Transcripts For CSPAN3 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing On Copyright Law 20240712

Eisenhower memorial live at 7 pm eastern on cspan2 online at cspan. Org or listen live on the cspan radio app. The Senate Judiciary subcommittee on intellectual property held a hearing on the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act which outlines when website hosts are required to remove pirated content. Witnesses included musicians, authors, photographers, filmmakers and ahead of the Internet Association. A ceremony will come to order. Well im disappointed we cant all be together in person today, im grateful to chairman graham, and our Ranking Members clerk for facilitating this through web apps. As an initial matter, i want to make sure this subCommittee Hearing is not distracting from the full committee. And my personal work on other pressing issues facing our nation. Congress must address issues of Police Brutality and the horrific circumstances that led to the murder of george floyd and the senseless depths of so many of africa African American brothers and sisters. Thats why im grateful to chairman graham for holding eight full Committee Hearing in policing in america and i fully support that effort. We also have to continue to address the covid19 crisis in the impact its had on millions of american lives and livelihoods. Just this morning the full Committee Held a conference on covid19 and its impact on detention centers. Centers im also glad mcconnell and several republican senators will take up the protection program. We can and will continue to address this crisis. Its also crucial that Congress Continues its important work and im glad that we have technology that helps us to do that. When we started the review in february, we had no idea of the economic challenges that would soon grip our nation. The Creative Industry has shouldered outside losses as our country deals with the coronavirus pandemic. Small creators, independent artists, authors, and musicians have suffered terribly during this pandemic. Live venues have been shuttered, many may never. Reopen retail sales have plummeted, and yet the privacy of Creative Work online has not slowed down. Now more than ever, these small creators are dependent on the internet ecosystem. Strong efforts to combat policy to sustain their livelihoods must move forward. Moving forward we must consider how to ensure that these Small Business owners get adequate compensation for their Creative Work. For those men and women, those creative individuals who are being absolutely decimated by the twin hammers of covid19, and at equated copyright law that lets policy run rampant. That said, this is the third subcommittee on the dmca. Our first two hearings were more academic and it focused on why the dmca and foreign counterparts handled copyright material. Today were to talk about a more practical and invasive aspect of the dmca. Section 512 notice of provisions and takedowns, when the dmca was initially enacted, imitation liability for infringing activities of their users, Online Platforms were supposed to follow certain criteria to curb online piracy. Including making reasonable efforts to remove pirated material wednesday received a notice that was online. Unfortunately, as the Copyright Office recently noted in its report on section 512 that grand bargain is no longer working, and the notice and takedown system isnt achieving the policy goals that congress originally intended. Technology is continuing to advance. Paris is becoming easier and faster and much, much more common. Every year, copyright owners have to send hundreds of thousands of takedown notices only to see infringing pirated material reappear on the same website, sometime just minutes later. At the same time, Internet Service providers, Tech Companies of all sizes, and members of the general public have to spent countless hours of man power replying to take down notices. Instead of having that time to develop new and Innovative Products and services have to do that. So clearly from both the content crater and content user perspective, the Current System is failing, and its failing badly in my opinion. The Copyright Offices report is very informative about the problems in the Current System, and what can be done to rebalance and correct the current framework. But i dont think fixing the current framework is, enough i think we might be at a point where we need to design an entirely new system to combat online piracy. One that captures, recapture is the balance that congress intended and modernizes the copyright internet ecosystem for the 21st century. Thats why last friday we sent a letter to the Copyright Office and asked them how they would design a anti piracy takedown system if they had to start from scratch. I want to thank the senator leahy for leading with me on this effort. Also for his interest in this reform. He was a leader on this issue before i was even in politics. Im grateful to him and his team for their engagement during this year long review. While we wait for the corporate offices to reply, im hoping that our panel of witnesses and experts will provide us with insight about whether the consistent works or doesnt for them. One of the things that i learned in this process is that the dmca reform bill will have to answer to issues of scale. As rebecca noted in our first hearing, if we designed dmca reform around addressing issues with large scale market participants, all were going to do is ensure that those individuals and Companies Continue their market dominance. Thats why todays hearing is going to hear from both content creators and users who operate at scale, and those who dont. I want to understand the differences among the types of craters and Tech Companies whose actions are guided by section 512 and how this affects our ability to send and respond to takedown requests. I think understanding this difference will be helpful as we draft the dmca reform measures and acknowledge the issues of scale faced by many in the internet ecosystem. Im excited to hear from our experts and witnesses, it should be a fascinating discussion. Senator, thank you for allowing me to deliver the longest Opening Statement ive ever made but i think it speaks to how seriously i think this topic should be taken. Thank you, chairman. As you noted in your opening, were convening this hearing at a moment when our nation is driven by deep anger over the murder of george floyd by nationwide protest. On the long standing griefs is that relate to policing, racial inequalities in the country. I appreciate your opening comments, mister chairman that recognize that its critical and urgent work we need to get to as a senate and as a country. We also had a constructive full Committee Hearing to talk about the conditions in detention and incarceration and how the pandemic is impacting. That i agree with you that even in these challenging times we have to find a way to Work Together on issues that as are not as perhaps visible to the whole country, but play a Critical Role and whether or not we continue to be a vibrant and creative in society. Thank you to the witnesses testifying remotely. I also want to thank the great work of the people that published a report after studying multiple round tables and more than 90,000 Public Comments that were considered. I was struck by the reports conclusion that congresses original intended balance has been tilted askew, that is a quote. Takedown notices have not remedied the issue of piracy. I will be brief, chairman, i look forward to a production discussion about whether we need to look at the dmca again, i know we have a lot of experts on that heavy topic and i look forward to todays conversation and todays testimony. Thank you. Thank you. I will now introduce our witnesses for the first panel. Mr. Don henley is a record, producer and former drummer and colead vocalist for the eagles. Hes given lead vocals on hotel california. I told him earlier today that in fact the eagles was the first Live Performance that i saw back when i lived in nashville, tennessee. Who knew that we would end up at a Senate Chamber to do what we can for the creators. Mr. Henley also spent many years advocating on behalf of artists and music related. Issues it is our honor to have you before. Us mr. John, is interim president and ceo of the Internet Association where hes also general counsel. He leads legal and public policy, regulatory initiatives for the association whose members include, amazon facebook, google, microsoft, and twitter. Mr. Douglas preston is a publisher. Mister president has taught nonfiction writing at princeton university, and contributed Sciences Articles to the new yorker and other magazines. In 2019 he was elected president of the Authors Guild. Americas oldest and largest professional organization for writers. Mr. David hansen is an associate University Librarian and lead policy officer at Duke University. He is responsible for duke universities library general Research Services and collections. The development of the Library Collections and the support of creating and disseminating research and establishing its real world impacts. Thank you all for joining. Well start, well go through the order of witnesses in terms of Opening Statements. In the order that i introduced, so mr. Handling, its our honor to have you before the committee, you may present your Opening Statement. Thank you chairman. Senator coons and members of the subcommittee. I thank you for inviting me to participate in todays hearing. My name is john henley. I come here today with a heavy heart, mindful of the chaos and pain that has engulfed this nation. Im aware that many in my industry have chosen this day to absorb a day of an activity, and quiet contemplation. In being present here, i mean dont no disrespect to those who have chosen to set aside this day. I wish to state for the record, that i stand in solidarity with my brothers and sisters and the Creative Community. And with all my fellow citizens, who seek a better and more just world for everyone. As a 55 year veteran of the Music Industry, i was asked by the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee to testify today, on the Creative Community. Songwriters, musicians, Music Publishers all of whom that are unquestionably known today as content providers. I am present today, not to be contrary, not to advance a personal agenda. At age 73, and indefinitely home by owned by the covid19 pandemic, im in the final chapter of my career. When i come here out of a sense of duty, and obligation to those artists, and those creators who paved the road for me in my contemporaries. And for those who will travel this road after us. It is truly unfortunate, and patently unfair, that the Music Industry is perceived only in terms of its most successful and wealthy celebrities. When in fact, there are millions of people working in the industry, struggling in relative obscurity. Peoples who voices will never be heard, were not for hearings being held like the one today. So i am compelled to seize this opportunity, to discuss aspects of the fundamental issues that are foremost and the National Conversation at this anxious moment. Those issues are fairness,. I have been targeted by the digital gatekeepers, and their many shields and surrogates. It began last friday in a newspaper that belongs to mr. Bezos. A newspaper that is behind a pay wall, and it continues today. Big tech was probably hoping that this hearing would be canceled, and i would be intimidated to the extent that i would not testify. But i will not be silent on this issue. I want to do everything in my power to strengthen the Property Rights to music creators, of all ages, all races and breeds, all styles of music, from hiphop to hockey talk. Wrapped, jazz to folk to heavy metal. I want to change, or improve, outdated laws and regulations that have been abused for over 20 years by big tech. The enormous digital platforms, that facilitate millions of Copyright Infringements monthly. So let me answer the question at hand, the notice and takedown system of the dmz a, does not work for artists and songwriters. When a simple Online Search for a song returns an endless list of sites, that never asked to cooperate owner for permission. Never received a license, never passed a penny for the use of their music, the system is not working. Today when the marketplace has matured, the digital platforms continue to use section 5 12, as a negotiation leverage to play license fees, well below market. The system is not working. When the burden of policing Copyright Infringement on platforms lead with the artist, instead a Massive Technology companies, who own and operate the platforms. The system is not working. The system is antiquated, and badly broken. And the Creative Community is paying a very steep price. I have worked hard to establish my career and reputation, and i have enjoyed success. But for me, this is a matter of principle. I am speaking out for those songwriters and recording artists who are struggling to make a living. Particularly now, as our industry has been decimated by the pandemic. We need equitable compensation for the rights guaranteed to all authors under the constitution. Given the current ban on large social gatherings, and the indefinite pause on Live Performances, income from the live license Digital Music services maybe the only real source of revenue that music creators can rely on for the foreseeable future. So it is imperative, that the evaluation of music, which is a direct result of the dmca ceases. And as a result, creators are paid a fair market rate for their music across all platforms. At the dawn of the inter in that age, dmca was supposed to provide digital platforms, safe harbor and liability, in exchange for a cooperation for protecting creators works. It was meant to provide a proper balance, and a symbiotic relationship, that benefited all participants. And strengthen the legitimate online marketplace. Two decades that are, that balance is decidedly off. In a world war more than 500 hours of video or uploaded to youtube every minute, more than one billion videos are viewed on tiktok every day, there are over 500 million daily active use on instagram. It is clear, that the massive Online Services are flourishing, while artist have no ability to combat the rampant infringement that occurs on these platforms. As the u. S. Copyright office said, and its recent report, Balance Congress intended when it establish section 5 12 safe harbor system is a skewed. Content or near sent hundreds of millions of takedown notices annually. Hundreds of millions, and often for each infringement link or file taken down, a dozen more popup in its place. But even worse, due to the antiquated procedures dictated by the dmca, Internet Services with clear oversight and control of content, posted on their websites. Are continuing to monetize and collect advertisement revenue on videos containing music. Even after that music has been flagged by the music creator, as an infringement. How is that a fair bargain . The astronomical number of infringement notices sent by creators is not a sign that the system is working. As some defenders of the dmca suggest. That analogy would be akin to measuring our countries success at fighting wildfires, by measuring the number of attempts who would take distinguish it. Instead, we need to seek out the root causes of those fires, employment preventive measures, and ensure they do not reignite. Many of the enormous Tech Companies, who benefit from the safe harbor provisions of the dmca have the tools to do just that. They have the tools, they have the capability to monitor infringement on their platforms, and provide enhanced dues for content owners. They simply chose not to. They are capable of understanding an individual likes, tracking those fans who visit the platform refining accuracy. And yet we are supposed to believe that putting in a barrier to infringement, is beyond their capabilities. More accurately, its beyond their desire. These tech giants are afraid of blocking infringing content will reduce traffic, and reducing traffic decreases their ad revenue. So instead of focusing on platform improvements that drive consumer satisfaction, they rely on copyright material whether license or not. To keep consumers engaged. With the dmca cover these companies, they have no incentive to improve technological protection measures. And the courts, the courts have facilitated this world view, broadening applications in the safe harbor position. Watering down and eliminating consequences the result is an anemic notice and takedown system. That says allows big tech to bacon revenue by monetizing access through unlicensed works. Despite being no notified of the infringements, or even repeated infringements. We simply cannot continue like this. I applaud and thank this subcommittee for shining a light on the damage caused by the unfulfilled promise. A meaningful effective notice takedown system. Creators need recourse, for the unlicensed and illicit use other values online. And there dmca is not providing that to them. Like the classic song, or a classic album or bend, some creation stand the test of time. Resonating across generations, other products are best left there in the past, or updated to reflect the modern world. The dmca has shown its age, the dmca is a relic of my space era, in a tiktok world. Our nations countless creators, most of them Small Businesses, deserve a better system that recognizes the needs of online participants, in a procedure that properly applies the rules and employments todays technology with an eye for tomorrow. Only then, can we truly achieve the proper balance and this institution envision so many years ago. Thank you. Thank you mr. Henley, mr. Bharatiya. Did that come close to pronouncing your name right . Please correct me . Yes the second time was must better. Appreciate it. I knew i butchered it on the opening. Please present your testimony. Thank you, chairman Ranking Member coons, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today. My name is jonathan bourassa, interim president and ceo. Before i begin my formal remarks, i to feel compelled to personally acknowledge that our nation is yet again struggling to make sense of the unconscionable killing of george floyd. And so many other black men and women. I want to recognize the Music Industrys leadership, and making today blackout tuesday. Raising awareness of this issue is critical, because until we collectively acknowledge, understand, prioritize, and take meaningful steps to end systemic racism in this country. Our history will continue to repeat itself, this is something that we the people, and you our elected leaders, must Work Together to address. Turning to the topic of this afternoons hearing, i a members or companies of all sizes, and represent diverse Business Models. They themselves are creators, their distributors, platforms and licensees of all types of content. Theyre committed to working with the rest of the Creative Community, to improve the rights holder and User Experience online. Im grateful to have the opportunity to testify before this subcommittee today, not just as a representative of these companies. But also as an attorney who spent much of the last decade, protecting hundreds of Popular Software and video game titles from online infringement. While relying on the dmca and other effective practices, like personal outreach, thoughtful discourse, and good faith collaboration. To achieve success. It has been my experience that the dmz a and section 5 12 worked as congress intended, despite what the report suggest. The Digital Content is thriving next to this law. First the dmca allows right holders to quickly take down infringing content without seeking judicial intervention. Second, it gives platforms the legal certainly necessary to host User Generated Content and the incentive to collaborate with other rights holders, to combat infringement. And third, users can enjoy and create a wealth of legal online content thanks to advances in technology, that have been increasingly embraced by the content industry. The 5 12 report recognize many of the contributions to plot norms, from the Creative Community and the need for Legal Certainty. Incorrectly computed, that section 5 12 has been tilted askew. As finding is inconsistent with my experience as an attorney, and as a representative of Online Service providers. The count failed to take account of the changing landscape of the ecosystem. The positive impact of collaborative measures, and concerns of users as well as the weight of decades of judicial decisions. The creative ecosystem has evolved dramatically, both in the past two decades and in the four years since the Copyright Office first began collecting comments for his report we find ourselves in a golden age of content creation. Tech companies are now creators of investors in Award Winning content and as consumers continue to demand new ways of accessing content, traditional content companies are investing in digital distribution more than ever before. Second, Online Service providers have voluntarily created tools that go beyond what dnc compliance required to make copyright enforcement more scalable, make illegal content easier to find and make illegal content more difficult to access. They have also adopted technologies to exclude infringing materials from their system and to create new opportunities for rights holders to capture revenue. These actions are not the product of litigation or legislation but are the result of thoughtful engagement with copyright monitors. Careful consideration of the rights of consumers and efforts to guard against fraudulent misuse of copyright enforcement tools. Third, users of Online Services rely on the flexibility of the d mcas they both create and enjoy online content. The internet and other Digital Technologies have ushered us into an era of unprecedented creativity in which the average consumer can create high quality audio and Digital Content and share with the world be the same device they used to or take out. Hundreds of hours of video are uploaded to i a member platforms every minute, hundreds of millions of videos and photos are uploaded every hour. Millions of people stream themselves playing video games each month. This explosion in creation is well aligned with the copyright systems constitutional objective to promote the progress, the science and useful arts. As the overwhelming majority of these are original and on infringing content. Virtually all of the content uploaded to our members platform, every video, and tweet is a copyrighted work owned by someone. Deciding whether piece of content is or not infringing requires knowledge of the underlying protective work. The type of license used to protect it and in many cases, their use analysis. We noticed in takedown system works because it empowers the people who own the content to make a good faith determination about infringement. It provides clear direction to platforms on how to respond to their takedown requests. And it allows users to protect their rights as creators and consumers bayou showing counter notices when theyre count tenth has been unruliness flat as infringement. Finally, it is crucial to remember that the overwhelming majority of infringement takes place on websites hosted in foreign jurisdictions outside the reach of u. S. Law. Not on i a Member Company platform members. This is a fact that the Enforcement Community has long understood. According really, the best way to attack this problem maybe through the inclusion of daca style requirements and treaties with other nations rather than amending domestic legislation. Disturbing the balance of the dmz did little to hurt the piracy. Needlessly reduce Legal Certainty for all parties involved and will greatly increased threats to a thriving u. S. Digital ecosystem that truly fosters creativity. I appreciate the opportunity to appear today and welcome any questions this subcommittee may have. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Preston . I would like to thank chairman, Ranking Member coons and the subcommittee for inviting me to testify today. My name is preston im the author of 35 books of fiction and nonfiction. I am also president of the Authors Guild, the oldest and largest society of writers in the country with 10,000 members from Nobel Laureates to firsttime authors, of all points of view and political persuasions. I just want to say how glad i am to my fellow creator, john henley is with us today. So many authors and creators have struggled to make a living because of the pandemic and will be for some time. We both felt it was important, despite the terrible events in the past few days, to come here today, to speak on behalf of creators and the challenges they face earning a living and having their voices heard but through racial discrimination, inequality as well as rampant piracy. Now i will move on to my testimony. I will never forget the sickening feeling i had when i first came across a book piracy website to see all my books, my entire lifes work, stolen, stripped of digital protection and put up on the internet. If any of you have come home to find your house robbed, you know how i felt. That was 12 years ago and since then, piracy has exploded. Every day i get email alerts pointing me to half a dozen freshly pirated copies of my evokes posted online in the last 24 hours. For a while i went off there are the pirates, but then i realized, as have thousands of other authors but its a hopeless task for reasons i will explain in a moment. The Current Situation is enraging and disheartening. Its like being mobbed every single day. In the last ten years, fulltime authors in america have experienced a 42 drop in the writing income. The 23,000 dollars a year. Much of that decreased is due from rapid piracy. Its hard enough to make a living writing books. The piracy now makes it almost impossible. Today, there are hundreds if not thousands of websites who voted to book piracy such as but evokes not come. Online marketplaces such as ebay google shopping and social media platforms like facebook, openly offer thousands of illegal books for download. Many stolen ebooks of mine, for example, can be found on the google shopping main page right now. In reality today is that the internet has become a virtual candy store for the wholesale stealing of the Creative Work of authors. Now the dnc was meant to balance the interest of Internet Service providers and copyright holders. Through achieve this, the legislation provided a safe harbor, isps, against claims resulting in our users posting a parted content if and only if they comply with a half dozen criteria intended to induce cooperation. But that is not how it is working today. But for a series of poor decisions, four separate criteria for just reduced to one. Isps now can benefit in a safe harbor nearly by complying with takedown notices and those takedown notices must state the specific address or url of each item of infringing content. As a result, and isp is now only required to take down the specific pirated ebooks in the specific url in which it receives notice. But a typical pirate site has tens of thousands of url. In practice, as soon as a pirated ebook is taken down another identical one pops up at a slightly different you are all creating an unending lack of ordeal for those of us sending takedown notices. Now you can see why i gave up. As soon as i started to take down notice, the pirate and ebook file pop right back up on the same website, author posted by the same person and often dozens of more copies would pop up. In 1998, representative good lack, one of the dmz a sponsors, eloquently stated congress is intentions with the law. Quote, if americas creators do not believe that they work, be protected when they put them online, then the internet will lack the Creative Content it needs to reach its full potential and if america Service Providers are subject to litigation in the exit third parties at the drop of a hat, they will lacked an incentive to provide quick and sufficient access to the internet. Congress is clear intention has not been achieved. The Authors Guild is asking congress to restore section 5 12 to what was intended, which is a notice in takedown excuse me, which is a notice and stay down instead of notice and takedown law. Congress clearly intended that an isp takedown and then keep down proven pirated content. In section 512, cannot be revised according lia than the Authors Guild is very much in favor of tossing it out and coming up with a much more modern and efficient and effective way of stopping rampant piracy on the internet. I entered my written statement as my members frustrated experience with the Current System. It includes recommended wording on how to adjust section 512 as the Copyright Office recommended. The dm cia is 22 years old. Its an antiquated law. It needs to be updated to the 24 century. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Hansen . Chairman tell us, Ranking Member coons, and members of the subcommittee, first i like to thank you for your marks at the beginning regarding what happened to george floyd and the situation that has affected us all across our country for the last week or so. Its been a sad weekend. I am glad to hear that other parts of the congress are, right now, focused on that. For today i want to thank you for the opportunity given to me to share my thoughts about how the dmca notice and takedown system works. For Research Libraries and four universities, my testimony is largely about my experience at Duke University but its also reflective of many other libraries like ours and like our university across United States. That includes members of the association of Research Library, association of college and Research Libraries, American Library association and the American Association of law libraries. I mentioned those organization specifically because they ask that i also present this testimony on half which i am happy to do. Our mission, as a university and it has a Research Library is almost identical to that of the copyright act. We exist to promote the progress ultimately our goal better understand each other and the world around us from the very first copyright act in 1790 enact for the encouragement of learning. The Higher Education and libraries were central to the design of copyright law and generators of so many new scientific discoveries and students by the records of those ideas. I know there are many stakeholders interested in section 1 12. Our technology company, entertainment interest, i hope that research and teaching will not be an afterthought for how section 512 might be adapted but rather would be a central consideration. Duke, like most other Research Universities and libraries, straddles both sides of section 512. We operate as a service pride or for a very Large Network but we are also significant producers of copyrighted content and our right holders ourselves. In that perspective, section 112 512 generally works well for us and we do not believe that its overall balance is askew, although there are some minor changes that could be made. As a content creator, it generates more than 10,000 Research Articles a year along with hundreds of books, videos, educational content and all other types of work. For virtually all of this content, our primary aim is to get people to engage with those ideas. We disseminate those works as widely as we can for the most part no direct or financial return, no royalties. We often seek to Share Research rapidly and when its relevant. For example, recently for decontamination of and 95 respirators to address ppe so shortages and health care settings. Really important that that kind of research get up quickly. Given our interest in widespread dissemination of ideas, our strong preference of a system that keeps content up online unless there is significant evidence that infringement has occurred. The core notice and takedown system does not always do that. For example, for some academic authors, who are trying to share their own research with the world, they face barriers because of lack of clarity around rights in some instances, publishers have made broader assertions under the republican contract about their ability to coal control research. Several years ago, for example, a dutch own publishing conglomerate reportedly issued 100,000 takedown notices to a site called research gate. Research gate is a for profit site but most of the company contents amid their has been placed by academic authors who try to share their own research with the world. Most academic authors i work with, responding to a takedown notice for their own research is discouraging. Its intimidating. Its a time consuming process that they try to ploy. Second, perhaps the most important thing i can say is that fair use is absolutely critical for research in scholarship. Whether you are talking about quotations in literary critique, or copying charts for graphs in a scientific public k shun or using images that comment or criticizes on art or history. This is an everyday part of public research. Courts have consistently found that of academic scholarship. Other parts of copyright act section but 512 its one of those. Section 512 does not explicitly address how far you factors in the takedown process. Phil and the dancing baby as it requires rights holders to consider fair use before making a valid takedown request. We know that another factor in the system is the automated content identification, which can limit access towards unfair use. We think that automated content i. T. Should be carefully limited. We also know the Service Providers play an Important Role in protecting fair use. Some have been proactive by requiring more supporting documentation from those making takedown requests. Unlike the Copyright Office, which in its recent section 512 study report was critical of those practice, we applaud them and we, Service Providers, should be protected when doing so. So as a Service Provider, duke also operates a very Large Network. We have about 40,000 students, faculty and staff of network retention. If our network was its own county in north carolina, it would be bigger than a third of all other counties in the state. It handles many of the same kinds of traffic that other networks handle, streaming content, email, but our network also serves a special purpose. Its a technological backbone supporting dukes teaching and learning. Its the Research Pipeline through which faculty and graduate students obtain materials. Its also an important pathway for Health Related information for our University Health system. The provisions in section but 512 the road require Service Providers to implement access or implement plans to terminate access for repeat infringes can be problematic. Denying a Student Access to the network can be debilitating. Especially right now where virtually all construction has moved on line. Depriving a student of Internet Access, could also be equal to expulsion. Like many other libraries, we also serve in modern times as an access point for public to use terminals within our network that connects them out to the internet. We rely heavily on section 512 a for a safe harbor for user activity. Students are special case but given how dependent we all are for Internet Access, i would encourage the subcommittee to think hard about weather determination of Internet Access continues to be an appropriate remedy for instances of alleged infringement. Duke also acts as a Service Provider in many other ways. We host systems that disseminates scholarships itself. We host information location tools. Id be pleased to talk more about. I want to end just by saying i realize that some stakeholders feel that section 5 12 need significant change. I hope that the subcommittee will consider the unintended consequence that changes to section 5 12 can have on research and teaching, which i believe are core to the constitutional objective of copyright. The incentives and economics of research of teaching a very different from those for example the music or film and its important that a net that is caste to address legitimate privacy concerns for some copyrighted works not also dry down research and teaching as well. Thank you. Thank you. We are going to go ahead and move into questions. I will go first. I know senator coons will be back momentarily but just from a level setting standpoint, copyright owners today have to worry about types of infringement that could not possibly been anticipated in 1998. Illegal streaming of live sports and black markets and the black market for a licit streaming device a sold with libraries of hundreds of films are two examples. In fact, illegal streaming now accounts for 80 of digital piracy. So i guess i could go on to one of the reasons why just inherently believe we have to modernize is we are dealing with the different world. I think mr. Henley said we got my space regulations governing tiktok Era Technology today. And so mr. Berroya, did i finally get a right . I have a question for you. I know that over the years the tech sector has opposed any changes to section 512. Why would the tech sector want to continue to be governed by a law that could not possibly have anticipated the environment we are in today . We were dealing with modems and dial up not ubiquitous broadband so why would there not be an opportunity to look at aspects of modernization that would you would consider to be helpful . Thanks for the question, senator tillis. While your point is well taken, i think its important to remember that there has been a great deal of innovation on the sign of platforms as well as isps through the course of the past two decades. The other piece of that is that the dnc a sets of four, not a ceiling. So it sets the basic standards for what Companies Need to do if they want to enjoy the benefits of the state harbor but it does not limit them from doing more than that and that is exactly what our Company Platforms have done. They have stepped up, they have conversations on an ongoing basis with many on the creative side of the conversation, as i mentioned in my Opening Statement, they are creators himself in many cases and they are very much aligned with the desires of creators to ensure that infringement materials get taken down off their platforms expeditiously. They do not want to profit from these things. Illegal change impediment to the law is not necessarily to create incentives for work that is already being done. Can that be broadly i understand that some of the larger players anticipating that these kinds of actions could take place in congress would take steps in the right direction. But the question i had today is with a completely different Technological Infrastructure that we are working with, the floor was set appropriately with the dmca at a time that we understood the capabilities of the internet. Now its orders of magnitude more available and more powerful and easier to obscure illicit activities so i guess the question is, why would we not be learning from some of those good faith efforts and potentially create a higher bar to reduce the amount of rampant power piracy that we see . Mr. Henley, i am kind of curious from your perspective, i know you made a very clear in your Opening Statement that you think there is a need for changes but do you want to speak some to why you believe that that is necessary from a technological perspective . Yes sir, id be happy to. Thank you. The notice and takedown procedure is unduly burdensome on the artists. Let me just give you a perspective of the magnitude of the problem. There are currently about six billion posts on youtube but and out of those six billion posts, four billion of them are on claimed. And out of those six billion posts, 84 of them contain music. Now lets say it takes two minutes to file a claim so i two minutes per claim, it would take 200 million hours to claim them and take them all down. At minimum wage, it would cost two billion dollars. Of course by then it would probably be another billion post on youtube. So as has already been said, as you said, this is an endless game of whackamole and the notice and takedown system is badly broken. Universal music Group Administrator the publishing for the eagles of myself and they have a team of 60 people. 60 people who sit in a room with computers and all they do all day long, five days a week, sometimes six days a week, is deal with the platform such as youtube and facebook. They file claims in the issue takedown notices for the eagles and for myself. And those amount to between 200 and 500 claims a week. And when a claim is filed for, the person who uploads the infringing content but can appeal that claim, can dispute that claim and there is a process where it goes back and forth. You have claim, you have appeal and then you have a counter notice and that process can go on and on until finding a stalemate has reached if the low upload refusing to take down the infringing content in the arctic, the person who created that content, has no choice except to file a lawsuit within ten days. Now most artists cannot, they dont have the time or the wear with arm to File Lawsuits. So the process is, again, simply overly burdensome on the artist. Its a ridiculous process. Its an updated process. An artist should not have to deal with that. Our job is to create music, to create art. Our job is not to police the internet for infringing content. That is the job of the huge platforms for huge platform claims there is a huge content that has all this content but they engage with that content, they curates that content, they manage that content. Again, they can identify likes and dislikes but they cannot seem to identify copyrighted material. There is a process that has been instituted which again is simply not working. The content i. D. They call it. Our publishing administrator, many years ago, contacted google and asked them if they can please cooperate with us in taking down infringing content and they said, well if you would send us your copyright registration numbers, we can flag your content and take a down. Never happened. It was eventually after a year led to this content i. D. Business. The content ideas like a big net with huge holes in it. Millions of infringing content falls through the content i. D. Process. Its not effective at all. Its not effective to establish an effective repeating infringing policy that ignores red flags with respect to patterns of infringement with certain uses. You too often touts content i. D. As an an required benefit to write owners. Its not an unrequited benefit to write owners. Its far from perfect. Again, still allowing millions of on known authorize content to sit through the systems. There is no realistic way that rights holders can you not unilaterally necessary to identify infringement and protect the rights. But Online Services and platforms can. They are the gatekeepers, not us. Thank you, mister henley. And mr. Hansen, if i come back for another round i might ask you to talk about the same subject and mr. Henley, i think you were really describing on a broader basis the sheer numbers of people who are experiencing the frustration of feeling like they had been robbed as mr. President described in his opening comments. Before i go to Ranking Member coons, id like to enter into the record from doctor theodore federal, president of the artists right society which represents more than 122,000 artist Members Around the world. His letter points out the challenge many small and individual artists face as they attempt to police the internet for infringing content. That objection will be entered into the record. I would also like to enter the record, the copyright of aligned which represents the copyright interest of more than 13,000 organizations of more than 1. 8 million creators. The letter states that piracy is one of the greatest the welfare and Economic Security of individual creators. And finally, with that objection, id like to enter into the record a letter from the Music Workers Alliance an organization of independent musicians and djs calling on congress to act on the findings of the recent section 512 report from United States Copyright Office. Ranking member coons . Thank, you chairman tillis and thank you to this impressive panel of witnesses. I have a lot of questions but we dont have a lot of time so i am just going to ask of the entire panel that you would answer a sort of combination of questions. Based on your testimony across this whole panel, the Current System works well for some and is broken for others. Congress had envisioned rights holders and online providers working together to standardize voluntary technological measures to combat privacy. I am interested in why that has not happened, how you would suggest we combat digital piracy without stifling innovation or free speech and most importantly, if you could propose one immediate change to improve the notice takedown framework, what would be . Id welcome hearing from each of the members of the panel and orders starting with mr. Henley and if i might say, mr. Henley, as someone who is Creative Works inspired off a lot of the critical moments in my life, i was hearing the song, the end of the innocence playing in the back of my mind as we were contemplating today and i never thought that life in the fast lane would one day involve looking at each other through digital screens. Mr. Henley. Life is full of surprises. It is. I agree with my colleague whos representing authors. There needs to be a notice of state on regulation because the notice and takedown process simply does not work. We need to go to a notice for state on process. No never intended to have a jail get out of jail free card. It was explicitly intended to promote cooperation for the Online Platforms and creators and owners of the works they use. So that original arrangement needs to be rebalance. It will not run the internet. In fact it will enhance the internet by ensuring a viable of online marketplace for Creative Works and Online Services for the benefit of everybody. Let me just tell you what the streaming rates are just for perspective. Per stream, apple pays 7000 of one cent. Youtube pays, per stream, 35 10,000 of one cent. The hard for creators to subsist, to survive threats like that especially on top of the infringement. That is all i have to say at the moment. Thank you, mister henley. If i might, mr. Berroya . Thank you senator coons. From our members perspective, whats really needed here is additional collaboration. Our members have effectively worked with many large content industry groups, many of the large publishers to identify some of these challenges and i will acknowledge, again, as somebody who has personally directed programs, focused on enforcing copyrights online, i understand the challenges and i understand the challenges of particularly acute for Small Artists who dont have the ability or currently have an organization that is helping them pull the resources and finding a way to leverage technologies in order to more effectively manage the takedown process and work with some of the websites that they are based in the u. S. Orange restriction that has similar laws to u. S. Laws. So that those websites can responsibly take down infringing content. The lack of collaboration, effective collaboration, is at the heart of a lot of the current challenges. The law, as it currently stands, incentivizes collaboration and has produced a great deal of collaboration between platforms and content producing companies and those that represent them. I would respectfully disagree with that. I respectfully appreciate your comment, mr. Henley but im speaking for my own personal experience on one as well. So i have had conversations, personally, when i was representing a Large Association that represented the rights and protected the rights of Large Software companies where i reached out to a foreign do station this does not even have u. S. Style dmca rules. We talk to them about the challenges that we were facing and even though that jurisdictions rules did not require them to implement a takedown process through negotiation working with them, we were able to assist our members to effectively police their rights on a site, a collection of sites, that were causing huge problems for them. So my suggestion here is that we think, very carefully, because just shifting the burden from right holders, when we are talking about the scale that, you know, i will acknowledge, mr. Henley is 100 and dead on, it is huge and it is growing every single day the volume of material that is posted online. The overlying majority of it happens to be legal and the problem is, platforms, with other technology, cannot decide and produce reliable fair use analysis. They do not know how a regular piece of music is licensed and they are certainly cases where rights holders are not as careful as perhaps umg and mr. Henleys other representatives might be. They make copyright claims that are not in good faith and attempt to take down the use of copyrights. So there is a very delicate balance here in the system and i think there are a lot of factors that can contribute to making a better but i think, first and foremost, increased dialog is an important part. There are technological pieces that are in a play and have been proved greatly over the last several years. But i think, really, the oldfashioned dialog and working with them to understand these rapidly changing problems is a really, really important for steph. Thank you, mister president , if you might and then mr. Hansen and then im going to turn to senator blumenthal for his question. The internet platforms collaborated with only a few of the Largest Companies in the country and in a desultory. They do not cooperate with millions of individual riders or other creators. Many, many authors i know of the Authors Guild have tried in many ways to engage with these large internet platforms like google and ebay and so forth. Its an absolutely frustrating experience because these platforms simply are not capable of engaging with small creators and businesses. To add to your soul can question, really what we are asking for is for notice and stake out. It simply means one an isp has been properly and fairly informed, a title is powered content, it has to keep that stolen title from being reposted. If you want to own a pawn shop in a cog comes away and takes away a stolen base and then the next week the same bracelet comes in a week later to be sold, you cannot just put it up for sale again so that is all we are asking. Once an espns been informed in a proper and legal way, that something is stolen property, it stops allowing the sale of it. I mean the other side of this coin is that if the same person in a pawn shop brings in multiple stolen items repeatedly, the pawn shop owner has an obligation to stop dealing with that person so if a website is hosted an isp or for example, the google, responding to search requests and send the people to that website and that website is received thousands of thousands of takedown notices, then the isp should stop dealing with that websites. I will give you an example. There is a notorious piracy website called he pumped up pub that google was selling to freely. We will send them to this website. This website had received, according to a study by new york university, over 40,000 takedown notices and still google was indexing that website right at the top of its search page. It wasnt until the authors want to them and said, hey, what is going on here . You have 40,000 takedown notices. This is a notorious website and google than demoted that website lower into its search function. It did not the index, it just lowered. Look, all we are asking is for isps, with the good faith effort, to keep that stolen property from being fenced again and again and again on their platforms. Thank you. Briefly, mr. Hansen, if youve got something to add to that because i know senator blumenthal has waited quite a while to ask. Yes, just briefly, i will comment on our experience as a Service Provider and the takedown notices that we have received over the years. So just on average, i like to give you a sense of what we see over the past over this year. We are averaging Something Like 380 takedown notices a month, which is not a significant number considering the size of people of that volume of traffic that reverses our network. We have seen that number decline pretty dramatically over the years and a lot of that a lot of the takedown requests that we get used to be based on students uploading popular media to the internet. A Major Driving factor reducing that number has been not really copyright innovations but Business Model innovations, licensing alternatives where content has been made available as reasonable prices through reasonable rings or students are able to purchase subscriptions, netflix, hulu, spotify, those sorts of things and so i think the encouragement of licensing alternatives at a reasonable rate into reasonable means is a major driver that i think would have more of an impact in almost anything where there is a sort of authoritative approach to stop things rather than providing legitimate means through which consumers can obtain access to content. Thank. You thank you to the panel and thank you to senator blumenthal for his patience. Thank you. Thank you to the Ranking Member senator coons and to our chairman, senator tillis for having this very, very important hearing and i will say at the outset this hearing is extraordinarily consequential because involve a principle. The principle is accountability. What the dmca and the Community Decency act section 230 accord, in effect, a broad immunity. And seem to me to be in need of some kind reform. Now i strongly oppose the president s executive order on section 230. I think it is meant to intimidate prevent threes free speech, it is illegal. I supported narrow and targeted reforms to section 230 that in st. Louis impose accountability for sex trafficking and for other abuses where it has responsibility and narrowly legal responsibility that would be imposed by measures to reform it and so for example, the acting such a better measure to stop one of the most sickening abuses in our society, which is child abuse. Supported by a Bipartisan Group of us. And here it seems to me accountability is also important. Now i heard a reference earlier to old fashion collaboration. It seems to me that oldfashioned collaboration is for final fashion process that no longer really is appropriate to the present technology and the threats to write that are in peril by the lack of accountability and enforcement that. So i guess my question to the panel is, number one, is there anywhere on this panel that thinks the status quo is absolutely ok, no need for improvement and should be just let alone . And i hear silence so i would conclude that everybody on this panel thinks that some kind of improvement is warranted. Excuse me, senator blumenthal. This is berroya. I had trouble with my mute button. The Internet Association would disagree that domestic law should change that is largely overseas. So you want to just leave the system as it is . The dmca . Yes, senator, i think the dmca is working as it is intended to. It all stakeholders involved. The current incentives in the system exists in a way and are handled in a way that is consistent with what senator leahy and senator hatch had permanently had in mind. That collaboration, which i referred to, is oldfashioned, im out that in the sense that its not technological but the importance of that collaboration is that, as technological change on the policy side of the equation, which happens very, very rapidly and much more rapidly than any change of law would be able to catch up with, as those things change, collaboration between rights holders and platforms where those rights holders are finding in front row materials allows for a Quick Response they might otherwise occur. The dmca did not pivot, that it encourages that. Let me just say because im about to run out of time, that argument is absolutely blind by the reports that i have heard from independent artists in connecticut that are forced to scour youtube and other platforms searching for infringements. It is not collaborative from their standpoint. It sounds like a fulltime effort on their part in the burden is on them so rights holders are effectively charged with monitoring the entire internet for infringement on their copyrights and that burden, is especially problematic for independent artists who are more vulnerable to rights infringing activity. So i think that the dismissing of these complaints and may not be in your personal experience but it is in a lot of others, in effect, ignores a very pressing problem that we need to address. Thanks. Senator coons . Thank you very much, senator blumenthal. If i could, im just going to ask two or three more specific questions. I understand that the chairman is on his way back and we will soon introduce the second panel. You want me to introduce a second panel . Okay. If i could, mister berroya, just a followup. I understand the critical importance of fostering innovation on the internet and the ways in which the dramatic growth of the internet has brought the benefits to our country and to our community but i am also concerned that, in some ways, some of our most Profitable Companies have found success at the expense of the smallest members our that were Creative Community. In your view, given that there is hundreds of hours of content uploaded every minute, how can smaller artists possibly be expected to policed is content and should not some of our largest and most sophisticated companies shoulder some of the responsibility for the infringing material that is being monetized on our platforms . Thank you for the question, senator coons. Collaboration is essential and pulling of resources is essential. There were letters that were entered into the record today by a number of organizations. Mister preston that represents an organization that represents a large number of artists and creators and writers. Pooling of resources to deal with the scale of global piracy is the only effective way to deal with the scale of global piracy. Putting the burden on any one of these platforms and certainly there are large ones with a fair amount of resources and those platforms have all reached out and will continue to reach out to the Creative Community and trying to identify more effective ways to assist them with this challenge. But the collaboration is essential both so that platforms understand the challenges that creators are facing. The pooling of resources on the side of the creator so that they can Leverage Technology and identify software and techniques use application protocol interfaces more quickly identify things and send takedown notices and track responses to take down notices are all things that can help with the scaling problem. Im not trying to suggest that the concerns that have been raised by independent artists are in any way shape or form overblown. If i were an independent writer or music producer or musician, i would be facing those same things and i know people who are facing those challenges. But the reality is, until there is an effort to collaborate more, pull resources and scale the response to this global challenge, there it will continue to be a game of whackamole and that is not something that anyone on the platform side wants. No one on the platform side wants piracy on their platforms, they want profits from piracy on the platforms, they do not need that, they have legitimate businesses and the overwhelming majority of content on their platforms has been and remains illegal content. Thank you very much. Thank you to the panel. Back to our chairman. I want again to thank everyone for participating in the first panel. Mr. Henley, all the witnesses, i think you have given us very important information. I think mr. Henley mentioned in his opening comment about the dramatic reduction and compensation a crater or an artist is likely to receive in the age of digital piracy. And i think we should recognize the the risk that that runs of decimating the number of people who are willing to take the time and effort to create something that we all benefit from. That is why i believe we have to look at reasonable reforms and i was glad to hear and i had to vote. Im sorry had to step out for a minute that senator blumenthal also agrees, that we got a reason to take a look at things and modernize them. I have to believe in a world of technology that we live in today, where many of these same platforms have the technology to virtually anticipate the next song you want to hear or the next thing you want to buy, that there is a way for us to come up with something that is sustainable, not disruptive and helpful to our creators and i for one hope that we continue to work towards a positive and i appreciate all my colleagues who seemed to be of the same mind. So i want to thank the first panel for being here today and testifying and mr. Henley, thank you for the memories you created and we will transition to our next panel which digitally is a little bit easier. I can begin doing the announcement. Abigail reeves is the council at angina policy advocacy and Research Organization supporting an engine for economic growth. Miss reeves joined engine for the law firm of lake them and walk and where she worked as an associate for four years following a clerkship on the u. S. Court of appeals for the federal circuit. Mr. Kerry mosey is a modern Classical Music or is a modern Classical Music and film composer who recent works can the regional orchestra score for the ballet casten over and the score for the documentary film, look and see portrait of window barry and whose piece looking back was used as the recurring love theme in the tv show glee. Miss meredith roses a public witch advocate on the public to promote freedom of exploration, open internet, and access to affordable communication tools and works. Her portfolio focuses on copyright, dmca and property reform. Among other information policy field. Mr. Javid a advertising editorial and find our photographer whose clients include nike, fedex, sony, at t. He is a professional at the Art Center College of design in pasadena, california and is a president and ceo of the plus coalition, a group working to simplifying facilitate the communication and management of the rights. Thank you all for joining today. We will start with mysteries testimony. Chairman tillis, Ranking Member coons, people in the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on a volume of section 512, start up a Smaller Technology companies and the uses and traders who rely on them. I first want to echo the other witnesses and voices around the country while 512 is fundamental to startup and experiences are essential component of congress his conversation on this topic, we recognize that there are more pressing issues on peoples minds tonight and we Hope Congress will meaningfully take up a more important conversation about inequality and injustice in this country. I am heartened by your remarks on this matter earlier in the station. Its a nonprofit that bridges the gap between policymakers and thousands of stars across the country through Research Policy analysis and advocates. Rhetoric over section 512 said that the false economy of stakeholders and properties. Nearly 50 17 million americans are collective a 6. 8 billion dollars in 2017 by posting their personal creations on just nine internet practices. Technology has monopolized have created an entirely new way for independent creators to which fans and customers earning far in excess what those are already impressive numbers suggest. Weve seen events in the u. S. Have further highlighted the importance of this internet ecosystem. During the pandemic, and as all of us are gathering and sharing needs, working, learning, shopping and currently testifying from home to more reliant than anything on platforms that would not exist but for dmca. Overall, section 512 is working well. In 1998, congress certain that they would not be automatically liable for when their users were accused of Copyright Infringement. Todays startup meets the same certainty and the protections afforded to their predecessors. Changing the dmca would shift to the ground underneath todays startups. Imposing the duty would be on workable and would make litigation even more. It could already cost half 1 million dollars, just a complete the discovery. Indeed, the normal cost of even on the company when its cases. Because tariffs would not be able to afford to prove that the practices a reasonable such as he harbor would have little value. The subcommittee posed three questions for this hearing. First, regarding the notice and takedown framework it is largely working well of significant abuse of the system and no meaningful opportunities to entail them. As professor touched on that in previous explained, so even claims of infringement. For example, tumbler, a multi media blocking site with nearly half 1 million blogs in the first half of 2019 received fewer than 5000 dmca takedown notices and removed less than 1000th of a profit of its four thing those always piece to place all the content they hoped would not catch much, if any, intentional infringement but would come with a substantial draw backs. Moreover, oh is peas lack the information to identify incentives. Rights holders on the other hand know what the copyrighted works are and identify potential infringement with what they want resolved. While section 512 has been successful, improper takedown notices are a very real problem. In one astonishing example, a musician posted a video of himself playing some win by bob. Sony distributed a takedown noticed and refused to back down when a musician obviously incorrect claim. It is well document that notice section 512 for the competitor is to remove content they do not own. They have to wait ten to 14 days for context to be restored. For someone elusive to because sales know how to look a season, itll be devastated. It does take well, it is subject to substantial abuse. I address the second question regarding safe harbor eligibility in my testimony. To the third question, changing the red flag knowledge standard and imposing an affirmative duty to monitor will certainly effect. It will create new cost service that startups operating on clean margins will not be able to bear. Established incumbents already ought to make many aspects of the resources to observe increased legal risk, startups do not. Filters have limitations, is listening to us have high air rates, for many types of content, there are no filters. Technology cannot address that specific questions importantly, these filters are also out of reach for most startups. Developing them, orders of magnitude that the start can afford and licensing off the Ship Builders is equally out of range for startups. To sum up, his South Carolina recently told me the changes its time for online content will be one of the biggest liability. He happily explain that a large shift in policy might not have a Significant Impact on Large Companies that can accommodate change that are unintentional solved in the negative impact Small Business. Thank you again for inviting me to testify today. We know that you review of the will dmca be an ongoing process and the Tech Companies will continue to receive the proper paperwork. Thank you miss reads. Mr. Mostly . My name is karen mosley, i am a film and modern classical composer. I am honored to be here and want to thank senators tillis and coming for inviting me to speak to subcommittee about a topic that affect my livelihood in the livelihoods of all professional creatives. The dnc eight. I make my living as a composer and every single day i experience just how broken the dmca is. Before beginning though i want to acknowledge something. Im not a famous person. People dont know my name. I am just a working composer. My story in my experiences would not mean as much today if not for the fact that in these hearings, i am allowed to stand shoulder to shoulder with someone like don henley. His name runs quite a bit early to us all and im so proud that i get to make my statements today alongside of his. The opportunity to possibly make a small difference here is very important to me and that is why you are here. So before explaining how broken the dmca is when we give you some content for my remarks. Im one of the very few very lucky independent artists who have access to youtube contacts i. D. System and most of my experience with notice and takedown has been on youtube. Content idea has become a court piece of my life is seeing business. Its the technology i used to reveal thefts of my music on youtube. Honestly, this is also why am little bit nervous about speaking out today because i fear retaliation by youtube and google. I am concerned they might take content idea way for me raising these concerns publicly. Right now, i have seven years into utilizing that amazing technology. To locate uses of my music on youtube and typically it is located at approximately 110,000 videos that use my music without permission. Let me be clear, these are not cute little kim videos, these are commercial uses of my music for Car Companies and Luxury Hotels chain, fortune 500 companies, Pharma Companies and dozens of International Series that i use my music as underscore. When i discovered these uses, i issue dmca takedowns against them and this is where the broken part of the dmca process revealed itself. After issuing takedowns, i would receive false dmca counter notifications from these companies through youtube. In every case, the counter notification said, that the uploaders use of my music was a fair use under u. S. Copyright law and in 100 of these counter notifications, that assertion was false. So how did these takedowns usually play out . Shortly after issuing a takedown, i received an email from youtube saying the upload or has filed a counter notification and that pursuing to the dmca i have ten days in which to file a lawsuit against the uploader or else youtube would reinstate that video. If i do not filed a lawsuit within that tenday period, the uploader and youtube can then continue to display and monetize that video that still has my music in it. I have then lost that battle times 110,000. I am not. A corporation with a staff of lawyers who can File Lawsuits for me, i am just a guy. I am a Small Business of one person. Copyright law tells me that i have the right of ownership to the music i create but if i dont have a legal remedy when my work is stolen, do i really have that right . This is a situation that composers like me are in. The dmca gives me a remedy by lawsuits that really isnt a remedy. There is no remedy for me. I am a tiny david in the sea of tech goliath like youtube, google, the meal and facebook and all of them feel insulated for liability because of the way dmca safe harbors have worked. And because the likelihood of an independent artist like me will be able to sue them is exactly 0 . The mental and emotional toll that it has taken on me, having spent time every single day for seven years now dealing with tens of thousands of individual deaths of my work and trying to resolve them, is extreme. Those are ours i couldve spent making music and i will never know what creativity was lost while policing those bets. Senators of the subcommittee, today i have the most unique opportunity i have had in my lifetime, 12 members of my United States senate to fix a broken law. And that is what i am asking. I am asking that you revise the dmca two up individuals like me who have been left with no rights or remedies. I understand that this Panel Includes Tech Companies and Digital Service representatives who are sure the system is working. I challenge them to consider the maddening of Team Experience i have described here and to tell me, with a straight face, that the system is working. I am just ones of hundreds of thousands who go through this every day. Artists of all socioeconomic backgrounds, not just a famous ones. If they want to truly partner in the online space, they need to face this reality and dedicate themselves to fixing this problem. Senators, please realize there are many tiny david like me who needs to government help protecting their work by holding the goliath accountable for the fact that they have so easily enabled incentivized, and profited from with impunity. We need practical and inaccessible remedies when our worker infringed. If the works most tex heavy Companies Wont voluntarily help artists like me and congress should force them to. I am here to ask for your help. Please help me. Thank you for letting me tell my story. Thank you. Miss ross . Chairman tillis, Ranking Member coons, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. It will be from an appropriate social distance on this important topic. First i would like to take a moment to with knowledge protesters currently out on the streets and to say but the smallest fraction of names that must be said, george floyd, breonna taylor, ahmaud arbery, countless others all of them victims of police violence. This debate that we are having right now cannot happen in a vacuum for us from what is going on in americas streets. This is not about content versus tech, i am here to speak about how section 512 impacts the more than 229 million American Adults who use the internet as more than just a delivery mechanism for copyrighted content. They used it to pay bills, learn, to work, to socialize, to receive health care and yet they are missing from the Copyright Offices section 512 report. They are missing from the systems and procedures that govern the rights and too often they are missing from the debate on capitol hill. I am thankful to be here representing you today. Reforming the system requires that we acknowledge the ways in which breaks down. In particular, while i will address three problems for use your speech. Bad dmca notices, shortcomings and algorithmic enforcement and the inappropriate mess to get private and third pro removal families access to broadband. First, we must acknowledge that the bad dmca takedown notices are we all, that they have a variety of causes and that they have been at an enormous scale. The dmca takedown erases speech from the internet for up to two weeks without any meaningful oversight even one contested. The extraordinary coward of this provision means it comes with a long and thoroughly documented history of weaponization. One exhaustive study looked at 108 million notices and concluded that nearly one third of that were problematic and 4. 5 million of them were fundamentally flawed. While the cause of these bad notices range from algorithmic defects to outright abuse, the scope of their impact remains staggering. Sanders can use takedowns to send legitimate content, incomplete or airfield notices can make it impossible for platforms to identify the works involved, and search and notice spots can and have disrupted livestream and news broadcasts. Some stakeholders however still insist on faster takedowns with fewer safeguards and more potential liability for any platform that attempts to filter out defective or malicious notices. Asking for greater power if your safeguards is akin to discarding the tank and asking for a new look. Second, we must understand the private Enforcement Mechanisms such as algorithmic content identification that have grown a top section 512. These private solutions sound good in theory but the reality of their implementation is messy and full of difficulty designed choices. Because they operate automatically, these algorithms can instantaneously remove speech that may otherwise be political, educational or newsworthy. Policy makers must grapple with what users and artists alike have understood for ages that the balance of equities and practice is determined less by the contours of law, then by the aggregate result of technological limitations, financial incentives and designed choices with no clear right or wrong answers. Finally, i want to address the elephant in the room and that is broadband access. We should not permit, let alone strengthen, provisions a law which allowed thirdparty private actors to terminate a persons Internet Access unilaterally and without even a whiff of due process. There are several bills currently before congress to expand broadband access. In some stakeholders insist that they need more power, not less to force an isp to disconnect its customers based on pure accusations of Copyright Infringement. When the dmca with past 1998, isps were Software Providers operated over the Telephone Network being dropped by installing America Online and installing any of the hundreds of competitive options that were available. In 2020, and the physical connection to her home for more than 100 million americans living in home service by only one broadband provider, being disconnected means losing access to the internet in its entirety. The punishment is now widely disproportionate to the accuse, not even adjudicated, offense. We are in a moment of political, economic and social upheaval. Americans are in the streets, in their homes and all of the time they are online. They are debating and documenting across ideological and geographic divides. The internet is how we bear witness. Its how we see with the hope of understanding those whose experiences who struggles are not our own. Its how Many Americans were forced exposed to the tangible reality of Police Brutality and systematic oppression. It is how the work of Community Activists and organizers have amplified and how injustice is brought before the eyes of the world. If we are to strike any sort of new balance, it must keep the needs of 229 million voices on their ability to speak at front of mind. Thank you and i look forward to your questions. Thank you. Chairman tillis, Ranking Member coons and other members of the intellectual property subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on section 512. My name is Jeffrey Sedlik i have been a professional photographer for 35 years and the author and owner of hundreds of thousands of copyrighted photographs. I make a living creating and licensing photographs to appear in all manner of media. Photographs that i create and listens for the u. S. Copyright law at least in theory. The reality, photographs receives very little protection because of the rapid infringement of my work that is knowingly permitted by Online Service providers on the platforms and on their websites. Instead of using readily Available Technology to identify mitigate Copyright Infringement, Service Providers high in the safe harbor of 5 12 ignoring illegal activity, allowing infringers to infringe, exploiting monetize my work with impunity and less until i submit a dmca takedown. Notice as a result, i am forced to dedicate my days and nights for infringement making screenshots. Collecting hundreds of thousands of infringement urls. Combing through obscure website menus that are different on every site to find dmca agent formation. Drafting and submitting takedown notices and responding to unnecessary tactics such as the followup questions from Service Providers. Wants to infringement is taken down, it will inevitably return often on the same day. Providers uniformly fail to effectively implement and enforce repeat fringe your policies. And forcing rights under the dmca is an impossible task, not just for me, but for my fellow creators across this nation. Most visual artists operate as michael businesses often with employees like other creators, in order to feed my family, i must generate revenue by creating an licensing newark but an attempt to license my work, i find that i am forced to compete with business hundreds of thousands of unlicensed, unpaid infringement uses of work on Service Providers platforms and websites. Essentially competing with my own works. If i dont enforce my copies, my work has no value and my business is unsustainable but if i dedicate the time and effort required to identify repeatedly enforce my copyrights with takedown notices, i have no time left to create new works. This is an on tangible situation, one as, i and other Small Businesses, are forced to confront on a daily basis. Certainly this is not the effective Ballot System invasion by congress when it enacted the dmca. The fact that millions of takedown notices are issued each day is not a sign of success. It is a sign of a non violence system under strained and on the verge of failure if not beyond. Ranking member comes today respect requested specific instructions. I respectfully suggest the following revisions to 512 teach you about an effective system. First, revising clarified recognizing the Service Provider right an inability to control activity and willful blindness is equivalent of actual knowledge. Second, encourage Service Providers to collaborate with creators and other stakeholders to implement not proprietary opt out and often registries available for voluntary use by creators in rights holders. Third, provisional works, Image Recognition technology is readily available, scalable, highly accurate and perfectly suited for the tracks. In addition, serviced prior riders should be able to identify forging works require that upon receipt of representative lewis to infringing for identified and remove not only those representative examples but all other existing infringements of copyright work. Require that Service Providers implement notice and stay ground procedure replacing the ineffective notice of takedown requirement. Fine repeat infringe or as to a more takedown notices, requires Service Providers implemented strictly enforce in order for the infringement policy. As standard technical measures require that Service Providers maintain and preserve all digital watermarks in all follows uploaded to the platforms as the condition of eligibility. Copyright the authority to establish and maintain a list of additional standard technical records. Either way the advance registration requirement or filing infringement claims as response to 512 a counter nose or the counter notice period for dependency in the standard copyright processing period. Prohibits Service Providers from publishing three to dress, phone and email address to stop the Current Practice by Service Providers of shaming creators and threatening their privacy and security. Clarify that infringement by reason of excludes rights of display, perform, and create derivative works under section 106 require, as a condition of eligibility, must disclose the eligibility of infringers for affordable, practical procedure to discover that information without resorting to file a legal action. Lastly, as a condition of eligibility require Service Providers to allow rights holders to against their database of uploaded words to identify any infringing works. In addition, i agree with and recommend the solution proposed in the section 512 report in introduced by the copyright issues. American society for collective rights licensees. American society for media photography. Digital media license association. The graphics art of skill, National Press photographer association, north america nature photography association. Plus coalition in the professional of america. In closing, i again think the subcommittee members for your efforts. Thank you. Youre watching cspan 3. Your unfiltered view of government created by americas Cable Television companies and brought to you today by your television provider. On september 2nd, 1945 government and military officials from japan signed surrendered documents in peace era money aboard the uss missouri in tokyo bay. Formally bringing world war ii to a close. Japanese emperor had announced japans surrender earlier in 1945. To mark the 75th anniversary the friends of the world war ii memorial hosted a online commemorative Program Including remarks from gen. Mark milley and nbc author tom brok. Good morning, money is jane droppa and the proud mother of a world war ii veteran, victory over japan day. Or vj day the allied victories in the pacific in the end of world war ii, the deadliest conflict in human history. 75 years have passed since millions of people around the globe celebrated the end of world war ii. Thank you for joining us to celebrate our world war ii veterans who served overseas. All of those who served on the home front and our allies who together helped defeat tyranny, preserve freedom and literally save the world. The front of the National World war two memoriam your friends