Internet service providers warn of widespread disconnections in legal battle with record labels

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Monday in a pivotal copyright case that could have far-reaching effects on internet access in the United States. Internet service providers (ISPs) warn that a ruling against them may force millions offline and effectively turn connectivity companies into enforcers of copyright law.

The dispute revolves around peer-to-peer file-sharing networks, such as BitTorrent, which allow users to download pirated music. Leading record labels are seeking to hold ISPs accountable for copyright violations, arguing that these providers failed to stop users known to be distributing illegal content.

Cox Communications, an ISP challenging the case at the Supreme Court, cautioned that holding providers responsible for users online behavior could result in widespread disconnections, affecting homes, hospitals, military barracks, and hotels merely on accusation of infringement. The company described such a scenario as turning ISPs into internet police and threatening access for millions.

Music companies, including Sony Music Entertainment, contend that Cox actively facilitated repeat offenders for profit. They highlight that while Cox terminated over 600,000 accounts for nonpayment, it suspended just 32 for repeated copyright violations during the same period. The music labels represent some of Americas most famous artists, including Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Beyonc, Eminem, Eric Clapton, and Gloria Estefan.

Recent Supreme Court decisions have generally refrained from holding companies liable for third-party misconduct. In June, the Court ruled that U.S. gun manufacturers could not be held accountable for cartel-related violence. Two years ago, it also ruled that Twitter (now X) could not be held responsible for terrorist content posted by ISIS on its platform.

In the Cox case, a jury initially awarded $1 billion to the music companies for infringement involving more than 10,000 copyrighted works. An appeals court later overturned the award but confirmed that Cox had engaged in willful contributory infringement, prompting the company to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The case has attracted attention from major tech firms, including Google and X, which support the ISPs. X argued that a ruling against Cox could significantly disrupt the tech industry, particularly in relation to artificial intelligence. The brief emphasized that if content creators can hold AI platforms liable for copyright violations facilitated by their technology, companies may have to severely limit their operations to avoid legal risk. Several media companies, including Warner Bros. Discovery, have already filed lawsuits against AI platforms for alleged copyright infringement.

Notably, the Supreme Court faced a similar issue over 40 years ago with the Betamax VCR. At that time, Universal Studios challenged the device, fearing it would be used for widespread copyright infringement. The Court ruled that selling the equipment did not constitute contributory infringement, marking a significant victory for Sony Corp., which today is the parent company of the music label suing ISPs.

Author: Sophia Brooks