UPDATED: The Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with internet provider Cox Communications, holding that it cannot be held liable for music piracy even if it did not take adequate steps to curb the copyright infringement.

The justices, in a 9-0 ruling, were weighing in on a lengthy legal fight between Cox and Sony Music Entertainment, which had sought huge damages against the internet provider for not blocking service to those who egregiously downloaded protected works.

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

Cox Communications had used a service called Mark Monitor to track infringement of Sony’s copyrights, and the ISP said that it took steps to terminate accounts of repeat infringers after multiple warnings — 13 notices, per the high court’s opinion.

But Sony said that, during a certain time frame, Cox terminated only 32 accounts, a contrast to the hundreds of thousands of accounts dropped for non-payment, and failed to act.

A district court sided with Sony, ruling that Cox was liable for both “vicarious” and “contributory” infringement, and awarded $1 billion in statutory damages. An appellate court tossed out Cox’s liability for “vicarious” infringement but kept in place the ruling for “contributory” piracy. It ruled that “supplying a product with knowledge that the recipient will use it to infringe copyrights is exactly the sort of culpable conduct sufficient for contributory infringement.”

The justices, though, ruled that mere knowledge was not enough to meet the threshold for liability. They found that Cox did not “induce” or “encourage” subscribers to pirate works, which plaintiffs have to show to prove that defendants are liable for “contributory” infringement.

“Cox provided Internet service to its subscribers, but it did not intend for that service to be used
to commit copyright infringement. Holding Cox liable merely for failing to terminate Internet service to infringing accounts would expand secondary copyright liability beyond our precedents,” Thomas wrote in the majority opinion.

Cox Communications said in a statement, “This opinion affirms that internet service providers are not copyright police and should not be held liable for the actions of their customers — and after years of battling in the trial and appellate courts, we have definitively shut down the music industry’s aspirations of mass evictions from the internet.”

Josh Bercu, senior vice president of policy at USTelecom, said in a statement that by “getting this right, the court has ensured consumers are not at risk of losing access to telehealth, online education, remote work, and other broadband-powered opportunities as a result of shortsighted and unworkable legal theories.” 

Mitch Glazier, chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America, said in a statement that they were “disappointed” in the ruling.

He said, “To be effective, copyright law must protect creators and markets from harmful infringement and policymakers should look closely at the impact of this ruling. The Court’s decision is narrow, applying only to ‘contributory infringement’ cases involving defendants like Cox that do not themselves copy, host, distribute, or publish infringing material or control or induce such activity.”

Karyn Temple, senior execuitve vice president and global general counsel at the MPA, said in a statement that the decision “upends the critical legal doctrine of contributory infringement for copyright that has served as a key factor fostering cooperation between rightsholders, internet service providers, and other online intermediaries.”

She added, “As the Supreme Court had previously observed, secondary liability, including contributory infringement, is ‘the only practical alternative’ for addressing widespread online theft. Unfortunately, the court’s opinion today ignores this well-established rule and congressional intent, which is particularly disappointing amidst a growing consensus about the need for more accountability for facilitating harmful online conduct, not less.”