Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment · ¶79

That informational gap is fatal here. As Smith & Wesson explained, aiding-and-abetting liability most commonly attaches where the defendant aided a specific instance of unlawful conduct. Id., at 294. Often, that requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant, at a minimum, knew who the “principals” in the alleged unlawful acts were. Id., at 295– 296. Here, however, plaintiffs have not shown that Cox had specific knowledge of who committed the infringing conduct. Take, for example, a connection sold to a single-family home. Cox, after receiving three notices of copyright violations, would know only that that home's connection is substantially certain to be used again in the future to commit infringement. Yet Cox would have no knowledge (indeed, plaintiffs have not shown that Cox has any way of knowing) who within the household committed infringement. Nor, for that matter, have…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.