US House: A Case Study for Consensus Building: The Copyright Principles Project - 5/16/2013

The United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet hearing on Thursday 5/16/2013 at 2:00 p.m

Subject: A Case Study for Consensus Building: The Copyright Principles Project

The hearing examined the work of the Copyright Principles Project (CPP) who, after a lengthy consultation process, in 2010 issued a report THE COPYRIGHT PRINCIPLES PROJECT: DIRECTIONS FOR REFORM. http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/bclt_CPP.pdf

WITNESSES

Mr. Jon Baumgarten
Former General Counsel Copyright Office (1976 -- 1979)

Professor Laura Gasaway
University of North Carolina School of Law

Professor Daniel J. Gervais
Vanderbilt University School of Law

Professor Pamela Samuelson
University of California Berkeley School of Law

Mr. Jule Sigall
Assistant General Counsel for Copyright Microsoft Corporation

More info: http://isoc-ny.org/p2/5537

[Music]

[HON. HOWARD COBLE] The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet

will come to order without objection. The Chair is authorized to declare to declare ? recesses

of the Subcommittee at any time. We welcome all of our witnesses

today, and at the outset I want to again reiterate our

apologies for the delay. The votes take precedence sometimes

and I;m sorry - appreciate your patience.

I'll give my opening statement then call on Mr. Watt afterwards.

This afternoon's hearing is an initial step for the Subcommittee's effort

to undertake a comprehensive review of our copyright laws.

Last month when Registrar Pallante

testified before this Subcommittee, she illustrated

the mutual interests of the authors and the public.

As she accurately and eloquently explained,

quote - As the first beneficiaries of the copuright law

they are not a counterweight to the public but instead

are at the very center of the equation.

As such the copyright law must start with

the creator at the center of the equation.

As Ms. Pallante concluded: A law that does not provide

for authors would be illogical. Hardly a copyright law

at all. Central to any review is identifying

what has worked and is working within the law.

Our copyright law is well rooted with 200 years of precedent that has

produced a level of creativity and innovation

that is the envy of the worls. Our consumers enjoy an incredible

selection of high quality content that is available

on an array of technology platforms.

Meanwhile we continue to lead the world with new ideas

and creations. These achievements are stunning and

should not in my opinion be overlooked. That being said

I commend Chairman Goodlatte and Registrar Pallante

for recognizing the need for a comprehensive review.

Piracy is an enormous piracy (?) or threat

- the terms are synonymous in my opinion -

is an enormous problem that must be addressed.

Licensing (?) is a periodic battle that oftentimes leaves consumers

with the short end of the stick.

We should take the time to consider whether there are other options.

Our high-tech innovators, who are also helping to drive creativity,

are frustrated by all of the above.

Our policy should incentivise innovation not frustrate it.

These are some of the many issues I hope we will have the opportunity to review,

to deternine whether the law is meeting its constitutionally ordained

purpose. I'm interested in hearing how this witness

panel of diverse perspectives on copyright law

was able to put aside their differences in an effort to work together.

Such efforts and others like them should be applauded.

This committee has often heard from witnesses who were better at talking

at each other rather than wuith each other.

Of course that does not mean that anyone should retreat from his or her views

on any subject. It should come as no surprise

that the ranking member Mr. Watt and I do not agree on every issue

that the full Judiciary Committee considers, but we try to serve the prople

of our great state, and by the way I'm glad to see that one of our witnesses

this afternoon is from the University of North Carolina. Efforts to make (?)

the copyright world to recognize where consensus can and

cannot be reached are helpful

as we undertake a comprehensive review. I have no doubt

That Chairman Goodlatte and I and other members of the Subcommittee

will hear from intrested - interesting creators over the months ahead

on how copyright is and is not working

for them. The Registrar has already highlighted some problems with copyright

law, especially for the ability of copyright owners

to protect their works. The report generated by the Copyright

Principles Project, and the testimony submitted today,

have also highlighted problems that need to be addressed.

It seems to me that those who believe everything should be free

fundamentally disrespect the creators, who have put so much effort

into their works, and improve our nation's

culture as a result. And again

I thank the witnesses for your presence today, your willingness

to spend so much tiem working in a collegial manner with those whose views

they may not always embrace or agree with.

Their willingness to listen to others in such a manner is

one that I urge everyone to follow. I now recognize

the distinguished member from North Carolina, the ranking member Mr. Mel Watt.

[Hon. Melvin L. Watt] Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you for convening the hearing,

For those of you who showed up today expecting

my grandson Nico,

I have to extend my regrets.

After yesterday's performance went viral

only a number of outlets

including Good Morning America this morning and others

he said he was giving me no more exposure without royalties.

(Laughter)

So, he's not here with me today,

although he;s still here in Washingtom for those of you who want to sign him up

Anyway, um, let me be serious.

Earlier this week I attended

the 'We Write the Songs' event at the Library of Congress.

The auditorium was packed with an audience transfixed

on the skillfully crafted lyrics and the

the astonshing performances

including the electrifying performance that earned the electrifying performance that earned the

standing ovation from the audience for a group out of my home

state of North Carolina, the Carolina Chocolate Drops.

Bearing in mind the Chairman's call for a comprehensive review

of copyright law in the digital era,

I left the event with an even more passionate view that our copyright

system must preserve and protect the rights of the creators

of the music, books,games, movies, and other forms

of intellectual ingenuity that enrich each of us

individually, and all of us collectively as a nation.

I start with this observation because it seems

that over the past few years there has been a shift

in public discourse about copyright, away

from the people who actually devote their talent to

create works for the benefit of society, and those

who invest in them, toward the users of

those works and the financial interests of those companies eager

to commercially exploit them.

That shift has often been accompanied by assertions of

lofty principles and constitutional values.

But as I have said in the specific

context of online theft, free speech

does not mean free stuff, and

the free flow of information, even through legitimate channels

doesn't mean that information - the substance of

what is flowing - should be free. It simply

cannot be the case that digital age turns creators

into content servants for the rest of us.

That said, I am neither hard line nor

hard-headed about the realities of today's marketplace.

or the complexity of the task before us.

The digital enevironment is replete with both

challenges and opportunities, but currently

uncertainty abounds for all stakeholders.

Companies that invest in, and develop individual talent

must be secure in their expectation that strong

copyright exists and mechanisms to enforce

those rights effectively is in place.

Consumers deserve cl;arity about legitimate uses.

And Internet and tech companies should have

clear rules to help them to develop sustainable

business models that fairly compensate authors.

Companies that invest in creative talent

may have to adjust their business models

to accomodate the digital revolution, and many

have. But the digital companies, some of whom

have taken to exalting their disruptive power,

well, they are not exempt from the need to adjust their practices

either. Keeping our focus on creators

while hardly novel or radical

is seemingly controversial in some quarters.

Some of that controversy is eveident in the copyright

Principle Project report and process that we will hear about

today. Some is also eveident in the reaction to the

report, for example, the op-ed authored by musician

David Lowery that was published earlier this week

which I ask unanimous consent to offer for the record.

[Chair] Without Objection.

[Mr. Watt] As Chairman Goodlatte has made clear

the Committee does not endorse the specific recommendations

of the Copyright Principles Project, atill the project

does contain some background and useful insight into how

parties with divergent views might be able to engage

in a constructive and respectful dialog.

I'm particularly intrigued by the recommendation to

strengthen the exclusive right

of copyright holders to control communications of their

works to the public, which I beleive more closely aligns with the

principle that aims to preserve and protect

the creator's rights. A report from this Committee

in the 21st Congress observed, quote,

It cannot be for the interest or honor of our country

that intellectual labor should be depreciated, and

a life devoted to research and laborious study

terminate in disappointment and poverty, close quote

As we reveiw copyright law and policy in the digital

era this committee should work to secure the rights

of the creators who enhance our lives and grow our economy

while balancing the interest of the public.

Let me be clear that I beleive that the global appetite for intellectual

property will benefit best from a robust

copyright regime that protects the individual

expressive rights of creators and authors.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time and I yield back.

[Chair] I thank the gentleman from North Carolina, and other members' opening statements will be made