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."

$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."

The Supreme Court’s Ethics Code Is a Joke. Big Oil Knows That.; The National Review, November 28, 2025

Aaron Regunberg , The National Review; The Supreme Court’s Ethics Code Is a Joke. Big Oil Knows That.

"I don’t have access to Big Oil’s internal emails about this. But they sure look wildly desperate to dodge the growing array of lawsuits over the damage caused by their decades-long scheme to deceive the public about climate change. Oil companies are doing whatever they possibly can to keep the plaintiffs in these suits (cities, counties, states, and Native American tribes) from having their day in court—and as some of the most powerful corporations in the world, there’s a lot they can do. They’re pushing Congress to pass a blanket waiver of liability for climate-related damages. They’ve deputized the Trump administration to threaten states that are bringing suits. And they have tried—again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again—to get the Supreme Court to step in and dismiss the cases against them, based on an often contradictory set of legal theories claiming that the state laws they’re being sued under are preempted—i.e., nullified by federal law.

Big Oil has tried five times since 2021 to get the Supreme Court to step in and dismiss these lower court cases, and so far the court has rejected them all. But now the industry is trying once again, petitioning the justices to take up a case filed by the City and County of Boulder against ExxonMobil and Suncor. Last spring, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that, after seven long years of delay tactics by the industry, this case could finally advance to discovery and trial...

What do judicial ethics codes have to do with climate deception? It all comes down to simple math. Every year, the Supreme Court receives many thousands of cert petitions. To grant a writ of certiorari, four of the nine justices must agree to take one of these cases. Given that lower threshold, any time a justice recuses themselves based on conflicts of interest it reduces the likelihood that a case will be heard. In this case, multiple justices have conflicts of interest that should take them out of the running to consider these suits—if such principles matter to the Supreme Court’s Republican majority.

One of these conflicted justices is Amy Coney Barrett...

Another justice, Samuel Alito, has a more traditional conflict of interest: He owns thousands of dollars of stock in the oil giants ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66. Unlike Barrett, Alito has recused himself from considering most, though not all, of the fossil fuel industry’s previous climate deception cert petitions...

We are, after all, living in an age of elite impunity. More and more Americans are asking whether the wealthy and powerful can do whatever they want—even participate in underage sex trafficking—and get away with it. That’s the same question at the center of these climate deception cases: Can Big Oil knowingly destroy the livability of our one and only planet, yet face zero consequences for exposing untold numbers to financial ruin, death, and the chaos of increasingly likely civilizational collapse?...

Big Oil wants us to succumb to nihilism when it comes to climate change. Disappoint them: Don’t give in."

Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling; The Washington Post, November 28, 2025

Brianna Tucker , The Washington Post; Retired judges warn that the rule of law is unraveling

"In a dozen interviews with The Washington Post, former judges and one soon-to-be-retired judge described a judiciary under incredible strain and its integrity threatened by partisan attacks, antagonistic rhetoric from public officials and ambiguous decisions handed down by the nation’s highest court.

Many judges said the politicization of judges, the Supreme Court’s expanding use of emergency dockets and sustained criticism from the Trump administration have pushed the courts and democracy to a fragile tipping point — one where cooperation with rulings and adherence to the rule of law can no longer be assumed.

“There’s not a person in our country that, whether they think about it or not, does not depend upon the ability of these fundamental rights and liberties to be protected in an action in court if there is someone who violates that,” said Paul Grimm, a retired judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

The consequences, judges warn, are already becoming visible in who’s willing to serve as a jurist, global shifts in judicial norms and the types of justice the U.S. system can still deliver."

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."

Supreme Court Defers Ruling on Trump’s Effort to Oust Copyright Official; The New York Times, November 26, 2025

 Ann E. Marimow, The New York Times ; Supreme Court Defers Ruling on Trump’s Effort to Oust Copyright Official

"The Supreme Court on Wednesday deferred a decision about whether President Trump could remove the government’s top copyright official until after the justices resolved a pair of related cases testing the president’s power to fire independent regulators.

The court’s order is a placeholder and means that Shira Perlmutter, the head of the U.S. Copyright Office, can remain in her role as an adviser to Congress at least until January. The order represents a rare departure from recent cases in which the conservative majority has allowed Mr. Trump to immediately remove agency leaders while litigation over their status continues in the lower courts.

The justices said they were putting off a decision in Ms. Perlmutter’s case until after the court heard arguments in December and January in cases testing the president’s authority to fire other government officials, despite laws generally prohibiting their dismissals that were meant to protect them from political interference."

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."

Supreme Court decides whether to allow parents to shield children from LGBTQ books in school; Fox News, June 27, 2025

Ashley Oliver , Fox News ; Supreme Court decides whether to allow parents to shield children from LGBTQ books in school

"The Supreme Court held Friday that a group of Maryland parents are entitled to opt their children out of school lessons that could violate their beliefs in a case centered on religious freedom. 

The justices decided 6-3 along ideological lines in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents can exclude their children from a Maryland public school system's lessons that contain themes about homosexuality and transgenderism if they feel it conflicts with their religious faith."

Supreme Court Justices Apply New Ethics Code Differently; Newsweek, April 9, 2024

 Khaleda Rahman, Newsweek; Supreme Court Justices Apply New Ethics Code Differently

"Supreme Court justices are divided along political lines over whether or not to explain their recusals, and legal experts are very concerned."