2026-03-25T14:50:00.607Z / CNN
By [约翰·弗里茨]
更新于11分钟前
最后更新：2026年3月25日，美国东部时间上午10:56
发布时间：2026年3月25日，美国东部时间上午10:50
媒体 最高法院 企业新闻 科技新闻
[查看所有主题]
Facebook 推文[邮件]链接 话题讨论
已复制链接！
美国最高法院于2026年2月20日被拍摄到。
Samuel Corum/Sipa USA/AP
周三，美国最高法院做出重大判决，认定一家主要互联网服务提供商无需为版权侵权承担责任，因其未将已知的版权违法者从其网络中移除。这对美国音乐产业是重大打击。
克拉伦斯·托马斯大法官代表一致同意的最高法院撰写了判决书。
美国最大的唱片公司希望让互联网服务提供商对版权侵权承担责任，因为他们拒绝切断那些已知下载盗版音乐用户的在线访问权限。
广告反馈
这些音乐公司拥有众多美国最知名歌手和词曲作者的版权，包括鲍勃·迪伦、布鲁斯·斯普林斯汀、碧昂斯、埃米纳姆、埃里克·克莱普顿和格洛丽亚·埃斯特凡。
托马斯写道：“根据我们的先例，一家公司仅因向公众提供服务而被认定为版权侵权者，并不构成侵权责任，因为我们知道该服务会被一些人用于侵犯版权。”
最初，陪审团对索尼音乐娱乐公司和其他唱片公司诉考克斯通信公司的案件做出了10亿美元的判决，指控其侵犯了超过10,000首受版权保护的作品。尽管联邦上诉法院驳回了这一判决，但仍认为考克斯可能因大规模参与侵权而被间接追究责任。
考克斯曾警告称，如果索尼的诉求得到支持，互联网用户将面临灾难性后果。该公司表示，例如，大学和医院等机构客户可能会因校园内仅少数用户下载盗版音乐而被完全切断互联网接入。在12月初的口头辩论中，这一立场似乎引起了保守派和自由派大法官的共鸣。
索尼、环球音乐集团和其他代表80%音乐产业的公司于2018年提起诉讼。弗吉尼亚州的一个陪审团认定考克斯对间接侵权和帮助侵权均负有责任——前者意味着其从中获得经济利益。总部位于里士满的美国第四巡回上诉法院推翻了关于间接责任的部分判决，并要求地区法院重新考虑10亿美元的判决金额。
但上诉法院维持了帮助侵权的判决，指出音乐产业在2013年至2014年间向考克斯发送了大量侵权通知，而该公司仅终止了32名用户的版权侵权行为，同时终止了数十万用户的服务以追讨欠款。上诉法院下令进行新的审判以重新评估赔偿金额。
上诉法院在判决中写道：“从最有利于索尼的角度来看，审判中的证据显示考克斯不仅仅是未能阻止侵权行为。陪审团看到的证据表明，考克斯明知其网络上存在特定的多次版权侵权行为，并且能够追踪到特定用户，但该公司仍选择继续向这些用户提供每月互联网服务，因为它想避免失去收入，明知在线侵权行为会持续发生。”
最新裁定：拒绝认定公司对其他民事损害承担责任
最高法院在最近的其他民事损害赔偿案件中拒绝认定公司对帮助侵权承担责任。
去年，最高法院一致裁定，美国枪支制造商不应因西南边境的卡特尔暴力事件承担责任，尽管他们的枪支经常在这些犯罪中被使用。
2023年，法院一致裁定，推特（现为X平台）不应因在其平台上托管恐怖组织“伊斯兰国”（ISIS）创建的推文而被指控帮助实施恐怖袭击。这两个案件在考克斯与索尼的版权纠纷中起到了关键作用。
这一案件引起了包括谷歌和X在内的美国最知名互联网公司的关注，这些公司均支持互联网服务提供商。X在一份法律文件中表示，上诉法院对考克斯的判决可能“给科技行业，特别是人工智能领域带来灾难性后果”。
X公司认为，如果允许内容创作者在人们使用其技术侵犯版权时起诉AI平台，科技公司将“别无选择，只能限制自身行动以避免潜在责任”。
包括华纳兄弟探索公司在内的多家媒体公司已起诉AI平台，指控其侵犯版权。华纳兄弟探索公司是CNN的母公司。
媒体 最高法院 企业新闻 科技新闻
[查看所有主题]
Facebook 推文[邮件]链接 话题讨论
已复制链接！
广告反馈
Supreme Court says internet service provider isn’t liable for bootlegged music downloads
2026-03-25T14:50:00.607Z / CNN
By [John Fritze]
Updated 11 min ago
Updated Mar 25, 2026, 10:56 AM ET
PUBLISHED Mar 25, 2026, 10:50 AM ET
Media Supreme Court Corporate news Tech news
[See all topics]
Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads
Link Copied!
The US Supreme Court is seen on February 20, 2026.
Samuel Corum/Sipa USA/AP
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 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.
Ad Feedback
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.
“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.
A jury initially awarded Sony Music Entertainment and other record companies a $1 billion verdict against Cox Communications for the infringement of more than 10,000 copyrighted works. While a federal appeals court nixed that award, it nevertheless held that Cox could be held indirectly liable for contributing to infringement on a massive scale.
Cox had warned of cataclysmic consequences for internet users if Sony got its way. For one thing, it said, institutional customers like universities and hospitals could be entirely cut off from the internet if only a few users on their campuses were downloading pirated music. At oral arguments in early December, that position seemed to resonate with both conservative and liberal justices.
Sony, Universal Music Corp. and other companies representing 80% of the music industry sued in 2018. A jury in Virginia found that Cox was liable for both vicarious infringement — meaning it benefited financially from it — and contributory infringement. The Richmond-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed part of that decision, on vicarious liability, and required the district court to reconsider the $1 billion verdict.
But the appeals court upheld the contributory infringement decision, noting that the music industry had flooded Cox with infringement notices from 2013 to 2014 and that the company only terminated 32 customers for copyright infringement. It had, at the same time, terminated hundreds of thousands of subscribers for nonpayment. The appeals court ordered a new trial to reassess the size of the award.
“The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to Sony, showed more than mere failure to prevent infringement,” the appeals court wrote. “The jury saw evidence that Cox knew of specific instances of repeat copyright infringement occurring on its network, that Cox traced those instances to specific users, and that Cox chose to continue providing monthly internet access to those users despite believing the online infringement would continue because it wanted to avoid losing revenue.”
Latest ruling declining to hold companies liable
The Supreme Court has declined to hold companies liable for aiding and abetting in other recent civil damages cases.
Last year, a unanimous court ruled that American gun manufacturers could not be held responsible for cartel violence on the Southwest border, even though their guns are often involved in those crimes.
In 2023, the court unanimously ruled that Twitter, now X, could not be held liable for aiding and abetting terror attacks just because it had hosted tweets on its platform that were created by the terror group ISIS. Both cases played a central role in the copyright dispute between Cox and Sony.
The case had drawn attention from some of the nation’s most recognized internet companies, including Google and X, which sided with the internet service providers. X argued in a brief that the appeals court ruling against Cox could “wreak havoc” on the tech industry and specifically on artificial intelligence.
X argued that if content creators are permitted to sue AI platforms when people use their technology to violate copyright law, the tech companies would “have no choice but to constrain their actions” to avoid the potential liability.
Several media companies, including Warner Bros. Discovery, have sued AI platforms alleging copyright infringement. Warner Bros. Discovery is the parent company of CNN.
Media Supreme Court Corporate news Tech news
[See all topics]
Facebook Tweet[Email]Link Threads
Link Copied!
Ad Feedback
发表回复