Abstract

There’s a lot to dislike about the Supreme Court’s opinion in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. It mischaracterizes, oversimplifies, and ignores precedent. It fails to engage with important arguments. It mangles the meaning of “intent.” And it introduces uncertainty into the workings of secondary liability across other intellectual property regimes.

For these reasons, the decision doesn’t deserve three cheers. But it deserves two. Because in two important ways, the Supreme Court has succeeded. First, the opinion fixes some misguided appellate court holdings by articulating a relatively workable standard for future copyright cases involving secondary liability. Second, despite its arguably disruptive effect, that standard draws the right lines between those that should be liable and those that should not. ...

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2026

Download

Share

COinS