https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/25/us/politics/supreme-court-cox-music-copyright.html

Skip to contentSkip to site index
Politics
 
 
Today's Paper
 

Supreme Court

  * Major Decisions
  * Asylum Seekers
  * Mail-In Ballots
  * Tariffs Struck Down
  * A Rare Joint Appearance

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your
access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will
load.

Supported by

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Supreme Court Sides With Internet Provider in Copyright Fight Over
Pirated Music

Leading music labels sued Cox Communications for failing to terminate
accounts of subscribers flagged for distributing copyrighted music.

Listen * 5:16 min

  * Share full article
  * 
  * 
  * 204

[00dc-scotus-copyright-mltj-articleLarge]
At issue for the justices was whether providers like Cox could be
held legally responsible if they knew that customers were pirating
music but did not take steps to terminate their internet access.
Credit...Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
Ann E. Marimow

By Ann E. Marimow

Reporting from Washington

March 25, 2026Updated 2:40 p.m. ET

The Supreme Court unanimously said on Wednesday that a major internet
provider could not be held liable for the piracy of thousands of
songs online in a closely watched copyright clash.

Music labels and publishers sued Cox Communications in 2018, saying
the company had failed to cut off the internet connections of
subscribers who had been repeatedly flagged for illegally downloading
and distributing copyrighted music.

At issue for the justices was whether providers like Cox could be
held legally responsible and required to pay steep damages -- a
billion dollars or more in Cox's case -- if they knew that customers
were pirating music but did not take sufficient steps to terminate
their internet access.

In its opinion released on Wednesday, the court said a company was
not liable for "merely providing a service to the general public with
knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights."

Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas said a provider like
Cox was liable "only if it intended that the provided service be used
for infringement" and if it, for instance, "actively encourages
infringement."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson,
wrote separately to say that she agreed with the outcome but for
different reasons.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in
Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe
 for all of The Times.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Related Content

  * 
  * 
  * 
  * 
  * 
  * 

  * 
  * 
  * 

  * 
  * 
  * 
  * 
  * 
  * 
  * 
  * 
  * 
  * 

Advertisement

SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

Site Index

Site Information Navigation

  * (c) 2026 The New York Times Company

  * NYTCo
  * Contact Us
  * Accessibility
  * Work with us
  * Advertise
  * T Brand Studio
  * Privacy Policy
  * Cookie Policy
  * Terms of Service
  * Terms of Sale
  * Site Map
  * Canada
  * International
  * Help
  * Subscriptions

  * Manage Privacy Preferences