1
00:00:00,720 --> 00:00:05,000
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:05,200 --> 00:00:08,640
Speaker 1: A copyright clash before the Supreme Court did state power

3
00:00:08,720 --> 00:00:12,080
Speaker 1: against public access in a dispute over whether the State

4
00:00:12,119 --> 00:00:16,760
Speaker 1: of Georgia can copyright it's annotated legal code. During oral arguments,

5
00:00:16,840 --> 00:00:19,639
Speaker 1: Justice Neil Gorsuch posed the question at the heart of

6
00:00:19,640 --> 00:00:24,360
Speaker 1: the issue, why would we allow the official law enacted

7
00:00:24,360 --> 00:00:28,200
Speaker 1: by a legislature approved equivalent of being approved by the judge?

8
00:00:28,640 --> 00:00:32,480
Speaker 1: And annotations? As Justice Ginsburg indicated, why would we allow

9
00:00:32,520 --> 00:00:36,080
Speaker 1: the official law to be hidden behind a paywall? Joining

10
00:00:36,120 --> 00:00:39,400
Speaker 1: me as intellectual property litigator Terrence Ross, a partner at

11
00:00:39,440 --> 00:00:43,400
Speaker 1: Captain Nuten Rosenman. So this is a case bearing the

12
00:00:43,479 --> 00:00:48,680
Speaker 1: caption Georgia versus Public Resource Org, Inc. And involved an

13
00:00:48,720 --> 00:00:52,360
Speaker 1: administrative body within the State of Georgia government called the

14
00:00:52,400 --> 00:00:57,040
Speaker 1: Georgia Code Revision Commission And the Georgia Code Revision Commission

15
00:00:57,360 --> 00:01:01,680
Speaker 1: is passed with collecting law is that the state legislature

16
00:01:01,680 --> 00:01:05,480
Speaker 1: in Georgia passes and publishing them in some sort of

17
00:01:05,600 --> 00:01:10,080
Speaker 1: organized way. So this commission is the official publisher of

18
00:01:10,120 --> 00:01:14,600
Speaker 1: the official Code of Georgia annotated. Now it's important to

19
00:01:14,640 --> 00:01:18,760
Speaker 1: explain what an annotated code is in most states and

20
00:01:18,840 --> 00:01:22,560
Speaker 1: the federal government, the law is published as it comes

21
00:01:22,600 --> 00:01:27,840
Speaker 1: out of the legislative body. It is simply organized within

22
00:01:28,080 --> 00:01:32,039
Speaker 1: a code. It's given section numbers and chapter or title

23
00:01:32,160 --> 00:01:35,440
Speaker 1: numbers so that people can easily find what they need

24
00:01:35,480 --> 00:01:38,880
Speaker 1: to refer to. However, in a handful of states, such

25
00:01:38,880 --> 00:01:43,319
Speaker 1: as Georgia, there are annotated official codes, and by annotated

26
00:01:43,360 --> 00:01:45,800
Speaker 1: we mean yes, the language of the law that was

27
00:01:45,840 --> 00:01:49,040
Speaker 1: passed is there, but in addition, there will be some

28
00:01:49,120 --> 00:01:54,280
Speaker 1: sort of commentary that immediately follows and applies to each section. So,

29
00:01:54,440 --> 00:01:57,920
Speaker 1: for example, it could say that this section of the

30
00:01:58,000 --> 00:02:01,480
Speaker 1: law was passed by the state legis lature in order

31
00:02:01,600 --> 00:02:06,600
Speaker 1: to amend another section that previously existed. It's almost like

32
00:02:06,720 --> 00:02:10,520
Speaker 1: a historical footnotbody, but it can encompass enormous range of

33
00:02:10,600 --> 00:02:15,000
Speaker 1: informational material, and that becomes important here. So what happened

34
00:02:15,280 --> 00:02:19,680
Speaker 1: is that a public interest organization called public Resource dot

35
00:02:19,800 --> 00:02:25,160
Speaker 1: org went out and bought the entire current official Code

36
00:02:25,160 --> 00:02:29,160
Speaker 1: of Georgia annotated, many many volumes, at a very significant

37
00:02:29,160 --> 00:02:33,960
Speaker 1: cost thousands of dollars. They then digitalized every page of

38
00:02:34,000 --> 00:02:37,120
Speaker 1: the official Code to george Annotated, and they posted it

39
00:02:37,160 --> 00:02:40,560
Speaker 1: on a website where they made it available for free

40
00:02:40,840 --> 00:02:44,359
Speaker 1: to anyone who wanted to read the Law of Georgia.

41
00:02:44,760 --> 00:02:46,919
Speaker 1: Fedlis to say that Georgia Could Revision Commission was a

42
00:02:46,919 --> 00:02:50,280
Speaker 1: little bit upset about this because they have a copyright

43
00:02:50,600 --> 00:02:54,280
Speaker 1: in the Official Code of Georgia annotated, and so they

44
00:02:54,320 --> 00:02:59,880
Speaker 1: brought a copyright lawsuit against Public Resource Order alleging infringe

45
00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:03,440
Speaker 1: it through the publication on Moss of the entire code

46
00:03:03,560 --> 00:03:06,040
Speaker 1: on the Internet. So it seems like they have a

47
00:03:06,080 --> 00:03:09,360
Speaker 1: good claim. What's the issue? So the issue is whether

48
00:03:09,440 --> 00:03:14,120
Speaker 1: or not this Georgia Code Revision Commission is an author

49
00:03:14,200 --> 00:03:17,560
Speaker 1: within the meaning of the Copyright Act such that it

50
00:03:17,600 --> 00:03:21,120
Speaker 1: can actually own a copyright in the Official Code of

51
00:03:21,160 --> 00:03:25,639
Speaker 1: Georgie annotated and therefore be a plaintiff to enforce copyright

52
00:03:25,720 --> 00:03:31,079
Speaker 1: against infringers. And the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the Georgia

53
00:03:31,120 --> 00:03:35,200
Speaker 1: Code Revision Commission was not the author of the Official

54
00:03:35,240 --> 00:03:37,960
Speaker 1: Code of george annotated and therefore could not take out

55
00:03:37,960 --> 00:03:41,160
Speaker 1: a copyright in it and could not bring a copyright

56
00:03:41,240 --> 00:03:45,920
Speaker 1: infringement lawsuit against Public Resource dot Org. So in the decision,

57
00:03:46,040 --> 00:03:49,600
Speaker 1: could the justices make a distinction between the official law

58
00:03:49,640 --> 00:03:53,320
Speaker 1: and the commentaries there is case law out there in

59
00:03:53,360 --> 00:03:58,160
Speaker 1: which attempts have been made to copyright purely the statutory

60
00:03:58,280 --> 00:04:02,240
Speaker 1: enactments without any comment, and those cases uniformly say that

61
00:04:02,240 --> 00:04:04,720
Speaker 1: that's not allowed. So the fact that this is an

62
00:04:04,720 --> 00:04:08,480
Speaker 1: annotated code makes it different, and which is why the

63
00:04:08,680 --> 00:04:12,520
Speaker 1: Supreme Court accepted this case in order to lend some

64
00:04:12,600 --> 00:04:17,000
Speaker 1: clarity in this area as to that particularly distinction. Now,

65
00:04:17,160 --> 00:04:20,479
Speaker 1: the court below, in what I thought was one of

66
00:04:20,520 --> 00:04:23,520
Speaker 1: the best opinions in a copyright case I've read in

67
00:04:23,680 --> 00:04:27,520
Speaker 1: some time. But I praise yes it is Judge Marcus

68
00:04:27,520 --> 00:04:30,480
Speaker 1: who wrote the decision below, wrote a decision that every

69
00:04:30,480 --> 00:04:34,320
Speaker 1: American should read. Just quite simply. It is both elegant

70
00:04:34,560 --> 00:04:38,479
Speaker 1: and profound and goes to the nature of what we

71
00:04:38,560 --> 00:04:42,120
Speaker 1: are all about as Americans. Judge Marcus says, and I'm

72
00:04:42,240 --> 00:04:46,680
Speaker 1: quoting here, the people are the constructive authors of official

73
00:04:46,760 --> 00:04:51,120
Speaker 1: legal promulgations of government that represent an exercise of sovereign authority.

74
00:04:51,400 --> 00:04:54,120
Speaker 1: And because they are the authors, the people are the

75
00:04:54,160 --> 00:04:57,440
Speaker 1: owners of these works, meaning that the works are intrinsically

76
00:04:57,520 --> 00:05:02,240
Speaker 1: public domain material and therefore copyrightable. He's laying down a

77
00:05:02,320 --> 00:05:05,640
Speaker 1: line in the sand that says, I don't care what

78
00:05:05,800 --> 00:05:09,000
Speaker 1: excuse you have for copyrighting the law. You can call

79
00:05:09,040 --> 00:05:12,599
Speaker 1: it an annotated work, the commentary on the work, but

80
00:05:12,800 --> 00:05:16,040
Speaker 1: you cannot take away the right of the people to

81
00:05:16,440 --> 00:05:20,480
Speaker 1: unfettered access to the law. It is a very very

82
00:05:20,520 --> 00:05:26,360
Speaker 1: important decision, one that carries great consequence beyond copyright and

83
00:05:26,440 --> 00:05:29,640
Speaker 1: goes to the heart of the American experiment, which is

84
00:05:30,120 --> 00:05:35,080
Speaker 1: who owns the law? Who ultimately is the sovereign authority?

85
00:05:35,240 --> 00:05:39,279
Speaker 1: And Judge Marcus includes that the people are the ultimate sovereigns,

86
00:05:39,560 --> 00:05:43,839
Speaker 1: not the legislature and certainly not the Georgia Code Revision Commission,

87
00:05:43,920 --> 00:05:47,000
Speaker 1: and therefore this is not copyrightable material. Coming up on

88
00:05:47,160 --> 00:05:52,359
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Blackbeard Ship at the Supreme Court. You're listening

89
00:05:52,400 --> 00:05:56,920
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg Law with June Grozzo from Bloomberg Radio. It's

90
00:05:56,920 --> 00:06:00,960
Speaker 1: a case of video piracy involving the famous pirate Blackbeard

91
00:06:01,040 --> 00:06:04,279
Speaker 1: Ship three centuries after that ship was wrecked off the

92
00:06:04,320 --> 00:06:07,760
Speaker 1: coast of North Carolina. And even though pirates don't care

93
00:06:07,839 --> 00:06:12,119
Speaker 1: much about property rights, the documentary filmmaker who's accusing North

94
00:06:12,160 --> 00:06:16,119
Speaker 1: Carolina of pirrating his footage of the wrecked ship, certainly does.

95
00:06:16,640 --> 00:06:19,279
Speaker 1: There was little mention of black Beard during the Supreme

96
00:06:19,320 --> 00:06:23,680
Speaker 1: Court arguments over the alleged copyright infringement. The justices were

97
00:06:23,680 --> 00:06:27,760
Speaker 1: more concerned with North Carolina's argument of state sovereign immunity.

98
00:06:28,160 --> 00:06:31,720
Speaker 1: Justice Stephen Brier question whether sovereign immunity would let a

99
00:06:31,800 --> 00:06:35,880
Speaker 1: state profit unfairly at the expense of creators. What the

100
00:06:35,920 --> 00:06:39,080
Speaker 1: state decides to do with its own website charging five

101
00:06:39,120 --> 00:06:44,600
Speaker 1: dollars or something is to run rocky uh Mrs Marvel whatever?

102
00:06:45,120 --> 00:06:52,200
Speaker 1: Uh spighter man and uh perhaps groundhowk day? All right? Now?

103
00:06:53,000 --> 00:06:57,760
Speaker 1: Great idea several billion dollars flows into the treasury. I've

104
00:06:57,760 --> 00:07:01,800
Speaker 1: been talking with intellectual property litigator Terence ross a partner

105
00:07:01,960 --> 00:07:06,520
Speaker 1: Captain Uten Rosenman. So Terry tell us about this pirate's tale.

106
00:07:07,360 --> 00:07:12,960
Speaker 1: So Mr Allen, who is the purported copyright owner, specializes

107
00:07:13,160 --> 00:07:19,720
Speaker 1: in searching for and exploring underwater shipwrecks, and in nine

108
00:07:20,160 --> 00:07:23,800
Speaker 1: six he obtained a permit from the state of North

109
00:07:23,840 --> 00:07:29,160
Speaker 1: Carolina to explore for specifically pirate shipwrecks off the coast

110
00:07:29,160 --> 00:07:32,840
Speaker 1: of North Carolina. And what makes this sort of interesting

111
00:07:32,920 --> 00:07:37,320
Speaker 1: case is that he's the person who eventually found the

112
00:07:37,360 --> 00:07:41,840
Speaker 1: famous pirate ship used by Blackbeard. If you were called

113
00:07:41,960 --> 00:07:45,640
Speaker 1: Blackbeard was an Englishman by the name of Edward Teach,

114
00:07:46,240 --> 00:07:49,880
Speaker 1: who for pirate purposes, went by the name Blackbeard. In

115
00:07:49,960 --> 00:07:53,800
Speaker 1: seventeen seventeen, he captured a French merchant ship called the

116
00:07:53,880 --> 00:07:58,440
Speaker 1: Queen and Revenge. He refitted it as a warship and

117
00:07:58,560 --> 00:08:02,600
Speaker 1: used it to terrorize ship being in the coastal regions

118
00:08:02,720 --> 00:08:05,960
Speaker 1: between North Carolina and Florida for about a year. And

119
00:08:06,000 --> 00:08:09,200
Speaker 1: then he was cruising off the coast of Beaufort, North

120
00:08:09,280 --> 00:08:13,280
Speaker 1: Carolina in seventeen eighteen and managed to run in aground.

121
00:08:13,520 --> 00:08:18,240
Speaker 1: He abandoned the ship. It eventually sank, and the area

122
00:08:18,400 --> 00:08:21,960
Speaker 1: they're off the coast of Beaufort apparently is constantly shifting

123
00:08:21,960 --> 00:08:25,080
Speaker 1: and changing, so the ground he ran the ship onto

124
00:08:25,320 --> 00:08:28,000
Speaker 1: sort of disappeared. The ships were disappeared, people lost track

125
00:08:28,000 --> 00:08:30,800
Speaker 1: of where it was, and Mr Allen was the one

126
00:08:30,800 --> 00:08:34,959
Speaker 1: who rediscovered it. Now. As part of his explorations, Mr

127
00:08:35,080 --> 00:08:40,600
Speaker 1: Rout takes very detailed videography and underwater still photography, and

128
00:08:40,679 --> 00:08:44,439
Speaker 1: that's where this case starts. As part of the permitting

129
00:08:44,520 --> 00:08:47,600
Speaker 1: process from the State of North Carolina, Mr Allen had

130
00:08:47,679 --> 00:08:51,560
Speaker 1: to agree to submit the film and photographs he was

131
00:08:51,600 --> 00:08:54,959
Speaker 1: taking to the state, and the state had certain rights

132
00:08:55,000 --> 00:08:57,720
Speaker 1: to use it, not unlimited rights, but certain rights to

133
00:08:57,800 --> 00:08:59,800
Speaker 1: use it. The long and short of it is as

134
00:08:59,800 --> 00:09:02,679
Speaker 1: astral and took the position that the state North Carolina

135
00:09:02,920 --> 00:09:06,520
Speaker 1: was abusing its rights and making use of his video

136
00:09:06,600 --> 00:09:10,240
Speaker 1: footage in an unauthorized way, and he brought a copyright lawsuit.

137
00:09:10,400 --> 00:09:13,000
Speaker 1: He had copyrighted all of the film and photographs with

138
00:09:13,120 --> 00:09:15,760
Speaker 1: the United States Copyright Office, and so he was entitled

139
00:09:15,800 --> 00:09:18,840
Speaker 1: to take action in a court of law to defend

140
00:09:19,000 --> 00:09:22,439
Speaker 1: his entitlement to those copyrights, and he did so. Tell

141
00:09:22,520 --> 00:09:26,760
Speaker 1: us about the legal issue here. The legal issue is

142
00:09:27,040 --> 00:09:32,599
Speaker 1: one of sovereign immunity. In English law countries, the sovereign

143
00:09:33,000 --> 00:09:38,000
Speaker 1: is generally considered to be immune from lawsuit unless the

144
00:09:38,080 --> 00:09:44,120
Speaker 1: sovereign has expressly agreed that citizen can bring a suit

145
00:09:44,240 --> 00:09:49,120
Speaker 1: against the sovereign for some specific purpose. And so in

146
00:09:49,240 --> 00:09:53,680
Speaker 1: this country, both the federal government and the states have

147
00:09:54,000 --> 00:09:59,680
Speaker 1: passed legislation that allows individual citizens in certain circumstances to

148
00:09:59,720 --> 00:10:03,079
Speaker 1: bring suit against them. For example, if you slip and

149
00:10:03,120 --> 00:10:07,160
Speaker 1: fall on federal land or state land and there's some

150
00:10:07,240 --> 00:10:09,080
Speaker 1: negligence on the part of the federal government or the

151
00:10:09,080 --> 00:10:14,040
Speaker 1: state government. Almost every jurisdiction as a piece of legislation

152
00:10:14,200 --> 00:10:16,880
Speaker 1: that allows that sort of tort action to be filed.

153
00:10:17,280 --> 00:10:20,160
Speaker 1: The key here is though, that the sovereign has to

154
00:10:20,240 --> 00:10:23,960
Speaker 1: have allowed the lawsuit. So the defense made by the

155
00:10:23,960 --> 00:10:27,600
Speaker 1: state in North Carolina was the officials of the government

156
00:10:27,600 --> 00:10:31,280
Speaker 1: of North Carolina are entitled to sovereign immunity and they

157
00:10:31,320 --> 00:10:35,600
Speaker 1: cannot be suited for copyright infringement. And that's the crux

158
00:10:35,640 --> 00:10:38,640
Speaker 1: of the legal issue that makes it sound like it's

159
00:10:39,040 --> 00:10:43,559
Speaker 1: an open and shut case. What's the problem. Copyright lawsuits

160
00:10:43,600 --> 00:10:47,600
Speaker 1: against state officials is not something that Mr Allen dreamed

161
00:10:47,679 --> 00:10:50,520
Speaker 1: up for the first time. They have been around for

162
00:10:50,640 --> 00:10:57,200
Speaker 1: decades and they have typically been dismissed because the state

163
00:10:57,240 --> 00:11:01,080
Speaker 1: officials are protected by their state sovereign munity laws. This

164
00:11:01,240 --> 00:11:06,000
Speaker 1: led historically to some really egregious cases in which there

165
00:11:06,160 --> 00:11:11,760
Speaker 1: was blatant, knowing copyright infringement by state officials in order

166
00:11:11,840 --> 00:11:16,520
Speaker 1: to profit off of someone else's work. And Congress finally said,

167
00:11:16,520 --> 00:11:19,040
Speaker 1: you know, enough is enough, and they passed a piece

168
00:11:19,080 --> 00:11:26,000
Speaker 1: of legislation called the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of in

169
00:11:26,080 --> 00:11:29,680
Speaker 1: that Congress used its power under Article one of the

170
00:11:29,760 --> 00:11:35,040
Speaker 1: United States Constitution, specifically the power to enact and enforce

171
00:11:35,200 --> 00:11:41,000
Speaker 1: copyright laws on that basis, they abrogated sovereign immunity for

172
00:11:41,080 --> 00:11:44,920
Speaker 1: states and for state officials or infringement of copyright, and

173
00:11:45,120 --> 00:11:49,760
Speaker 1: it could not have been more clear. The legislation says,

174
00:11:50,040 --> 00:11:54,160
Speaker 1: any state, any instrumentality of a state, and any officer

175
00:11:54,320 --> 00:11:57,679
Speaker 1: employee of a state, or instrumentality of state acting in

176
00:11:57,720 --> 00:12:01,400
Speaker 1: his or her official capacity shall not be immune under

177
00:12:01,440 --> 00:12:03,840
Speaker 1: the eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

178
00:12:03,880 --> 00:12:06,439
Speaker 1: warrender and any other doctor in a sovereign immunity from

179
00:12:06,480 --> 00:12:09,440
Speaker 1: suit in a federal court by any person, including any

180
00:12:09,440 --> 00:12:12,600
Speaker 1: governmental or non governmental entity, for a violation of any

181
00:12:12,640 --> 00:12:15,960
Speaker 1: of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner. Congress wanted

182
00:12:16,040 --> 00:12:19,079
Speaker 1: to end sovereign immunity for states and state officials for

183
00:12:19,160 --> 00:12:22,040
Speaker 1: copyright and infringement, and they thought they had done so

184
00:12:22,440 --> 00:12:27,640
Speaker 1: in the Copyright Remedy Clarifification Act. And so when in

185
00:12:27,720 --> 00:12:32,040
Speaker 1: the District court in North Carolina, the state defended by

186
00:12:32,080 --> 00:12:35,360
Speaker 1: saying its officials had sovereign immunity could not be sued

187
00:12:35,400 --> 00:12:39,960
Speaker 1: for copyright infringement, Mr Allen responded by saying, no, no, no,

188
00:12:40,160 --> 00:12:43,560
Speaker 1: that is incorrect. You lost your sovereign immunity back in

189
00:12:44,559 --> 00:12:48,520
Speaker 1: as a result of Congress's enactment of Copyright Remedy Clarification Act.

190
00:12:49,280 --> 00:12:53,160
Speaker 1: What did the justices seem mainly concerned about during oral

191
00:12:53,280 --> 00:12:57,040
Speaker 1: arguments and any inclination as to how they'll rule. The

192
00:12:57,280 --> 00:13:01,400
Speaker 1: argument made by the State of North Carolina was that

193
00:13:01,679 --> 00:13:08,800
Speaker 1: the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act was not a valid exercise

194
00:13:09,240 --> 00:13:14,559
Speaker 1: of Congress's power to abrogate sovereign immunity. And the reason

195
00:13:14,640 --> 00:13:18,640
Speaker 1: they said that was that Congress had expressly, in passing

196
00:13:18,679 --> 00:13:23,240
Speaker 1: that act, pointed to Article one of the Constitution as

197
00:13:23,280 --> 00:13:27,160
Speaker 1: the basis for their power to do it. After passage

198
00:13:27,440 --> 00:13:30,840
Speaker 1: of the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act, the Supreme Court in

199
00:13:30,880 --> 00:13:34,520
Speaker 1: another case called Seminal Tribe in connection with waiver of

200
00:13:34,600 --> 00:13:38,319
Speaker 1: sovereign immunity for patent infringement, the Supreme Court had said

201
00:13:38,360 --> 00:13:43,520
Speaker 1: that Article one does not provide the basis upon which

202
00:13:43,600 --> 00:13:47,400
Speaker 1: you can abrogate sovereign immunity for a state. And so

203
00:13:47,480 --> 00:13:49,560
Speaker 1: North Carolina came in and said, you know, based on

204
00:13:50,080 --> 00:13:52,720
Speaker 1: the Spring Court Seminal Trit case, which had to do

205
00:13:52,800 --> 00:13:56,120
Speaker 1: with patents, not copyrights, but the reasoning should apply equally

206
00:13:56,120 --> 00:13:59,840
Speaker 1: to copyrights, and therefore Congress's reliance upon Article one of

207
00:13:59,840 --> 00:14:04,839
Speaker 1: the Constitution is misplaced. The law is invalid. Now, the response,

208
00:14:05,280 --> 00:14:09,719
Speaker 1: in a response that seemed to gain some traction with

209
00:14:09,800 --> 00:14:12,840
Speaker 1: the justices at or argument, the response from Mr Allen's

210
00:14:12,880 --> 00:14:18,040
Speaker 1: attorneys was that section five of the Fourteenth Amendment would

211
00:14:18,120 --> 00:14:23,280
Speaker 1: provide this power to abrogate sovereign immunity. Now, the tricky

212
00:14:23,400 --> 00:14:26,680
Speaker 1: part of the whole thing is that Congress never mentioned

213
00:14:27,200 --> 00:14:30,480
Speaker 1: Section five of the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for

214
00:14:30,560 --> 00:14:33,720
Speaker 1: passing this law. It expressly relied upon Article one of

215
00:14:33,760 --> 00:14:37,800
Speaker 1: the Constitution. I think that what the Court will do,

216
00:14:37,920 --> 00:14:40,720
Speaker 1: because this tends to be a very pragmatic court with

217
00:14:40,760 --> 00:14:44,320
Speaker 1: respect the copyright matters, is to say that it does

218
00:14:44,400 --> 00:14:48,480
Speaker 1: not matter that they didn't mention section five or the

219
00:14:48,480 --> 00:14:52,080
Speaker 1: fourteenth Amendment. Otherwise, and this is the sense you got

220
00:14:52,120 --> 00:14:56,280
Speaker 1: from or argument. Otherwise, the Court would be invalidating the law,

221
00:14:56,560 --> 00:14:59,560
Speaker 1: sending it back to Congress, and Congress would simply have

222
00:14:59,640 --> 00:15:02,560
Speaker 1: to go to the motion of re enacting it, but

223
00:15:02,760 --> 00:15:06,000
Speaker 1: this time mentioning the fourteenth Amendment. And that seems like

224
00:15:06,120 --> 00:15:10,080
Speaker 1: sort of a complete waste of everybody's time. And this

225
00:15:10,160 --> 00:15:14,320
Speaker 1: is a pragmatic Supreme Court in copyright matters, and so

226
00:15:14,680 --> 00:15:18,640
Speaker 1: I think the sense from the or argument was why

227
00:15:18,880 --> 00:15:23,080
Speaker 1: go through that charade of requiring Congress to re enact

228
00:15:23,200 --> 00:15:25,880
Speaker 1: the exact same law and this time site to the

229
00:15:25,920 --> 00:15:29,320
Speaker 1: Fourteenth Amendment, When we the Supreme Court can simply say

230
00:15:29,600 --> 00:15:34,280
Speaker 1: it was a valid exercise of Congressional authority under the

231
00:15:34,280 --> 00:15:38,360
Speaker 1: fifth section of the Fourteenth Amendment. How important will this

232
00:15:38,520 --> 00:15:41,200
Speaker 1: ruling be? It seemed as if some of the justices

233
00:15:41,240 --> 00:15:46,640
Speaker 1: were skeptical about how widespread this problem was. That is

234
00:15:46,680 --> 00:15:49,800
Speaker 1: absolutely correct. There was a sense on the Court that

235
00:15:49,840 --> 00:15:54,040
Speaker 1: there is not a lot of copyright infringement by the states.

236
00:15:54,600 --> 00:15:57,240
Speaker 1: I think the problem is at that point of view

237
00:15:58,080 --> 00:16:01,240
Speaker 1: misses the historical perspective of here. But the fact is

238
00:16:01,520 --> 00:16:06,480
Speaker 1: Congress past the Copyright Remedy Clarification because there had been

239
00:16:06,520 --> 00:16:10,440
Speaker 1: a spate of copyright infringements that were blatant and egregious

240
00:16:10,640 --> 00:16:13,720
Speaker 1: by states and state officials. And the fact that there

241
00:16:13,760 --> 00:16:17,760
Speaker 1: has been so little state copyright infringement since that time

242
00:16:18,320 --> 00:16:24,600
Speaker 1: merely goes to justify passage of the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act.

243
00:16:24,600 --> 00:16:28,160
Speaker 1: In the first place, it was successful. It stopped state

244
00:16:28,320 --> 00:16:33,120
Speaker 1: actors infringing upon copyright owners rights. And I think at

245
00:16:33,160 --> 00:16:35,440
Speaker 1: the end of the day, the Supreme Court will come

246
00:16:35,480 --> 00:16:39,040
Speaker 1: to the conclusion that the reason you've seen so little

247
00:16:39,040 --> 00:16:41,840
Speaker 1: copyright infringement by state officials of late is because of

248
00:16:41,880 --> 00:16:44,960
Speaker 1: this law, and that if they invalidate it, there will

249
00:16:45,000 --> 00:16:49,280
Speaker 1: be this gap during which the lack of waiver of

250
00:16:49,320 --> 00:16:53,000
Speaker 1: solid immunity will be exploited by state officials. That's Terence

251
00:16:53,120 --> 00:16:56,360
Speaker 1: ross A partner Captain uten Rosenman, and that's it for

252
00:16:56,400 --> 00:16:59,480
Speaker 1: this edition of Bloombard Law. I'm June Grosso. Thanks so

253
00:16:59,560 --> 00:17:03,360
Speaker 1: much for listening. H