Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 369 posts

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#101

Post by pavon »

scott_w wrote: post #66

Just to try and understand the decision, an analogy that’s coming to mind would be like saying a van manufacturer wouldn’t have liability if it’s used in a bank robbery. However if the manufacturer sold it with the intent for the buyer to use it for bank robbery (the manufacturer having the intent in this case, as well as the robber themselves), then they could become partially liable. Have I got that right?

MGM vs Grokster is a good decision to read to understand the boundaries of contributory infringement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,....

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/913/

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#102

Post by kube-system »

joering2 wrote: post #69
achandlerwhite wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my understanding. Basic carrier vs service stuff. What I wonder is how this might impact gun manufacturers.

[flagged]

Because intent isn't something that you can acquire from the actions of third parties

Second, the VAST majority of guns in the US sit in gun safes and closets and never shoot anyone.

Finally, shooting someone is not necessarily an illegal action -- gun manufacturers market their products for self defense or sporting reasons -- I have never seen one market their products for use in criminal acts.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#103

Post by nekusar »

I have to pay property tax forever for a house I supposedly own. If I dont pay that, the government sues and takes my house. Basically I never actually own my house.

(Of course, we have "Evil Communist China" where there is no property tax, and people own their homes and can live there. Id argue they're more free than we are.)

But copyrights and patents and trademarks? There's no tax on those "properties". And gee, companies are the ones to likely own these properties, not individuals.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#104

Post by MBCook »

plagiarist wrote: post #86
Sparkle-san wrote: post #70

Glad to have one less reason to incentivize ISPs to monitor every single thing we do on the internet.

They are already incentivized enough by selling the data, more incentives won't change anything.

The ruling said that they don’t have to.

Going with your point, it does not say they can’t monitor and then sell the list of pirates to Sony/etc. for some extra income.

They just didn’t like doing it for free.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#105

Post by vetrom »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #78
tencentshill wrote: post #74

This isn't good. They can still sue you, but now they need proof that you as an individual behind that public IP did it. This will only incentivize them to join the push for ID requirements.

They aren't suing some broke 23 year old. What they can collect is less than their lawyer fees. At worst, universities crack down harder on torrents, but that was always an option for labels.

There is a very important consideration here that this opinion doesn't really touch on, but I think is invited down the road for future cases and legislation: Can you compel the speech of a third party to aid in exploratory evidence gathering (aka fishing expeditions) without a clear, well defined, and particular, cause of action at court to issue a subpoena?

In most classic U.S. jurisdiction, no, you cannot. Compelled activity or speech is generally frowned upon. The most important part of this case, IMO, was the Supreme Court constraining the Fourth Circuit's interpretation of contributory liability and attempting to turn the DMCA system into one for enabling those fishing expeditions.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#106

Post by MSFT_Edging »

burningChrome wrote: post #96
shevy-java wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I doubt even 1% of the guns have been used in a crime. Guns are used to inflict harm. Why would the arms producer not be held accountable? He produced the gun. The gun is the tool to cause harm, injury, potentially death. If service providers are held responsible for users, arms producers must also be held accountable. Financially too.

>> Guns are used to inflict harm. Why would the arms producer not be held accountable? Notably by criminals who have never, and will never abide by the copious amounts of federal and state laws that currently regulate how people are able to use guns. If that is the case, how does holding manufacturers responsible for something completely out of their control make sense? Its like saying car manufacturers should be res…

The gun companies have incentive to sell as many guns as they can, to the consumerist base of gun hobbyists.

There are 500M guns in the US because it's a hobby based on buying and collecting.

Due to the amount of guns in circulation, it is common for guns to be stolen.

Therefore, there are more "illegal" guns in circulation due to the consumerist nature of gun owners, and the companies making money on selling these guns.

Without a large amount of guns in circulation, there would not be a similarly large amount of illegal guns in circulation, as they almost all came from a factory somewhere.

I like guns but I am so tired of people acting like the 2nd amendment insists it's their right to treat firearms like goddamn funkopops.

In states with legal marijuana, we set limits on the number of plants one can keep on their property, yet there is no limit to how many firearms one can poorly store for a slightly competent criminal to come collect under their nose. No liability for poorly storing them either unless it's in the immediate vicinity of a toddler.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#107

Post by smallerize »

scott_w wrote: post #66

Just to try and understand the decision, an analogy that’s coming to mind would be like saying a van manufacturer wouldn’t have liability if it’s used in a bank robbery. However if the manufacturer sold it with the intent for the buyer to use it for bank robbery (the manufacturer having the intent in this case, as well as the robber themselves), then they could become partially liable. Have I got that right?

In this case, there is a safe harbor where ISPs can avoid liability by enforcing a policy against their customers that eventually cuts them off for repeated infringement. Cox stepped outside of this safe harbor by not following their own policy. But the court says that doesn't automatically make them liable.

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#108

Post by MBCook »

shevy-java wrote: post #88
achandlerwhite wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's my understanding. Basic carrier vs service stuff. What I wonder is how this might impact gun manufacturers.

Yeah. The courts are inconsistent here. If they want to hold service providers responsible, they also must make arms producer responsible, and politicians too.

Well this is a copyright case and guns aren’t. Couldn’t that be a big reason for the difference?

Re: Supreme Court Sides with Cox in Copyright Fight over Pirated Music

#110

Post by djoldman »

For those like myself who wanted context:

> Cox Communications v. Sony Music, 607 U.S.___ (2026), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the liability of an internet service provider for its subscribers engaging in copyright infringement.

> Cox Communications was sued by multiple music labels for lax enforcement of its users engaged in sharing the labels' copyrighted music, arging Cox finacially benefitted from these users. A jury trial found Cox to be liable. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, the court dismissed findings that Cox engaged in vicarious infringment, but held that Cox was still liable for contributory infringement, with Cox potentially owing several million dollars to the labels.

> In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court found that Cox Communication was not contributorily liable for the actions of its users, reversing the Fourth's decision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_Communications,_Inc._v._So...

Post reply on HN