Sony’s failed war against Internet piracy may doom other copyright lawsuits

索尼针对互联网盗版的失败战争可能导致其他版权诉讼走向终结

Sony and other major record labels recently suffered a thorough defeat at the Supreme Court in their attempt to make Internet service providers pay huge financial penalties for their customers’ copyright infringement. Sony’s loss is certain to have wide-ranging effects on copyright lawsuits, offering protection for ISPs, their customers, and potentially other technology companies whose services can be used for both legal and illegal purposes. 索尼及其他大型唱片公司近期在最高法院遭遇了彻底的失败，他们试图让互联网服务提供商（ISP）为其用户的版权侵权行为支付巨额经济赔偿。索尼的败诉必将对版权诉讼产生深远影响，为ISP、其用户以及其他可能被用于合法或非法目的的科技公司提供保护。

In Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, the Supreme Court ruled that cable Internet firm Cox is not liable under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) when its customers use their broadband connections to download or upload pirated materials. Music copyright holders claimed that once Cox was informed that specific users repeatedly infringed copyrights, it should have terminated their accounts. A jury agreed with Sony in 2019, hitting Cox with a $1 billion verdict. 在“考克斯通信诉索尼音乐娱乐公司”（Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment）一案中，最高法院裁定，当有线互联网公司Cox的用户利用宽带连接下载或上传盗版材料时，该公司无需根据《数字千年版权法》（DMCA）承担责任。音乐版权持有者声称，一旦Cox被告知特定用户反复侵犯版权，就应终止其账户。2019年，陪审团支持了索尼的诉求，判决Cox赔偿10亿美元。

While the damages award was overturned by an appeals court in 2024, that court gave Sony a partial win by finding that Cox was guilty of contributory copyright infringement—a type of secondary liability for contributing to others’ infringement. Cox was facing the prospect of another damages trial until the Supreme Court took up its case and unanimously ruled in its favor on March 25 of this year. 尽管该赔偿判决在2024年被上诉法院推翻，但该法院判定Cox犯有“共同版权侵权”（contributory copyright infringement）——即因促成他人侵权而承担的一种次要责任，这让索尼获得了一部分胜利。Cox原本面临再次进行损害赔偿审判的前景，直到最高法院受理此案，并于今年3月25日一致裁定Cox胜诉。

The court found that Cox isn’t liable for its customers’ misdeeds because it did not induce them to infringe copyrights and did not “tailor” the broadband service so that it could be used for infringement. The Cox decision was also a loss for record labels Warner and Universal, which joined Sony in the case. The record labels reacted to the ruling by dropping similar cases against ISPs such as Verizon and Altice, and the impact may be felt well beyond the broadband industry. 法院认定，Cox无需为其用户的过错承担责任，因为它并未诱导用户侵犯版权，也没有为了方便侵权而“量身定制”宽带服务。这一裁决对同样参与此案的华纳和环球唱片公司来说也是一次失败。唱片公司对此裁决的反应是撤销了针对Verizon和Altice等ISP的类似诉讼，其影响范围可能远超宽带行业。

“I think it applies to any technology provider” “我认为这适用于任何技术提供商”

Several defendants offering other types of tech products and services have filed briefs in lower courts, citing the Cox ruling in their defense against contributory infringement claims. Among them are Google, Meta, Elon Musk’s X social network, and Nvidia. Cox is also being cited by a much smaller entity known as Yout, which operates a website that can be used to convert YouTube videos into downloadable audio files. 多家提供其他类型科技产品和服务的被告已向地方法院提交了法律意见书，引用Cox案的裁决来抗辩共同侵权指控。其中包括谷歌、Meta、埃隆·马斯克的X社交网络以及英伟达。一家名为Yout的小型实体也引用了Cox案，该公司运营着一个可将YouTube视频转换为可下载音频文件的网站。

While the Cox ruling’s most immediate effect is on other ISPs that were also sued by record labels, one of the attorneys who represented Cox at the Supreme Court told Ars that the decision seems to apply broadly to all other kinds of technology platforms. “I think it applies to any technology provider. I didn’t see any basis in the opinion or its reasoning for limiting it only to a particular type of technology provider,” attorney Christopher Cariello said. 虽然Cox案裁决最直接的影响是针对其他被唱片公司起诉的ISP，但代表Cox在最高法院出庭的一位律师告诉Ars，该裁决似乎广泛适用于所有其他类型的技术平台。“我认为它适用于任何技术提供商。我在判决书或其推理中没有看到任何将其仅限于特定类型技术提供商的依据，”律师克里斯托弗·卡里洛（Christopher Cariello）表示。

Whether Cox applies to another case “basically just depends on if it’s the same configuration, providing technology that someone else uses for infringement, then it’s the same analysis,” he said. Cariello, who works for Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, was part of the outside legal team that defended Cox in its Supreme Court briefs. He spoke to Ars about the case but said he was not speaking on behalf of Cox. 他表示，Cox案是否适用于其他案件，“基本上取决于配置是否相同，即是否提供了被他人用于侵权的技术，如果是，那么分析逻辑就是一样的。”卡里洛就职于Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe律师事务所，是为Cox最高法院法律意见书进行辩护的外部法律团队成员之一。他向Ars谈及此案，但表示自己并非代表Cox发言。

“I don’t see how you could avoid applying Cox in any case with a contributory infringement claim against a technology provider. The opinion says to establish contributory liability, you need to show, effectively, culpable intent,” he said. When there is a company “in the sort of vast Internet ecosystem that sits between an end-user and a possible rightsholder who believes they’re being harmed, Cox applies,” he said. “我不认为在任何针对技术提供商的共同侵权索赔案件中，可以避开Cox案的适用。判决书指出，要确立共同责任，实际上需要证明存在应受谴责的意图，”他说。他表示，当一家公司处于“终端用户与认为自己受到损害的潜在权利人之间，即广阔的互联网生态系统中时，Cox案的原则就适用。”

Cariello argues that under the court’s “straightforward decision,” tweaking the context a bit for a different type of defendant doesn’t create new bases for liability. He said “the court is adopting a doctrinal framework,” not “a wishy-washy standard” or one that applies only “in this narrow circumstance to this particular type of service provider for X, Y, and Z reason.” 卡里洛认为，根据法院这一“直截了当的裁决”，针对不同类型的被告稍微调整背景并不会创造新的责任依据。他表示，“法院采用的是一种教义框架”，而不是“一种模棱两可的标准”，也不是那种仅适用于“特定狭窄环境下、针对特定类型服务提供商”的标准。

AI companies are among the firms that should benefit from the ruling because products based on large language models (LLMs) can be used for many non-infringing activities and thus aren’t specifically tailored to be used for infringement, Cariello said. 卡里洛表示，人工智能公司也应从该裁决中受益，因为基于大语言模型（LLM）的产品可以用于许多非侵权活动，因此并非专门为侵权而量身定制。

Contribution to infringement “has to be intentional” 对侵权的促成“必须是故意的”

Sony itself laid the groundwork for its 2026 defeat in 1984 when it convinced the court that the Betamax was capable of noninfringing uses and that selling it did not constitute contributory infringement. The 1984 Betamax case and the 2005 ruling in MGM Studios v. Grokster both factored heavily into the Cox decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. 索尼自己在1984年就为2026年的败诉埋下了伏笔，当时它说服法院认定Betamax录像机具备非侵权用途，销售该产品不构成共同侵权。1984年的Betamax案和2005年的“米高梅影业诉Grokster案”的裁决，都在克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官撰写的Cox案判决书中起到了重要作用。

A Sony victory against Cox could have made it easier for copyright owners to sue companies whose offerings have both legitimate and illegitimate uses. The firm’s loss will surely make such cases more difficult. As Thomas wrote in Cox, a service provider can be held contributorily liable “only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement.” Such intent “can be shown only if the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement,” he wrote. 如果索尼在Cox案中获胜，版权所有者起诉那些产品既有合法用途又有非法用途的公司将会变得更容易。索尼的败诉无疑会使此类案件变得更加困难。正如托马斯在Cox案判决中所写，服务提供商“只有在有意让所提供的服务被用于侵权时”，才会被追究共同侵权责任。他写道，这种意图“只有在当事人诱导了侵权行为，或者所提供的服务是专门为该侵权行为量身定制的情况下，才能得到证明。”

This means that when a service is capable of “substantial” or “commercially significant” noninfringing uses, its provider can worry a bit less about being held liable for infringement. Users of those services can also worry a bit less about the service provider aggressively terminating accounts. 这意味着，当一项服务具备“实质性”或“商业上显著”的非侵权用途时，其提供商可以不必过于担心被追究侵权责任。这些服务的用户也可以不必太担心服务提供商会激进地终止其账户。

Cariello said it will be difficult to prove contributory infringement when an ISP charges a flat fee for access to the entire Internet or when another type of provider charges a flat fee for a broad set of capabilities. When a platform has many types of capabilities, “it’s very difficult to suggest that infringement itself is somehow the thing that is bringing users in,” he said. 卡里洛表示，当ISP对访问整个互联网收取固定费用，或者其他类型的提供商对广泛的功能收取固定费用时，证明共同侵权将变得非常困难。当一个平台拥有多种功能时，“很难说侵权行为本身就是吸引用户的原因，”他说。