· 68 comments · Save ·
For Sale Mar 25, 2026 at 2:52 PM

Supreme Court says that internet service provider isn’t liable for bootlegged music downloads

Posted by cnn

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/25/politics/music-industry-internet-supreme-court?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=listnook
🚩 Report this post

68 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
epicredditdude1 Mar 25, 2026 +313
I know the court is prone to make biased decisions but this one actually makes sense to me. Holding internet providers liable for anything that anyone downloads on them would be opening the floodgates.
313
iameveryoneelse Mar 25, 2026 +100
Would also drastically increase cost of service and cause isp to make even more draconian efforts to control internet traffic.
100
Lendari Mar 25, 2026 +10
Heh you'd get your internet license revoked.
10
unremarkedable Mar 25, 2026 +24
It'd be like suing Toyota because someone sold drugs to your kid out of a Tercel
24
Ignorant-Vagrant Mar 25, 2026 +3
Or suing the construction company that built the road you had an accident on.
3
Dunluce92 Mar 26, 2026
At least that could actually be possible if you could prove the road was not built to the correct specifications and standards and thus contributed/caused your accident.
0
ModeatelyIndependant Mar 25, 2026 +3
or suing smith and wesson because someone killed your kid with a .38 special.
3
Fit-Channel-5712 Mar 26, 2026 +2
reddit wasn't reddy for this comment, they know where it leads to....cowards
2
Own-Appointment1633 Mar 25, 2026 +31
Anytime there is an unanimous Supreme Court decision, a safe assumption is it is the correct one.
31
AugieKS Mar 25, 2026 +12
It is 100%the right call and it benefits just about everyone. If ISPs were liable, we would see a much more restricted Internet. Archive.org would probably be blocked country wide tomorrow if they were heald liable. Hell, would they need to block YouTube? It isn't hard to rip content from there. It would be absolute chaos.
12
Early-Light-864 Mar 25, 2026 +1
It would be far too similar to holding gun manufacturers responsible for shootings
1
Ripclawe Mar 25, 2026 +252
Getting kicked in the mouth by the entire court and this ruling can be applied to other forms of downloading. >“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,” Thomas wrote
252
Educational-Wing2042 Mar 25, 2026 +68
Hell it’s not even new case law, this excerpt is about a copyright case from 2005 > Justice Souter elaborated on the details of the test in his written opinion in Grokster, noting that liability could not be assigned through "mere knowledge of infringing potential or of actual infringing uses"; further, actions incident to the distribution of the product such as technical support would not "support liability in themselves." Instead, he wrote, "the inducement rule ... premises liability on purposeful, culpable expression and conduct."
68
Miser2100 Mar 25, 2026 +14
Man, Grokster is a really funny last name now.
14
tanguero81 Mar 25, 2026 +22
"Grokster" was the name of a file sharing platform that came after Napster in the early 2000s. I'm going to take my walker and go find some Metamucil now.
22
flcinusa Mar 26, 2026 +2
As Billy Butcher said, this is what it's come to, metamucil and shaking our dicks for a few drops of piss
2
Lendari Mar 25, 2026 +7
I guess I thought this was a settled issue about 25 years ago. Surprising they bothered to hear the case.
7
high_everyone Mar 25, 2026 +7
The current SCOTUS loves to review old cases to f*** with the status quo. Settled law is a suggestion.
7
OpaqueCrystalBall Mar 26, 2026 +2
There are so many fucked up case results from the past 50 years. I'd actually like to see a bench with ethics and morals to overturn a lot more, but not with this bench.
2
IniNew Mar 25, 2026 +31
AI Companies: "Oh yes, more copyrighted work please!"
31
IRLconsequences Mar 25, 2026 +23
This ruling, paired with the prior ruling that AI works themselves can't be copyrighted, is actually a double gain for the everyman. Stopping AI companies from plagiarism would be an entirely different case anyway.
23
Street_Anxiety2907 Mar 26, 2026 +1
So we can have grooveshark back?
1
nciagra Mar 25, 2026 +99
I get that this could be cause for concern in the future as precedent for AI-related cases, but otherwise isn't this generally a win for net neutrality and open Internet?
99
PegyBundy Mar 25, 2026 +48
100%. Can you imagine Comcast policing this? People are delusional if they want Comcast making decisions about anything.
48
OkWelcome6293 Mar 25, 2026 +6
Comcast used to do exactly that about 20 years ago. They had Sandvine in their network which would block all BitTorrent traffic.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hart_v._Comcast_Corp https://www.wired.com/2008/09/comcast-disclos-2/
6
Specialist-Fun4756 Mar 25, 2026 +2
F***, I was still getting "F*** you" emails from them 10 years ago for dloading Game of Thrones
2
CreepingSalt Mar 26, 2026 +1
I stopped because isp's in my area are so limited I didnt want to risk losing my only real option.
1
ironcladtrash Mar 25, 2026 +1
They still have it and limit and/or block traffic.
1
Teamawesome2014 Mar 25, 2026 +3
I don't see how this case relates to AI copyright cases at all.
3
Warded_Works Mar 25, 2026 +3
It doesn’t.
3
heavyPacket Mar 25, 2026 +36
GOOD. It’s not an ISPs job to moderate and regulate connections to and from the internet. They shouldn’t even have the ability to snoop on network traffic.
36
JediMasterKev Mar 25, 2026 +24
The music companies now have more time to go after YouTubers that are promoting their artists for free. Take a clue from the movie industry that works with influencers and give them early screeners and invite them to premiers.
24
mdervin Mar 25, 2026 -5
Why don't you take that "promoting artists for free" to r/forexposure and see how far you get.
-5
JediMasterKev Mar 25, 2026 +4
Not what Im talking about. There's music shows that get copywrite struck and cant make money off the show. Eagles, Queen, G&R... fans want to talk and maybe play seconds of their music... companies either take the revenue or remove it. Yet, they pay to be pushed on Spotify.
4
mdervin Mar 25, 2026 -6
So youtubers need to honor the copyright law.
-6
JediMasterKev Mar 25, 2026 +4
The ones I follow DO, but if someone claims it, even unjustly, YouTube will side with the music companies. You can legally use small clips, but the little guy can take them to court to prove it.
4
CallmeKahn Mar 25, 2026 +9
You know it's pretty cut and dry when I agree with Thomas on *anything*.
9
Office_Hendo Mar 25, 2026 +8
No shit. That is like holding Walmart liable for the all the drugs sold in their parking lots or suing the state's DOT for a drunk driver rear ending you. What nonsense lol
8
steveycip Mar 25, 2026 +7
Anchors away me boys.
7
l4zyv3rn Mar 25, 2026 +2
Aye aye Captain!
2
redsleepingbooty Mar 25, 2026 +5
Wasn’t this settled law from the Napster era?
5
wookiewin Mar 25, 2026 +5
Jesus, what year are we in
5
Robtism Mar 25, 2026 +4
Good. Now they will stop sending notices. F*** em
4
ThrowAwayAccountAMZN Mar 25, 2026 +4
Am I taking crazy pills or shouldn't this be a bigger deal? Like, front page kind of stuff? I know there's a lot of bad shit going on in the world but I feel like this should kind of be a bigger deal. Maybe I'm just too early though.
4
Teamawesome2014 Mar 25, 2026 +4
Why? This is just upholding the law as it has already been. It just means that ISPs aren't responsible for how users use the internet. If this went the other way, it would be like holding a phone company accountable for crimes committed with a phone call or car manufacturers responsible for crimes committed with vehicles.
4
ThrowAwayAccountAMZN Mar 25, 2026 +2
I know, it's just that...I guess given the world we live in where common sense isn't common, seeing SCOTUS actually hold up something that is common sense feels like a rare 'W'. And it also feels like a win for consumers because if they had ruled that ISPs were liable as you said, then things for consumers would've gotten even worse. Again, this is predicated I guess on the shit decisions SCOTUS has been making in the past so this felt like it should be celebrated more I guess, even if it is common sense. I'm torn I guess. I dunno, I'm running on like three hours of sleep.
2
Teamawesome2014 Mar 25, 2026 +2
I mean, it would only really be news if they didn't rule the way that they did. Upholding the current way of things isn't exactly news.
2
DamNamesTaken11 Mar 25, 2026 +4
Finally, a decision from SCOTUS that I agree with for once, and it was unanimous at that! Fully expected Alito to quote some book maker from just after the invention of the printing press or Thomas to be “gifted” a new RV and agree with the RIAA.
4
cnn Mar 25, 2026 +8
In a major loss for the nation’s music industry, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a major [internet service provider is not liable for copyright](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf) infringement because it failed to kick known copyright violators off its network. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. The nation’s largest record labels want to hold internet providers liable for copyright infringement because they declined to cut off online access to users they know are downloading bootlegged music. The music companies hold the rights to many of America’s most recognizable singers and songwriters, including Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Eminem, Eric Clapton and Gloria Estefan.
8
Warded_Works Mar 25, 2026 +2
Not really all that important since cases like this have gone to court many times in the past with the same conclusion. It’s the same reason that ISPs could send out those warnings but generally never kicked anyone off the service.
2
Desistance Mar 25, 2026 +2
Damn, wasn't expecting this. I guess Sony didn't grease the right hands.
2
londonbury4 Mar 25, 2026 +1
“Under our precedents, a gun manufacturer is not liable for the intended use of its product by the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to kill others,” Thomas wrote.
1
novarodent Mar 25, 2026 +1
Seems like common sense. You don’t hold the utility company liable if someone drowns in their tub.
1
dantesmaster00 Mar 26, 2026 +1
Does that mean pirates 🏴‍☠️ got a win?
1
Katatonia13 Mar 26, 2026 +1
Who downloads music these days? I use YouTube, slightly more expensive than the first cds I bought. No adds on anything YouTube, but more importantly, I can turn my phone off and whatever I’m just listening still plays. The gently of audiobooks and plenty of movies that are basically YouTube’s copyright infringement not mine.
1
MightBeDownstairs Mar 25, 2026 -12
Welp there goes any safety net we had with AI.
-12
Prophet_Tehenhauin Mar 25, 2026 +19
I mean, the other side of the coin would be the nightmare scenario of what, being banished from the internet for going to archive to watch the original Jumanji? 
19
MightBeDownstairs Mar 25, 2026 -11
No. Nightmare is that AI companies will forever be protected. They’ll be able to use copyright material to train and create and no one can do a damn thing about it.
-11
Ninetjer Mar 25, 2026 +11
You have a valid concern, but you're absolutely nuts if you think ISPs should be responsible for everything anyone does on the internet while connected through their service.
11
MightBeDownstairs Mar 25, 2026 -4
No. That’s not what I’m saying. This will be used as precedent when Supreme Court allows AI to steal everything without discernment
-4
Ninetjer Mar 25, 2026 +2
Allowed or otherwise, AI companies will continue using every piece of digital info they can get their hands on. Supreme Court rulings feel irrelevant at this point.
2
Teamawesome2014 Mar 25, 2026 +2
This doesn't set that precedent at all.
2
BarfQueen Mar 25, 2026 +4
They’ve already been using copyrighted material to train and create and no one has done a damn thing about it. Legislation is worth the paper it’s written on. 
4
Teamawesome2014 Mar 25, 2026 +6
That isn't what this decision is at all.
6
MightBeDownstairs Mar 25, 2026 -1
It will be used as precedent. Just wait and see
-1
RadiantDresden Mar 25, 2026 +2
No it won't.
2
Arkholt Mar 25, 2026 +2
The ruling states that internet service providers can't be held liable for what users of their service do. AI companies are not internet service providers. There's no way this ruling could be applied to them.
2
IMA_5-STAR_MAN Mar 25, 2026 -1
And yet people want to sue gun manufacturers for making a legal product.
-1
← Back to Board