Sony tells SCOTUS that people accused of piracy aren't "innocent grandmothers"

"While Cox waxes poetic about the centrality of Internet access to modern life, it neglects to mention that it had no qualms about terminating 619,711 subscribers for nonpayment over the same period that it terminated just 32 for serial copyright abuse,"

"And while Cox stokes fears of innocent grandmothers and hospitals being tossed off the Internet for someone else's infringement, Cox put on zero evidence that any subscriber here fit that bill. By its own admission, the subscribers here were 'habitual offenders' Cox chose to retain because, unlike the vast multitude cut off for late payment, they contributed to Cox's bottom line."

"Grandma will be thrown off the Internet because Junior illegally downloaded a few songs on a visit."

Sony, Warner, and Universal asked the Supreme Court to clarify whether Internet service providers must terminate accounts of alleged repeat copyright infringers to avoid significant financial liability. The dispute centers on Cox Communications, which resisted mass terminations of broadband subscribers accused of infringement. Cox contends that bot-generated copyright-infringement notices tied to IP addresses are unreliable and risk punishing innocent household members. The record labels counter that Cox terminated far more subscribers for nonpayment than for alleged serial infringement and retained alleged infringers who contributed to revenue. The Court's decision could define ISP responsibilities and the scope of liability for online piracy.

Read at Ars Technica