[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