As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in *Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment*, the case brings to a head years of tension between internet service providers and the music industry over responsibility for online piracy.
The dispute centers on alleged copyright infringement by approximately 57,000 Cox subscribers who shared music illegally through peer-to-peer networks during 2013-2014, resulting in an initial $1 billion damages award against the ISP.
The central question before the Court focuses on whether Cox can be held liable for contributory copyright infringement by failing to terminate accounts of customers known to be sharing copyrighted music. The Fourth Circuit Court previously upheld the contributory infringement finding while reversing a vicarious liability determination, ordering a retrial on damages and prompting both parties to appeal to the Supreme Court.
At issue: Can ISPs be liable for failing to terminate subscribers who illegally share copyrighted content?
Cox, which serves more than 6 million internet subscribers, argues it responded appropriately to piracy by processing over 160,000 automated notices with warnings and account suspensions.
The ISP contends that mere awareness of user piracy without culpable acts on its part cannot justify liability, a position supported by the Trump Administration’s Solicitor General.
On the opposing side, music labels including Sony, Universal Music Group, and Warner claim Cox deliberately fostered piracy by maintaining an “express policy” that prioritized subscription revenue over aggressive copyright enforcement.
The labels argue that continuing to provide service to known repeat infringers constitutes culpable contributory infringement warranting massive damages.
Legal experts consider this one of the most significant copyright cases in years, with potential to redefine internet companies’ obligations regarding user-generated content. Cox’s internal emails revealed company frustrations with volume of infringement notices, providing critical evidence in the district court’s decision to deny DMCA safe harbor protections. Oral arguments are expected to take place by December 2025 with industry stakeholders closely monitoring the proceedings.
The Supreme Court’s ruling could establish clearer standards for when ISPs must cut off customers accused of piracy, potentially affecting millions of internet users while balancing copyright protection against access to essential internet services.
The Court granted certiorari specifically on the contributory liability issue, which focuses on whether an ISP must commit “conscious and culpable acts” to be held responsible for users’ copyright violations.
The case underscores the critical role of performance rights organizations in protecting musical compositions and ensuring creators receive compensation when their works are used, whether through legitimate channels or pirated content.
This battle over piracy stands in stark contrast to legitimate music distribution options where artists can leverage streaming platforms to reach audiences and earn royalties through official channels.
