just a matter of technology. It undermines social justice and equality. By working collectively to bridge this divide, we can help create a more inclusive, connected, and equitable society where everyone can harness the benefits of the digital age. It is incumbent on governments, policymakers, and private organizations to take proactive measures and commit to digital inclusion, ensuring that no one is left behind in this fast-evolving digital landscape."

A dangerous side of America’s digital divide: Who receives emergency alerts; The Washington Post, December 21, 2022

Brianna Sacks, The Washington Post; A dangerous side of America’s digital divide: Who receives emergency alerts

"While America’s digital divide has been improving, large chunks of the country, especially rural and tribal lands, are still lagging behind in connection, according to research and experts, and that significantly hampers their access to vital, potentially lifesaving information. Without cell towers, urgent emergency alerts can’t get to phones and it is more difficult for residents to warn one another of danger or contact authorities."

Online vaccine sign-ups make Internet access a matter of life and death; The Washington Post, March 4, 2021

Claire Park, The Washington Post ; Online vaccine sign-ups make Internet access a matter of life and death

"Getting a vaccine shouldn’t depend on having high-speed Internet service, a computer and familiarity with being online, but it often does. By reviewing digital resources such as The Washington Post’s tracker of vaccinations across the country, residents can stay informed about the coronavirus and sign up for vaccinations online. Yet more than 77 million people in the United States lack Internet at home — and worse, many of them do not have access to a smartphone, making it that much more difficult for them to learn what’s available when and to whom. According to a study from the Pew Research Center, more than 4 in 10 adults with incomes below $30,000 a year don’t have home broadband services or a computer, and 3 in 10 adults in the same income bracket don’t own a smartphone. And even when they are in the loop, these people must also resort to calling state hotlines and waiting for hours on hold to reserve what vaccination appointments remain after many have already been booked online. While some states and communities reserve a number of appointments daily for those calling in, most groups still assume that everyone has the time, Internet service and device to make their appointment on the Web.

Further, Black, Indigenous and Latino people, as well as older adults — the very populations hardest hit by the coronavirus — constitute a disproportionate share of those without Internet access. This means that despite efforts to prioritize vaccinations for those most at risk, people in these communities who lack the Internet service, devices or digital literacy they need to sign up for vaccines online are still left at higher risk of contracting and dying from the virus."

America’s dangerous Internet delusion; Washington Post, May 21, 2017

Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post; America’s dangerous Internet delusion

"We are addicted to the Internet and refuse to recognize how our addiction subtracts from our security. The more we connect our devices and instruments to the Internet, the more we create paths for others to use against us, either by shutting down websites or by controlling what they do. Put differently, we are — incredibly — inviting trouble. Our commercial interests and our national security diverge.

The latest example of this tension is the “Internet of things” or the “smart home.” It involves connecting various devices and gadgets (thermostats, lights, cameras, locks, ovens) to the Internet so they can be operated or monitored remotely."

Not Another Net-Neutrality Story; The Atlantic, 2/9/16

Adrienne LaFrance, The Atlantic; Not Another Net-Neutrality Story:

"There are implications for other countries, too. Part of Facebook’s strategy for global expansion just failed, or at least suffered a serious blow, in a key country. Here’s how Kevin Roose, a writer at Fusion, puts it: “If a group of activists could successfully reframe Free Basics as an insidious land grab, rather than an act of corporate largesse, and mobilize a country against it, what’s to stop them from resisting elsewhere?” And as Ingrid Burrington wrote for The Atlantic in December, various mobile carriers in the United States offer “free” video streaming as a way to attract customers—free, in that data use doesn’t count toward a person’s monthly allotment.

“It really seems too obviously out of line to be true,” Burrington wrote, “Mobile carriers are literally partnering with large media companies to subsidize data-devouring streaming services, while what might be considered the ‘open Internet’ remains a paid service.”

In a Facebook post on Monday, Zuckerberg wrote that he is “disappointed” but committed to keep working toward connectivity goals in India. In his earlier essay, for the Times of India, he was less restrained: “Who could possibly be against this?”"