""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 for the court."
""Cox provided Internet service to its subscribers, but it did not intend for that service to be used to commit copyright infringement," Thomas said. "Cox neither induced its users' infringement nor provided a service tailored to infringement.""
The Supreme Court ruled in a 9-0 decision that internet service providers, like Cox Cable, are not liable for copyright infringement by their users. This ruling overturned a $1 billion verdict against Cox, which had been found to contribute to music piracy. The court stated that merely providing a service with knowledge of potential misuse does not establish liability. Justice Clarence Thomas emphasized that Cox did not intend for its service to facilitate copyright infringement and did not induce such actions.
Read at Los Angeles Times
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]