Is The Copyright Royalty Board Unconstitutional?
from the this-sounds-familiar... dept
Last month, we wrote about a Constitutional challenge to the patent appeals board. It was based on the theory that the Constitution clearly says that certain appointments can only be made by the President, the courts or the heads of a department. A legal change a few years back let the USPTO director appoint judges to the patent appeals board -- but the Patent Office director is not the head of a department. He reports to the Commerce Secretary who should be nominating the judges -- thus suggesting that all of the appointments over the last few years have been unconstitutional.Of course, it didn't take long for folks to recognize that the same question may apply well beyond the patent appeals board. In fact, there's a court case challenging whether the current Copyright Royalty Board is constitutional as well. While the article doesn't go into details, it sounds like it's an identical issue. The CRB members are appointed by the Librarian of Congress rather than the President or the head of a department. This particular lawsuit has been filed by an organization that was hoping to compete with SoundExchange for collecting and distributing royalties. The CRB rejected the request. Given how many problems SoundExchange has had in carrying out its charter, it would seem like competition is a pretty good idea. However, rather than fighting that decision specifically, the company recognizes this same constitutional question. Funny how the boards involved in both copyrights and patents may be unconstitutional for the same basic reason.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: appointments, constitution, copyright royalty board, copyrights
Companies: soundexchange
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Patent Insight
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Patent Insight
[ link to this | view in thread ]
CRB
Silly me, but I am not at all sure this issue can even be resolved so long as the Copyright Office remains a part of the legislative branch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: CRB
Perfect - just the way politicians like it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Patent Insight
What better place to start FIXING America than with the foundation? Anyone who would ignore the Constitution as an American Citizen is by definition a Traitor.
For indeed what more harm can one do to his fellow Americans than destroy the very principals that created this nation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Patent Insight
Oh sure, then you say, well what is to keep us from sliding into catastrophe, without the constitution as a bulwark?
Well, what is keeping us from sliding into catastrophe anyway? The hard work and forbearance of many, many people, every day, and their love for this country.. not the constitution.
But if it is reverenace for that old document that fuels your passion, then use it. Just know how it is being used.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: constitution
Wow, you're absolutely right. Too bad there's no legal way to change the Constitution. What if you could make amendments, and have them ratified by the states? Wouldn't that be a great idea?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
May not be a big deal
Even though saying a board is "unconstitutional" makes it sounds like a really serious problem, a few industry lawyers I've talked to about this issue (in regards to the patent board) were skeptical that there will be the kind of catastrophic change that was suggested by the NYT headline. The fact is that if people were appointed incorrectly, that's a fixable problem -- you can just re-appoint them the right way. you don't have to change the constitution. After all, nobody is really suggesting these judges are unqualified.
If the Secretary of Commerce made the appointments instead of the PTO director -- that is, the appointment was made "correctly"-- the secretary would likely just ask the PTO director for his recommendations of who the best patent judges would be, and follow it.
Same thing is likely in the copyright context. The Librarian of Congress is the copyright board's boss, therefore, likely knows who the best Copyright Royalty Judges would be, moreso than a cabinet-level official.
The appellant in the case of the patent board is trying to recoup a $86 million infringement verdict; I imagine the copyright board appellant has a significant interest at stake too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ignoring the Constitution?
*cough*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: May not be a big deal
Yup. That's what I wrote in my original post on the subject (about the patent board) and got slammed in the comments. :) Oh well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: May not be a big deal
... and I talked to the guys who made the challenge over the CRB -- they simply read about the patent side and tried to go the same route. Of course, in the IP world, patent litigators are seen as the cream of the crop (and Duffy is one of the top patent scholars in the world), while copyright litigators are usually seen as not so much. That's why you get the same exact issue with 2 different results. There's been a lot of talk of bad lawyering on both the pro- and anti-copyright side (and possibly some malpractice suits may come out of it), but the attorneys for the webcasters and the ones for the recent Youtube ruling appear to be in the crosshairs.
One perfect example is the ringtone royalty rate. The industry wanted one rate, DiMA wanted a lower one. The CRB awarded over 2x what the industry asked for (that's arbitrary and capricious). This issue should have been dominated but it clearly wasn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Patent Insight
[ link to this | view in thread ]