## Facts

- Jean Martignon operated “Midnight Records” in Manhattan, selling recorded music through a store, catalog service, and website.
- In September 2003, he was arrested for selling unauthorized recordings of live musical performances (bootlegs) for commercial advantage or private financial gain.
- A federal grand jury indicted him on October 27, 2003 on one count for selling unauthorized recordings through Midnight Records, under 18 U.S.C. § 2319A.
- Section 2319A criminalizes, without performers’ consent and for commercial advantage or private financial gain, the fixation, reproduction, transmission to the public, and distribution/trafficking of unauthorized recordings of live musical performances.
- The indictment did not specify details such as the artists involved, the scope of the alleged bootlegging, or distribution particulars.
- Martignon moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the statute was unconstitutional.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2319A is impermissible “copyright-type” legislation because it protects unfixed live performances without a time limit, contrary to the Copyright Clause’s “limited Times” requirement.
2. If not sustainable under the Copyright Clause, whether § 2319A may be upheld under Congress’s Commerce Clause power.
3. Whether § 2319A violates the First Amendment.

## Decision

- The court granted Martignon’s motion to dismiss the indictment.
- The court held 18 U.S.C. § 2319A unconstitutional because it functioned as copyright-type protection without any temporal limit, violating the Copyright Clause’s “limited Times” restriction.
- The court rejected the government’s argument that the statute could be sustained under the Commerce Clause where it would otherwise contravene a structural limitation of the Copyright Clause.
- The court did not reach the First Amendment challenge after finding the statute invalid on Article I grounds.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute confers exclusive rights functionally equivalent to copyright, it is subject to the structural limits of the Copyright Clause, including the “limited Times” requirement.
- Congress may not provide perpetual or indefinite copyright-equivalent protection by labeling the regime as something other than copyright.
- Congress may not use another Article I power, including the Commerce Clause, to accomplish what the Copyright Clause forbids when the regulation is substantively copyright-like and conflicts with the “limited Times” constraint.
- A court may decline to decide constitutional questions (such as First Amendment claims) unnecessary to the disposition once the statute is held invalid on other constitutional grounds.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the indictment and invalidated § 2319A, reasoning that it created copyright-like exclusive rights in live performances without a time limit and that Congress could not rely on the Commerce Clause to avoid the Copyright Clause’s “limited Times” restriction.


United States v. Martignon, 346 F. Supp. 2d 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)