BCLT Webcasts

0.50 General CLE Credits Offered

Location: B-CLE
Key Speaker(s): Pam Samuelson (BCLT, UC Berkeley Law)

Wayne Stacy opened the webcast by welcoming Professor Pamela Samuelson, a leading copyright scholar, to discuss the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Cox v. Sony Music. Pamela began by framing the core dispute: Sony Music and other copyright holders sued Cox Communications, a broadband provider, alleging that Cox was liable for contributory and vicarious infringement because it continued to provide internet service to accounts whose users were repeatedly infringing copyrights. A jury found Cox liable under both theories and awarded a staggering one billion dollars in damages. The Fourth Circuit affirmed contributory infringement but reversed on vicarious liability, finding that Cox did not directly profit from the infringement. Cox then petitioned the Supreme Court, challenging both the contributory infringement standard and the willfulness finding that drove the massive damages award.

Pamela explained that the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Fourth Circuit on the contributory infringement question, rejecting the longstanding “material contribution with knowledge” standard and holding instead that a defendant must have either actively induced infringement or specially tailored its product or service to facilitate it — drawn from patent law analogies. She noted that amicus briefs played an outsized role, with the Solicitor General siding with Cox and arguing that indifference to infringement is insufficient for liability, pointing to the Twitter v. Taamneh precedent requiring purposeful, culpable conduct. Pamela also highlighted that many of Cox’s accounts belonged to institutions like hospitals and universities, making blanket termination of accounts practically and ethically untenable. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, wrote a notable concurrence agreeing Cox bore no liability, but cautioning that the majority’s narrow framework could undermine incentives for ISPs to cooperate with copyright owners going forward.

Wayne then pivoted the conversation to what this ruling means for content creators — Hollywood studios, musicians, and publishers — going forward. Pamela observed that vicarious infringement claims may still be viable in different fact patterns, particularly where a defendant exercises more direct control over the infringing content. However, she noted that the real obstacle for copyright holders seeking legislative relief is a dysfunctional Congress, making it difficult to amend the Copyright Act to restore the material contribution standard. Wayne closed with a sharp observation from a trial lawyer’s perspective: a handful of callous internal emails by Cox employees, characterizing repeat infringers with contempt, were pivotal in producing the billion-dollar jury verdict — a reminder that poor internal communications can define the outcome of high-stakes litigation regardless of how the law ultimately rules.