Aggregator

ふるさと住民登録制度モデル事業に係る対象自治体の決定

「地方財政の状況」（令和8年版地方財政白書）

各種調査等における学校種の取扱いの適正化

林総務大臣閣議後記者会見の概要

鉱業等に係る土地利用の調整手続等に関する法律の施行等に関する規則の一部を改正する規則案及び公害紛争の処理手続等に関する規則の一部を改正する規則案についての意見募集の結果並びに改正規則の公布

「2025年経済構造実態調査」一次集計結果　産業横断調査（企業等に関する集計）

陸上無線通信委員会報告（案）に対する意見募集の結果

政党交付金の返還

「令和7年度 予防行政のあり方に関する検討会」の検討結果

困難を抱える妊産婦の支援に関する調査　＜結果に基づく通知＞

「宿泊税」の新設・変更及び「別荘等所有税」の新設（更新）

令和8年度から新たに実施する電波資源拡大のための研究開発の基本計画書（案）に関する意見募集の結果及び提案の公募

「AIのセキュリティ確保のための技術的対策に係るガイドライン」（案）に対する意見募集の結果及びガイドラインの公表

行政手続における特定の個人を識別するための番号の利用等に関する法律施行規則等の一部を改正する命令（案）に対する意見募集の結果

「消防大学校における教育訓練等に関する検討会報告書」の公表

「大分市大規模火災を踏まえた消防防災対策のあり方に関する検討会報告書」の公表

　　　　　　　　　　　　　視察団は上陸地点の港で抗議の声を　馬毛島（鹿児島県西之表市）で進む米空母艦載機の離着陸訓練（ＦＣＬＰ）移転に伴う自衛隊基地建設工事は、１月12日が着工から３年。工事差し止めを求め、国と係争中の地元漁師原田純男さんと弁護士、支援者ら12人の視察団が10日、島唯一の上陸場所、葉山港近くにある漁業者の入会地と国有地境界確定のための測量をしに島に上陸したが、防衛省は国有地を通らなければ入会地に立ち入れないにもかかわらず視察団の国有地内通行を拒否。原告の入会地..

　　　　　　　　　　　　　視察団は上陸地点の港で抗議の声を　馬毛島（鹿児島県西之表市）で進む米空母艦載機の離着陸訓練（ＦＣＬＰ）移転に伴う自衛隊基地建設工事は、１月12日が着工から３年。工事差し止めを求め、国と係争中の地元漁師原田純男さんと弁護士、支援者ら12人の視察団が10日、島唯一の上陸場所、葉山港近くにある漁業者の入会地と国有地境界確定のための測量をしに島に上陸したが、防衛省は国有地を通らなければ入会地に立ち入れないにもかかわらず視察団の国有地内通行を拒否。原告の入会地..

If your ISP can be liable for huge amounts of money for not terminating your access to the internet because of accusations that you—or someone in your household or college network—has committed copyright infringement, that is dangerous. We live in a world where high speed internet access is a necessity for participation in everyday life. That’s why liability for ISPs for their customers’ actions should not be expanded.

Last fall, EFF filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject an expansive theory of secondary copyright liability that threatened to impose massive damages on internet service providers and other technology companies simply for offering widely used services. Yesterday, the Court agreed.

In Cox v. Sony, the Court reversed a Fourth Circuit decision that had upheld a billion-dollar verdict against internet provider Cox Communications. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas explained that contributory liability is limited to two situations: when a defendant actively induces infringement, or when it provides a product or service that it knows is tailored for infringement.

This framework closely tracks the approach EFF urged in our amicus brief. As we explained, courts should look to patent law for guidance in defining the boundaries of secondary copyright liability. Patent law recognizes liability where a defendant actively induces infringement, or distributes a product knowing that it lacks substantial non-infringing uses. The Court’s opinion adopts that same basic structure.

EFF also emphasized the broader public interest at stake in preserving these limits. Expansive theories of secondary liability do not just affect large internet providers. They can chill innovation, threaten smaller technology companies, and undermine the development of general-purpose tools that millions of people rely on for lawful speech, creativity, education, and access to information. When liability turns on generalized knowledge that some users may infringe, service providers face pressure to over-police user activity or withdraw useful services altogether.

The Court also made clear that mere knowledge that some customers use a service to infringe is not enough. Copyright holders must show that the provider intended its service to be used for infringement. That intent can be established only through active inducement or by showing that the service is specifically designed for unlawful uses—not simply because the service provider failed to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement.

Applying this standard, the Court held that Cox could not be liable. There was no evidence that Cox encouraged or promoted infringement. The record instead showed that Cox implemented warning systems, suspended service, and in some cases terminated accounts in an effort to discourage unlawful activity.

Nor was Cox’s internet access service tailored to infringement. The Court emphasized that general-purpose internet connectivity is capable of substantial lawful uses. Treating the provision of such services as contributory infringement would improperly expand secondary liability beyond the limits recognized in prior Supreme Court decisions.

The Court also rejected the Fourth Circuit’s broader rule that supplying a service with knowledge it may be used to infringe is itself sufficient for liability. That theory conflicts with decades of precedent warning against imposing copyright liability based solely on knowledge or a failure to take additional preventive steps.

EFF is pleased with yesterday’s opinion. We will continue to advocate for the public’s ability to build, use, and innovate with new technologies.

Link to our amicus brief: 
https://www.eff.org/document/us-s-ct-cox-v-sony-eff-et-al-amicus-brief

Link to the opinion:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-171_bq7d.pdf

Related Cases: Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment

Launched in 2006, the award-winning Take Back the Tech! (TBTT!) campaign is turning 20 years old at a time when ideas, movements and disruptions around pervasive TFGBV remain necessary and in some…