typo

Author: jaw-sh

content/blog/2025/09/cox_v_sony.md

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Without this clarity, the current precedent encourages zealous overcensorship to
 
 > To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.)
 
-Our arguments align with other key organizations pushing for a fairer Internet. Even the United States government believes that recent court decisions imposing contributory copyright liability are too broad and threaten innovation and free expression.
+Our arguments align with other key organizations pushing for a fairer Internet. Even the United States government believes that recent court decisions imposing contributory copyright liability are too broad and threatens innovation and free expression.
 
 * **X Corp.** (formerly Twitter): Both USIPS and X Corp. emphasize that companies should only be liable for "active and culpable participation" in infringement, not for simply failing to stop it or for passive inaction based solely on knowledge. X Corp. warns that overbroad liability threatens free speech and innovation, noting that many infringement notices impact ordinary Americans posting everyday content.
 * **Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)**: EFF supports a stricter standard, calling for copyright liability to follow traditional patent law, which requires a "high level of intent" and "affirmative steps" to promote infringement. They agree that merely failing to terminate accounts is insufficient. Both USIPS and EFF also argue that the billion-dollar statutory damages awarded in this case are disproportionate and not tied to actual harm, warning that aggressive termination policies would cause "disproportionate harm to the public" by cutting off essential Internet access for innocent users.