Brett Kavanaugh Questions ISP Liability for Aiding Copyright Infringement

Distinguishing Targeted Assistance from General Technology

• 🎯 Justice Kavanaugh pressed the attorney on the definition of "targeted assistance" in the context of internet service providers (ISPs).
• 💡 The core distinction lies between providing generic services to the public and offering specialized services specifically for infringers.
• ⚖️ A key argument is that simply knowing some users might misuse a general service is insufficient for liability, unlike providing a service known to be used for illegal acts.

ISP Liability and Litigation Burdens

• 🚀 The advantage of clarifying what constitutes "purpose" for liability is to prevent ISPs from facing the burdens of litigation when only general services are provided.
• 🚫 The goal is for ISPs to win not only at the end of the day but also to avoid being subjected to lawsuits based on insufficient evidence of intent.

The 'Henry' Case and Patent Law Analogy

• 📚 The attorney responded to the reliance on the Henry case by noting its specific facts involved a specially suited ink and direct instruction for misuse.
• 📜 Even if Henry suggested liability for selling a multi-purpose product with knowledge of infringement, this has been superseded by the Patent Act, which codified different rules.
• ⚠️ The argument is that the patent law framework, as currently codified, does not support the broader interpretation of Henry for contributory infringement.