Cox v. Sony Music: Refining Secondary (C) Liability Rules

course

PROGRAM INFO

  • Presentation Date 4/14/2026
  • Class Time 11:00 AM PT
  • Duration 30 min.
  • Format Webcast
  • Program Code BCLT0075
  • CA General CLE Credits: 0.50 hr(s)

Price: FREE

If you have a coupon, please add at checkout

CLE VIEWRegistration Required QUICK VIEWNon-CLE / No Charge
 

DESCRIPTION

Tuesday, April 14, 2026 | 11:00 a.m. | B-CLE Webcast

0.50 General CLE Credit Offered

Program Info | Resources | Speaker Bio(s) & Contact Info

Don't miss this compelling expert webcast from the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, featuring renowned copyright scholar Prof. Pam Samuelson of BCLT, UC Berkeley School of Law. In one of the most consequential copyright decisions in years, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Cox v. Sony Music — and the implications are massive for secondary liability law. Professor Samuelson unpacks what the Court actually decided, why it matters, and how it will reshape the landscape of contributory infringement going forward. Whether you're new to copyright law or a seasoned practitioner, this is one discussion you can't afford to miss.

This program is ideal for: Attorneys, legal professionals, and students working in or curious about intellectual property, copyright, and technology law — as well as broadband providers, online platforms, and anyone navigating secondary liability issues.

Key takeaways:

  • The Supreme Court eliminated the "material contribution with knowledge" standard for contributory copyright infringement, requiring proof of purposeful, culpable conduct — a major shift that will force courts to rethink existing secondary liability cases.
  • Amicus briefs played a decisive role, with the Solicitor General, major tech platforms (Google, Amazon, Microsoft), and civil society groups like the EFF weighing in — and the Court's reasoning reflects their influence.
  • The ruling has sweeping implications for ISPs, online platforms, and copyright owners alike, raising new questions about DMCA safe harbors, repeat infringer policies, and the balance between protecting rights holders and preserving public internet access.