![\"music](\"https:\/\/www.digitalmusicnews.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/RCA-Majors-Suit-1024x546.jpg\" "\\"music\\"")
<\/p>\n
Photo Credit: Chris Robert<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Music Cox v. Sony Music <\/em>is factoring into yet another copyright dispute: <\/strong>RCN has cited the unanimous Supreme Court decision in its marathon legal battle with the major labels. <\/strong><\/h2>\nThat ugly courtroom confrontation\u2019s been in motion for the better part of a decade, and unsurprisingly, the core claims closely resemble those seen in a number of other ISP infringement cases.<\/p>\n
At the intersection of both points, RCN evidently believes the time is right to invoke Cox v. Sony<\/em>. As we\u2019ve broken down in greater detail, the nation\u2019s highest court found that service providers can be held contributorily liable only if they induce user infringement or tailor their core offerings to enable infringement.<\/p>\nAnd the precedent is a big deal indeed for internet companies accused of (and in some instances ordered to pay millions for) failing to adequately respond to users\u2019 repeat piracy.<\/p>\n
\u201cLike this case, Cox<\/em> involved claims for contributory copyright infringement brought by the major U.S. record labels against an internet service provider, on grounds that the provider did not terminate the internet access of subscribers accused of music piracy,\u201d RCN wrote to the court<\/a> before exploring adjacent elements of the decision.<\/p>\nMeanwhile, beyond the decision itself, RCN also took the opportunity to reiterate that the Supreme Court had vacated<\/a> what was at one time a $47 million copyright verdict against Grande Communications. (Grande and RCN have been operating under the Astound Broadband banner for years now.)<\/p>\nWith that, time will tell how the presiding judge responds to RCN\u2019s concise \u201cnotice of new controlling authority.\u201d In the bigger picture, it\u2019d be difficult to understate the litigation impact of Cox v. Sony<\/em>.<\/h4>\nThat refers, most immediately, to other ISP infringement showdowns. Having previously requested a response delay, the majors and Altice have until tomorrow to tell the court where their case stands. An identical cutoff is in place in a different copyright clash involving Verizon<\/a>.<\/p>\nNext, Meta\u2019s also underscoring<\/a> the significance of Cox <\/em>amid a push to dismiss two copyright complaints submitted by Epidemic Sound. As of today, a hearing on the dismissal attempt is expected for June 18th.<\/p>\nAnd with X eyeing dismissal in an infringement action levied by music publishers, the case is on pause<\/a>. Major music publishers have also made changes to their lawsuit against Anthropic in the wake of Cox<\/em>, which stream-ripper Yout is emphasizing<\/a>\u00a0in its RIAA showdown.<\/p>\nFinally \u2013 and this list isn\u2019t comprehensive<\/a> \u2013 Udio is looking to capitalize<\/a> on the Supreme Court decision in a suit filed against it by artists.<\/p>\n<\/section><\/div>\n
And the precedent is a big deal indeed for internet companies accused of (and in some instances ordered to pay millions for) failing to adequately respond to users\u2019 repeat piracy.<\/p>\n
\u201cLike this case, Cox<\/em> involved claims for contributory copyright infringement brought by the major U.S. record labels against an internet service provider, on grounds that the provider did not terminate the internet access of subscribers accused of music piracy,\u201d RCN wrote to the court<\/a> before exploring adjacent elements of the decision.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, beyond the decision itself, RCN also took the opportunity to reiterate that the Supreme Court had vacated<\/a> what was at one time a $47 million copyright verdict against Grande Communications. (Grande and RCN have been operating under the Astound Broadband banner for years now.)<\/p>\n That refers, most immediately, to other ISP infringement showdowns. Having previously requested a response delay, the majors and Altice have until tomorrow to tell the court where their case stands. An identical cutoff is in place in a different copyright clash involving Verizon<\/a>.<\/p>\n Next, Meta\u2019s also underscoring<\/a> the significance of Cox <\/em>amid a push to dismiss two copyright complaints submitted by Epidemic Sound. As of today, a hearing on the dismissal attempt is expected for June 18th.<\/p>\n And with X eyeing dismissal in an infringement action levied by music publishers, the case is on pause<\/a>. Major music publishers have also made changes to their lawsuit against Anthropic in the wake of Cox<\/em>, which stream-ripper Yout is emphasizing<\/a>\u00a0in its RIAA showdown.<\/p>\n Finally \u2013 and this list isn\u2019t comprehensive<\/a> \u2013 Udio is looking to capitalize<\/a> on the Supreme Court decision in a suit filed against it by artists.<\/p>\n<\/section><\/div>\nWith that, time will tell how the presiding judge responds to RCN\u2019s concise \u201cnotice of new controlling authority.\u201d In the bigger picture, it\u2019d be difficult to understate the litigation impact of Cox v. Sony<\/em>.<\/h4>\n