United States v. Martignon
492 F.3d 140 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Congress may enact a law under its Commerce Clause power that regulates conduct related to intellectual property, even if that law would be invalid under the Copyright Clause, so long as the statute is not fundamentally a 'copyright law' that creates or allocates property rights in expression.
Facts:
- Jean Martignon was the proprietor of a record store named Midnight Records in Manhattan.
- Martignon was alleged to have reproduced, distributed, and sold phonorecords.
- These phonorecords contained unauthorized recordings of live musical performances.
- The recordings were allegedly fixed and distributed without the consent of the performers.
- Martignon's alleged actions were undertaken for commercial advantage or private financial gain.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Jean Martignon on one count of violating the federal anti-bootlegging statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2319A.
- In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the trial court), Martignon moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the statute was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power.
- The government (prosecution) argued that the statute was a valid exercise of power under the Commerce Clause.
- The District Court granted Martignon's motion and dismissed the indictment, holding that § 2319A was an unconstitutional 'copyright-like' law that could not be justified under the Commerce Clause.
- The United States government, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Martignon was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is 18 U.S.C. § 2319A, a federal statute criminalizing the unauthorized recording and trafficking of live musical performances, a valid exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause even though it grants protections that conflict with the 'fixation' and 'limited Times' requirements of the Copyright Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Pooler, Circuit Judge
Yes. 18 U.S.C. § 2319A is a valid exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power because it is not a 'copyright law' and therefore is not constrained by the limitations of the Copyright Clause. The limitations embedded in one constitutional grant of power, such as the Copyright Clause, only restrict Congress's authority under another grant of power, such as the Commerce Clause, when the enacted law is fundamentally an exercise of the first power. The court determined that a 'copyright law' is one that 'secures' rights by creating, bestowing, and allocating property rights in expression. Section 2319A does not grant performers a transferable property right to exclude others; rather, it is a criminal statute that empowers the government to prosecute the commercial activity of bootlegging. Because the statute is a commercial regulation and not a copyright law, it does not need to comply with the Copyright Clause's requirements of fixation and limited duration. The statute is a permissible regulation of interstate commerce because the sale and distribution of bootleg records has a substantial effect on the national market for legitimate phonorecords.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the boundaries between Congress's enumerated powers, establishing that the limitations of one clause do not automatically apply to laws passed under another, even when their subject matter overlaps. It affirms that the Commerce Clause grants Congress significant flexibility to enact intellectual property-style protections that fall outside the traditional frameworks of copyright and patent law. By defining a 'copyright law' as one that grants property rights, the court created a distinction that allows Congress to criminalize certain commercial activities related to creative works without being constrained by the specific limitations of the Copyright Clause. This ruling strengthens Congress's ability to address new forms of piracy and infringement through commercial regulation, though it leaves open the possibility of other constitutional challenges, such as those under the First Amendment.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Martignon