chris christina hoff sommers christy talked about the bridge scandal. governor christy talks about hurricane sandy recovery efforts in the 50-minute speech. [ applause ] [ applause ] [ applause ] [ applause ] >> thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. happy new year. governor, mr. speaker, mr. president, legislators, friends, fellow new jerseyans: the last week has certainly tested this administration. mistakes were clearly made. and as a result, we let down the people we are entrusted to serve. i know our citizens deserve better. much better. i am the governor and i am ultimately responsible for all that happens on my watch - both good and bad. without a doubt we will cooperate with all appropriate inquiries to ensure this breach of trust does not happen again. but i also want to assure the people of new jersey today that what has occurred does not define us or our state. this administration and this legislature will not allow the work that needs to be done to improve the people's lives in new jersey to be delayed. [ applause ] >> i am the leader of this state and its people and i stand here today proud to be both. [ applause ] >> and always determined to do better. now i come before you once again to report on the state of our state. and today, the state of the state is good, and getting better. [ applause ] >> four years ago, we were in the throes of economic crisis. today, our unemployment rate is 7.8 percent, the lowest in 5 years. [ applause ] >> four years ago, we were losing jobs. today, we have gained 70,000 jobs in the last year alone, and a total of 156,000 in the last four years. [ applause ] >> four years ago, wealth and jobs were leaving the state. today, personal income for new jerseyans is at an all-time high, and we are attracting new companies. and that has brought jobs - four straight years of private sector job growth. [ applause ] >> in fact, in november, the drop in our unemployment rate was the largest one month drop ever measured. and in the last year, new jersey had the second largest drop in its unemployment rate in america. only behind the state of north carolina. we could have chosen to go down a path of continued tax increases to fund the state's addiction to spending. but we didn't. we held the line against any new taxes, and brought spending in the current fiscal year to a level below fiscal 2008 - six years ago. we could have let state government grow, even while the private sector shrank. but we didn't. today, there are 6,000 fewer state employees than four years ago, but over 155,000 more private sector employees. we improved our business climate, and today, by every measure, business confidence in new jersey is up. in fact, one national magazine ranked new jersey among the top 5 states with the most improved business climates in america. [ applause ] >> it's no accident how we got to this place today. we chose the way. and in this new year and in the next four years, we need to build on this momentum by creating a new attitude: we need to create an attitude of choice. it is not about choosing everything; it is not about saying yes to everyone; it is about setting our priorities and choosing to invest in new jersey where it matters and to put in place the reforms and reductions that make it possible. and the best part of our turnaround in these past four years is because we have chosen to work together. these are our achievements. four balanced budgets. passed with bipartisan support. pension reform and tenure reform. passed with bipartisan support. a cap on property taxes. passed with bipartisan support. we acted and we acted together. even though the competition among the states is fierce, no state has shown more bipartisan cooperation over the last four years than new jersey. let's do it again. let's resolve that in in spite of politics, we will continue to put our people first. we will choose to do our jobs. one of the things that drove people out of new jersey in the past decade was high property taxes. in 2010, together, we capped them. the 2 percent cap has worked. in these past two years, property tax growth has been the lowest in two decades. but the job is not finished. property taxes are still too high. so today, i ask for you to join me in enacting a new property tax relief initiative that tackles the root causes that are driving up property taxes in the first place. first, some context: the 2 percent cap we've already enacted has worked for a reason. we've done it by controlling costs. we accompanied it with reform of an interest arbitration award system that needed fixing. as you know, the interest arbitration cap was not permanent - it is set to expire this april, unless we act. so i ask you today, let us renew the cap on interest arbitration awards and make the cap permanent. [ applause ] >> another reason property taxes are so high is that our cities and towns are stuck with a series of costly state rules that increase the cost of local government. as the cost of government grows, taxpayers are paying the price. we have worked with the senate to try to pass real consolidation and civil service reform. we haven't gotten it done in the assembly. we need to have an effort that includes everyone responsible for property taxes - the senate, the assembly, our administration and local government to provide local government with the authority to run their governments like a business: consolidate, share services, cut duplication and ultimately actually reduce property taxes. look at what happened last year in princeton. princeton borough and princeton township consolidated into a single government. not two tax departments, two police forces, two offices answering the phone. the savings in one year: $3 million. that's on a budget of $64 million, a 4.7 percent savings. and the citizens of princeton got this: more services, despite a smaller budget, and a reduction in municipal taxes. this is not just my opinion - the local unit alignment, -- if you think that is easy to say let me try one more time. no, i am not going to do that. reorganization and consolidation commission said that civil service seniority rules were at the top of the list of barriers to shared services. let's help our towns clear away arcane rules that stand between them and lower property taxes. when it comes to driving costs, let's not forget the expensive practice of sick leave payouts for government employees. sick time should be used when you're sick. if you're lucky enough to be healthy, that's your reward. sick leave has been abused too many times, and the cost is real. almost a billion dollars in liability facing new jersey towns - $880 million to be exact. and it will only get higher if the system is not fixed. these reforms are common sense: let's lift this billion dollar albatross off the necks of new jersey's towns. let's together enact the zero means zero plan. [ applause ] our pension system is burdened by some who collect disability retirement because they claim they are "totally and permanently disabled," but who are now working full-time. this is wrong. it has hurt the system and the people who really deserve the payouts. so we've established by executive order a special unit to prosecute pension fraud. let's go even further to solidify our pension system and reduce costs by reforming our disability retirement system to end this fraud and abuse. this will also help us to reduce >> it hurts every person who needs the system when they are injur injured indefinitely. this will also help us to reduce property taxes. here is one of the local secrets: and some towns get around the property tax cap by enacting user fees to fund traditional services that used to be in the budget. let's end this practice. all-of of you who voted for the cap didn't want it going around. so let's end the user fees and not support the cap. [ applause ] >> i will have more to say about new jersey's taxes when i present my budget to you next month. that is for a reason. we have to consider changes to our tax system in the context of our overall budget picture. we will present some of these choices in february. i will tell you one choice we will not make - because it is one answer that will not help grow our state: raising taxes. if the evidence is clear that increasing taxes hurts our growth, it is equally clear that improving education is a key to helping our growth. we into need to make the tax burden smaller, but larger. [ applause ] >> we've made some great progress in these past four years: a record amount of school aid, long-overdue reform of our system of teacher tenure, an increase in the number of charter schools and an urban hope act that is bringing renaissance schools to some of our most challenged cities. some results are promising too. last year, new jersey's high school graduation rate increased by a full percentage point, to 87.5 percent. student achievement is strong in many of our public schools, and new jersey's students are among the country's greatest achievers. just a few years ago, a graduate of my own high school, livingston high school, won the nobel prize in chemistry. we are making a large investment in public education: new jersey spends over $25 billion a year, all told. our per pupil expenditure is the highest in the nation at over $17,000 per year. in some cases - too many - our children are not receiving the education they deserve. while many public schools are strong, too many are still failing. while the vast majority of teachers are performing well, some are underperforming - and they should be removed from the classroom. the need to be better is particularly acute in new jersey's cities. our urban schools demand our attention, and believe me, they have mine. where bold action was necessary, we have taken bold action. and we have made a commitment to the kids in our cities that they have a right to the same quality education as kids in our suburbs. in our largest school system, in newark, we have brought in a new organization and new resources, not only in the form of state aid but in collaboration with parents, teachers, and community leaders on the ground. one result - we negotiated a historic contract with the teacher's union and delivered real merit pay alongside increased teacher involvement. most importantly we want to encourage innovation while listening to the specific needs of our urban communities. it's the reason why we have empowered our superintendents in newark and camden to make choices that work best for their kids, their parents and their schools. in newark, that superintendent is cami anderson. cami has moved to pay the best teachers, to stop actions that are failing kids, to empower 50 new principals, create cooperation between public schools and charter schools and reorganize the school systems' structure to focus on putting students, schools and parents first. what are we seeing? early childhood enrollment has increased by more than 1,000 students. graduation rates have increased by 10 percent. newark is leading the conversation in making sure every kid - those who are behind, those who are ahead, those who have special education needs - are lifted up. every kid means every kid. her efforts haven't always been met without skepticism, but she is a true partner with newark. cami is here with us today - cami, thank you for your commitment to our kids. stand up so we can thank you for the commitment to the kids. [ applause ] >> how bad has it been in camden? last year, only three students graduated "college ready." paymon rouhanifard is bringing that same energy to camden's public schools. three students graduated college ready. that is obscene and unacceptable. in a breaching of the faith between those families and every level of government responsible for their education. what are we doing? paymon rouhanifard is bringing that same energy to camden's public schools. he has turned around a perennially low-performing charter school to showing some of the largest academic gains in the state. he has launched a new "safe corridors" program with mayor dana redd, which has created safe walking routes to and from school for our children. and, of the 345 students who have dropped out in the last year, we went door-to-door and re-enrolled 50 of them. paymon, thank you for your efforts and your dedication. i would like you to stand up so we can thank you for your efforts and dedication. [ applause ] >> both cami and paymon have this administration's confidence and support to continue the aggressive reforms needed that work best for the communities of newark and camden and put kids first. cami and paymon are emblems of my commitment to ensuring the opportunity for an excellent education to every child in new jersey, regardless of the zip code. despite the improvements we are seeing in newark and camden, i believe we need to take bigger and broader steps to adjust our approach to k-12 education to address the new competitive world we live in. our school calendar is antiquated both educationally and culturally. it is both educationally and culturally for the world we live in. life in 2014 demands something more for our students. it is time to lengthen both the school day and school year in new jersey. [ applause ] this isn't just my idea. wilson put this forward in 2010 and i look forward to working in a bipartisan way to get this done because if if student achievement is lagging at the exact moment when we need improvement more than ever in order to compete in the world economy, we should take these steps - every possible step - to boost student achievement. and one key step is to lengthen the school day and the school year. these children need more time in school. some to catch up. some to excel more. so, working with commissioner cerf, i will present to you shortly a proposal to increase the length of both the school day and the school year in new jersey. this is a key step to improve student outcomes and boost our competitiveness. we should do it now. many of our new initiatives recognize a core feature of modern american life: that the quality of education and the quality of life in our communities are inextricably intertwined. >> we will not stand for that under this administration. [ applause ] that is why this year, we need to be more aggressive, and bolder, in fixing our failing schools - and delivering a choice to those for whom today the only option is a bad option: a failing school. this is a moral obligation. we must give every new jersey child the chance to graduate from high school, to be ready for college and to prepare for a career. if we fail to meet this obligation, we compromise the life of that child, and we hurt the quality of life in our communities and in new jersey. so failure is not an option. if education is one key to the quality of life in new jersey communities, our approach to safe streets and stronger communities is another. every new jerseyan should be concerned when violent crimes occur right before our eyes. last month, a young lawyer went to open the door of his car for his wife after an evening of pre-christmas shopping. he was set upon by thugs who wanted to car-jack his s.u.v. and, in front of his new wife, he was shot in the head and left for dead on the deck of the mall parking garage. outstanding police work led to four arrests, and the suspects are now charged with murder. all four had prior criminal records. all four are, fortunately, now in jail. how can we tolerate such violence in our midst? the answer is obvious: we cannot. we must take a new approach to fighting crime in new jersey and prevent tragedies like this from happening. we must do everything we can to swiftly jail those violent criminals who bring additional murder and disruption to innocent victims across our state. we have the tools to do this - some we've begun, some we have not. 2014 must be the year we finish the job. what have we not finished? almost two years ago, i announced a proposed constitutional amendment to modify the right to bail in new jersey. the concept is simple: new jersey courts should have the right to keep dangerous criminals off the streets and in jail until trial. why is this important? a study by the federal government's justice department found that one-third of defendants released before trial ended up being charged with some type of pre-trial misconduct. one-sixth were arrested for a new offense - and half of those were felonies. wlal while they were out on bail. the federal government allows a violent criminal who is a danger to the community to be held without bail. new jersey law does not. this must change. how can we justify exposing our citizens to the risk of violent crime at the hands of those, already in custody, who we know are disposed to commit it? there is no justification for that. let us mirror federal law. pass bail reform now. >> in the past few years, we have made progress in reducing crime in new jersey. over the past decade, violent crime is down 16percent, both across new jersey, and in our 15 largest urban centers. and the state's prison population is down 20percent since 1999. but we can do better, and we must. those 15 urban centers still account for more than half of all the violent crime in new jersey, despite representing only 18percent of the state's population. for too long, camden has been one of the most dangerous cities in new jersey, and in america. the ability to put police on the street was constrained by tight budgets, low morale, and an absentee rate that sometimes reached 30 percent. under an agreement that this administration signed with the city of camden and camden county, we have regionalized the police force. a police force of slightly more than 200 that was sharply reduced in response to budget cuts is now being beefed up to 400 county police officers. last year, the homicide rate was down, and the crime rate was down - by over 20 percent. the battle is far from won. but under mayor dana redd, police chief scott thomson, and jose cordero, who helped decrease crime in east orange by 75 percent, camden is using a new approach - using technology to predict crime, and engaging the community. camden is moving in the right direction. and i agree with senator sweeney that we should have incentives for other communities to adopt the shared service agreements and regional police forces that are making more cops on the street possible. more cops on the streets means safer communities. to make this happen, we will reintroduce shared services and consolidation reform in this session of the legislature. [ applause ] >> we must reach out a hand of compassion and common sense to those who commit non-violent crimes. we must do a better job of reclaiming their lives and putting them back on the road to success and engagement with society. my belief is simple: every human life is precious, and no life is disposable. that is why i proposed last year to change our approach to non-violent drug offenders, and mandate treatment, not imprisonment. together, we made this possible. the drug court program has been a success, thanks in part to your support in funding both the court and the treatment. and i thank you for passage this past year of the overdose protection act. we should not be prosecuting those good samaritans and health professionals who are trying to help in a life-threatening overdose situation. new jersey's approach to reclaiming lives is working. recidivism has dropped by 11 percent, one of the steepest drops in america. and new jersey is rightly recognized by national experts as a leader among states in reducing incidents of recidivism. >> for me this is personal. in this room today is a man who was a drug addict at 16 years old. his life was at risk, but treatment saved him. he was rehabilitated at daytop village. he graduated from high school, went to college, and ultimately got a law degree. i had the privilege of hiring and working with craig hanlon at the u.s. attorney's office, and craig is with us now in this chamber. if you need proof that reclaiming a life is possible and that every life has precious value, then that proof is standing before you today. we need to give them the tools they need to help themselves and that proof is in this chamber today. a practicing lawyer who at 16 years old was in jail as a drug addict. craig, welcome - and thank you for making new jersey a better place. [ applause ] [ applause ] >> because of craig, i know the passion and strength that comes from the desire to have a better life. and i believe we can do more to help give people a second chance. that is why i am proposing an initiative to expand integrated treatment and employment services for individuals receiving drug treatment services. by providing grant funds in the amount of $500,000 to be managed in partnership with the nicholson foundation, we will place individuals in jobs and help improve their retention. we will work directly with treatment providers to integrate employment services with treatment services for drug court participants. research shows that employment during substance abuse treatment helps ensure continued participation in treatment and sustainable long-term employment. with this partnership we will help empower individuals who want and deserve the opportunity to live a life well lived. a live redeemed as well. a year ago this afternoon, our state was in recovery from a challenge not of our own making. superstorm sandy devastated new jersey in the fall of 2012 - flooding our homes, turning off our power and destroying our roads. despite the magnitude and devastation of the storm, sandy could not break out spirit. this past summer, most businesses at the shore opened on time. boardwalks were rebuilt. the crowds came back. and schools that had been damaged were re-opened. today, about nine months after the first phase of cdbg disaster recovery funds started flowing in new jersey, nearly $900 million - more than two-thirds of the funds for housing recovery programs are out the door or in the pipeline. from the very beginning, the priority was putting those with the greatest needs and with the most limited financial resources at the front of the line. of the nearly half of the housing money that has been obligated so far, 72.9 percent has been awarded to low- and middle-income families. we are proud of that. [ applause ] >> the bottom line is this: we are a long way from the finish line, but we are a long way from where we were one year ago. challenges remain and i will not rest until every person hurt by sandy has their life back. that sandy has their life back. that is my mission. i want to thank this legislature, and all new jerseyans, for the cooperative, bipartisan and resilient spirit you demonstrated in coming back from sandy. let that spirit of sandy be a powerful lesson to all of us, that when times are most difficult, cooperation and progress are possible. indeed, they are necessary. lastly, let me share with you one more, hard truth that makes this new attitude of choice necessary for new jersey's future. we have discussed many exciting opportunities for investment in our state. k-12 education. higher education. crime prevention. drug rehabilitation and job training. health care. infrastructure investment. lower taxes. job growth. all exciting, all of which, done responsibly, could make new jersey an even greater place. but here is the simple truth. we cannot afford to do it right now. why? because of our pension and debt service costs. for the fiscal year 2015 budget, the increase in pension and debt service costs could amount to as much as nearly $1 billion. that's nearly $1 billion we can't spend on education. that we can't invest in infrastructure improvement. that we can't use to put more cops on the street. that won't be available to improve access to health care. and for those who would advocate for higher income taxes like the ones i have vetoed before, remember that the amount raised would not even cover the increase in our scheduled pension payment and would undoubtedly make us less competitive in the job market nationwide. these are the consequences of failing to engage in an attitude of choice. if we continue in an era where we believe we can choose everything, we are really choosing nothing. we need to have the conversation now about further changes to our pension system and to adding further to the state's debt load. but the time to avoid this conversation and these choices is nearly over. if we do not choose to reduce our soaring pension and debt service costs, we will miss the opportunity to improve the lives of every new jersey citizen, not just a select few. i am ready to engage in those conversations and help, with you, to truly create an attitude of choice. the result will be a better, smarter, stronger new jersey. the results from our refusal to choose - a weaker new jersey with a middle class burdened by even higher taxes. we will have to change that as that is an unacceptable alternative and an abandonment of our duty. centuries ago, a philosopher wrote that "choice, not chance, determines your destiny." and this remains true for new jersey today. our destiny is not set - it is the product of the choices we make. our future is not set - it, too, is the product of the choices we make from this day forward. so let us choose wisely. and let us not fail to act. let us create an attitude of choice. let us choose to invest in better schools, and not a status quo in which we leave some children behind and put the rest at risk of being swallowed by a rising tide of mediocrity. let us choose the path of safer streets, and not leave our families vulnerable to the heartless carjackers and muggers who would destroy our quality of life. let us celebrate every life by creating an opportunity for every citizen, through an excellent education, a productive job, and a thriving community. in this hour of choice, let us choose a better new jersey. for that is what we owe our citizens, our children, and ourselves. [ applause ] >> new jersey has long been blessed by an abundance of natural resources and human talent. in 2014, we have been blessed by a return to prosperity. let us all choose to make the most of it - together. we have succeeded working together to be an example for the entire country, spirited by partisanship and let's not abandon that course. it is the course to success and happiness for all of the people of the state of new jersey. thank you, god bless you, and god bless the great state of new jersey. [ applause ] [ applause ] [ applause ] >> on the next washington journal, a member of the budget committee will discuss the $1 trillion budget and the nsa talks. as part of the ongoing spotlight on magazine series, we will talk about articles on compromises. washington journal is live at 7 a.m. eastern every day. by 1895, nine different railroads terminated in chattanooga and that created an economic base. every railroad had a switching shop. it was terminal in the southeast and all of the money turning over by the workers just provided an economic stimilous to the growing city of chattanooga. even today, railroads move a lot through chattanooga. train after train loaded with grain going to the seaports on the atlantic coast or going to georgia. there is a lot of commodities that move by rail and due to the terrain they have to come through chattanooga. >> this weekend on booktv and american history television, a look at the history of chattanooga tennessee. house committee today looked at copyright law and how it affects on-line sharing for artist. we will discuss how the property works in this day and age. this is two hours and 40 minutes. >> what is within the scope of copyright position. our witnesses will present views on three important issues. the making available right -- should broadcast be protected with additional laws, b. and c, how the laws should be protected under the copyright law. i and others have work today protect local broadcasters whenever possible and advocatadd theyd -- advocated they be hit with common sense -- they are complicated by involved technology and hopefully today we will talk about the important laws. we have heard testimony over the past decade about the harm's caused by file sharing. it is disturbing to hear that judges were uncertain on how to respond. one of the witnessess updated the copyright and made it clear that making it available for others is infringement. i encourage all members to carefully consider to testimony today. i thank the witnesses for hearing to hearing today and look forward to your remarks. i am be introducing the gentlemen from michigan. for the first time in year that is not a north carolina member on this side of the aisle. i hope we survive. thank you, though. >> good morning to the chairman and the members of the committee. the very small number of witnesses we have before us as well for an important subject. the hearing today provides an important opportunity for us to consider various provisions of copyright law and to examine whether the laws continue to adequately protect creators and promote innovation in light of developing technologies that were not thought about when the provisions were originally enacted. and to that end, there are several factors we should keep in mind. for example, the making available right, which gives copyright owners thexclusive right to authorize the manner in terms to make their content available to the public. i favor strong copyright protection because it benefits creators and promotes economic growth. strong copyright protection laws help create a market place for content that viewers enjoy and the latest technology that can be used to watch the content. the making available right is especially important today when one copy of the work on the internet without authorization would provide access to millions of users around the world. it helps prevent infringing conduct. we don't need to change the copyright law for the making available law. existing law already includes a making available right. i don't believe there is any ambiguity in the law. some federal courts have recognized this law. the united states is party to various international agreements that require significant nutories to impelement the right. congress has radified these agreements and so the united states law includes this right and no change is necessary. in any case, as we study the issue, we should consider guidance from the copyright office. and our former colleague and ranking member of this committee, mel watt, sent a letter to the agency and asked to study the making it available right and make recommendations. we need to know how american consumers fair under current law in the context of digital, on-demand transitions such as peer-to-peer networks, downloads and streaming. and we need to know how the competitive market can be saved for product robust culture. this report should provide us with valuable guideiance. ... creators are protected strong protection or creators will consumers continue to enjoy the works that define our culture and enrich our lives. i thank the chair for his leadership on these issues and look forward to further collaboration on this. i thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. i now recognize the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. good lot, for an opening statement. i want to welcome all of our -- witnesses and this capacity crowd in the audience to a hearing on a topic that goes to the heart of copyright law, what is the scope of copyright protection. the committee will hear stm on three related issues. the first issue concerning a making available right seem to be settled by the u.s. exsession to two separate treaties in 1988. however, to this fundamental issue of copyright law. the second issue concern the scope for broadcast. altogether the u.s. is not a party to the roam convention. ongoing discussions could result in additional other copyright in an effort to deter signal theft. broadcasting has changed significantly since the rome convention was signed in 1961. smartphones with an all-ways on internet connection now make everyone in this room a broadcaster in ways that were unimaginable 50 years ago. i look forward to hearing from professor schultz and mr. love thon topic. finally, we will hear about an issue that has received less public attention than the other two. but is one that does go to the heart of interact with their government. it was also the subject of the very first copyright case heard by the supreme court in 1834. copyright protection for laws, codes, and standards appears to clash with the fundamental ability of our saints to know what laws and regulations they must live by. it is fortune that the number of states seeking to claim copyright protection on their laws and regulations despite long standing copyright office and administration views of the contrary, has sharply declined. however, the issue of copyright preace for codes and standards incorporated within them is more nuanced. recognizing they are developed at some expense by private sector entities. i look forward to hearing from a representative of the american national tanders standard substitute and individual who made greater access to government information including the video of congressional hearings like this is long standing mission. before i conclude my opening remarking, let me turn to a few other issues not being heard today. i'm sure there is no one in this hearing room who isn't aware that the supreme court announced on it friday it will hear oral arguments later this spring in the aro case regarding another issue related to the scope of copyright. the court also announced friday that will hear oral arguments in two cases with implications for the patent troll issue. something this committee and the house has already addressed. it is hard for me not to notice that once again this committee continues to lead the way on critical policy issues. i want to thank the witnesses, again, for their time here today and their flexibility in their schedules to enable them to be here. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, chairman goodlatte. >> please stand. do you swear the testimony you're about to give the truth is whole truth, and nothing but the truth. so help me god. thank you. let the record show that all answered in the affirmative. >> mr. chairman if. >> yes. in order have in in the record at the time of the hearing, could i ask unanimous consent to put documents in the record at this time so they can be copied for the members? >> without objection. you want to hear them all or take all of them? >> taxing all of them. not without objection. >> thank you. thank you, witnesses. i'll introduce the witnesses and the chairman goodlatte mentioned the standing room. you have more than a casual interest in the significant issue. and we're pleased to have all of us with you today. for the law firm. in addition to the numerous books and articles on united states and international copyright law he updated and revived his 19 through 92 on copyright. he received his ged from the yale law school and distinction of law. professor at delay university school of law where he teaches courses intellectual property, unfair competition and contracts. he earned his jd from stanford law school and texas a&m university. he earned his ma and ph.d. in economics while teaching at the law school. the third witness today is professor of law in southern illinois university of law and cu scholar for the protection of the intellectual property at george maison university law school. professor receive his jd with honors and ba in internationally economic at george washington university. -- [inaudible] without any connection of the university know -- it's an egyptian racing dog. >> school of government and master woodrow wilson public of international affairs. our fifth witness is vice president chancellor of the -- he joined in 2004 and for twenty years a private practice and earned her jd from the albany law school and ba from skid more college. our sixth and final witness president of public -- strike that . he's known in the -- publication of public public domain information for local state and federal government agencies. he received hiss mba degree from indiana university school of business. we welcome you all. our first witness will be mr. -- it's good to have all of you with us. lady, and gentleman, if you could keep your statements to on or about five minutes. there's a panel with your green light turn to amber the clock begins ticking. you have five minutes which will appear when the red light turns on. we try to apply the five minute rule to ourselves as well. during questioning you can be as courteous as possible, that would be appreciative. if you will kick the ball off. good to have all of you with us. thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you to all the member of the committee for the invitation to testify this morning. we gather to consider the scope of the right that belong to owners. one of those rights is public griewk. specifically does the act of placing a digital file containing a copyright work in to a file sharing folder on the internet violate the law? or must the copyright owner additionally prove that a third party downloaded that particular file before the uploader can be held responsible? in short does copyright laws, distribution right include a making available component. let us imagine that user up loads a full copy of the motion picture "avatar" to a shared folder operated bay peer-to-peer service. anyone else on the p2p network can watch can with no charge. the better course is to reaffirm the existence of a make available right so the unauthorized upload itself is considered infringing. the alternative is to force the copyright owners to prove that third parties subsequently downloaded that particular copy of avatar. that alternative unnecessarily clogs judicial procedures and threatens user privacy. as the eloquent introduction at the opening state, it was the intent of congress in 1976 to include a making available right, and the u.s. has joined two treaties that require in this country to recognize that right. unfortunately, nonetheless, there have been divided rulings on the sphrujt the district court. there's one recent ruling from the tenth circuit recognizing that making available right. there is still as that court recognizes a discensus in the court. for that reason, i urge congress to reaffirm the making available right aspect of the copyright owner's distribution right. a intreef history helps to frame the issue. we're run together mid 20th century. the coil right act gave owners the exclusive right to publish or amend the copyrighting work. someone who made work assessable to the public was infringer with no further proof needed. it it we imagine a bookstore in 1950 featuring numerous copy of a best seller stacked on a table near the front door, the case against the store owner was complete. in other words, copyright law at that time imposed no obligation to place under cover agents near the cash register to develop evidence that third party customers actually walked out the door with copy of the book in hand. translated to today's vernacular, copyright owners that the point enjoyed the exclusive right to make available the protected work. of course, they could have hired investigators to stand in the corner and record every transaction, but that exercise was always considered unnecessary. it should be considered unequally unnecessary today. rather than the private eye unobtrusively watch the cash register proof of downloading today is far more invasive. to identify, for example, all subscribers behind the internet protocol addresses who download it on a given day. such subpoenas are multiplied 10,000 fold. for that reason we have seen case after case confronting procedural challenges to these type of subpoena. the entire exercise can and should be avoided. as opposed to extensive motion practice over s&p or digital dragnet designed to ensure the identity there's a more straightforward option. continue copyright law on trait additional path by holding liable those who make works available to the public without the copyright owner's permission . i quality it should not result in a multimillion dollar judgment and massive trial procedure. for that reason i recommended congress making available right. the first is is recalibration of statutory damages to a sensible level that deters them from the infringing activities. but not through the possibility of billion dollar reregard as of present. the second a establishment of a form of small claims court. to consider routine p to p cases and award those appropriately reduced damages after liability has been established in a fear and expedited proceedings. these reform will not solve all the problems faced bit copyright world but set the law on a reasonable course designed to protect the interest of copyright owners and safe guard user privacy interest on the internet. thank you very much. >> thank you. i will acknowledge you because the texas football team was not -- bowl host in the recent duke university football. good to have you with us, sir. >> thank you, committee chair. i'm sorry they were not polite to your team. it was a good game. if you didn't stay until the end you missed something pretty exciting, didn't you? i probably have the hardest task. the first point i would like to make is file sharing is not what it's made out to made out to be. not discouraged of american culture and business. the second point, even if it were, the making available right is not going to solve the problem. the third point, if we add the making available right using a linguistic framework we see, we're going to reopen a lot of what seemed to be fairly settled issues on the internet. with respect to linking, cloud competing, social networking. these things that have been resolved framework. if you add a it's making available to the public will have to re-litigate them all over again. i think that's a problem. i don't have much chance to persuade you that file sharing is not a bad thing. there's a difference between copying and stealing. stealing is basically wrong. we should prothink about as a general rule. copying, on the other hand is generally a good thing. it's not the best thing we speak the same language because we are born with the ability to hear or see what other speaks or does and imitate that. copying is a fundamental attribute. what makes our sievization possible. when i look at file sharing, i don't see a scorch of culture. i see an invention that put music in the hands of more american than any invention since the phonograph. without them paying for it. this is the real problem. it's a problem for the economy. jobs are lost, it's the problem for creation of music. people are not getting paid why remain in the business? when we think about those problems, for me at least, the jobs argument is reflecting on very old fallacy that economists have identified since 1850. the money is not lost and doesn't go out of the economy. the fact consumers don't have to pay for music it remains in the pocket and they can invest it and spend elsewhere. the jobs are created elsewhere. there are still american jobs. there's no loss on the jobs front. with respect to the creation of music, this is goes to the heart of copyright. it's fundamental premise for 300 years it equals more revenue equals more work. we have few opportunities to test that premise, but file sharing give us one of the few. revenue to the music industry in particular have fallen dramatically. whether it's due file sharing or other factors it's difficult to say. i'm willing to accept some part is due to file sharing. my concern what happened to music output. we turn to measure ever music output by most of the measure we can use. music output seems to be remarkably healthy. if the goal is to produce more and better work, the progress of science file sharing doesn't seem to be interfering at all. maybe you don't accept my perspective on that particular issue. not going to enable us us to solve the problem. it's not the silver bullet. the point sheer basically this. it's simple whether you have to proof a making available or distribution, the way do you it is download the work in the file sharing program. you may have to download it to show a distribution was made. in the making available context you have to download the work that the shrink to the work it says it is. thicks on the internet are not always what they think they are. it may surprise members of the committee. so you to download it to make sure it's the work. there's no real difference here. from 2003 to 2008 the music industry sent demand letters to 35,000 americans for engaging in file sharing. and none of those cases are instances as far as i know were dismissed because they exowld not show a download. they gave up because while they went after 35,000 estimates suggest there might be 35 million engaged. there was never realistic to go after all of them. second, these are your clients, your customers, suing them is probably not good for business. and third, it wasn't working. so i don't think making available right will change any of that file sharing context. it's a business decision for the miewfn industry. still not going make sense to go after the individual filt sharers. the final point it reopens a lot of what seem to be settled issues. i think it that would be unfortunate really chill business innovation and investment in new technologies. thank you. >> thank you. >> chairman goodlatte, ranking member congressiers. i appreciate the chance to speak with you. today's subject, the scope of copyright is the right place to start a detailed review of the copyright act. however, the subject matter of copyright should be one of the least controversial part of copyright. because it goeses to the heart of its justification. today i'll be speaking on my own behalf of a copyright lawyer. i'll speak first about the scope and subject matter of copyright general then i will specifically address how these principles apply to protection for broadcast. it is traditionally had a broad scope. for a good reason. it protects the productive intelligent yule labor of authors. provided that those labors resolve in an original expressive work. it exists to provide those who create investment in commercialized content the chance to enjoy the benefit of what they create through exclusive rights. when they can benefit from the labors, the public also benefits. many speak of striking a balance between the right of copyright owners and the interest of the public, in truth, those interests are rarely out of balance. at least with respect to core copyright principles such as the scope and subject matter of copyright. james madison recognized a fake fact in the federalist paper when he said of intellectual property that the public good fully coincides with the claim of individuals. the public will get the works to educate, entertain, and inspire and inform them. only if their creators can obtain just compensation. in the end, creators, businesses, and the public are all best served when the laws recognize the essential core value that those who invest labor and risk capital to create and distribute original content to serve protection of the property right comp brings me to the topic of legal protection for broadcast. in the copyrights telecommunications law congress created a legal frame work that ensures creators of television programs and local broadcasters have the opportunity to be compensated for the labor investings and innovation. it has two purposes. the first is to prevent third party from intermining the labor, investment, and incentive by free riding on the labor and investment. the second purpose, is to encourage high quality locally focused broadcast television. the laws have been a success. we have a i did namic and vibrant broadcast industry in which the right of individuals and the public good are both promoted here are a few examples. there are nearly 1400 full power commercial broadcast television stations in the united. 78% of -- get including porn emergency news. nearly 60 million people depend exclusively on other the air signals including 30% of house hold with annual incomes under $30 ,000. broadcasters air over out of the top 100 most-watched programs. perhaps more than anything, the quality of modern program showing that the public is well served by the current system. unfortunately, many under estimate the substantial investment required to make it happen. the air waives may be viewed as a public resource, but privately created broadcast system and the programs transmitted over them are not. local broadcasters maintain extensive and invest in new technology including billions in the recent shift to high-definition broadcasting. they pay network afghanistan fees and syndication fees. in an era of shrinking news budget, the average local news operating budget is a welcome exception of over $4 million a year on average. in conclusion, there's no such as a free lunch. they need protection of the property right that make the tremendous enterprise possible. in this context, it's clear that the public good as madison said about the intellectual property law generally fully coincide with the claims of individuals. thank you. thank you. mr. love. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for the opportunity to testify. i've been asked to talk about the right of broadcast organizations. including proposals for a new u.n. treaty that establish a set of neighboring or related rights for energy that distribute information. they did not create and do not own. the u.n. agency responsible for development of intellectual property right policy is known as world intellectual property organization. located in geneva it has a standing committee on copyright committees. known as the sccr. since 1998, the sccr has been trying to obtain consensus on a new global treaty dealing with broadcast organizations. several member states have called for diplomatic conference on this treaty in 2015. there are major difference ace among countries regarding every important aspect of the treaty as evident from the current working document. the new proposal in december of 2013. the treaty would create a new layer that coexist with copyright. benefiting the organization that broadcast information. the broadcasters several member states of wipo such as japan and the member state of the european union are pressing for ab agreement that would expand considerable belie the set of related right that exist in a 1961 treaty. the rome convention that the united is not signed. the 1961 cob venges create -- that authors have under the convention. and in 1961 a decision was made to give broadcast organizations a layer of rights as a reward for the role for an intermediary. essentially on a par with actors, singers, musicians, and other performers. many consider the 1961 rome convention a mistake. and the broadcaster right is the weak e and least offensive type of intellectual property right because it is provided by that play no role in the creation of the content itself. the united states did not sign the rome convention but does provide some broadcasting energy with retransmission right through the communication regulation system including through 47325. such as at any time, hallmark channel, espn, discovery channel, or the subscriber based radio channel provided x m sirius. and also given in right in content they distribute but not did not create. a growing number of countries want to extent the 1961 rome system approach more broadly than the internet and expand the economic rights to the more broadly defined group of broadcasting energies. and provide for 50 years of exclusive rights on fixizations of broadcasts. at wipo u.s. pto is enterprised in comprise. any median, end quote. it includes the internet but in the u.s. proposal no post fixation rights. so far no country has voiced support for the u.s. proposal. more aggressive alternative from japan that would provide new economic rights to broadcast the for distributing energy that did not create or own. this is a akin to giving amazon or barnes & noble a layer of copyright in every book they sell. or making google a part owner in every web page they locate on the internet. free over the air broadcasters do face some unique challenges regarding retransmission of the signalings. for all broadcasting organizations, there is no economic justification for giving a distributer any right of the underlying con tint. it does not make sense and it creates a number of great risk for create works in public to create rights people that distribute information that lay on top of the underlying interest that you have in copyright. thank you very much. >> thank you. ms. griffin. >> thank you. good morning. as noted my name is ms. griffin. most people don't know how much we depend upon standards to ensure our everyday life work. they ensure it fits in the socket you can use any atm machine in the world and that products are safe. in the united states the standard station system is lead by the private sector with hundred of individuals standards developing organizations or fdo. working in different technical areas in industry sector. it's an consensus base and market driive process open to participation by all effective stakeholders. importantingly, the u.s. government is one such stakeholder. and federal state and local government are active partners in the development of standards and code when the activity is real assistant to their need. the government uses the standards in a variety of ways including to establish internal procedures and develop regulation for public safety and welfare. our national standardsization public/private partnership are reflected in the traps for and advancement act of 1995 and the associated circular a119. it districts agencies to considerate use of private sector develop standards in lieu of government unique standards. in to the federal register without publication of the standards ilt. for standard to be incorrespondented by reference for ibr, the education must dining room that the standard is reasonably available to the class of persons effected by the anticipated regulation. in this case, reasonably available has always meant that the standards is assessable to any potential user. recently concerned were raced whether it should be changed in light of exebation of free online access. for example, in early 2012, nar ark the national archive and record administration solicited comment on a petition arguing the material in the c finishing r should be for free. but just three months ago, after a comprehensive analysis it concluded that reasonably available continues to mean just that. and it does not mean for free. they relied in large part on another comprehensive analysis of the issue conducted by administrate of conference of the united states in december of 2011. the question they were trying to answer was simple. why shouldn't the stranders be free? it seems like a vailed point. the blanket statement that they should be free misses some very important considerations. first, every standard is a work of authorship and under u.s. and international law, it's copyright protected giving the owner certain right of control that cannot be taken away without just compensation. second if they can't charge for standards and code it disrupts the standard development ecosystem. the funding has to come from somewhere. an increase in participation fees to offset lost sales revenue that disfranchise consumers and small businesses. those with the money would have all the influence. lastly, if they can't afford stay in business, safety standards would not be updated and standards for new technologies would go unwritten. take over a market driven system and somehow find the money, time, and expertise. so what is the answer in the public and private sector should don't make standard and codes available on a reasonable basis. for some, this may mean providing read only but free access. but others it may mean reasonable prices. recognizing there is not one solution to the access issue they found it is for the federal agencies to continue to work with them to provide reasonable access to ibr standards. the recent assessment reaffirms the decades old guidance contained omb when they should not lose the copyright than government agencies must observe and protect the rights of the copyright holder. and that's just what is being done. many fdo make standards available for free or at the discounted consumers policy, makers, and small businesses. and some make certain standards and codes available online on a read-only basis. for its part, they launched online ibr portal for the user community. earliest and most successful example of the public/private partnership which intefts -- benefited our nation. competitiveness, public safety, innovation globally and more. thank you so much for the opportunity to testify before you today. i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. i'm the founder of public resource.org. a non-profit that puts government data bases that everybody agrees are public on the interpret and works closely with government to help them improve their own operations. i'm responsible for placing the fcc edgar and u.s. pat tent data basens on the internet for the first time. public resource has put all the historical opinions of the u.s. court of appeals on the internet for the first time. we worked with speaker boehner, and chairman issa to put a full archive of video from the house oversight committee and 14,000 hours of additional hearings online. i would like to highlight three key points. first, there is a fundamental principle of our democracy, the rule of law that states if we are to be an empire of laws and not of men we must publish it for all the know. because ignorance of the law is no excuse and informed citizens i are must educate i.t. on the right and obligations. that the law has no copyright because it is owned bit people is a principle that has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the court. despite that principle, my non-profit has received stern take down notices for publishing the official codes of georgia, idaho, and mississippi. at the federal level, the code of federal regulations deliberately and explicitly incorporates by reference public safety codes that become binding law. s a joe, the president of the american national standards institute clearly states, a standard that has been incorporated by reference has the force of law and it should be available. my non-profit has assembled a collection of 1,000 of those public safety laws and we have made them available to the public for the first time on the internet. for that service, three standards body are suing us for, and i quote, massive copyright infringement. they are suing us for publishing the law without a license. my second point, is about money. some standards bodies insist that before one can read or speak the law one must first obtain their permission. they say everybody needs a license because they need the money. but the goal of their process is precisely that their safety codes become the law. they lobby aggressively for that outcome and they boast loudly when their codes are adopted. when a safety code becomes law, the publisher gets the gold seal of approval of the american people. they exploit that position by selling all sorts of services such as moip, training, and certification. the business has become incredibly lucrative and the non-profit standards bodies pay their ceos million dollar salaries. my third point is that the right to read the law and speak the law is necessary for innovation. innovation that leads to better tools for those that use the law every day. including government workers, electricians and plumbers, students and apprentices, volunteer firefighters, journalists, and citizens. mr. chairman, i have here for the committee's inspection 206 public safety standards that are part of federal law. including the safety requirement for wood and metal ladders. the safety requirement for protective food wear, the national fuel and glass code. you were to read the laws in to your hearing record, would the congress face strident objections for speaking lawsuit without a license? like my non-profit faces. that is why 115 distinguished law professors have joined my in calling on this committee to consider an e dicks of government copyright act. to clarify once and for all that the law belongs to the people. u thank you very much. thank you. we will try to respond accordingly. would you address to broadcaster concerns aboutal theft? a, they be to the copyright law or the communications law? >> thank you. that's an excellent question. the law as it currently standards serves well. as i testified it serves both the public interest and serves broadcasters women. there are current developments that could change that. notably the case. of regulatory proceedings and a number of other court cases inspect thing stand the law works remarkably well, and indeed even conceivably joining a new broadcast treaty would not require us to change the law. and thus the current statutory scheme works well. i'm not aware of -- i don't speak on behalf of the broadcasters. i'm aware of them seeking new rights. thank you. let me ask you another question. your work on copyright issues, what other issues of concern do you believe of interest to copyright owners? thank you. i think indeed the subject of the hearing is an important one including the making available right. it's important that creators are able to secure the return on their investment, and the labor, and that is currently the challenge quite obvious challenge in front of all of us. so i think in the long run that will need to be addressed. thank you, sir. >> professor, do you believe that explicit making available right was significantly broaden the scope of copyright protection beyond what it is today? >> a a making available right would not change the law in the file sharing context by any measurable degree in the litigating cases. it would open up potential issues in the public performance and public display areas linking retransmission and issues of that sort for cloud computing and social networking sites. it would reopen some of the issues. >> does your lack of concern for the impact of file sharing reflect a view that congress should reduce copyright protection in other areas? >> i think one of the things that slipped in by accident we shift overred the last twenty years or expanded copyright to get the individual consumer involved in copyright infringers. i think that's a bad development. it was directed solely at other commercial entity. i think it works best when it works in that fashion been you get the individual consumers in the mix you get the privacy concerns and other concerns. and thing has created real problems for copyright law. do you believe that other nations are close to a conclusion that drafting broadcast treaty? >> could you repeat that? >> do you believe that other nations are close a conclusion at wipo in drafting a broadcast treaty? in 2007 we thought the treaty of stopped and there wasn't going to be furlt progress on it. after the treaty was adopted by wipo in june of 2013, it opened up a lot of space in the negotiations. it was, i think, quite surprising in september of last year, country after country took the microphone at the general assembly of wipo to calm for a diplomatic conference in 12015. i think the secretary is rook for a hat trick. i think they are focused on that. we would prefer there is no broadcast treaty. we are opposed to the proposal. i think people are wrong if they don't think it's moving forward. there's a large number of countries. once you go to it it's difficult to predict what the outcome will be. thank you, sir. let me try to beat that red light. how does one respond to the statement of some that citizen deserve full access to the laws and rules that by which they are required. >> thank you for the question. i think the answer to that depend upon an analysis of many i dimensions. the first dimension is the recognition that standards and codes are original work of authorship and entitled to copyright protection. and even at times when they are incorporated by reference in to legislation both the second and the ninth circuit have held that those standards and codes to not necessarily lose their copyright protection by virtue of that. another dimension of the issue is omba119 and the ntta. they encourage and demand the federal agencies incorporate standards to federal regulations when they are able to do so. a final dimension of the issue is the one that he raises. that is the one that says that the citizenship should have the right to see what the law is. the way those three dimensions have been bridged over the course of the years is through a tool that is contained in the freedom of information act nap tool is called incorporation by reference. that provides that federal agencies can incorporate in to federal regulations extrinsic standards as long as they are reasonably available to the class of persons that are affected by it. that tool has permitted federal agencies to comply with their obligations under omba119 while at the same time respect the copyrights of the standards that are so incorporated. recently that has been challenged by him and others. and they have done there and questioned whether the reasonably available standards ought not be changed to make the standards for free. and it has concluded as that the current process continues to be the best one. the one that is best designed to ensure that high quality standards are developed and incorporated by reference in to federal regulations. >> thank you. >> thank you all. i see the red light is illuminating. i recognize the gentleman from michigan for his questioning. >> thank you very much. >> we appreciate you being with us today. i would like to discuss with you what you see as the key issues facing copyright industries and the public today. what it comes to the current copyright system. thank you, representative conyers. it's obviously a broad question. i'll have to give a broad answer. i think the answer is we have govern bade statute written essentially in 1965 passed in 1976 and now here in existence 50 years later with technologies not remotely contemplated then. we see each of the rights of the copyright owner coming under strain. today we've been talking about the distribution right and making available component. you have already mentioned that the united states supreme court granted certiorari. that's a case about the performance right, and we see because of the internet, a convergence of all of those rights. so characteristically in 1965 there was a great difference between reproducing the book and -- and a performance which would be a play. today when the bits flow over the internet, sometimes it's conceptualized as an act of reproduction. sometimes it's an act of dispriewx and argued in cases that it is equally a performance. so a forward thing approach would be to look at exploitation not within the prism of those five categories that are half a century hold. but instead try to formulate the ideal rule of the road going forward. i think it's the right question to ask and i would be pleased to work with the committee on a going forward basis. we appreciate that. do you think the courts have strugged to apply making available right in the united states even though congress and government experts agree that the existing law should cover the right? >> yes, i think the court have struggled with the issue. i think one of the main reasons is that some of the individuals targeted uploaded thousand of copyrighted works. unfortunately, the result under our law is that somebody who is uploaded thousand of works might be liable for hundreds of millions possibly even billion dollars worth of damage. that's why i think at the same time the congress confronts the making available component to the distribution right congress should also rationalize aware of statutory damages. right now the scheme was set 1999 i wrote up that case to say it's not enough that the works have been made available to the public in some sense by virtue of being broadcast to violate the distribution right there has to be actual distribution. namely a physical copy passing hands. i wrote that in 1995 three years before nap steer was formulated. so i did not have peer-to-peer services in mind. and unfortunately that sentence was taken out of context later. thank you very much. i'll yield back the balance of my time. he ray concern that adding a making available right would change long standing jurisprudence. i take it you don't agree with that perception. would you elaborate on your view? does that view imply that congress should never update the law for any reason? >> i thank you. making available issue. my testimony today, if we keep our narrow focus congress should clarify that a distribution right is violated when works are made available. it is complete. it's not necessarily to show a subsequent individual downloaded that work. i believe; therefore, a properly tailored amendment does not call in to question just in cases that were rendered under the performance right or the displaywright. >> since the hearing has covered three separate topics. are there any that like to comment on any of the other developpics that you didn't get to testify in your opening statement. can be copyright and federal. i think the u.s. laws that work of -- federal regulations are note subject to copyright. i think it would be good extend that role to laws at the state level and everything from court opinions to regulations to statutes. and i also mentioned that the it's good you focused on the issue. thank you. i briefly speak. ic many of the principles i discussed apply equality to standards. some have thousand of parts and thousand of sub parts in those parts. in the case of things like technical standards. so standards should not be all be treated the same. there should be due regard to the vawm created in standards. >> thank you. >> as the committee continues the work reviewing the copyright law. are there topic in copyright law you would recommend the committee review in are going to be revisited particularly in the individual consumer context. it's a problem to treat them as we are now. and hundreds of thousand of dollars in damages. it's longer work are if creators. i noticed a piece that google received the 1900 millionth take down notice. it means hundreds of millions of notices have to be sent. cull chul works which are essentially iran assessable to people. are variety of proposals is have been made to deal with the works. certainly for the post trip requirement for 20 years on photograph and a years on copyright. you can introduce formality for that. the convention and forma'amty. i think a deep and technical look where you can introduce them. some people in the recording industry have expressed some openness to the idea it was maybe would be a good idea to sort of give more protection to people -- i'm sorry -- the final thing that the treaty for the blind provides an opportunity for the united states ting needs to be fixed. >> my time is expired. i know, he wanted to jump in as well. >> objection. thank you, mr. chairman. the written statement i submitted put two other matter in the to the hopper. one is the united states supreme court last year ruled that grain market goods can be freely purchased abroad and imported to the country. justice briars think we think it congress intended it. if not they can tell us. it's something alive now. there's an a parallel issue in the domestic front which is cloud computing. it introduces new rule of the road. it essentially eliminates the safe guards of the for sale doctrine. congress needs to look at what rules and wishes to have for the road for uncharted territory of the cloud. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> time is expired. ms. chu from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as the co-chair of the creative right caucus along with chairman, i believe that making available right is ingrained in the current statute as an essential part of the copyright framework. congress repeatedly concluded that no change to the copyright

Related Keywords

Japan , Camden County , New Jersey , United States , North Carolina , Texas , Iran , Afghanistan , California , Virginia , Georgia , Michigan , Washington , District Of Columbia , Duke University , Mississippi , University School , Tennessee , Egypt , Rome , Lazio , Italy , Geneva , Genè , Switzerland , Newark , Americans , America , New Jerseyans , American , Egyptian , Scott Thomson , Dana Redd , James Madison , Jose Cordero , Woodrow Wilson ,