United States v. Moghadam
175 F.3d 1269 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Congress may use its Commerce Clause power to enact copyright-like protections for works that may not meet the requirements of the Copyright Clause, provided the statute regulates activity that substantially affects interstate commerce and is not fundamentally inconsistent with the limitations of the Copyright Clause.
Facts:
- Ali Moghadam knowingly distributed, sold, and trafficked in bootleg compact discs.
- The compact discs contained unauthorized recordings of live musical performances by artists including Tori Amos and the Beastie Boys.
- The recordings were made without the consent of the performers.
- Moghadam engaged in these activities for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain.
Procedural Posture:
- Ali Moghadam was indicted for violating the anti-bootlegging statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2319A.
- In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Moghadam filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing the statute was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power.
- The government responded that the statute was constitutional under either the Copyright Clause or the Commerce Clause.
- The district court denied Moghadam's motion to dismiss.
- Moghadam entered a guilty plea but preserved his right to appeal the constitutional issue.
- Moghadam, as Defendant-Appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, with the United States as Plaintiff-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 the anti-bootlegging statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2319A, a constitutional exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, even if it protects unfixed live musical performances that may not qualify as 'Writings' under the Copyright Clause?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Anderson
Yes, the anti-bootlegging statute is a constitutional exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The court first assumed, without deciding, that the statute could not be sustained under the Copyright Clause because unfixed live performances may not constitute 'Writings,' which require fixation in a tangible medium. However, the court found the statute was a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause power because the regulated activity—bootlegging for financial gain—has a substantial effect on interstate and foreign commerce by depressing the legitimate market for music. The court resolved the tension between the Commerce Clause's breadth and the Copyright Clause's limitations by reasoning that Congress can use its Commerce power to achieve what the Copyright Clause might not permit, as long as it does not create a 'fundamental inconsistency' with a limitation in another constitutional grant of power. Here, extending copyright-like protection to unfixed performances is not fundamentally inconsistent with the Copyright Clause's fixation requirement; rather, it complements the Clause's purpose of promoting the arts.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for establishing that the Commerce Clause can serve as an alternative basis for intellectual property protection outside the specific constraints of the Copyright and Patent Clause. It creates a framework where Congress can legislate protections for new or non-traditional forms of creative expression, provided there is a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce. The court's 'fundamental inconsistency' test provides a standard for evaluating when a limitation in one enumerated power (e.g., the Copyright Clause's fixation requirement) bars Congress from acting under another, more general power (e.g., the Commerce Clause). This ruling solidifies the constitutional foundation for sui generis, or unique, intellectual property rights enacted to address modern technological and commercial realities.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Moghadam