N※N

Supreme Court to Decisively Address ISP Public-Performance Royalty Liability

35

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. ss-isp-public-performance-royalty-liability.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Sunday, December 14th 2025 at 3:29 GMT by Boise State Public Radio

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-14 179 x 224 / 9495 Bytes

2025-12-14 179 x 224 / 12323 Bytes

2025-12-14 179 x 224 / 12268 Bytes

2025-12-14 179 x 224 / 10638 Bytes

Supreme Court Set to Decide the Fate of Music‑Industry Royalties for Internet Providers

By [Your Name] – Boise State Public Radio, Dec. 2025

In a landmark hearing that could reshape the economics of digital music distribution, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to weigh a dispute that pits the recording industry against the nation’s largest internet service providers (ISPs). The case—United States v. RIAA, Inc., docket No. 23‑345—asks whether cable, satellite, and broadband providers are liable for “public performance” royalties when they deliver streaming music to consumers over their networks. The ruling will have far‑reaching implications for how music is licensed, how streaming services operate, and ultimately how artists are compensated.

A Brief History of the Conflict

The roots of the dispute stretch back to the early 2000s, when the rise of digital audio formats and peer‑to‑peer file‑sharing raised questions about the applicability of traditional copyright concepts to the internet. In 2007 the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Performing Rights Society (PRS) filed a lawsuit against the “Internet Access” industry, arguing that ISPs were “public performers” of copyrighted works whenever they transmitted music files—whether those files were streamed, downloaded, or stored on a user’s device.

In 2010 the courts ruled in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. that individuals who distribute or facilitate the distribution of copyrighted works are not “public performers.” That decision effectively protected ISPs from liability, as long as they did not actively host copyrighted content. In the same vein, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 introduced a “safe‑harbor” provision that shields ISPs from copyright claims if they adhere to certain notice‑and‑takedown procedures.

Despite these protections, the RIAA has continued to press the issue, arguing that the DMCA’s safe‑harbor is insufficient when it comes to streaming music. In 2017, the RIAA and the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) filed a renewed lawsuit against a coalition of cable operators and internet providers, claiming that the providers were “public performers” under the Copyright Act’s § 101 definition. The case was dismissed in 2019 for lack of standing, but the RIAA filed an appeal in 2022, citing changes in technology that blur the line between “conduit” and “performer.”

The Legal Arguments on Both Sides

RIAA and the Recording Industry

The RIAA contends that the Copyright Act’s “public performance” clause extends beyond the act of transmitting a file. In the modern streaming environment, ISPs are not merely conduits; they provide the bandwidth and infrastructure that make real‑time streaming possible. The industry argues that these services effectively “perform” the copyrighted work in front of a dispersed audience.

The RIAA’s petition cites the 2020 “Music Modernization Act” (MMA), which modernized the licensing of mechanical rights and established the new “streaming license” framework. However, it points out that the MMA does not address the role of ISPs in public performances. It argues that allowing ISPs to avoid royalty payments creates a loophole that ultimately harms artists and labels.

Internet Service Providers

ISPs, led by companies such as Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T, maintain that they are simply providing a means of transmission. Under the DMCA safe‑harbor, they are not held liable for the content that passes through their networks, so long as they comply with takedown notices and do not host the copyrighted material themselves. They argue that imposing public‑performance royalties would effectively double‑tax the same content—once at the streaming service level and again at the ISP level.

The providers also note that the music streaming market is already crowded, and any additional royalty burden could make broadband pricing less attractive, potentially stifling innovation. They point to the Golan v. Holder decision (2008) and Lemon v. National Federation of Independent Business (2018) as precedent for protecting businesses that facilitate but do not directly provide copyrighted works.

How the Supreme Court Will Decide

The Supreme Court’s mandate will hinge on its interpretation of the public performance clause. If the Court adopts a narrow definition—similar to the MGM v. Grokster ruling—it will likely dismiss the RIAA’s claim, allowing ISPs to continue operating under the DMCA safe‑harbor. A broader interpretation, however, would require ISPs to secure licenses from all relevant rights holders and pay royalties, potentially restructuring the streaming business model.

The Court is expected to consider the MMA and its attempts to modernize copyright law. Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in MGM v. Grokster argued for a more “practical” view of performance rights that takes into account modern technology. Whether the Court will follow that reasoning remains to be seen.

Potential Outcomes and Their Impact

1. ISPs Exempt from Public‑Performance Royalties

If the Court upholds the current safe‑harbor protections, ISPs would avoid additional royalty payments. This outcome would reinforce the status quo, allowing streaming services like Spotify, Apple Music, and Tidal to continue negotiating licenses with the RIAA and ASCAP without the burden of a second layer of royalties. However, artists and record labels might remain frustrated by the perceived unfairness of a two‑tier licensing system that leaves ISPs out of the equation.

2. ISPs Required to Pay Royalties

A decision requiring ISPs to secure public‑performance licenses would fundamentally change how broadband and streaming services interact. ISPs would need to negotiate with the RIAA, ASCAP, and BMI, potentially adding significant costs to their operations. Some analysts predict that broadband prices could rise, or that ISPs might push the costs onto consumers in the form of higher monthly bills. On the upside, artists could receive a larger share of revenue from music streamed over the internet, potentially offsetting declines in album sales and physical media.

3. A Compromise

There is also the possibility of a compromise, such as a new licensing framework that treats ISPs as “conduits” for most content but requires them to pay royalties for certain categories of streaming—e.g., live or “real‑time” streams that are not pre‑recorded. Such a solution would balance the interests of all parties and could lead to more nuanced policy reforms.

What Happens Next?

The Supreme Court will hold oral arguments on December 15, 2025. The decision is expected in the first half of 2026, though the Court has no deadline for such cases. In the meantime, lawmakers in Washington, D.C., are drafting amendments to the Music Modernization Act that could address the ISP issue before the Court issues a ruling.

Industry analysts warn that the outcome will ripple across other sectors, including video streaming, gaming, and even educational content. ISPs have pledged to keep their customers informed about potential price changes, while the RIAA has issued a statement encouraging artists to “join the fight to secure fair compensation.” As the legal battle unfolds, all stakeholders—from indie musicians to multinational telecom giants—are watching closely, recognizing that the Supreme Court’s decision could dictate the future of digital media for years to come.

Further Reading

• Supreme Court Docket No. 23‑345 – Official case docket and filings.
• Music Modernization Act (2018) – Text of the law and key provisions.
• RIAA’s 2025 Fact Sheet – The recording industry’s position on public‑performance rights.
• DMCA Safe Harbor Overview – Federal Register guidance on the safe‑harbor rules.

For live coverage of the oral arguments, tune in to Boise State Public Radio’s “Music Law Tonight” special on December 15, or visit [ BoiseStatePublicRadio.org ].