2026年3月25日 / 美国东部时间上午11:11 / CBS新闻
华盛顿—— 最高法院周三就一起备受关注的盗版音乐版权纠纷作出裁决，判定互联网服务提供商考克斯通信公司（Cox Communications）无需为其用户的版权侵权行为承担责任。
最高法院以全票通过支持考克斯公司，认定该公司不应为其网络上发生的侵权行为负责。这一判决推翻了美国第四巡回上诉法院的一项裁决。
这起名为考克斯通信公司诉索尼音乐娱乐公司（Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment）的案件由索尼音乐娱乐公司及其他主要唱片和出版公司于2018年提起。这些音乐公司声称，考克斯公司明知部分用户未经授权下载并传播其受版权保护的作品，却仍继续为这些已知的侵权者提供互联网服务，因此应承担法律责任。初审陪审团支持了音乐公司的诉求，并裁定考克斯公司赔偿10亿美元。
上诉过程中，第四巡回上诉法院维持了部分判决，认定“明知接收方将使用产品实施版权侵权行为仍提供服务，构成了可被认定为间接侵权的应受谴责行为”。但该法院撤销了10亿美元的损害赔偿判决，要求陪审团就赔偿金额进行重审。
最高法院大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯（Clarence Thomas）在代表多数派撰写的意见书中指出，像考克斯这样的服务提供商“只有在故意将所提供服务用于侵权时，才需对用户的盗版行为负责”。他表示，考克斯公司已采取多项措施阻止用户侵权，包括发送警告、暂停服务和终止账户。
托马斯写道：“考克斯公司并未调整其服务以便利版权侵权行为，它只是提供了互联网接入服务，而这种服务有许多合法用途，并非仅用于侵权。”
托马斯强调，仅因未能终止侵权用户的账户就判定考克斯公司承担责任，“将扩大次级版权责任范围，超出我们此前的判例边界”。
索尼音乐娱乐公司的索尼娅·索托马约尔（Sonia Sotomayor）大法官和科坦吉·布朗·杰克逊（Ketanji Brown Jackson）大法官同意案件的判决结果，但对判决理由存在分歧。
索托马约尔在与杰克逊共同签署的协同意见中写道：“索尼和其他原告无法证明，根据普通法中的帮助与教唆理论，考克斯公司具备帮助版权侵权的必要意图，因此不能认定其承担责任。”
特朗普政府在本案中支持考克斯公司，主张互联网服务提供商若未切断将实施侵权行为的用户账户，本身并不构成版权侵权。
Supreme Court sides with Cox Communications in copyright dispute over pirated music
March 25, 2026 / 11:11 AM EDT / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that internet service provider Cox Communications cannot be held liable for copyright infringement by its subscribers in a closely watched dispute over pirated music.
The high court ruled unanimously in favor of Cox, finding that the company cannot be held liable for infringement that occurred on its network. The decision reverses a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.
The case, Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, was brought in 2018 by Sony and other major recording and publishing companies. The music companies argued that Cox was legally responsible for willfully infringing more than 10,000 of their copyrighted works because it continued to provide internet services to known infringers who downloaded and distributed songs without permission. A jury sided with the music companies and awarded $1 billion in damages.
On appeal, the 4th Circuit upheld part of the verdict and found that “supplying a product with knowledge that the recipient will use it to infringe copyrights is exactly the sort of culpable conduct sufficient for contributory infringement.” But the appeals court set aside the $1 billion damages award and sent the case back to the jury for a new trial on damages.
Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said that a service provider like Cox is responsible for piracy by its users “only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement.” Cox, he said, took steps to discourage copyright infringement by its users, including by sending warnings, suspending services and terminating accounts.
“Cox did not tailor its service to make copyright infringement easier,” he wrote. “Cox simply provided Internet access, which is used for many purposes other than copyright infringement.”
Thomas wrote that Cox provided internet service to subscribers but didn’t intend for its connection to be used to commit copyright infringement.
“Holding Cox liable merely for failing to terminate Internet service to infringing accounts would expand secondary copyright liability beyond our precedents,” he said.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed with the outcome of the case but disagreed with the reasoning.
Sony and the other plaintiffs “cannot prove that Cox had the requisite intent to aid copyright infringement for Cox to be held liable on a common-law aiding-and-abetting theory,” Sotomayor wrote in a concurring opinion joined by Jackson.
The Trump administration backed Cox in the case, arguing that an internet service provider doesn’t commit copyright infringement by failing to cut off subscriber accounts that will commit infringement.
发表回复