Issue Presented: Whether Congress validly abrogated a country’s sovereign immunity via the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act in presenting treatments for authors of authentic expression whose federal copyrights are infringed by way of states.
Issue Restated in Opposition: The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act purports to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity for alleged violations of federal copyright law. Did the Court of Appeals correctly preserve that the Copyright Remedy Act’s abrogation of state sovereign immunity became invalid?
The case has a few thrilling components. First off, the underlying problem stems from the invention of the Blackbeard’s Pirate Ship Queen Anne’s Revenge of the North Carolina Shore, where it sank in 1718. Internal located the wreckage was located and Allewas was notified to report the salvage operation. Allen registered the copyrighted works. Later, the State of North Carolina uploaded the films online without Allen’s permission. To insulate itself from infringement liability, the kingdom handed down Blackbeard’s Law, which specified the area where the uploaded movies were in the public domain. (It’s not piracy if felony.)
Allen then sued the State for copyright infringement — naming diverse people of their reputable elected ability, such as ROY A. COOPER, III, as Governor of North Carolina. The question in the case is whether or not the State can be sued for copyright infringement.
On the one hand, is the U.S. Constitution — the eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution seems pretty clean – the Federal Courts have no energy over “any fit … towards one of the United States” delivered using “citizens of another State.”
The USA’s judicial strength shall not be construed to increase to any healthy in law or fairness, commenced or prosecuted towards one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by using Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
At the same time, Congress tried to expressly “abrogate” this immunity within the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act with the subsequent language:
Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or worker of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her legitimate capacity shall now not be immune, below the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under another doctrine of sovereign immunity, from fit in Federal court docket by using any man or woman . . . For a contravention of any of the different rights of a copyright owner furnished through [federal copyright law].
Here, the statute is obvious in its attempt to contravene the 11th Amendment. The best problem is that statutes are more often than not challenged under the U.S. Constitution, not vice versa. The reality, though, is more complex – at times, the courts have permitted suits against states, and features have allowed Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity by statute.
The fundamental test became spelled out in Seminole Tribe v. Fla., 517 U.S. 44 (1996):
Was the Act in question superseded under a constitutional provision granting Congress the power to abrogate?
In its selection here, the 4th Circuit held that, even though Congress has the power to create a copyright regime, it no longer has the energy to abrogate a nation’s sovereign immunity for copyright infringement. I’ll say that there is a great threat that the court docket will side with Allen towards the State, keeping that Congress has the power to abrogate rights here due to the need for a “carefully crafted copyright regime.”