We'll hear argument first this morning in case 24-171, Cox Communications versus Sony

music entertainment.

Mr. Rosencrantz.

Thank you.

Mr. Chief Justice, when may it please the Court, the Fourth Circuit held that a provider

of basic communications infrastructure to millions of homes and businesses can be held liable because it did not kick

enough accused infringers off the Internet. No notion of tort or copyright law ever conceived

can support that theory. This Court explicitly rejected the theory in Twitter where it said, quote, plaintiffs have identified no duty that would require communication providing services to terminate customers after discovering that the customers were using the service for illegal ends.

This Court said in Grokstra that liability cannot be predicated on, quote, mere failure

to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement.

Reaffirming those basic principles resolves this case.

No case has suggested that knowledge alone can create the necessary culpability

to find someone liable for infringement.

The consequences of plaintiff's position are cataclysmic.

There is no surefire way for an ISP to avoid liability, and the only way it can

is to cut off the Internet, not just for the accused infringer, but for anyone else who happens

to use the same connection. That could be entire towns, universities, or

hospitals. Turning Internet providers into Internet police for all torts perpetrated on the

Internet will wreak havoc with the essential medium through which modern public engages in commerce and speech.

This Court should reverse.

I welcome the Court's questions.

How far do you go with Twitter?

...