{"id":788788,"date":"2026-05-11T13:16:22","date_gmt":"2026-05-11T13:16:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/788788\/"},"modified":"2026-05-11T13:16:22","modified_gmt":"2026-05-11T13:16:22","slug":"sonys-failed-war-against-internet-piracy-may-doom-other-copyright-lawsuits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/788788\/","title":{"rendered":"Sony&#8217;s failed war against Internet piracy may doom other copyright lawsuits"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>\u201cThis is a whole new concept\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In a <a href=\"https:\/\/news.bloomberglaw.com\/legal-exchange-insights-and-commentary\/high-court-shouldve-done-more-than-pick-winner-in-copyright-case\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">Bloomberg opinion piece<\/a>, Heymann said the Cox ruling authored by Thomas \u201cwas the right result on the facts\u201d but \u201ctakes a \u2018we said what we said\u2019 approach to judging\u201d instead of fully explaining a rationale. Appellate opinions \u201cshould, ideally, not just state a rule but also explain its underlying rationale, anticipate its implications, and provide guidance on its application by lower courts,\u201d she wrote. \u201cA rule may be simply stated in theory, but its simplicity may belie the complexity of its operation in practice.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Despite that concern, Heymann and Boyden agree that the Cox ruling is significant because of its effect on the 2nd Circuit\u2019s Gershwin ruling that lower courts previously relied on. As Boyden told Ars, the Supreme Court \u201cclearly cast to the side the prevailing test from the Gershwin case back in 1971.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The previous test was \u201cknowledge plus material contribution,\u201d he said. \u201cAnd for a long time, it\u2019s been thought that the main way in which Internet service providers of any sort could be liable for copyright infringement by users on their systems is if they know about that infringement occurring and are providing the facilities that permit it to happen.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court ruling is clear that inducing and tailoring are \u201cthe only two theories available for contributory infringement for service providers,\u201d but \u201call of copyright is vague to some degree,\u201d Boyden said. He said it is not entirely clear what constitutes the intent that is needed to show inducement or what constitutes tailoring.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cI mean, this is a whole new concept,\u201d Boyden said. Some plaintiffs might try \u201cto spell out theories\u201d about circumstances in which continuing to serve infringing customers may count as contributory infringement under the new standard, he said.<\/p>\n<p>A plaintiff will have to \u201cshow that the defendants did something affirmatively to make their service better suit the needs of infringers,\u201d Boyden said. It seems clear that just selling the same service to every potential customer is not tailoring, but \u201cwe don\u2019t have any additional guidance about what might constitute tailoring your service,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"\u201cThis is a whole new concept\u201d In a Bloomberg opinion piece, Heymann said the Cox ruling authored by&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":788789,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[64,67,132,68],"class_list":{"0":"post-788788","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-business","8":"tag-business","9":"tag-united-states","10":"tag-unitedstates","11":"tag-us"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/788788","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=788788"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/788788\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/788789"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=788788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=788788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=788788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}