Actor Sean Astin and Entertainment Industry Executives Testify on Digital Piracy; C-SPAN, June 30, 2026

 C-SPAN ; Actor Sean Astin and Entertainment Industry Executives Testify on Digital Piracy

"Actor Sean Astin and entertainment industry executives testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, AI, and the Internet on digital piracy and intellectual property enforcement. The witnesses discussed several topics, including artificial intelligence's role in intellectual property theft, efforts to protect content creators, and the use of judicial site blocking to combat online piracy."

Copyright Head Chides Supreme Court’s ‘Shocking’ Cox Opinion; Bloomberg Law, April 3, 2026

  

Annelise Levy

, Bloomberg Law; Copyright Head Chides Supreme Court’s ‘Shocking’ Cox Opinion

"US Copyright Office Director Shira Perlmutter said the Supreme Court put “little thought” into the implications of its recent decision absolving an internet service provider for not shuttering accounts of users who repeatedly pirated music.

"The throwing out of many, many decades of copyright law on secondary liability so quickly and with so little analysis was shocking," Perlmutter said Friday at a Stanford Law School event."

Proposal to allow use of Australian copyrighted material to train AI abandoned after backlash; The Guardian, December 19, 2025

 Patrick Commins , The Guardian; Proposal to allow use of Australian copyrighted material to train AI abandoned after backlash

"The Productivity Commission has abandoned a proposal to allow tech companies to mine copyrighted material to train artificial intelligence models, after a fierce backlash from the creative industries.

Instead, the government’s top economic advisory body recommended the government wait three years before deciding whether to establish an independent review of Australian copyright settings and the impact of the disruptive new technology...

In its interim report on the digital economy, the commission floated the idea of granting a “fair dealing” exemption to copyright rules that would allow AI companies to mine data and text to develop their large language models...

The furious response from creative industries to the commission’s idea included music industry bodies saying it would “legitimise digital piracy under guise of productivity”."

Court seems dubious of billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement; SCOTUSblog, December 2, 2025

Ronald Mann, SCOTUSblog; Court seems dubious of billion-dollar judgment for copyright infringement

 "My basic reaction to the argument is that the justices would be uncomfortable with accepting the broadest version of the arguments that Cox has presented to it (that the ISP is protected absent an affirmative act of malfeasance), but Sony’s position seems so unpalatable to them that a majority is most unlikely to coalesce around anything that is not a firm rejection of the lower court’s ruling against Cox. I wouldn’t expect that ruling to come soon, but I don’t think there is much doubt about what it will say."

US Supreme Court wrestles with copyright dispute between Cox and record labels; Reuters, December 1, 2025

 Blake Brittain , Reuters; US Supreme Court wrestles with copyright dispute between Cox and record labels

"The U.S. Supreme Court grappled on Monday with a bid by Cox Communications to avoid financial liability in a major music copyright lawsuit by record labels that accused the internet service provider of enabling its customers to pirate thousands of songs.

The justices appeared skeptical of Cox's assertion that its mere awareness of user piracy could not justify holding it liable for copyright infringement. They also questioned whether holding Cox liable for failing to cut off infringers could impact a wide range of innocent internet users."

Cox Communications v. Sony Music Oral Argument; C-SPAN, December 1, 2025

 C-SPAN ; Cox Communications v. Sony Music Oral Argument

"The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, a case about Sony's lawsuit against internet service provider Cox Communications, and whether such companies may be held liable for their users' copyright infringements. Sony and other record companies and publishers sued Cox, alleging it was liable for its subscribers downloading and distributing copyrighted songs. A federal jury found Cox liable and awarded $1 billion in statutory damages. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury's finding of willful infringement but vacated the damages award. The Trump administration supported Cox in the dispute and, along with attorney Joshua Rosenkranz, argued on behalf of the company. Veteran Supreme Court attorney Paul Clement argued on behalf of the respondent, Sony Music."

Supreme Court to Hear Copyright Battle Over Online Music Piracy; The New York Times, December 1, 2025

 Ann E. Marimow , The New York Times; Supreme Court to Hear Copyright Battle Over Online Music Piracy

"The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday in a closely watched copyright clash testing whether internet providers can be held liable for the piracy of thousands of songs online.

Leading music labels and publishers who represent artists ranging from Bob Dylan to Beyoncé sued Cox Communications in 2018, saying it had failed to terminate the internet connections of subscribers who had been repeatedly flagged for illegally downloading and distributing copyrighted music.

At issue is whether providers like Cox can be held legally responsible and be required to pay steep damages — a billion dollars or more — if it knows that customers are pirating the music but does not take sufficient steps to terminate their internet access."

Contributory Copyright Liability Back Before the Supreme Court; Marquette University Law School, November 28, 2025

 Bruce E. Boyden, Marquette University Law School ; Contributory Copyright Liability Back Before the Supreme Court

"The case itself is no trifling matter. Cox, a cable company that provides broadband internet access to its subscribers, is appealing a $1 billion jury verdict holding it liable for assisting some of those subscribers in engaging in copyright infringement. The case arose from an effort by record labels and music publishers to stem the tide of peer-to-peer filesharing of music files by sending notices of infringement to access providers such as Cox. The DMCA bars liability for access providers as long as they reasonably implemented a repeat infringer policy. But who’s a repeat infringer? The notices were an effort to get access providers to take action by giving them the knowledge of repeat infringements necessary to trigger the policies.

According to the evidence presented at trial, however, Cox was extremely resistant to receiving or taking action in response to the notices. The most colorful bit of evidence (and yet another example of how loose emails sink ships) was from the head of the Cox abuse and safety team in charge of enforcing user policies, who screamed in a team-wide email: “F the dmca!!!” (This was followed by an email from a higher-level executive on the chain: “Sorry to be Paranoid Panda here, but please stop sending out e-mails saying F the law….”) The Fourth Circuit ultimately held that because Cox didn’t reasonably implement its repeat infringer policy, it lost its statutory immunity, and then at trial the jury found Cox contributorily liable for the infringements that it had been notified about, which the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

The question before the Court is whether the lower courts applied the right test for contributory copyright liability, or applied it correctly. (There’s a second question, about the standard for willfulness in determining damages, but I didn’t address that one.) There’s a couple of things that make this issue difficult to disentangle; one has to do with the history of contributory infringement doctrine, and the other is a technical issue about what, exactly, is being challenged on appeal."

$1 billion Supreme Court music piracy case could affect internet users; USA TODAY, November 30, 2025

 Maureen Groppe , USA TODAY; $1 billion Supreme Court music piracy case could affect internet users

"The entertainment industry’s seemingly losing battle to stop music from being illegally copied and shared in the digital age hits the Supreme Court on Dec. 1 in a case both sides say could have huge consequences for both the industry and internet users.

A decision by the high court that fails to hold internet service providers accountable for piracy on their networks would “spell disaster for the music community,” according to groups representing musicians and other entertainers.

But Cox Communications, the largest private broadband company in America, argues too tough a standard could “jeopardize internet access for all Americans.”"

The Supreme Court Is About to Hear a Case That Could Rewrite Internet Access; Slate, November 28, 2025

 MICHAEL P. GOODYEAR, Slate; The Supreme Court Is About to Hear a Case That Could Rewrite Internet Access

"Imagine losing internet access because someone in your household downloaded pirated music. We rely on the internet to learn, discover job opportunities, navigate across cities and the countryside, shop for the latest trends, file our taxes, and much more. Now all of that could be gone in an instant.

That is not a dystopian fantasy, but a real possibility raised by a case the Supreme Court will hear on Monday. In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the justices will decide whether an internet provider can be held responsible for failing to terminate subscribers accused of repeat copyright infringements. The ruling could determine whether access to the internet—today’s lifeline for education, work, and civic life—can be taken away as punishment for digital misdeeds. Cox’s indifference to repeat infringement is condemnable, but a sweeping ruling could harshly punish thousands for one company’s bad faith."

Copyright Piracy at the Supreme Court In Cox v. Sony: is an internet provider liable for digital thieves?; The Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2025

 The Editorial Board, The Wall Street Journal; Copyright Piracy at the Supreme Court" In Cox v. Sony, is an internet provider liable for digital thieves?

"If a college student pirates music files, can his broadband provider be liable for his copyright infringement? That’s the question before the Supreme Court on Monday in Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, which tugs at the tension between protecting intellectual property and the internet."

President Biden, creatives need copyright champions in the federal government ; The Hill, January 7, 2022

  

RUTH VITALE, THE HILL; President Biden, creatives need copyright champions in the federal government 

"The copyright industries bring not only cultural but also economic prosperity to our country. They contribute $1.5 trillion per year of value to the U.S. GDP, accounting for 7.41 percent of the national economy. U.S. copyright products sold overseas amounted to nearly $219 billion in sales in 2019 – more than other major industries including pharmaceuticals, aerospace, and agriculture. 

President Biden has personally demonstrated long-standing support for the creative industries. As a senator 20 years ago, he convened a hearing called “Theft of American Intellectual Property: Fighting Crime Abroad and at Home.” As vice president, over 10 years ago, he helped to implement a new law that created the Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. Unequivocally, he stated, “Piracy is theft. Clean and simple.”...

Infringing content draws users to platforms, helping to fuel BigTech’s ascent to previously inconceivable heights of wealth. Meanwhile, digital pirates are stealing the rightful earnings of hard-working Americans, facilitated by Big Tech. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that digital piracy takes between $29.2 billion and $71 billion from the national economy every year. It also takes away between 230,000 and 560,000 American jobs...

I remain hopeful that President Biden’s future appointments will better reflect his lengthy and strong record in support of respect for copyright. Specifically, the position of U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) is open once again.  

As the president knows better than anyone else, the person serving in the IPEC’s role oversees Executive Office efforts to curb piracy, domestically and abroad. The previous IPEC was confirmed by the Senate in August of 2017 – today, during a critical moment for the creative communities, the position is vacant."