The U.S. Supreme Court has a busy month ahead as it prepares to weigh in on a slate of high-profile, potentially landmark cases, including one regarding online piracy.

According to ABC News, the high court will consider whether or not major internet service providers are liable for rampant online piracy, especially in the wake of a $1 billion judgment awarded to Sony Music Entertainment and other music providers as a result of multiple rulings against Cox Communications. 

Cox Communications is the country's third-largest provider of internet services, so naturally, the company likely has the highest number of those who engage in piracy.

The case against Cox withstood a federal appeals review, with the $1 billion award to Sony and others being upheld.

What's going on?

It goes without saying that Cox isn't thrilled with the idea of being held financially liable for its users' piracy activities, and as a result, it asked the Supreme Court to toss the verdict that will otherwise cost it $1 billion.

Their argument is simple: If the verdict is upheld, it will quickly mean bankruptcy for the internet service provider, leaving millions of Americans without access to internet services.

The company also argued that it could lead to "mass evictions from the internet" from spots where piracy is suspected to take place the most, such as "homes, barracks, hospitals, and hotels upon bare accusation."

Attorneys for Cox argued that it has strict policies against piracy, but insisted that it simply cannot pinpoint and control what its users choose to do with their connection.

"Your [internet service provider] does not purposefully participate in, or try to bring about, what you do online any more than your phone company or FedEx do in communications they transmit," the attorneys said.

ABC News noted:

Federal law makes it a crime to directly infringe on a copyright, but secondary liability by another party involved in copyright infringement -- such as internet service providers -- remains an evolving area of law.

Sony responds

Sony had plenty to say about the situation, charging Cox with purposely choosing profits over obeying current laws.

"Cox made a deliberate and egregious decision to elevate its own profits over compliance with the law," the company's attorneys said.

They added that Cox supplied 'the means for massive copyright infringement to specific users that it knew were habitual offenders because [it wanted to] to hold on to every subscriber [it] can."

Only time will tell which side the high court comes down on. Either way, it'll be a huge decision.