Piracy has grown again in the last few years. You may already know someone who streams free movies, free sports, or free TV shows using illegal links. And maybe you think, “Nothing ever happens. Nobody gets in trouble.”
But a new legal battle in the United States could alter that. The case could make internet providers punish you if you pirate content. Under the proposed rules, if your account is linked to piracy, your entire internet access could be cut off.
Well, here is everything you need to know about this legal battle and more.
The Supreme Court case that could cost you your internet access
There is a significant copyright lawsuit currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Its outcome could impact you and millions of people.
Sony Music Entertainment is the plaintiff in the case. The brand reasons that internet providers do not do enough to stop pirating content online on their networks.
According to Sony, if an ISP sees piracy coming from one of its customers, the company must cut that customer’s internet connection. If the ISP refuses, Sony says it should be held financially responsible for “contributing” to piracy.
This case is mainly aimed at the defendant, Cox Communications. The ISP is the third-largest internet provider in the United States. Sony says Cox ignored years of piracy notices.
Cox says the demands were unreasonable and would turn ISPs into “Internet police.” But if Sony wins, ISPs will have two choices:
- Cut off the internet of any account suspected of piracy
- Or pay huge fines to copyright owners
If this were to pass, you could lose your connection even if someone else in your household was responsible.
But tech companies and civil-rights groups are worried
Big tech firms and civil rights groups strongly oppose this idea of cutting your access to the internet.
The groups all warn that turning ISPs into piracy enforcers is dangerous. Cutting someone’s internet harms more than punishing piracy. Here are the main worries:
- Free speech and human rights risks. Many rights bodies demand careful limits and strong safeguards if governments gain more powers.
- Disproportionate harm. Disconnecting a person for piracy can hurt their job, education, or access to emergency services. People might lose more than the value of the pirated content. Courts have considered this when rejecting or scaling back disconnection powers.
- Risk of mistakes and overreach. Because there are a lot of internet users. A company cannot manually survey whatever sites you visit. The best solution is to use automated detection. However, such a system is not perfect and can make mistakes that target the wrong people.
- Privacy and illegal surveillance. To prove that you have pirated any content, authorities often need your internet logs. They will also access your IP addresses or payment records. Gathering that data weakens privacy protections if no strict rules exist. Many groups demand clear limits on how authorities collect and use personal data.
- Shared Wi-Fi problems. If one person pirates something on shared Wi-Fi, like at a hospital, university, military base, library, or café, the entire network of that place is taken down.
- Unfair punishment. The ACLU described a common situation in a legal filing: “Parents’ internet access may be terminated based on the conduct of their children or even their children’s friends.”
- Essential life services could break. The internet is not just entertainment. Losing access can affect schooling, jobs, health services, and communication.
Sony and other media groups support the crackdown
On the other side, Sony and its supporters say the problem is simple: pirating content online costs them billions. They say Cox and other ISPs “looked the other way” while money was lost.
Supporters include:
- Major film studios
- Record labels
- Trade groups for artists and songwriters
They argue that ISPs had many chances to use softer tools. This could be punishing you with slow internet speed if you try to access pirated content, or blocking those sites completely.
Instead, Sony claims internet providers, like Cox, have continued to allow piracy to continue. The reason is that they want to keep customers paying monthly fees. To them, the Supreme Court case is a way to force ISPs to take piracy seriously.
How high the stakes are for Cox
If the Supreme Court rules against Cox, the firm faces a $1 billion penalty. The company forewarns that such a verdict could push the business into immediate bankruptcy.
The brand also says entire neighborhoods, especially rural ones that count on it as the only ISP, may abruptly lose internet access if it collapses.
That is why this case is so significant. It affects not just people who pirate movies, but people who rely on Cox for stable internet.
This debate is not new
This is not the first time a country has tried to reduce pirating content online by threatening to cut off your internet access if caught. France tried something very similar in the late 2000s.
In 2009, their government introduced the HADOPI law, named after the agency created to enforce it. This became known worldwide as the “three-strikes” anti-piracy system.
This is how it worked:
- Strike 1 – Warning email: If piracy was detected on your internet line, you got a warning email.
- Strike 2 – Certified letter: If it happened again, you would receive a formal letter at home.
- Strike 3 – Internet access denial: After the third happening, HADOPI could order your ISP to cut your internet access forever.
This has been the fiercest anti-piracy law in Europe. But the system ran into serious problems. Also, the law cost millions but didn’t significantly reduce piracy.
By 2013, France had removed the power to disconnect internet service. The law shifted to fines instead.
This law teaches the whole world that:
- Cutting internet access is extreme.
- It can punish innocent people.
- It risks violating fundamental rights.
- It creates major technical and legal problems.
France abandoned the approach, and many experts say the U.S. Supreme Court should keep that history in mind.