Supreme Court tosses $1B copyright verdict in record companies' battle over illegal internet downloads

[1srelluc]

MSN

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that internet providers are not liable for copyright infringement by their users, delivering an opinion in Cox v. Sony and tossing a $1 billion verdict.

"Under our precedents, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion. "Accordingly, we reverse."

The ruling marks a significant win for broadband providers facing pressure from copyright owners to police subscriber activity.

Cox Communications now cannot be held liable for piracy by its internet service subscribers of songs owned by Sony Music, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group and other labels, ending their billion-dollar-plus music copyright lawsuit.

Suing the internet provider for what the users use it for? Sounds like the companies were just looking for the entity with the best ability to payout.

Fire up the Napster machine again!

 

[martybegan]

MSN

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that internet providers are not liable for copyright infringement by their users, delivering an opinion in Cox v. Sony and tossing a $1 billion verdict.

"Under our precedents, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion. "Accordingly, we reverse."

The ruling marks a significant win for broadband providers facing pressure from copyright owners to police subscriber activity.

Cox Communications now cannot be held liable for piracy by its internet service subscribers of songs owned by Sony Music, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group and other labels, ending their billion-dollar-plus music copyright lawsuit.

Suing the internet provider for what the users use it for? Sounds like the companies were just looking for the entity with the best ability to payout.

Fire up the Napster machine again!

Napster still won't work, because they weren't a provider, they were an actual platform doing the sharing.

That means companies like Verizon and Spectrum can't be held liable for someone using something like Napster over their broadband.

Napster still would be though.

 

[Dragonlady]

Napster still won't work, because they weren't a provider, they were an actual platform doing the sharing.

That means companies like Verizon and Spectrum can't be held liable for someone using something like Napster over their broadband.

Napster still would be though.

This is the Supreme Court saying that theft of artists' work is OK by them. Just like bribing public officials is OK by them. And the President is above the law.

This is the Federalist Society Supreme Court, brought to you by Leonard Leo and Mitch McConnell.

How many women died last year because they ended Roe v Wade????

 

[martybegan]

This is the Supreme Court saying that theft of artists' work is OK by them. Just like bribing public officials is OK by them. And the President is above the law.

This is the Federalist Society Supreme Court, brought to you by Leonard Leo and Mitch McConnell.

How many women died last year because they ended Roe v Wade????

No, this is saying you can't sue the city that owns the road because someone drove over it after stealing from your house.

This was an Unanimous decision, you idgit, even the 3 progressives agreed about it.

 

[toobfreak]

internet providers are not liable for copyright infringement by their users,

Why would they be? It took SCOTUS to decide this? Suing an internet provider because someone used their service to break the law is like suing a gun maker because some committed a crime with one or suing the department of transportation for building a highway because someone drove recklessly on it.

 

[martybegan]

Why would they be? It took SCOTUS to decide this? Suing an internet provider because someone used their service to break the law is like suing a gun maker because some committed a crime with one or suing the department of transportation for building a highway because someone drove recklessly on it.

Remember the left does try to sue Gun makers.

 

[pknopp]

Well shoot.....I was watching the blog but then had to go before this was released.

I agree with the ruling. As I've said, It seems I generally agree with the court regardless of make up. Now I have to find the ruling and read it.

 

[toobfreak]

Remember the left does try to sue Gun makers.

They effectively put Remington out of business.

 

[struth]

This is the Supreme Court saying that theft of artists' work is OK by them. Just like bribing public officials is OK by them. And the President is above the law.

This is the Federalist Society Supreme Court, brought to you by Leonard Leo and Mitch McConnell.

How many women died last years because they ended Roe v Wade????

This is just another post of yours clearly highlighting you either didn’t read the opinion, and cant comprehend the subject matter

Do you love embarrassing yourself?

 

[pknopp]

Unanimous decision. Sotomayor notes that the court should consider whether other laws are applicable and while I've long argued the Supreme Court should do this they rarely do.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

This is the Supreme Court saying that theft of artists' work is OK by them. Just like bribing public officials is OK by them. And the President is above the law.

This is the Federalist Society Supreme Court, brought to you by Leonard Leo and Mitch McConnell.

How many women died last year because they ended Roe v Wade????

The lack of comprehension skills is staggering on your part. The SC ruling removes internet providers liability in copyright violations. Same as always loons blaming the tool and not the criminal.

Roe v Wade was unconstitutional. The SC did it's job by turning over the "right" to murder fetuses to the States.

 

[struth]

The lack of comprehension skills is staggering on your part. The SC ruling removes internet providers liability in copyright violations. Same as always loons blaming the tool and not the criminal.

Roe v Wade was unconstitutional. The SC did it's job by turning over the "right" to murder fetuses to the States.

Dragonlady loves embarrassing herself

 

[1srelluc]

Why would they be? It took SCOTUS to decide this? Suing an internet provider because someone used their service to break the law is like suing a gun maker because some committed a crime with one or suing the department of transportation for building a highway because someone drove recklessly on it.

Bingo!

This decision could be used for such things too.

 

[1srelluc]

This is just another post of yours clearly highlighting you either didn’t read the opinion, and cant comprehend the subject matter

Do you love embarrassing yourself?

Lordy-Lord, she certainly seems intent on doing so!

 

[Rawley]

MSN

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that internet providers are not liable for copyright infringement by their users, delivering an opinion in Cox v. Sony and tossing a $1 billion verdict.

"Under our precedents, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion. "Accordingly, we reverse."

The ruling marks a significant win for broadband providers facing pressure from copyright owners to police subscriber activity.

Cox Communications now cannot be held liable for piracy by its internet service subscribers of songs owned by Sony Music, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group and other labels, ending their billion-dollar-plus music copyright lawsuit.

Suing the internet provider for what the users use it for? Sounds like the companies were just looking for the entity with the best ability to payout.

Fire up the Napster machine again!

They tried this back in the day against the makers of VCRs.

 

[hadit]

This is the Supreme Court saying that theft of artists' work is OK by them. Just like bribing public officials is OK by them. And the President is above the law.

This is the Federalist Society Supreme Court, brought to you by Leonard Leo and Mitch McConnell.

How many women died last year because they ended Roe v Wade????

Fewer unborn ones did.