From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Potomac Watch.

The Supreme Court hears a billion-dollar copyright case that could decide whether internet providers are liable for illegal activities by their subscribers.

Plus, the justices also take up a dispute over whether New Jersey's Attorney General can

demand donor information from pro-life pregnancy centers.

Welcome, I'm Kyle Peterson with the Wall Street Journal.

We're joined today by my colleagues on the editorial page, columnists Alicia Finley, Kim Strassel. On Monday at the High Court,

it was the battle of the corporate heavyweights on one side Cox Communications, which provides

internet, phone, TV, and connectivity to 6 million homes and businesses in a dozen and a half

states. On the other side, a long list of

music companies and record labels led by Sony Music Entertainment. This dispute is over if a billion

dollar jury verdict against Cox for allegedly failing to sufficiently police copyright infringement

on its network can be upheld.

Alicia, what's the story here?

It's interesting.

It's almost as if the two filings by each side in this case are telling different stories about what happened here.

Well, they do.

The facts of the case are in dispute.

What has been happening is that people who are essentially using

what are called a peer-to-peer file sharing networks to essentially share music without actually

purchasing it. And this would violate the copyright of many of these artists who are represented by Sony Music Entertainment,

that includes Beyonce, Bruce Springsteen, and many others. And as a result, they aren't

getting paid for their quote, intellectual property. Sony claims that Cox has an imperative

...