ListNook

thatoneguy889 Mar 25, 2026 +434

Good. The jury and lower courts finding Cox liable was insane to me. The fact that this ruling was unanimous is pretty telling.

434

Rower78 Mar 25, 2026 +206

I definitely hate Cox but the implication on liability in general that this case brought was nuts.

206

cwaterbottom Mar 25, 2026 +19

I've been mostly happy with cox, the only thing I really don't like is the insane data cap and having to pay an extra $50 a month for unlimited, but their service and customer service have always been top notch.

19

ashsolomon1 Mar 25, 2026 +10

Well cox is going away in its current form pretty imminently as charter as acquired then and received all regulatory approvals, just waiting on California and then it’ll be closed

10

Prairie-Peppers Mar 26, 2026 +10

You have a data cap on your home Internet? Tf year is it

10

cwaterbottom Mar 26, 2026 +7

No shit, 1.25TB per month, we do twice that easy. It's criminal

7

ToddlerPuncher5000 Mar 27, 2026 +1

JUDGEMENT FREE QUESTION I am p bandwidth heavy but only hit the tb cap once and I was trying really hard. What do you do to rub against it?

1

batinmycrack Mar 26, 2026 +1

My cox app has read 0 usage and I've never been charged extra since getting my own router/modem. Do with that information as you will

1

tommybot Mar 27, 2026 +1

Fyi, for us with cox, we do the yearly phone call requesting the sign up rate. $30 off the plan brings it down to $70 and gives us unlimited data. This year I was able to do it in the app without even talking to anyone.

1

rainbowgeoff Mar 25, 2026 +13

I had the totally opposite opinion. Have always lived in a Comcast area until I lived in norfolk for a couple years. It was night and day.

13

Yuthirin Mar 25, 2026 +8

It’s not that Cox is good so much as that Comcast is so much worse.

8

MadRaymer Mar 25, 2026 +58

It seems this debate has been raging since the Napster days in the late 90s. ISPs have always tried to argue common carrier status. They provide the service, but users are responsible for how it's used. Can't hold the phone company liable if a guy hires a hitman over the phone. Plus it's not like copyright holders have no recourse here. DMCA is an *insanely* robust option for going after infringement. Most ISPs will just cave without any investigation whatsoever if they get a DMCA complaint.

58

CaptainIncredible Mar 25, 2026 +8

> ISPs have always tried to argue common carrier status. Except when Net Neutrality is concerned. They fought that tooth and nail.

8

JacobK101 Mar 26, 2026 +1

Net Neutrality makes it difficult for them to force other huge companies to pay them a troll bridge toll to not throttle their services They want neutrality in liability, but the right to discriminate for their own reasons

1

CaptainIncredible Mar 26, 2026 +2

> force other huge companies to pay them a troll bridge toll to not throttle their services And, it turns out, they want the ability to spy on every user, hoover up ANY/ALL details they can, and sell that information to whoever wants it. This was forbidden when they actually were Title 2 Common Carriers under the Obama administration, and dismantled as soon a Trump got into office. > They want neutrality in liability, but the right to discriminate Yep. Those fuckers.

2

Mr_ToDo Mar 25, 2026 +5

That was much the same thinking as me. Phones aren't(legally) facilitating the sale of drugs, the trafficking of people, etc. Yes, the service *technically* facilitates it by way of providing phone services, but it doesn't come close to being responsible for peoples usage And frankly the only way I see these kinds of services going forward if they *were* guilty is to monitor everyone's usage themselves which is kind of nuts Sure there's a bit of an argument for all the notifications they forwarded. But that *isn't* the same things as knowing they're guilty. Well that and the whole "IP =/= person" bit What got me in the little I read on this case as it was happening was when they presented the accounts with higher number of infringements and sent letters. At the top there were people with utterly insane numbers. And I couldn't help but wonder "Why is cox the only one responsible for their infringement if it was known by the company who sent all those notices?". Why weren't the first party infringes brought to court when it's pretty obvious that *someone* at that IP was downloading/uploading their content? Personally I'd like the second choice if they had been found guilty. 100 percent monitoring was one, but the other is one, the other is internet with no(practically no anyway) logging. If we can't see it, it's not our problem. Cycle IP's every day and don't keep records. Can't send letters to accounts we can't identify. Wishful thinking of course, but I do like the thought

5

GEB82 Mar 25, 2026 +9

I guess nobody told Sam Altman or the rest of the LLM bros about any of this then?

9

MadRaymer Mar 25, 2026 +9

Well, the copyright holders have certainly complained about that situation. But since the LLM bubble is currently propping up the entire global economy it seems like they get a pass.

9

GEB82 Mar 25, 2026 +4

But the laws..insanely robust…anyone even gotten within 100 miles of a court room yet? I appreciate your point though..somewhat infuriating all the same.

4

Previous-Space-7056 Mar 25, 2026 -9

Gun manufactures celebrating rn

-9

Joatboy Mar 25, 2026 +6

That's already been tested in court

6

ZapActions-dower Mar 25, 2026 -2

A tool for killing is a bit different than an entire communication medium. Guns aren't covered by common carrier protections.

-2

AudibleNod Mar 25, 2026 +603

>The justices ruled unanimously that Cox bears no liability for the copyright violations of its customers, reversing a jury verdict and lower-court rulings. A unanimous decision to keep on sharing public domain music and other copyright-free material **(wink)*? And Thomas wrote the decision? Well, well, well.

603

showhorrorshow Mar 25, 2026 +310

Clearly the record labels didnt offer up enough motor coaches.

310

fredkreuger Mar 25, 2026 +74

Excuse me, they are RVs.

74

TheWorclown Mar 25, 2026 +37

“I wanted an Airstream, not a Winnebago. Do I look like I own a mawg to you?”

37

mountaindoom Mar 25, 2026 +13

Periwinkle Blue.

13

grampadeal Mar 26, 2026 +4

Why the f*** do I want a caravan that’s got no f****** wheels?!

4

standuphilospher Mar 25, 2026 +4

Are you your own best friend?

4

OgOnetee Mar 25, 2026 +3

Not in here, you're not! This is a Mercedes!

3

knivesofsmoothness Mar 25, 2026 +5

Lol, look at the poor little person and their "RV"! No doubt you don't have a 40-foot, $267,230 Prevost Le Mirage XL Marathon purchased with a loan from wealthy friend that you never paid back!

5

Ancient-Club9972 Mar 27, 2026 +1

They still go BRREERRRRERERRRRR

1

OldAdministration735 Mar 26, 2026 +2

Well Cox owns Auto Trader. Probably sent out a few magazines to the courthouse with a note attached that said “ Take your pick”.

2

Pendraconica Mar 25, 2026 +70

So if I t****** without a VPN, cox won't come after me anymore? Hallelujah! 🎵Yohoho and bottle of rum!🎵

70

martapap Mar 25, 2026 +65

They can still hand your IP and other info over to the record company.

65

ZapActions-dower Mar 25, 2026 +30

Right, it's not a "you can't do this" or a "you must do this" it's a "you are not liable for what your customers do but if you want to try to stop them or collaborate with others who do, that's fine." It's the same general philosophy as Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. It allows carriers to moderate content without being liable for content they fail to disallow or remove. Without such a principle, the only two options are perfect moderation (an extreme cost burden to the carrier that essentially necessitates curation of every single thing and makes anything not produced or vetted by the carrier too big of a liability to allow) or zero moderation.

30

Bovronius Mar 25, 2026 +33

They might, they just can't be sued by the people you're stealing from. ISP's still outright despise the bandwidth consumption of torrenting.

33

NightchadeBackAgain Mar 25, 2026 +15

I doubt they will bother wasting the money to pursue anything, as since they bear no responsibility for the actions of their customers, they likely also lack the legal authority to make threats. About the only thing they can really threaten is to terminate the contract with the customer for breach of TOS.

15

Daren_I Mar 25, 2026 +7

Cox wouldn't be the only problem torrenting on a raw connection. It's the copyright holders and any law enforcement recording their direct IP address.

7

JohnSane Mar 25, 2026 +5

You think they would earn enough money when the torrenting ones would disappear?

5

xynith116 Mar 25, 2026 +11

ISPs despise giving you the service you paid for, full stop.

11

Ar_Ciel Mar 26, 2026 -1

Looks like we know who can afford the bigger bribe these days.

-1

Bloated_Hamster Mar 25, 2026 +108

The ramifications of this lawsuit if upheld would be insane. Is UPS and the USPS and FedEx responsible when people ship illegal goods? Are car manufacturers responsible when people use their cars as getaway vehicles for bank robberies? Are tow truck manufacturers liable for the obviously predatory and illegal tactics of tow companies? This was an insane ruling and I'm glad the Supreme Court saw some sense.

108

xynith116 Mar 25, 2026 +9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

9

GEB82 Mar 25, 2026 +26

Ahem…gun manufacturers..

26

Previous-Space-7056 Mar 25, 2026 +24

Yup. Same ruling would be applied equally, im assuming. Unless gun manufactures start advertising ar15s, a gun for school shootings . Bigger clips more rounds more deaths. Etc

24

PaidUSA Mar 25, 2026 -13

That is precisely what those cases were about was the advertising lol. The person above is just dumb. Nor would some fucked up strict liability make sense for them either. The government and the shooter is who’s strictly liable for gun deaths because they could both put an end to it.

-13

GEB82 Mar 25, 2026 +5

Username certainly checks out…

5

PaidUSA Mar 25, 2026 -6

Yes famously the US government and state government love accepting responsibility for their lax gun laws killing thousands of Americans every year. You gotta scrape some braincells together.

-6

Bloated_Hamster Mar 25, 2026 +3

The difference with that is those lawsuits were around how guns are advertised which isn't the same as simply offering a service. If Cox was advertising how fast you can illegally download p****** music there would be a different argument.

3

GEB82 Mar 25, 2026 -3

In the case of guns..the gun is the service..anyway, I was merely adding to the list of things the guy I replied to had written…

-3

NovusNiveus Mar 25, 2026 +6

A gun is [not a service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goods_and_services).

6

tblazertn Mar 25, 2026 +2

Neither is a car but you don’t see victims of drunk drivers going after car manufacturers. It’s a behavioral problem of the perpetrators.

2

NovusNiveus Mar 26, 2026 +1

Yeah totally. I was just pointing out that a gun is a good, not a service. That's all there is to it.

1

cwx149 Mar 25, 2026 +1

To your point would car manufacturers and car dealers (which aren't normally the same company) both liable or is it just the seller not the maker?

1

One-Emu-1103 Mar 25, 2026 +92

You mean that the Supreme Court got something right for once?

92

Cheese0089 Mar 25, 2026 +60

I feel like they do the right thing on small cases as cover for when they about to gut the constitution on future cases.

60

thatoneguy889 Mar 25, 2026 +22

That's generally how it goes. They'll build up good will here and there for now, then blow it all when they overturn a century of mail-in voting law in June.

22

MannersCount Mar 25, 2026 +2

And right after Trump mailed HIS ballot in (last week?) 😂

2

GermanPayroll Mar 25, 2026 -11

Almost like they’re entirely different parts of the law

-11

notFREEfood Mar 25, 2026 +4

I wouldn't consider this a small case, because it would have been disastrous had it gone the other way. This had the potential to break the internet as we know it.

4

rysto32 Mar 25, 2026 +23

I’m sure that it weighed heavily on the conscience on many of them but ultimately the fact that they still got to rule in favour of a multibillion dollar corporation softened the blow.

23

--redacted-- Mar 25, 2026 +12

That kinda would have been the case regardless of the decision right?

12

IvanNemoy Mar 25, 2026 +4

That was my thought too. They got it right, and *Thomas‽* wrote the decision?

4

xShooK Mar 25, 2026 +4

He got a nice vacation out of the deal.

4

doneandtired2014 Mar 25, 2026 +4

Broken clock and all that jazz.

4

Sic_Semper_Dumbasses Mar 25, 2026 +8

Blind pig, acorn.

8

nocoolN4M3sleft Mar 25, 2026 +1

Wait. I don’t think I know this one?

1

Sic_Semper_Dumbasses Mar 25, 2026 +22

It is the expression "even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes." It is also sometimes expressed with squirrels instead of pigs. But I don't like to put squirrels before swine.

22

Pendraconica Mar 25, 2026 +3

r/angryupvote Take my poor man's award and get out! 🏆

3

roadsidefoto Mar 25, 2026 +6

It means every now and then Aileen Cannon finds her lunch, but I'm not sure how that applies here

6

Pendraconica Mar 25, 2026 +3

She's bound to find it with her nose so firmly up trumps ass.

3

fredkreuger Mar 25, 2026 +1

It's cover for later. "Supreme Court rules pedophilia 'not that bad'"

1

GermanPayroll Mar 25, 2026 +1

They do all the time, but people don’t care about unanimous decisions

1

boxfortcommando Mar 26, 2026 -2

What do you think was the last decision they didn't get right? Crickets......

-2

One-Emu-1103 Mar 26, 2026 +1

There's one about Presidential immunity, abortion, citizens united...

1

alpinethegreat Mar 25, 2026 +84

> 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.” Heartbreaking: The worst person you know made an excellent point

84

howardbrandon11 Mar 25, 2026 +24

>Heartbreaking: The worst person you know made an excellent point Broken clocks are still right twice a day--only once if it's a 24-hour clock.

24

bitemytail Mar 25, 2026 +1

What if the clock is digital?

1

howardbrandon11 Mar 25, 2026 +1

Depends on how it's broken. If it's stuck on a time--I'm thinking of a microwave or oven clock, or any one not connected to the Internet--then it's no different to an analog clock. If it won't turn on at all, then it's useless.

1

Gnom3y Mar 25, 2026 +6

This bar was buried so far underground paleontologists are finding fossils above it, and we're *still* surprised Thomas ended up on the right side of this.

6

SzmFTW Mar 25, 2026 +2

Yeah this was one of those “I agree with Trump administration and Clarence Thomas” moments. Don’t have too many of those…

2

unknownSubscriber Mar 25, 2026 +21

Imagine if Nissan was responsible for all hit and runs.

21

Open_and_Notorious Mar 25, 2026 +8

But Kia might be because of a design defect that let people steal them with usb cables.

8

McCoy818 Mar 25, 2026 +13

record labels tried to make the mailman responsible for whats inside the packages. glad the court wasnt buying it

13

gutty976 Mar 25, 2026 +10

After Cox lost in district court and was hit with the billion-dollar verdict, Sony went after other ISPs. Instead of fighting, they simply reached a settlement agreement. I think only one other ISP still fought—Windstream. With this ruling, what happens to all the other settlement agreements? Can those other ISPs tell Sony to "go pound sand"? I guess they can try and sue them, but can't ISPs just use this and say they are not liable? Or are the ISPs now stuck with the settlement agreements? I am no lawyer; how does this work? I am not asking about the money they already gave Sony; yes, the ISPs lost that money. I am more interested in whether they agreed to kick off subscribers or agreed to do some kind of proactive filtering. With this ruling, can they stop doing those things?

10

Bloated_Hamster Mar 25, 2026 +9

If the settlement is signed then those companies are out of luck. They agreed they would pay for the "damages" to not risk a lawsuit. The matter is settled in the court's eyes. If the settlements were agreed to but not signed then either party can back out and risk a lawsuit.

9

sighthoundman Mar 25, 2026 +9

There's no way we can know without reading the agreements. The basic rule is that you can't contractually agree to anything illegal, and you can't bind a non-signatory. That would mean that they can't agree to monitoring or pro-active filtering beyond what they're already allowed to do (which is pretty nebulous). Any money paid is gone, but any promises about future conduct are very much up in the air. They can always say "oops, we made a mistake, we can't actually monitor THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL". And then what are the IP holders going to do? Open themselves up to countersuits?

9

gutty976 Mar 25, 2026 +2

Sometimes big companies that have money don't fight because it's easier to just pay a small settlement to make it go away, like that guy who tried to sue Red Bull for false advertising because he didn't get wings after drinking it. I don't think it's good that big companies can always crush the little guy, but sometimes you just need to fight. Like in these cases

2

sighthoundman Mar 25, 2026 +1

Companies definitely have a much easier time just treating it as a financial transaction than individuals do. RIAA (or individual conglomerate IP holders) against ISPs is a heavyweight battle. Neither side is going in with nothing to gain. The pre-SCOTUS decision settlements were based on limiting losses, but now the losses (for the ISPs) are substantially limited. On the other hand, if RIAA files a new suit, they have more to lose than before, because now all the ISP customers have a potential claim for tortious interference and vexatious litigation (they've already been told that this is overstepping). You're not likely to get out of an agreement you've already signed, but you can quietly choose to not comply with the provisions that are likely illegal. That's the ISPs' take. RIAA's should be we've got what we wanted, it's best not to poke the sleeping bear. But I haven't been overly impressed with RIAA's legal decision making, so maybe that's more hope than expectation.

1

unknownSubscriber Mar 25, 2026 +2

Good question. I would think that this has no bearing on a settlement outside of court.

2

Kushwayne Mar 25, 2026 +7

Genuinely a monumental win for consumers, one of the only pieces of good news I have seen in a while.

7

uacoop Mar 25, 2026 +6

Only time in my life I root for Cox Communications. This case would have ruined the internet as we know it.

6

ohlookahipster Mar 25, 2026 +9

Solid decision from a usually wacky SCOTUS. Is the transit system responsible for carrying potential thieves on its buses? Does a cell carrier bear responsibility for wire fraud committed over LTE? Then why would an ISP be liable for enforcing copyright? Record labels are hunting for their equivalent of intellectual “felony murder” but thankfully lost here.

9

wastingtoomuchthyme Mar 25, 2026 +5

good.. copyright trolls are the worst.

5

Complete_Entry Mar 25, 2026 +3

I find it interesting how Sony tries to relitigate this, every ten years. I only ever got two "settlement demands" on Cox, both from universal, both things I hadn't downloaded. I ignored the first one but did appeal "copyright school" to Cox. Cox apologized and removed the restriction. A week later it happened again. I'm guessing Universal "didn't like" being told no. I watched BSG on TV, I had no need to download it. I even bought the box set of the series when it came out. Good little consumer drone, and they still tried to thump me. Even worse, it was the BOXING episode. I hated that episode. I think everyone did.

3

Jackdunc Mar 25, 2026 +1

How does this settlement demand work?

1

CronoDroid Mar 25, 2026 +2

In Australia we had a case similar to this (Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Ltd), if it pans out in the US in the same way you won't have to worry about ISPs getting on your case for a bit of torrenting or other forms of piracy. VPN buyers can also save some money not having to have one too.

2

ledow Mar 25, 2026 +2

I feel like it's 1992 again. Common carrier status anyone? MPAA and RIAA fought trying to get that terrible verdict (with success) for a decade before giving up.

2

netarchy Mar 25, 2026 +2

Huh, even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. Who would have thought.

2

f5alcon Mar 26, 2026 +2

I bet it's because Ai companies pirate and can't risk their internet getting shut off

2

blablablasplat Mar 26, 2026 +2

Wow. It's almost like the Internet is a utility...maybe we should govern it as such...

2

HandsomePistachio Mar 26, 2026 +2

It's insane that they even considered this. Holding an internet provider liable just because someone used the service to violate copyright would be like suing the state of Kentucky because someone jaywalked in Kentucky.

2

Joe18067 Mar 25, 2026 +2

Knowing how this scotus works it's obvious cox had the better bribe.

2

xynith116 Mar 25, 2026 +1

Net neutrality survives? In 2026?

1

ElectricalGuess1794 Mar 26, 2026 +1

Just rip from YouTube videos. There’s no need to t******.

1

Tenocticatl Mar 26, 2026 +1

Good. Think what it would've meant otherwise. If ISPs were responsible for their customers' illegal downloads, they'd have to start policing that, i.e. keeping track of everything everyone does online and probably just straight up banning "high risk activities" like VPNs, torrents, and TOR.

1

cwaterbottom Mar 27, 2026 +1

Lots and lots of streaming and downloading. We're cutting back on the streaming, we cancelled Disney/Hulu when they raised prices a while back and revealed their shittyness and I just cancelled Netflix today so it's just going to be lots of torrents now and should drop. Someone pointed out I can probably hide my data traffic so I'm going to look into that this weekend.

1

hates_writing_checks Mar 27, 2026 +1

Joel Tenenbaum is probably overjoyed and angry at the same time.

1

buzzsawjoe Mar 25, 2026 +1

"The court acted in a lawsuit led by Sony Music Entertainment that said Cox did not do enough to deter or cut off customers who downloaded music they did not pay for. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had partially upheld a jury verdict against Cox, but it threw out its award of more than $1 billion." I want to hear good music - that's my goal. As things are now, great musicians can make a living at it. If copyrights are abandoned, then they will still make music, but they will have to spend part of their efforts working day jobs while pirates profit off their music. The award of a billion dollars would certainly be nice for Sony, but it would sap their motivation to support great musicians. I once worked at a place where the owners had sold the company for millions, with the caveat that they had to stay on for a year to enable a smooth transition. You can guess how highly motivated they were.

1

Tricky_Ordinary_4799 Mar 26, 2026

What always amazes me is that jury always sides with corporations in copyright cases. There was a case where jury decided that 1.92 million USD fine for a student is fair for sharing 24 songs (*Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset).*

0

_John_Dillinger Mar 26, 2026 -1

what a mind f***. i’ve gotten two separate letters from cox threatening to kick me off the internet permanently for pirating music (circa 2008 and 2011 respectively). god i wish i kept those letters

-1

Supreme Court sides with Cox Communications in a copyright fight with record labels over downloads

💬 Send a Message

112 Comments