Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Supreme Court of the United States
Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment
Docket number: 24-171
Term: 2025
Court: United States Supreme Court
Important dates
Pending
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment is a case scheduled for argument before the Supreme Court of the United States during the court's October 2025-2026 term.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The questions presented: "1. This Court has held that a business commits contributory copyright infringement when it ‘distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps to foster infringement.’ Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 919 (2005). The courts of appeals have split three ways over the scope of that ruling, developing differing standards for when it is appropriate to hold an online service provider secondarily liable for copyright infringement committed by users.

    Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a service provider can be held liable for ‘materially contributing’ to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it?

    2. Generally, a defendant cannot be held liable as a willful violator of the law-and subject to increased penalties-without proof that it knew or recklessly disregarded a high risk that its own conduct was illegal. In conflict with the Eighth Circuit, the Fourth Circuit upheld an instruction allowing the jury to find willfulness if Cox knew its subscribers' conduct was illegal-without proof Cox knew its own conduct in not terminating them was illegal.

    Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that mere knowledge of another's direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)? "[1]

  • The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions presented:
    “ 1. This Court has held that a business commits contributory copyright infringement when it ‘distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps to foster infringement.’ Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 919 (2005). The courts of appeals have split three ways over the scope of that ruling, developing differing standards for when it is appropriate to hold an online service provider secondarily liable for copyright infringement committed by users.

    Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a service provider can be held liable for ‘materially contributing’ to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it?

    2. Generally, a defendant cannot be held liable as a willful violator of the law-and subject to increased penalties-without proof that it knew or recklessly disregarded a high risk that its own conduct was illegal. In conflict with the Eighth Circuit, the Fourth Circuit upheld an instruction allowing the jury to find willfulness if Cox knew its subscribers' conduct was illegal-without proof Cox knew its own conduct in not terminating them was illegal.

    Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that mere knowledge of another's direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)? [2]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of the case will be posted here when it is made available.

    Transcript

    A transcript of the case will be posted here when it is made available.

    Outcome

    The case is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    October term 2025-2026

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

    The Supreme Court will begin hearing cases for the term on October 6, 2025. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[3]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "24-171 COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. V. SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT QP", June 30, 2025
    2. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    3. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Cox_Communications,_Inc._v._Sony_Music_Entertainment&oldid=10479290"