Protecting Your Internet Access: Why the Supreme Court Case of Cox v. Sony Matters to Everyone
The future of how you access the internet is currently in the hands of the Supreme Court. The case of Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment isn’t just a legal battle between a cable provider and music companies; it’s a pivotal moment that will determine whether Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are transformed into copyright police,potentially jeopardizing internet access for millions. At the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), we’ve filed an amicus brief urging the Court to protect the open internet and prevent a radical shift in liability standards that would harm users and stifle innovation.
Understanding the Core Issue: Secondary Copyright Liability
This case centers around the complex legal concept of “secondary liability.” Essentially, it asks: can someone be held responsible for the actions of another, even if they didn’t directly participate in those actions? In the context of the internet, this means can an ISP be held liable for copyright infringement committed by its subscribers?
The music companies argue that Cox Communications should be held liable for the infringing activity of some of its customers. The fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, establishing a dangerously low bar for liability – a “material contribution” standard. This means that simply providing a service that could be used for copyright infringement is enough to trigger liability, even if the ISP isn’t actively encouraging or facilitating the infringement.
This ruling is deeply concerning because it fundamentally misunderstands how the internet works. Internet access is overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes – education, commerce, dialogue, healthcare, and countless other legitimate activities. It’s a “staple article of commerce,” essential to modern life.
Why the Patent Act Holds the Key
For decades, courts have looked to patent law to define the boundaries of secondary liability in copyright cases. Why? Because Congress has explicitly defined secondary liability within the Patent Act. That definition is crucial: contributory infringement only exists when a product is specifically designed for infringement and lacks significant non-infringing uses.
This is a critical distinction. Internet access clearly doesn’t fit that description. To apply the Fourth Circuit’s “material contribution” standard would be to ignore decades of legal precedent and create a system where ISPs face potentially billions of dollars in damages for simply providing a service that can be misused, even if they are actively working to address infringement.
The Real-World Consequences: Collective Punishment and Disrupted Access
The implications of the Fourth Circuit’s ruling are far-reaching and deeply damaging. it would incentivize ISPs to proactively terminate accounts based on even unverified or automated infringement claims, leading to widespread “collective punishment.” Consider these scenarios:
* Public Libraries: These vital community hubs, providing internet access to millions who lack it at home, could face service disruptions.
* Educational Institutions: Universities, schools, and even entire campuses could experience internet outages.
* Healthcare Facilities: Hospitals and clinics rely on constant connectivity for patient care; disruptions could have life-threatening consequences.
* Low-income Communities & Communities of Color: These communities disproportionately rely on shared broadband connections. A single user’s alleged infringement could cut off entire households, exacerbating existing digital divides.
Furthermore, with over a third of Americans having limited or no choice in internet providers, those terminated would face significant barriers to reconnection. Losing internet access isn’t just an inconvenience; it’s a barrier to education, employment, healthcare, and full participation in modern society.
Our Position: A Call for Clarity and Constitutional Protection
The EFF’s amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to reaffirm the established principles of secondary liability, drawing from the clear guidelines established in patent law. We argue that contributory infringement requires more than simply “material contribution.” It demands proof that a product or service is specifically designed for infringement and lacks substantial legitimate uses.
This isn’t just about protecting ISPs; it’s about protecting the basic right to access information and participate in the digital world. The Constitution requires copyright law to serve the public good, not to stifle innovation or punish innocent users.
What Happens next?
The Supreme Court now has the prospect to correct a risky course. By rejecting the Fourth Circuit’s flawed ”material contribution” test, the court can safeguard the open internet and ensure that copyright enforcement doesn’t come at the expense of fundamental rights.
we will continue to closely monitor this case and provide updates. You can read our full amicus brief here: [https://www.eff.org/document/cox-v-sonyeff-amicus-brief](https://www.eff.org/
![Sell Used iPhone: Get 10% Bonus & Top Payouts | [Your Brand Name]](https://i0.wp.com/photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/66190-138789-gazelle-iphone-trade-in-bonus-2025-xl.jpg?resize=330%2C220&ssl=1 "Sell Used iPhone: Get 10% Bonus & Top Payouts | [Your Brand Name]")
![Sell Used iPhone: Get 10% Bonus & Top Payouts | [Your Brand Name]](https://i0.wp.com/photos5.appleinsider.com/gallery/66190-138789-gazelle-iphone-trade-in-bonus-2025-xl.jpg?resize=150%2C100&ssl=1 "Sell Used iPhone: Get 10% Bonus & Top Payouts | [Your Brand Name]")
