Vasi Philomin: Siemens holt sich KI-Topmanager von Amazon

Kürzlich hat Vasi Philomin Amazon verlassen. Nun fängt er bei Siemens an, Industrial Foundation Models zu schaffen. Ziel: Maschinen, die selbstständig handeln. (Siemens, KI)

Kürzlich hat Vasi Philomin Amazon verlassen. Nun fängt er bei Siemens an, Industrial Foundation Models zu schaffen. Ziel: Maschinen, die selbstständig handeln. (Siemens, KI)

Supreme Court Grants Cox’s Bid to Reexamine Liability for Pirating Subscribers

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will take up a landmark piracy liability lawsuit between Cox Communications and several record labels. The Court granted Cox’s petition for a writ of certiorari. It review the contributory infringement standards that determine how ISPs should respond to pirating subscribers, as well as the associated willfulness finding. The record labels’ cross-petition was denied.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

supremecourtLast summer, Cox Communications filed a petition at the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting a review of the Fourth Circuit ruling that held the company contributorily liable for pirating subscribers.

The internet provider ultimately challenged the $1 billion verdict from a Virginia jury in 2019, which went in favor of a group of major record labels, including Sony and Universal.

As Cox petitioned the Supreme Court, the music companies filed their own petition, hoping to expand the verdict. Specifically, they argued that the ISP should also be held liable for vicarious copyright infringement.

From the outset it was clear this would be a pivotal case with potentially broad consequences for many other ISPs and rightsholders dealing with similar copyright issues. After considering the arguments from both sides and the U.S. Government, the Supreme Court announced its decisions today.

Supreme Court Grants Cox’s Petition

In the latest order list released this morning, the Supreme Court grants Cox’s petition for a writ of certiorari.

granted

By granting Cox’s petition, the Supreme Court agrees to review crucial questions surrounding contributory copyright infringement. This includes a potential re-evaluation of how ISPs are required to respond to copyright infringement notices and what an appropriate “repeat infringer policy” entails.

Specifically, Cox presented the following question to the Supreme Court:

“Did the Fourth Circuit err in holding that a service provider can be held liable […] merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it?”

Contributory copyright infringement requires a finding that ISPs have “knowledge” of and “materially contribute” to piracy activities. However, Cox questions whether these elements are triggered upon mere receipt of multiple piracy notices from third-party rightsholders.

In addition, Cox also raised concerns about the jury’s “willfulness” ruling, which resulted in the maximum statutory damages of $150,000 per work. The ISP countered that knowledge of subscribers’ copyright infringements is not necessarily willful, if the company did not know that its own conduct was illegal.

Key Input from U.S. Solicitor General

The highly anticipated decision comes just weeks after the U.S. Solicitor General filed an influential amicus brief, urging the Supreme Court to take precisely this path.

The Solicitor General argued that an ISP is not automatically liable for copyright infringement if it merely fails to terminate subscribers after receiving multiple notices. It warned that the Fourth Circuit’s verdict could have “broad negative implications for ISPs and their subscribers,” potentially leading to disconnections of many innocent users.

The brief also strongly argued that Cox’s actions were not “willful,” stating that “willfulness” generally requires knowledge or reckless disregard for the defendant’s own unlawful conduct, not just that of third parties.

While the reasoning of the Supreme Court is currently unknown, the decision matches the advice of the U.S. Solicitor General. This also applies to the separate cross petition filed by the record labels.

Supreme Court Denied Labels’ Petition

In the same order batch this morning, the Supreme Court denies the labels’ petition for a writ of certiorari. Again, without providing any details for its reasoning.

denied

The record labels were seeking to hold Cox vicariously liable, arguing that it profited directly from piracy by declining to terminate repeat infringers to keep their subscription fees.

The lower court previously dismissed this claim, but the labels asked the Supreme Court to take up the issue in their own cross-petition. This request was denied.

The denial is in line with the Solicitor General’s assessment that the Fourth Circuit correctly concluded Cox did not derive a direct financial benefit from the alleged infringements, or that its stance towards piracy acted as a draw to potential customers.

The record labels previously rebuffed the U.S. Government position, characterizing it as bewildering, but that didn’t yield a result.

Path Forward

With Cox’s petition granted, the case will now be scheduled for oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the upcoming term. This highly anticipated hearing will offer both sides the opportunity to present their arguments in detail.

Needless to say, this case will continue to be watched closely by internet providers and copyright holders alike.

Today’s orders ensure that Cox’s liability for contributory infringement will be reviewed in detail. At the same time, the battle over vicarious liability, at least for now, appears to be settled in favor of ISPs.

From: TF, for the latest news on copyright battles, piracy and more.

Trump’s tariff threat pushes Canada to scrap digital services tax

US tech companies escape Canada digital services tax due to Trump tariffs.

In a sudden reversal, Canada has caved and will remove its digital services tax after trade talks with the US suddenly fell apart this weekend.

Blocked just hours before taking effect, the controversial digital services tax (DST) would have charged big US tech companies like Apple, Google, and Meta a 3 percent tax on all digital services revenue earned from Canadian users. Frustrating US tech giants, Canada also sought to collect retroactive taxes dating back to 2022.

Over the weekend, Donald Trump claimed the tax was a "direct and blatant attack" on US tech companies and terminated the trade talks while threatening to impose a new tariff rate on Canadian goods by the 4th of July.

Read full article

Comments

NIH budget cuts affect research funding beyond US borders

European leaders say they will fill the funding void. Is that realistic?

Rory de Vries, an associate professor of virology in the Netherlands, was lifting weights at the gym when he noticed a WhatsApp message from his research partners at Columbia University, telling him his research funding had been cancelled. The next day he received the official email: “Hi Rory, Columbia has received a termination notice for this contract, including all subcontracts,” it stated. “Unfortunately, we must advise you to immediately stop work and cease incurring charges on this subcontract.”

De Vries was disappointed, though not surprised—his team knew this might happen under the new Trump administration. His projects focused on immune responses and a new antiviral treatment for respiratory viruses like Covid-19. Animals had responded well in pre-clinical trials, and he was about to explore the next steps for applications in humans. But the news, which he received in March, left him with a cascade of questions: What would happen to the doctoral student he had just hired for his project, a top candidate plucked from a pool of some 300 aspiring scientists? How would his team comply with local Dutch law, which, unlike the US, forbids terminating a contract without cause or notice? And what did the future hold for his projects, two of which contained promising data for treating Covid-19 and other respiratory illnesses in humans?

It was all up in the air, leaving de Vries, who works at the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam and whose research has appeared in top-tier publications scrambling for last-minute funding from the Dutch government or the European Union.

Read full article

Comments

The second launch of New Glenn will aim for Mars

The payload likely to spark the most interest is the Blue Moon MK1 lander.

Blue Origin is making steady progress toward the second launch of its New Glenn rocket, which could occur sometime this fall.

The company already ignited the second stage of this rocket, in a pre-launch test, in April. And two sources say the first stage for this launch is in the final stages of preparation at the company's facilities in Cape Canaveral, Florida.

Publicly, the company has said this second launch will take place no earlier than August 15. This is now off the table. One source told Ars that a mid- to late-September launch date was "realistic," but another person said late October or November was more likely.

Read full article

Comments