WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch The Supreme Court's $1 Billion Online Copyright Case
7 snips
Dec 2, 2025 Kim Strassel and Alicia Finley, both Wall Street Journal columnists skilled in legal and political analysis, dive into the significant Cox vs. Sony case regarding whether internet providers can be held responsible for subscriber copyright violations. They explore the complexities of peer-to-peer file sharing and discuss the implications for ISPs, including the challenges they face when policing user behavior. The conversation also covers a pro-life center's legal battle against a demanding subpoena from New Jersey’s AG, addressing First Amendment concerns and donor privacy.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
DMCA Safe-Harbor Leaves Big Gaps
- The DMCA safe-harbor requires ISPs to adopt termination policies for repeat infringers but doesn't force proactive policing.
- That ambiguity creates huge legal uncertainty for providers and rights-holders alike.
Two Sides: Sony's 13 Strikes vs. Cox's Warnings
- Sony claims Cox stretched its three-strikes policy to 13 notices while watering down penalties to mere warnings.
- Cox counters that millions of notices arrived and most users corrected behavior after warnings, leaving a tiny recalcitrant fraction.
Practical Risks Of Forcing Mass Terminations
- Courts must weigh practical consequences: forcing ISPs to cut many customers risks harming hospitals, dorms, and others.
- The justices appear wary of broad rules that would impose untenable operational burdens on providers.