Overview
This series uses the Supreme Court's 2026 Cox v. Sony decision to separate questions often collapsed in ISP copyright disputes: what a provider knows, whom a connection-level notice identifies, and whether the provider intended to facilitate infringement. It traces the network facts and notice record, tests the majority's two routes—active inducement and an infringement-tailored service—and distinguishes contributory liability from DMCA section 512 safe-harbor conditions. It also explains Justice Sotomayor's concurrence: a broader aiding-and-abetting theory might remain available, but Cox still prevailed because the record did not show purposeful help of specific infringement. The series offers a bounded way to read ordinary general-purpose access without treating repeated notices, imperfect enforcement, or safe-harbor ineligibility as automatic proof of liability; other theories and intermediary functions remain open.
Learning outcomes
- For ordinary general-purpose Internet access, knowledge of infringement plus continued service did not establish contributory liability on this record.
- The majority recognized active inducement and an infringement-tailored service as routes to contributory liability.
- An IP address or subscriber account can identify a connection without identifying the person who acted.
- DMCA safe-harbor eligibility and substantive liability are separate; losing the safe harbor does not prove infringement.
- Justice Sotomayor's concurrence argued for a broader aiding-and-abetting theory but still required affirmative help and intent to make the wrongful act succeed.
Keywords
Preview every chapter · Unlock full text, audio, and video from chapter 4
PlansFAQ
What did the Supreme Court hold in Cox v. Sony?
The Supreme Court held that, on this record, an ISP's knowledge of infringement and continued service did not establish contributory liability without active inducement or an infringement-tailored service.
Why doesn't an IP address identify the infringer?
An IP address generally maps activity to a connection or subscriber account, but a household, campus, hospital, coffee shop, or regional network may place many users behind it. The notice can therefore show connection-level knowledge without person-level intent.
How does the DMCA safe harbor differ from contributory liability?
The DMCA's section 512 safe harbors are conditional limitations on liability for specified provider functions; failing to qualify does not itself prove infringement. Contributory liability separately asks whether the provider's conduct showed purposeful facilitation under the applicable rule.
What evidence could support contributory liability after Cox v. Sony?
Evidence of promotion, instructions, targeted assistance, or a service lacking substantial or commercially significant lawful uses could support the majority's routes. Mere knowledge, continued access, or imperfect enforcement is insufficient by itself.
What did Justice Sotomayor's concurrence leave open?
The concurrence argued that common-law aiding and abetting might remain available beyond the majority's two routes, but it still required an affirmative act and intent to help a wrongful act succeed. It agreed Cox should win on this record.