Ketanji Brown Jackson Questions Test for Intent in Copyright Infringement Case

Understanding the Intent Element

• 💡 Justice Jackson is probing the respondent attorney's test for establishing intent in copyright infringement cases, specifically focusing on the knowledge that a customer is substantially certain to infringe.
• ❓ She questions whether establishing this knowledge is sufficient to infer intent or if the defendant can offer evidence to rebut this inference.

Legal Standards and Jury Determination

• ⚖️ The respondent attorney suggests that proving knowledge of substantial certainty of infringement is enough to get the case to the jury, but not necessarily enough for a directed verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
• 🗣️ The attorney references a jury's finding of material contribution and aiding and abetting liability in a previous case, despite the jury likely not wanting to lose internet access.

Material Contribution and Aiding & Abetting

• 🤝 The discussion touches upon the critical elements of intent and material contribution or substantial assistance in aiding and abetting liability, drawing parallels to cases like Twitter and Halberstam.
• 🌐 Providing the means of infringement, such as what ISPs do, is considered material contribution, especially when done with knowledge of specific customer actions.

Distinguishing Cases and Liability

• 🛒 The attorney differentiates cases like FedEx or electrical companies from ISPs, arguing that providing the means of infringement with knowledge of specific customer behavior leads to liability.
• 💊 The Inwood case is cited as an example where a drug manufacturer providing a product with knowledge of its misuse led to liability, similar to the context of ISPs providing means for infringement.