Harish Shenoy, Author at XTHE - Page 102 of 136

Home

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a major internet service provider is not liable for copyright infringement for failing to remove known violators from its network, a setback for the music industry seeking greater ISP accountability.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the Court's unanimous opinion.

The largest record labels want internet providers to be held liable for failing to block users known to download pirated music.

These music companies own the rights to many well-known American artists, including Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Eminem, Eric Clapton, and Gloria Estefan.

Under our precedent, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights, Thomas wrote.

A jury initially awarded Sony Music Entertainment and other record companies $1 billion against Cox Communications for infringing over 10,000 copyrighted works. The Court of Appeals later overturned the award but found Cox could still be indirectly liable for large-scale infringement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Cox is not liable for failing to remove non-violators from its network.

Cox warned that holding internet providers liable as Sony wants could have broad effects, such as essential institutions losing internet due to a few users. Both liberal and conservative judges noted these concerns in the December arguments.

Sony Universal Music Corp and other companies representing 80% of the music industry filed a lawsuit in 2018. A Virginia jury found Cox liable for both vicarious infringement (when a party can be held responsible for another's infringing actions because it benefits financially) and contributory infringement (when a party knowingly contributes to someone else's infringement). The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond reversed the vicarious liability decision and ordered the district court to review the $1billion verdict.

However, the appeals court held the contributory infringement decision. It noted that from 2013 to 2014, the music industry sent Cox many infringement notices, but Cox ended service for only 32 customers over copyright issues. In contrast, it cut off hundreds of thousands of subscribers for non-payment (Copyright infringement means violating the exclusive rights given to creators.) The court ordered a new trial to decide the amount of the award.

The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to Sony, showed exceeding mere failure to prevent infringement, the appeals court wrote. The jury saw evidence that Cox knew of specific instances of repeat copyright infringement occurring on its network, traced those instances to specific users, and chose to continue providing monthly internet access to those users despite believing the online infringement would continue, because it wanted to avoid losing revenue.

The Latest Ruling Declining to Hold Companies Liable

The Supreme Court has also recently said that companies should not be held liable for aiding and abetting in other civil damages cases.

Last year, the court unanimously ruled that American gun makers could not be held responsible for cartel violence on the southwest border, even if their guns are often used in those crimes.

The court also unanimously ruled that Twitter, now called X, could not be held liable for simply hosting ISIS tweets. Both this year's and last year's gunmaker rulings were important in the Cox and Sony case.

The case drew in major tech companies like Google and X, which warn that holding service providers responsible for US user-generated content could disrupt the industry, especially in the context of AI.

X said that if content creators can sue AI platforms for users' copyright violations, tech companies may have to limit their services to avoid lawsuits.

Several media companies, such as Warner Bros. Discovery, have filed lawsuits against AI platforms for alleged copyright infringement. Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN.

Source: Supreme Court says internet service provider isn’t liable for bootlegged music downloads
About US

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a major internet service provider is not liable for copyright infringement for failing to remove known violators from its network, a setback for the music industry seeking greater ISP accountability.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the Court's unanimous opinion.

The largest record labels want internet providers to be held liable for failing to block users known to download pirated music.

These music companies own the rights to many well-known American artists, including Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Eminem, Eric Clapton, and Gloria Estefan.

Under our precedent, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights, Thomas wrote.

A jury initially awarded Sony Music Entertainment and other record companies $1 billion against Cox Communications for infringing over 10,000 copyrighted works. The Court of Appeals later overturned the award but found Cox could still be indirectly liable for large-scale infringement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Cox is not liable for failing to remove non-violators from its network.

Cox warned that holding internet providers liable as Sony wants could have broad effects, such as essential institutions losing internet due to a few users. Both liberal and conservative judges noted these concerns in the December arguments.

Sony Universal Music Corp and other companies representing 80% of the music industry filed a lawsuit in 2018. A Virginia jury found Cox liable for both vicarious infringement (when a party can be held responsible for another's infringing actions because it benefits financially) and contributory infringement (when a party knowingly contributes to someone else's infringement). The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond reversed the vicarious liability decision and ordered the district court to review the $1billion verdict.

However, the appeals court held the contributory infringement decision. It noted that from 2013 to 2014, the music industry sent Cox many infringement notices, but Cox ended service for only 32 customers over copyright issues. In contrast, it cut off hundreds of thousands of subscribers for non-payment (Copyright infringement means violating the exclusive rights given to creators.) The court ordered a new trial to decide the amount of the award.

The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to Sony, showed exceeding mere failure to prevent infringement, the appeals court wrote. The jury saw evidence that Cox knew of specific instances of repeat copyright infringement occurring on its network, traced those instances to specific users, and chose to continue providing monthly internet access to those users despite believing the online infringement would continue, because it wanted to avoid losing revenue.

The Latest Ruling Declining to Hold Companies Liable

The Supreme Court has also recently said that companies should not be held liable for aiding and abetting in other civil damages cases.

Last year, the court unanimously ruled that American gun makers could not be held responsible for cartel violence on the southwest border, even if their guns are often used in those crimes.

The court also unanimously ruled that Twitter, now called X, could not be held liable for simply hosting ISIS tweets. Both this year's and last year's gunmaker rulings were important in the Cox and Sony case.

The case drew in major tech companies like Google and X, which warn that holding service providers responsible for US user-generated content could disrupt the industry, especially in the context of AI.

X said that if content creators can sue AI platforms for users' copyright violations, tech companies may have to limit their services to avoid lawsuits.

Several media companies, such as Warner Bros. Discovery, have filed lawsuits against AI platforms for alleged copyright infringement. Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN.

Source: Supreme Court says internet service provider isn’t liable for bootlegged music downloads
Tech Reviews

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a major internet service provider is not liable for copyright infringement for failing to remove known violators from its network, a setback for the music industry seeking greater ISP accountability.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the Court's unanimous opinion.

The largest record labels want internet providers to be held liable for failing to block users known to download pirated music.

These music companies own the rights to many well-known American artists, including Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Eminem, Eric Clapton, and Gloria Estefan.

Under our precedent, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights, Thomas wrote.

A jury initially awarded Sony Music Entertainment and other record companies $1 billion against Cox Communications for infringing over 10,000 copyrighted works. The Court of Appeals later overturned the award but found Cox could still be indirectly liable for large-scale infringement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Cox is not liable for failing to remove non-violators from its network.

Cox warned that holding internet providers liable as Sony wants could have broad effects, such as essential institutions losing internet due to a few users. Both liberal and conservative judges noted these concerns in the December arguments.

Sony Universal Music Corp and other companies representing 80% of the music industry filed a lawsuit in 2018. A Virginia jury found Cox liable for both vicarious infringement (when a party can be held responsible for another's infringing actions because it benefits financially) and contributory infringement (when a party knowingly contributes to someone else's infringement). The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond reversed the vicarious liability decision and ordered the district court to review the $1billion verdict.

However, the appeals court held the contributory infringement decision. It noted that from 2013 to 2014, the music industry sent Cox many infringement notices, but Cox ended service for only 32 customers over copyright issues. In contrast, it cut off hundreds of thousands of subscribers for non-payment (Copyright infringement means violating the exclusive rights given to creators.) The court ordered a new trial to decide the amount of the award.

The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to Sony, showed exceeding mere failure to prevent infringement, the appeals court wrote. The jury saw evidence that Cox knew of specific instances of repeat copyright infringement occurring on its network, traced those instances to specific users, and chose to continue providing monthly internet access to those users despite believing the online infringement would continue, because it wanted to avoid losing revenue.

The Latest Ruling Declining to Hold Companies Liable

The Supreme Court has also recently said that companies should not be held liable for aiding and abetting in other civil damages cases.

Last year, the court unanimously ruled that American gun makers could not be held responsible for cartel violence on the southwest border, even if their guns are often used in those crimes.

The court also unanimously ruled that Twitter, now called X, could not be held liable for simply hosting ISIS tweets. Both this year's and last year's gunmaker rulings were important in the Cox and Sony case.

The case drew in major tech companies like Google and X, which warn that holding service providers responsible for US user-generated content could disrupt the industry, especially in the context of AI.

X said that if content creators can sue AI platforms for users' copyright violations, tech companies may have to limit their services to avoid lawsuits.

Several media companies, such as Warner Bros. Discovery, have filed lawsuits against AI platforms for alleged copyright infringement. Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN.

Source: Supreme Court says internet service provider isn’t liable for bootlegged music downloads
- AI
- Troubleshooting
- Smartwatches
- Smartphones
- Camera
- Gadgets
- Games
- Laptops
- Seasonal Sales
Phone Features

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a major internet service provider is not liable for copyright infringement for failing to remove known violators from its network, a setback for the music industry seeking greater ISP accountability.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the Court's unanimous opinion.

The largest record labels want internet providers to be held liable for failing to block users known to download pirated music.

These music companies own the rights to many well-known American artists, including Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Eminem, Eric Clapton, and Gloria Estefan.

Under our precedent, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights, Thomas wrote.

A jury initially awarded Sony Music Entertainment and other record companies $1 billion against Cox Communications for infringing over 10,000 copyrighted works. The Court of Appeals later overturned the award but found Cox could still be indirectly liable for large-scale infringement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Cox is not liable for failing to remove non-violators from its network.

Cox warned that holding internet providers liable as Sony wants could have broad effects, such as essential institutions losing internet due to a few users. Both liberal and conservative judges noted these concerns in the December arguments.

Sony Universal Music Corp and other companies representing 80% of the music industry filed a lawsuit in 2018. A Virginia jury found Cox liable for both vicarious infringement (when a party can be held responsible for another's infringing actions because it benefits financially) and contributory infringement (when a party knowingly contributes to someone else's infringement). The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond reversed the vicarious liability decision and ordered the district court to review the $1billion verdict.

However, the appeals court held the contributory infringement decision. It noted that from 2013 to 2014, the music industry sent Cox many infringement notices, but Cox ended service for only 32 customers over copyright issues. In contrast, it cut off hundreds of thousands of subscribers for non-payment (Copyright infringement means violating the exclusive rights given to creators.) The court ordered a new trial to decide the amount of the award.

The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to Sony, showed exceeding mere failure to prevent infringement, the appeals court wrote. The jury saw evidence that Cox knew of specific instances of repeat copyright infringement occurring on its network, traced those instances to specific users, and chose to continue providing monthly internet access to those users despite believing the online infringement would continue, because it wanted to avoid losing revenue.

The Latest Ruling Declining to Hold Companies Liable

The Supreme Court has also recently said that companies should not be held liable for aiding and abetting in other civil damages cases.

Last year, the court unanimously ruled that American gun makers could not be held responsible for cartel violence on the southwest border, even if their guns are often used in those crimes.

The court also unanimously ruled that Twitter, now called X, could not be held liable for simply hosting ISIS tweets. Both this year's and last year's gunmaker rulings were important in the Cox and Sony case.

The case drew in major tech companies like Google and X, which warn that holding service providers responsible for US user-generated content could disrupt the industry, especially in the context of AI.

X said that if content creators can sue AI platforms for users' copyright violations, tech companies may have to limit their services to avoid lawsuits.

Several media companies, such as Warner Bros. Discovery, have filed lawsuits against AI platforms for alleged copyright infringement. Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN.

Source: Supreme Court says internet service provider isn’t liable for bootlegged music downloads
Buying Guides

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a major internet service provider is not liable for copyright infringement for failing to remove known violators from its network, a setback for the music industry seeking greater ISP accountability.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the Court's unanimous opinion.

The largest record labels want internet providers to be held liable for failing to block users known to download pirated music.

These music companies own the rights to many well-known American artists, including Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Eminem, Eric Clapton, and Gloria Estefan.

Under our precedent, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights, Thomas wrote.

A jury initially awarded Sony Music Entertainment and other record companies $1 billion against Cox Communications for infringing over 10,000 copyrighted works. The Court of Appeals later overturned the award but found Cox could still be indirectly liable for large-scale infringement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Cox is not liable for failing to remove non-violators from its network.

Cox warned that holding internet providers liable as Sony wants could have broad effects, such as essential institutions losing internet due to a few users. Both liberal and conservative judges noted these concerns in the December arguments.

Sony Universal Music Corp and other companies representing 80% of the music industry filed a lawsuit in 2018. A Virginia jury found Cox liable for both vicarious infringement (when a party can be held responsible for another's infringing actions because it benefits financially) and contributory infringement (when a party knowingly contributes to someone else's infringement). The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond reversed the vicarious liability decision and ordered the district court to review the $1billion verdict.

However, the appeals court held the contributory infringement decision. It noted that from 2013 to 2014, the music industry sent Cox many infringement notices, but Cox ended service for only 32 customers over copyright issues. In contrast, it cut off hundreds of thousands of subscribers for non-payment (Copyright infringement means violating the exclusive rights given to creators.) The court ordered a new trial to decide the amount of the award.

The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to Sony, showed exceeding mere failure to prevent infringement, the appeals court wrote. The jury saw evidence that Cox knew of specific instances of repeat copyright infringement occurring on its network, traced those instances to specific users, and chose to continue providing monthly internet access to those users despite believing the online infringement would continue, because it wanted to avoid losing revenue.

The Latest Ruling Declining to Hold Companies Liable

The Supreme Court has also recently said that companies should not be held liable for aiding and abetting in other civil damages cases.

Last year, the court unanimously ruled that American gun makers could not be held responsible for cartel violence on the southwest border, even if their guns are often used in those crimes.

The court also unanimously ruled that Twitter, now called X, could not be held liable for simply hosting ISIS tweets. Both this year's and last year's gunmaker rulings were important in the Cox and Sony case.

The case drew in major tech companies like Google and X, which warn that holding service providers responsible for US user-generated content could disrupt the industry, especially in the context of AI.

X said that if content creators can sue AI platforms for users' copyright violations, tech companies may have to limit their services to avoid lawsuits.

Several media companies, such as Warner Bros. Discovery, have filed lawsuits against AI platforms for alleged copyright infringement. Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN.

Source: Supreme Court says internet service provider isn’t liable for bootlegged music downloads
Comparison

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a major internet service provider is not liable for copyright infringement for failing to remove known violators from its network, a setback for the music industry seeking greater ISP accountability.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the Court's unanimous opinion.

The largest record labels want internet providers to be held liable for failing to block users known to download pirated music.

These music companies own the rights to many well-known American artists, including Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Eminem, Eric Clapton, and Gloria Estefan.

Under our precedent, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights, Thomas wrote.

A jury initially awarded Sony Music Entertainment and other record companies $1 billion against Cox Communications for infringing over 10,000 copyrighted works. The Court of Appeals later overturned the award but found Cox could still be indirectly liable for large-scale infringement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Cox is not liable for failing to remove non-violators from its network.

Cox warned that holding internet providers liable as Sony wants could have broad effects, such as essential institutions losing internet due to a few users. Both liberal and conservative judges noted these concerns in the December arguments.

Sony Universal Music Corp and other companies representing 80% of the music industry filed a lawsuit in 2018. A Virginia jury found Cox liable for both vicarious infringement (when a party can be held responsible for another's infringing actions because it benefits financially) and contributory infringement (when a party knowingly contributes to someone else's infringement). The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond reversed the vicarious liability decision and ordered the district court to review the $1billion verdict.

However, the appeals court held the contributory infringement decision. It noted that from 2013 to 2014, the music industry sent Cox many infringement notices, but Cox ended service for only 32 customers over copyright issues. In contrast, it cut off hundreds of thousands of subscribers for non-payment (Copyright infringement means violating the exclusive rights given to creators.) The court ordered a new trial to decide the amount of the award.

The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to Sony, showed exceeding mere failure to prevent infringement, the appeals court wrote. The jury saw evidence that Cox knew of specific instances of repeat copyright infringement occurring on its network, traced those instances to specific users, and chose to continue providing monthly internet access to those users despite believing the online infringement would continue, because it wanted to avoid losing revenue.

The Latest Ruling Declining to Hold Companies Liable

The Supreme Court has also recently said that companies should not be held liable for aiding and abetting in other civil damages cases.

Last year, the court unanimously ruled that American gun makers could not be held responsible for cartel violence on the southwest border, even if their guns are often used in those crimes.

The court also unanimously ruled that Twitter, now called X, could not be held liable for simply hosting ISIS tweets. Both this year's and last year's gunmaker rulings were important in the Cox and Sony case.

The case drew in major tech companies like Google and X, which warn that holding service providers responsible for US user-generated content could disrupt the industry, especially in the context of AI.

X said that if content creators can sue AI platforms for users' copyright violations, tech companies may have to limit their services to avoid lawsuits.

Several media companies, such as Warner Bros. Discovery, have filed lawsuits against AI platforms for alleged copyright infringement. Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN.

Source: Supreme Court says internet service provider isn’t liable for bootlegged music downloads
News

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a major internet service provider is not liable for copyright infringement for failing to remove known violators from its network, a setback for the music industry seeking greater ISP accountability.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the Court's unanimous opinion.

The largest record labels want internet providers to be held liable for failing to block users known to download pirated music.

These music companies own the rights to many well-known American artists, including Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Eminem, Eric Clapton, and Gloria Estefan.

Under our precedent, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights, Thomas wrote.

A jury initially awarded Sony Music Entertainment and other record companies $1 billion against Cox Communications for infringing over 10,000 copyrighted works. The Court of Appeals later overturned the award but found Cox could still be indirectly liable for large-scale infringement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Cox is not liable for failing to remove non-violators from its network.

Cox warned that holding internet providers liable as Sony wants could have broad effects, such as essential institutions losing internet due to a few users. Both liberal and conservative judges noted these concerns in the December arguments.

Sony Universal Music Corp and other companies representing 80% of the music industry filed a lawsuit in 2018. A Virginia jury found Cox liable for both vicarious infringement (when a party can be held responsible for another's infringing actions because it benefits financially) and contributory infringement (when a party knowingly contributes to someone else's infringement). The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond reversed the vicarious liability decision and ordered the district court to review the $1billion verdict.

However, the appeals court held the contributory infringement decision. It noted that from 2013 to 2014, the music industry sent Cox many infringement notices, but Cox ended service for only 32 customers over copyright issues. In contrast, it cut off hundreds of thousands of subscribers for non-payment (Copyright infringement means violating the exclusive rights given to creators.) The court ordered a new trial to decide the amount of the award.

The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to Sony, showed exceeding mere failure to prevent infringement, the appeals court wrote. The jury saw evidence that Cox knew of specific instances of repeat copyright infringement occurring on its network, traced those instances to specific users, and chose to continue providing monthly internet access to those users despite believing the online infringement would continue, because it wanted to avoid losing revenue.

The Latest Ruling Declining to Hold Companies Liable

The Supreme Court has also recently said that companies should not be held liable for aiding and abetting in other civil damages cases.

Last year, the court unanimously ruled that American gun makers could not be held responsible for cartel violence on the southwest border, even if their guns are often used in those crimes.

The court also unanimously ruled that Twitter, now called X, could not be held liable for simply hosting ISIS tweets. Both this year's and last year's gunmaker rulings were important in the Cox and Sony case.

The case drew in major tech companies like Google and X, which warn that holding service providers responsible for US user-generated content could disrupt the industry, especially in the context of AI.

X said that if content creators can sue AI platforms for users' copyright violations, tech companies may have to limit their services to avoid lawsuits.

Several media companies, such as Warner Bros. Discovery, have filed lawsuits against AI platforms for alleged copyright infringement. Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN.

Source: Supreme Court says internet service provider isn’t liable for bootlegged music downloads
Contact

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a major internet service provider is not liable for copyright infringement for failing to remove known violators from its network, a setback for the music industry seeking greater ISP accountability.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the Court's unanimous opinion.

The largest record labels want internet providers to be held liable for failing to block users known to download pirated music.

These music companies own the rights to many well-known American artists, including Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Eminem, Eric Clapton, and Gloria Estefan.

Under our precedent, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights, Thomas wrote.

A jury initially awarded Sony Music Entertainment and other record companies $1 billion against Cox Communications for infringing over 10,000 copyrighted works. The Court of Appeals later overturned the award but found Cox could still be indirectly liable for large-scale infringement. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Cox is not liable for failing to remove non-violators from its network.

Cox warned that holding internet providers liable as Sony wants could have broad effects, such as essential institutions losing internet due to a few users. Both liberal and conservative judges noted these concerns in the December arguments.

Sony Universal Music Corp and other companies representing 80% of the music industry filed a lawsuit in 2018. A Virginia jury found Cox liable for both vicarious infringement (when a party can be held responsible for another's infringing actions because it benefits financially) and contributory infringement (when a party knowingly contributes to someone else's infringement). The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond reversed the vicarious liability decision and ordered the district court to review the $1billion verdict.

However, the appeals court held the contributory infringement decision. It noted that from 2013 to 2014, the music industry sent Cox many infringement notices, but Cox ended service for only 32 customers over copyright issues. In contrast, it cut off hundreds of thousands of subscribers for non-payment (Copyright infringement means violating the exclusive rights given to creators.) The court ordered a new trial to decide the amount of the award.

The evidence at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to Sony, showed exceeding mere failure to prevent infringement, the appeals court wrote. The jury saw evidence that Cox knew of specific instances of repeat copyright infringement occurring on its network, traced those instances to specific users, and chose to continue providing monthly internet access to those users despite believing the online infringement would continue, because it wanted to avoid losing revenue.

The Latest Ruling Declining to Hold Companies Liable

The Supreme Court has also recently said that companies should not be held liable for aiding and abetting in other civil damages cases.

Last year, the court unanimously ruled that American gun makers could not be held responsible for cartel violence on the southwest border, even if their guns are often used in those crimes.

The court also unanimously ruled that Twitter, now called X, could not be held liable for simply hosting ISIS tweets. Both this year's and last year's gunmaker rulings were important in the Cox and Sony case.

The case drew in major tech companies like Google and X, which warn that holding service providers responsible for US user-generated content could disrupt the industry, especially in the context of AI.

X said that if content creators can sue AI platforms for users' copyright violations, tech companies may have to limit their services to avoid lawsuits.

Several media companies, such as Warner Bros. Discovery, have filed lawsuits against AI platforms for alleged copyright infringement. Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN.

Source: Supreme Court says internet service provider isn’t liable for bootlegged music downloads

Harish Shenoy

Total Post: 1358

Harish Shenoy | Technology Journalist Harish Shenoy is a veteran technology journalist at Xthe with over 21 years of experience spanning tech, health, finance, and future technology. Specializing in semiconductor roadmaps, enterprise AI infrastructure, and consumer hardware, his reporting is driven by primary-source verification and official corporate disclosures. With more than a decade of focused writing across the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and India, Harish maintains a strict commitment to factual, non-sensationalized reporting on the economic and logistical shifts within the global tech sector. His current work centers on the technical evolution of "agentic AI" and next-generation silicon.

US Supreme Court Ruling Reshapes Liability for Internet Providers

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a major internet service provider is not liable for copyright infringement for failing to...

US Hospitals Shift to Private AI Clouds Amid Security Concerns

The American healthcare system is undergoing major changes in how it handles digital intelligence and patient data. After several major...

Apple Patent Turns Desks Into Touch Controls for Vision Pro

Apple has received or applied for patents to enhance the Vision Pro by turning flat surfaces, such as desks and interactive touch-sensitive displays, into...

Microsoft Patent Reveals System to Manage Competing AI Agents

Microsoft recently filed a patent application with the US Patent and Trademark Office for a system designed to coordinate competing AI...

NVIDIA and Marvell team up to power AI telecom networks in US

NVIDIA and Marvel Technology Inc. (Nasdaq: MRVL) announced a new partnership. This partnership will connect Marvell to the NVIDIA AI...

Kyndryl Launches AI Agents to Automate Enterprise Operations

Kyndryl (NYSC: KD), a top provider of enterprise technology services, has launched Agentic service. This new offering brings together maturity-model structured adjustments...

Amazon Tests AI-Driven Delivery Windows for Faster Shipping

Amazon is trialling AI-powered delivery windows to improve the precision of product deliveries and enable rapid delivery to its customers. Amazon is leveraging artificial intelligence to calculate...

Tesla Rolls Out FSD Update with Improved AI Driving Decisions

Tesla has recently announced a significant upgrade to the Full Self-Driving (FSD) operating system, which will use artificial intelligence (AI) to make decisions, thereby...

Samsung Expands Proactive AI to Predict Actions on Galaxy Devices

Samsung Electronics has kicked off its expanded presence at Mobile World Congress (MWC) 2026 in Barcelona, Spain, from March 2...

Microsoft Expands AI Security to Prevent Enterprise Data Leaks

Microsoft has rolled out a major update to its security tools, adding new features to help prevent sensitive information from leaking...