Supreme Court refuses to hear Copyright Royalty Board challenge

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Supreme Court refuses to hear Copyright Royalty Board challenge

The US Supreme Court has declined to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of the organisation that sets royalty fees for copyrighted music.

On Tuesday, the court refused to grant a writ of certiorari by Intercollegiate Broadcast System (IBS), an association of non-commercial webcasters broadcasting to educational institutions, which challenged the authority of the Copyright Royalty Board.

The Copyright Royalty Board, a panel of three judges appointed by the Librarian of Congress, was created under the Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004. IBS had argued that the board should instead be appointed by the US President and confirmed by the Senate.

The case stemmed from the board’s decision to make noncommercial educational webcasters pay an annual fee of $500 per channel to play unlimited amounts of music. Challenging the fee before the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia, IBS argued that the $500 charge was invalid because the board’s structure was unconstitutional.

In July 2012, the appellate court agreed that the Copyright Royalty Board was unconstitutional because of restrictions on the Librarian of Congress’s ability to remove the judges, but fixed the issue by removing these restrictions.

Having decided that the board’s structure was unconstitutional at the time it determined the fee, the appellate court vacated the board’s decision but did not address IBS’s arguments regarding whether the rate structure was correct.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Maria Peyman, head of IP at Birketts, explains why the firm is adopting a ‘seamless approach’ for clients by integrating two of its practice areas
Matthew Swinn, who leads the firm’s IP practice, discusses why Mallesons is well-placed to remain a major IP force
Lawyers at A&O Shearman analyse developments regarding UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, including its scope and jurisdictional limits
Michelle Lee discusses reaching milestones at the USPTO, AI’s role in legal work, and how to empower women in tech and IP
Executive chair Matt Dixon, who reveals a new associate hire, says the firm wants to offer a realistic pathway to partnership while avoiding the ‘corporate machine’ route
Mayer Brown’s role in cardiovascular technology dispute reflects how firms are pursuing precedent-setting cases to try and guide AI and patent law
Kevin Mack, Via’s new president, emphasises the importance of collaborative licensing structures and shares how AI tools can help create new lines of business
A Tokyo District Court ruling concerning movie spoilers, and a second chance for VLSI against Intel were also among the top talking points
Practitioners believe new AI tools at the USPTO will not replace lawyers or disrupt revenue, but instead expose where a trademark attorney’s value lies
Leighton Cassidy Legal hopes to leverage its founder's international experience and provide clients with a rare chance to receive litigation and prosecution under one umbrella
Gift this article