Supreme Court ruling on music piracy | Matt Connarton Unleashed

0:00 Speaker 1: Got a little bit of music news, and I will

0:02 Speaker 1: be very curious to see how people react to this

0:04 Speaker 1: on social media or if you are listening live. Of course,

0:07 Speaker 1: you can always chime in in the chat room as well.

0:12 Speaker 1: Because I say that because I have what maybe among

0:16 Speaker 1: people who are active in the music industry as I

0:18 Speaker 1: am and a lot of our audiences people in the

0:22 Speaker 1: music industry, I have what may be an unpopular opinion

0:25 Speaker 1: about this. I'm not sure though. So this is something

0:29 Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court has ruled on regarding piracy and

0:34 Speaker 1: copyright and record labels and all of it. And this

0:40 Speaker 1: isn't important. This could be you know, we use the

0:42 Speaker 1: term landmark ruling, so this is important and it does

0:48 Speaker 1: involve the Supreme Court. You know, we don't do politics

0:51 Speaker 1: on this iteration of the show, but this isn't political.

0:53 Speaker 1: This is but it does. It is something that affects

0:55 Speaker 1: the music industry, and I have my opinion about this

0:59 Speaker 1: might be a little bit unpopular. We'll see, we'll get

1:01 Speaker 1: into it. But I actually agree with the Supreme Court's

1:05 Speaker 1: ruling on this in a time where you know, I

1:08 Speaker 1: may not agree with a lot of Supreme Court rulings,

1:10 Speaker 1: but I do agree on this, but I'll be very

1:13 Speaker 1: curious to get audience feedback, either live and or afterward

1:17 Speaker 1: on social media. But this is from one of my

1:19 Speaker 1: favorite websites for music industry news, music businessworldwide dot com.

1:25 Speaker 1: US Supreme Court. This has happened this week. US Supreme

1:27 Speaker 1: Court sides with Coxcommunications in landmark music piracy case brought

1:33 Speaker 1: by record labels. Okay, so here's the article. This we'll explain.

1:38 Speaker 1: The US Supreme Court has ruled that internet service provider

1:41 Speaker 1: Coxcommunications cannot be held responsible for music piracy committed by

1:48 Speaker 1: its subscribers, ending a landmark copyright case in which the

1:53 Speaker 1: major record companies had won a one billion dollar jury verdict.

1:59 Speaker 1: This was This was unanimous, by the way, The unanimous

2:02 Speaker 1: decision by the Supreme Court was handed down on March

2:05 Speaker 1: twenty five, so this was just a few days ago.

2:08 Speaker 1: Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the court. Again, if you

2:11 Speaker 1: know me, we don't get into politics on this iteration

2:15 Speaker 1: of the show, but not anymore. We used to a

2:18 Speaker 1: long time ago. But if you know me, you know again,

2:21 Speaker 1: Justice Thomas not someone I would necessarily agree with much,

2:25 Speaker 1: if ever, but he's got it right here. In my opinion,

2:29 Speaker 1: Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said that Cox

2:32 Speaker 1: quote neither induced its users infringement nor provided a service

2:37 Speaker 1: tailored to infringement. So, in other words, saying that an

2:43 Speaker 1: Internet service provider, just because they are providing you internet

2:48 Speaker 1: service does not mean that that somehow is inducing you

2:52 Speaker 1: to do something illegal like piracy, like infringing on somebody's copyright.

2:57 Speaker 1: They're just providing you the service, you know. He's right, uh,

3:04 Speaker 1: He also said. He also wrote in his opinion, quote

3:07 Speaker 1: Cox provided internet service to its subscribers, but it did

3:10 Speaker 1: not intend for that service to be used to commit

3:15 Speaker 1: copyright infringement. Holding Cox liable merely for failing to terminate

3:20 Speaker 1: Internet service to infringing accounts would expand secondary copyright liability

3:26 Speaker 1: beyond our precedence. Unquote. Again, if you know me, you

3:30 Speaker 1: won't hear me say this often, if ever. But in

3:33 Speaker 1: this case, Justice Clarence Thomas got this right. He's right.

3:37 Speaker 1: I agree absolutely. Now. The reason I say this may

3:40 Speaker 1: be an unpopular opinion within some of with some of

3:44 Speaker 1: our audience and people in the music industry who listen

3:46 Speaker 1: to the show is there are some in the music

3:48 Speaker 1: industry who are who are upset about this, who say no, uh,

3:52 Speaker 1: piracy is uh has always been a problem, and we

3:56 Speaker 1: need to do whatever we can to tamp down piracy

3:59 Speaker 1: and copyright infringement. And look, I am someone who again,

4:05 Speaker 1: if you know me, if you know my background, if

4:06 Speaker 1: you're a regular listener to the show, you know that

4:09 Speaker 1: ultimately I will always advocate on behalf of artists and

4:13 Speaker 1: the music industry, you know, the people, not necessarily the

4:16 Speaker 1: major labels who But we won't get into that, and

4:20 Speaker 1: certainly not I won't advocate on behalf of Live Nation

4:24 Speaker 1: and Ticketmaster, but we won't get into all of that.

4:25 Speaker 1: But I'm saying artists making money, making a living, which

4:29 Speaker 1: is much harder than people might realize, Artists making a

4:32 Speaker 1: living within the music industry and being paid for their work.

4:36 Speaker 1: I will always advocate on behalf of that, always, always, always,

4:40 Speaker 1: That's what I care about most is artists get getting paid,

4:44 Speaker 1: being compensated for their work, and being able to make

4:46 Speaker 1: a living. It's it's crucial, it's critical, and we talk

4:49 Speaker 1: about that a lot on the show, especially with AI

4:51 Speaker 1: and the advent of all this AI generated music and

4:54 Speaker 1: the threats that that that that holds, And you know,

4:58 Speaker 1: we talk about this stuff all the time on the program.

5:00 Speaker 1: But I do think it's a little bit absurd this

5:04 Speaker 1: idea that you're going to hold internet service providers responsible

5:11 Speaker 1: and make them have to pay for what individual users

5:15 Speaker 1: are doing. That would be like, you know, penalizing auto

5:23 Speaker 1: manufacturers every time someone gets into a car accident where

5:29 Speaker 1: somebody ends up dead. You know, is the is it

5:33 Speaker 1: the fault of the auto manufacturers for producing a product

5:37 Speaker 1: that someone uses to accidentally kill someone on the highway.

5:41 Speaker 1: You know, let's see some common sense. Let's be reasonable

5:45 Speaker 1: and rational about this. And again some people will say, Matt,

5:48 Speaker 1: we have to do whatever we can, literally whatever we

5:51 Speaker 1: can to stop piracy, to stop people from having their

5:56 Speaker 1: copyrights infringed upon. I understand that, but but we also,

6:01 Speaker 1: again we have to be reasonable and use common sense,

6:04 Speaker 1: and so to hold Internet service providers responsible for what

6:07 Speaker 1: individual users are doing, whether it's piracy, whether it's using

6:13 Speaker 1: the dark Web to do other things that are illegal,

6:17 Speaker 1: accessing the dark web, whatever it is, right, you know,

6:22 Speaker 1: unless the Internet service provider is somehow And again, as

6:27 Speaker 1: just as Thomas said, there's no inducing of individual users

6:30 Speaker 1: to commit fraud or to do any kind of illegal activity,

6:34 Speaker 1: you know, unless you have an Internet service provider who

6:36 Speaker 1: is marketing their service in a way that they're actually

6:40 Speaker 1: saying somewhere in their marketing. By the way, you know,

6:42 Speaker 1: you can do whatever you want. You can do illegal

6:44 Speaker 1: things if you use our internet service, and we won't

6:47 Speaker 1: even nobody will even get mad at you about it,

6:50 Speaker 1: you know. But obviously that's not happening. Okay, So more

6:54 Speaker 1: to this article. Again, this is from Music Business Worldwide

6:56 Speaker 1: dot com. Commenting on the decision, Mitch our i AA

7:02 Speaker 1: chairman and CEO CEO said, and okay, so here's the

7:05 Speaker 1: dissenting opinion, dissenting against me. I feel like I'm the

7:08 Speaker 1: dissenting opinion because again I feel like I have an

7:10 Speaker 1: unpopular opinion about this within the music industry. Here's what

7:15 Speaker 1: Here's what Mitch Glazier said. Again, he's the RIAA chairman

7:19 Speaker 1: and CEO. He said, quote, we are disappointed in the

7:22 Speaker 1: court's decision vacating a jury's determination that Cox Communications contributed

7:27 Speaker 1: to mass scale copyright infringement based on overwhelming evidence that

7:33 Speaker 1: the company knowingly facilitated theft, knowingly facilitated theft. Come on,

7:44 Speaker 1: so by that logic, you know, take the music industry,

7:48 Speaker 1: take the piracy part out of it. Let's just you know,

7:52 Speaker 1: back up and take a broader view of this what

7:54 Speaker 1: and what he's saying By that logic, anything that anyone

7:59 Speaker 1: ever does that might be illegal, It might be fraudulent,

8:03 Speaker 1: that might be deceptive. On the Internet, if they're using

8:07 Speaker 1: Coxcommunications for their Internet service, anything anybody ever does online

8:13 Speaker 1: while using that service, well it's it was facilitated by

8:18 Speaker 1: by the Internet service provider. I mean, that's absurd, that's crazy.

8:23 Speaker 1: That's that's that's truly, that's that's an insane standard. How

8:28 Speaker 1: could any business live up to that and and and

8:32 Speaker 1: be held responsible for that. That's nuts to me, um,

8:39 Speaker 1: he said more mits. Glazier said more quote. To be effective,

8:43 Speaker 1: copyright law must protect creators and markets from harmful infringement,

8:46 Speaker 1: and policymakers should look closely at the impact of this ruling.

8:50 Speaker 1: The Court's decision is narrow, applying only to contributory infringement

8:54 Speaker 1: cases involving defendants like cos that they do not themselves, copy, hosts,

8:59 Speaker 1: distributor publish infringing material, or control or induce such activity unquote.

9:06 Speaker 1: The ruling means that simply knowing some subscribers are pirating

9:13 Speaker 1: music and continuing to provide them with Internet access is

9:17 Speaker 1: not enough to make an ISP liable for copyright infringement,

9:22 Speaker 1: right because again the ISP, Yeah, they know that some

9:27 Speaker 1: people are pirating music. Of course they do, because we

9:30 Speaker 1: all know that. But is there I guess maybe there's

9:36 Speaker 1: an implicit expectation that the ISP is supposed to detect

9:42 Speaker 1: who is pirrating music and then turn off their service.

9:46 Speaker 1: Is that? Is that what we're expecting? Oh? What could

9:48 Speaker 1: possibly go wrong there? I mean, come on, this is

9:54 Speaker 1: this is crazy. So again I agree with the court's decision.

9:57 Speaker 1: There's more to this. Under the standard set of today

10:00 Speaker 1: is set by today's decision, rights holders must provide either

10:06 Speaker 1: must prove either that a provider actively encouraged infringement or

10:10 Speaker 1: that its service was designed for piracy with no real

10:14 Speaker 1: lawful use. Internet access, the court said, clearly has many

10:18 Speaker 1: lawful purposes. The case dates back to twenty eighteen, when

10:22 Speaker 1: Sony Music, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and dozens

10:25 Speaker 1: of other rights holders sued Cox, arguing the company ignored

10:29 Speaker 1: over one hundred and sixty three thousand infringement notices about

10:33 Speaker 1: subscribers illegally downloading more than ten thousand copyrighted songs. The

10:39 Speaker 1: labels pointed to evidence that a Cox manager overseeing piracy

10:44 Speaker 1: compliance told his team to quote f the DMCA unquote

10:50 Speaker 1: and the DMCA is a law that is designed to

10:55 Speaker 1: I wish I could remember exactly what it stands for

10:57 Speaker 1: digital media copyr Is that the Digital Media Copyright Act. Again,

11:03 Speaker 1: it's an antipiracy law. A jury sided with the labels

11:08 Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen, awarding one billion dollars. The Fourth Circuit

11:12 Speaker 1: Court of Appeals partially overturned the verdict in twenty twenty four,

11:16 Speaker 1: throwing out the vicarious liability finding but keeping the contributory

11:20 Speaker 1: infringement ruling and ordering a retrial on damages that could

11:25 Speaker 1: have reached one point five billion. The Supreme Court took

11:29 Speaker 1: up the case last June, heard oral arguments in December,

11:32 Speaker 1: and has now reversed the remaining contributory liability, including finding

11:36 Speaker 1: entirely The Thomas opinion laid out two and only two

11:40 Speaker 1: paths to contributory copyright liability. The first is inducement, where

11:45 Speaker 1: a provider actively promotes its service as a tool for piracy,

11:50 Speaker 1: as in a landmark two thousand and five MGM versus

11:53 Speaker 1: Groster ruling involving file sharing software. By the way, remember

11:58 Speaker 1: if you're old enough to remember two thousand and five,

12:03 Speaker 1: early to mid two thousands. That's the era of napster.

12:07 Speaker 1: That's the era of mass panic and I do mean

12:12 Speaker 1: panic within the music industry about file sharing. That was

12:16 Speaker 1: when in two thousand and five, I was still working

12:19 Speaker 1: for trans World Entertainment, which owned Strawberries and Fye and

12:22 Speaker 1: all of that at the time, and there was panic

12:26 Speaker 1: because it was I remember having conversations with people where

12:30 Speaker 1: I just, you know, kind of shrugging and said, well,

12:33 Speaker 1: music is free. Now, that's it. You can't stop it,

12:38 Speaker 1: you can't help it. Music is now free. What are

12:41 Speaker 1: you gonna do? But anyway, so that's why I say,

12:45 Speaker 1: you know, two thousand and five, remember what was happening

12:47 Speaker 1: and too again, if you're old enough, remember what was

12:49 Speaker 1: happening in two thousand and five within the music industry

12:52 Speaker 1: at that time. Okay, So the second path is where

12:55 Speaker 1: a service is specifically tailored to infringement and has no

12:58 Speaker 1: real commercial use beyond fire. So now so when you're

13:02 Speaker 1: talking about that, I mean, I don't know of an

13:04 Speaker 1: Internet service provider anywhere that actively promotes itself as a

13:09 Speaker 1: service designed specifically for piracy. Now, there's lots and lots

13:13 Speaker 1: of websites. I won't get into how I know that

13:16 Speaker 1: that you can do that. You can you can download

13:19 Speaker 1: things that you otherwise might be required to pay for. Uh.

13:24 Speaker 1: But but I don't know of an internet service provider

13:28 Speaker 1: that actively markets themselves as Hey, if you need to

13:32 Speaker 1: pirate something, where where? Where the place to go for it?

13:35 Speaker 1: I don't I don't know that. Okay, So Cox, the

13:38 Speaker 1: court found met neither test. The company had contractually prohibited

13:43 Speaker 1: subscribers from using its service to infringe copyrights, sent warnings,

13:47 Speaker 1: suspended services, and terminated accounts. The opinion stated, quote, this

13:53 Speaker 1: court has repeatedly made clear that mere knowledge that a

13:56 Speaker 1: service will be used to infringe is in se efficient

14:00 Speaker 1: to establish the required intent to infringe. Elsewhere in the opinion,

14:06 Speaker 1: Thomas wrote, quote based on this theory of infringement respondence,

14:11 Speaker 1: Sony Music, Entertainment and other major copyright owners secured a

14:15 Speaker 1: billion dollar verdict against Cox. The United States Court of

14:19 Speaker 1: Appeals of the Fourth Circuit agreed that because Cox provided

14:24 Speaker 1: Internet service to known infringers, it was a willful infringer itself.

14:29 Speaker 1: Under our precedence, a company is not liable as a

14:33 Speaker 1: copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general

14:36 Speaker 1: public with knowledge that it will be used by some

14:39 Speaker 1: to infringe copyrights. Accordingly, we reverse unquote yeah, because even

14:46 Speaker 1: if you know and look, even if you know that

14:49 Speaker 1: there are specific people, maybe customers you've had in the

14:54 Speaker 1: past who have bought your internet service, you know that

14:58 Speaker 1: these people have been flagged previously for copyright infringement, for

15:03 Speaker 1: piracy somehow they've been flagged. What are you gonna do,

15:06 Speaker 1: so you're never going to give them service again? Do

15:10 Speaker 1: they just depending on where they live? I mean, look,

15:13 Speaker 1: depending on where you are geographically, you might have very

15:15 Speaker 1: limited options for home internet service. So does someone who

15:20 Speaker 1: may have got caught or have been at least noticed

15:24 Speaker 1: by an internet service provider at some point in the past,

15:27 Speaker 1: you know, downloaded something that maybe they didn't pay for,

15:31 Speaker 1: maybe they pirated something. So now they just don't get

15:34 Speaker 1: to have internet ever again. I mean, what are you

15:36 Speaker 1: supposed to do again? From just let's be practical about it,

15:41 Speaker 1: think about it practically, what do you want these internet

15:44 Speaker 1: service providers to do? There's no practical way for them

15:52 Speaker 1: to do what you want them to do. If what

15:54 Speaker 1: you want them to do is make sure that nobody

15:56 Speaker 1: ever pirates anything. It's it's an unfair, untenable burden to

16:03 Speaker 1: be placing on these Internet service providers. So the ruling

16:11 Speaker 1: also found that the Fourth Circuit had gone wrong by

16:14 Speaker 1: creating a broader form of liability, holding that quote supplying

16:18 Speaker 1: to product with knowledge that the recipient will use it

16:21 Speaker 1: to infringe copyrights was enough. The Supreme Court said this

16:25 Speaker 1: conflicted with decades of its own case law. Justice Sonia

16:28 Speaker 1: Soda Mayor, joined by Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, agreed Cox

16:35 Speaker 1: should not be liable in this case, but warned that

16:37 Speaker 1: the majority's ruling goes too far. Soda Mayor argued that

16:41 Speaker 1: it strips ISPs of any real reason to deal with

16:43 Speaker 1: piracy on their networks, making the DMCA's Safe Harbor rules pointless.

16:48 Speaker 1: Those rules require ISPs to cut off repeat infringers in

16:51 Speaker 1: exchange for legal protection. She wrote that the majority's decision

16:54 Speaker 1: completely upends the balance Congress created end quote, consigns the

16:58 Speaker 1: Safe Harbor provision to obsolescence, adding that ISPs no longer

17:03 Speaker 1: face any realistic probability of secondary liability for copyright infringement,

17:06 Speaker 1: regardless of whether they take steps to address infringement on

17:10 Speaker 1: their networks. Unquote again, I agree with the Supreme Court's

17:13 Speaker 1: decision on this, but I'll be very curious. Like I said,

17:17 Speaker 1: I will be very curious to see on social media

17:20 Speaker 1: how you all feel about it, or you know, on YouTube,

17:23 Speaker 1: you can you know, we stream the show on YouTube,

17:25 Speaker 1: you can leave comments and so forth. But I really

17:27 Speaker 1: do want to get feedback on this because, like I said,

17:30 Speaker 1: I know that my opinion may be unpopular in some circles,

17:35 Speaker 1: and but I'm happy to I'm happy to fight it

17:37 Speaker 1: out with anyone who wants to, all right,