When thousands of people illegally download books, music, or films, and their internet service provider knows about it but keeps collecting monthly fees from the pirates anyway, should the company face consequences?

That’s the question at the heart of Cox Communications v. Sony, a case the Authors Guild—joined by Sisters in Crime, Romance Writers of America, the Songwriters Guild of America, Novelists Inc., the Dramatists Guild of America, and the Society of Composers and Lyricists—weighed in on by filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on October 22, 2025.

The Legal Battle 

Cox Communications, a major internet service provider (ISP), was found liable for “contributory infringement” after it continued providing service to subscribers it knew were repeat copyright infringers. The company received thousands of notices identifying specific accounts engaged in piracy, but Cox chose not to terminate those accounts because the subscription revenue was too valuable to lose. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a jury’s finding that Cox “materially contributed” to the infringement by maintaining these subscribers’ internet access despite knowing they were “substantially certain” to continue stealing copyrighted works. 

Now Cox is asking the Supreme Court to reverse that decision, arguing that as long as its internet service can be used legally, it shouldn’t be held responsible for how customers actually use it—even when the company has specific knowledge of ongoing theft. 

Why This Matters to Authors 

For writers, composers, and other creators, this case is critical. Here’s why: 

The practical reality of online enforcement. As our brief explains, when millions of people can copy and share creative works “quickly, anonymously, and across borders,” going after individual infringers one by one is nearly impossible. The only practical way to stop large-scale piracy is to hold accountable for the internet companies that provide the infrastructure—especially when those companies know exactly what’s happening and choose to profit from it anyway. 

Copyright law already recognizes this. The Supreme Court established in MGM v. Grokster (2005) that even technology with legitimate uses can trigger liability when there’s evidence of “affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.” Cox’s internal communications revealed employees repeatedly decided not to terminate known pirates because their monthly fees were too lucrative—exactly the kind of intentional conduct Grokster addressed. 

This isn’t about punishing innovation. The original Sony Betamax case (1984) protected manufacturers who sold VCRs capable of both legal and illegal recording, but that involved a one-time product sale with no ongoing relationship between the manufacturer and purchaser. Cox’s situation is fundamentally different: it maintained continuous, monthly service relationships with identified repeat infringers, received specific notices about their conduct, and had the clear ability to stop them—but chose not to. 

Without secondary liability, copyright becomes virtually unenforceable online. If internet providers can knowingly facilitate mass infringement while hiding behind their users’ actions, the constitutional promise of copyright protection becomes hollow. As the Supreme Court noted in Grokster, when widespread infringement occurs through technology, secondary liability may be “the only practical alternative” for rights holders. 

What We’re Arguing 

Our amicus brief makes several key points: 

1. Contributory infringement is vital for effective copyright enforcement, particularly in digital environments where direct enforcement against millions of individual users is impossible. 

2. The Fourth Circuit applied the correct legal standard. Cox’s ongoing service relationships with subscribers, combined with specific knowledge of repeat infringement and the clear ability to intervene, distinguish this case from the passive product manufacturer in Sony v. Universal. 

3. Cox’s deliberate business decisions demonstrate intent. By repeatedly choosing to protect revenue from infringing subscribers rather than enforce its own stated policies, Cox took the kind of “affirmative steps” that Grokster recognized as grounds for liability. 

4. The fact that some Cox accounts serve multiple users doesn’t absolve the company. Cox knew of specific repeat infringements through specific IP addresses and had the ability to address them. 

The Bigger Picture 

This case will help define whether copyright law can adapt to the realities of the internet age. If the Supreme Court reverses the lower court, it will essentially create a liability shield for internet companies that choose to profit from piracy while claiming ignorance—even when they have detailed knowledge and complete control.

For authors trying to earn a living from their work, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Every illegally downloaded book is a lost sale, a stolen opportunity to be compensated for months or years of creative labor. When internet providers knowingly facilitate this theft at scale, they should be held accountable. 

Read our amicus brief here (PDF).