2026年3月25日 美国东部时间下午2:13 / 路透社
作者：布莱克·布里坦
美国民众在华盛顿特区的美国最高法院大楼前驻足，2026年3月14日。路透社/威尔·邓纳姆/资料图片 购买许可权，在新标签页中打开
- 摘要
- 企业
- 考克斯无需为其互联网客户的盗版行为承担责任
- 索尼、华纳、环球及其他唱片公司曾起诉考克斯
- 考克斯称该裁决是”宽带行业的胜利”
华盛顿，3月25日（路透社） – 美国最高法院周三裁定，考克斯通信公司（Cox Communications）无需为其互联网服务订阅用户侵犯索尼音乐、华纳音乐集团、环球音乐集团及其他唱片公司歌曲版权的行为承担责任，这一裁决终结了标的超过十亿美元的音乐版权诉讼。
全票（9-0）通过的裁决推翻了下级法院要求重审的决定，该重审旨在确定这家互联网服务提供商需为一种名为”帮助性版权侵权”的责任形式向唱片公司赔偿多少金额。考克斯曾表示，重审可能会对这家总部位于亚特兰大的互联网服务提供商（ISP）处以高达15亿美元的赔偿。
阅读更多： 了解影响企业和政府的最新ESG趋势，请订阅路透社《可持续发展转变》（Sustainable Switch）新闻通讯。点击此处注册。
广告 · 继续滚动阅读
超过50家唱片公司于2018年联合起诉考克斯。
根据美国法律，如果互联网服务提供商采取合理措施应对侵权行为，通常不会因其用户的侵权行为而承担责任。但唱片公司指控考克斯——这家私营考克斯企业集团的最大子公司——未能响应数千起侵权通知，未切断重复侵权用户的网络连接，也未采取其他反盗版措施。
保守派大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯（Clarence Thomas）撰写了周三的裁决，认定考克斯无需为版权侵权承担责任。
托马斯写道：”考克斯向其用户提供互联网服务，但无意让该服务被用于侵犯版权。仅因未能终止侵权账户的互联网服务就认定考克斯承担责任，将使次级版权责任超出我们的先例范围。”
广告 · 继续滚动阅读
考克斯发言人托德·史密斯（Todd Smith）称这一决定是”宽带行业和依赖可靠互联网服务的美国民众的重大胜利”，并表示该裁决”确认互联网服务提供商不是版权警察，不应为其客户的行为承担责任”。
2019年，弗吉尼亚州亚历山大市的陪审团裁定，考克斯需为用户侵犯超过1万首版权歌曲的行为向唱片公司赔偿10亿美元。陪审团认定考克斯对帮助性侵权和替代责任均负有责任，这两种均属于次级版权侵权责任形式。
总部位于弗吉尼亚州里士满的美国第四巡回上诉法院于2024年推翻了损害赔偿裁决。第四巡回法院在确认陪审团对帮助性侵权的认定后，撤销了对替代责任的认定，并要求就损害赔偿金额重审。
帮助性侵权指认定相关方因明知侵权行为存在并促成侵权而承担责任。替代责任指认定相关方因有能力控制侵权行为并从中获得经济利益而承担责任。
考克斯辩称，唱片公司在本案中的立场将过度扩大帮助性侵权的概念。考克斯表示，这一立场将威胁到包括”整个家庭、咖啡店、医院、大学”在内的数千名无辜互联网用户的网络连接，仅因为”某个身份不明的人据称曾使用该连接实施侵权”。
最高法院于12月审理了本案的辩论。代表唐纳德·特朗普政府的律师支持考克斯，谷歌（Alphabet）、亚马逊、微软等互联网科技公司也在本案中支持考克斯。音乐、电影和图书行业贸易团体则支持唱片公司。
报道： 布莱克·布里坦；编辑： 威尔·邓纳姆
我们的标准： 路透社《信托原则》，在新标签页中打开。
US Supreme Court backs Cox in fight over pirated music
March 25, 2026 2:13 PM UTC / Reuters
By Blake Brittain
节点运行失败
People look at the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 14, 2026. REUTERS/Will Dunham/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
- Summary
- Companies
- Cox can’t be liable for piracy by its internet customers
- Sony, Warner, Universal, other music labels had sued Cox
- Cox calls ruling a “victory for the broadband industry”
WASHINGTON, March 25 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday Cox Communications cannot be held liable for piracy by its internet service subscribers of songs owned by Sony Music, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group and other labels, ending their billion-dollar-plus music copyright lawsuit.
The 9-0 ruling overturned a lower court’s decision to order a new trial to determine how much the internet service provider owed the record labels for a form of liability called contributory copyright infringement. Cox had said a retrial could have produced a verdict against the Atlanta-based ISP of as much as $1.5 billion.
Make sense of the latest ESG trends affecting companies and governments with the Reuters Sustainable Switch newsletter. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Report Ad
More than 50 labels joined together to sue Cox in 2018.
Internet service providers like Cox are generally not considered liable under U.S. law for infringement by their users if they take reasonable measures to address it. But the labels accused Cox, the largest unit of privately owned Cox Enterprises, of failing to respond to thousands of infringement notices, cut off internet access for repeat infringers or take other piracy-deterrence steps.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas authored the ruling on Wednesday finding that Cox was not liable for copyright infringement.
“Cox provided internet service to its subscribers, but it did not intend for that service to be used to commit copyright infringement,” Thomas wrote. “Holding Cox liable merely for failing to terminate internet service to infringing accounts would expand secondary copyright liability beyond our precedents.”
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Cox spokesperson Todd Smith called the decision “a decisive victory for the broadband industry and for the American people who depend on reliable internet service,” and said it “affirms that internet service providers are not copyright police and should not be held liable for the actions of their customers.”
A jury in Alexandria, Virginia, in 2019 found that Cox owed the labels $1 billion for user infringement of more than 10,000 copyrights. The jury found Cox liable both for contributory infringement and vicarious infringement, two forms of secondary copyright infringement liability.
The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the damages award in 2024. The 4th Circuit ordered a retrial on the award’s size after affirming the jury’s finding of contributory infringement but reversing its finding of vicarious liability.
Contributory infringement involves holding parties liable for someone else’s infringement because they knew about it and contributed to it. Vicarious infringement involves holding parties liable for someone else’s infringement because they had the ability to control the infringement and benefited financially from it.
Cox argued that the position taken by the labels in the case would expand the concept of contributory infringement too broadly. Cox said this stance would threaten to cut off access for thousands of innocent internet users including “entire households, coffee shops, hospitals, universities” and others “merely because some unidentified person was previously alleged to have used the connection to infringe.”
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in December. A lawyer for President Donald Trump’s administration argued in support of Cox. Alphabet’s Google, Amazon, Microsoft and other internet-focused tech companies supported Cox in the case. Music, film and book industry trade groups backed the labels.
Reporting by Blake Brittain; Editing by Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
发表回复