[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
                  OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JUNE 26, 2019

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-32

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
         
         
         
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         
         
         


      Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
      
      
      
                        ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
37-404              WASHINGTON : 2022 
      
      
      
      
      
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
               MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              DOUG COLLINS, Georgia,
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas              Ranking Member
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,        Wisconsin
  Georgia                            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
KAREN BASS, California               JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana        KEN BUCK, Colorado
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
ERIC SWALWELL, California            MATT GAETZ, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          TOM McCLINTOCK, California
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DEBBIE LESKO, Arizona
J. LUIS CORREA, California           GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              BEN CLINE, Virginia
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
GREG STANTON, Arizona
MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas

        Perry Apelbaum, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
                Brendan Belair, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------        
                                 
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                             JUNE 26, 2019
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                   Page
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on the 
  Judiciary......................................................     1
The Honorable Doug Collins, Ranking Member, Committee on the 
  Judiciary......................................................     3

                                WITNESS

Ms. Karyn A. Temple, Register of Copyrights and Director of the 
  U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress
    Oral Testimony...............................................     5
    Prepared Statement...........................................     7

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

A letter from the Recording Academy for the record from the 
  Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary.    29
A letter from the American Society of Media Photographers for the 
  record from the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative 
  from New York, Committee on the Judiciary......................    44
A letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of 
  America for the record from the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a 
  Representative from New York, Committee on the Judiciary.......    45
A letter from the Songwriters Guild of America for the record 
  from the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative from New 
  York, Committee on the Judiciary...............................    46
A letter from the American Bar Association for the record from 
  the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative from New York, 
  Committee on the Judiciary.....................................    48
A letter from organizations in support of the Copyright 
  Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019 for the 
  record from the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative 
  from New York, Committee on the Judiciary......................    51
A letter from the Recording Academy for the record from the 
  Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative from New York, 
  Committee on the Judiciary.....................................    54
A letter from the Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, 
  Inc. for the record from the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a 
  Representative from New York, Committee on the Judiciary.......    56
A letter from the Institute for Intellectual Property & Social 
  Justice, Inc. for the record from the Honorable Hakeem 
  Jeffries, a Representative from New York, Committee on the 
  Judiciary......................................................    58
A letter from MusicAnswers for the record from the Honorable 
  Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative from New York, Committee on 
  the Judiciary..................................................    60
A letter from National Press Photographers Association for the 
  record from the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative 
  from New York, Committee on the Judiciary......................    61
A letter from Nashville Songwriters Association International for 
  the record from the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative 
  from New York, Committee on the Judiciary......................    62
A letter from Conservatives for Property Rights for the record 
  from the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative from New 
  York, Committee on the Judiciary...............................    63
A letter from Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts for the record from 
  the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative from New York, 
  Committee on the Judiciary.....................................    65
A statement from the App Association for the record from the 
  Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative from New York, 
  Committee on the Judiciary.....................................    67
A letter from the Graphic Artists Guild for the record from the 
  Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative from New York, 
  Committee on the Judiciary.....................................    68
A letter from Future of Music Coalition for the record from the 
  Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative from New York, 
  Committee on the Judiciary.....................................    69
A letter from The Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 
  802 AFM for the record from the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a 
  Representative from New York, Committee on the Judiciary.......    70
A statement from Shaftel & Schmelzer for the record from the 
  Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative from New York, 
  Committee on the Judiciary.....................................    71
A letter from American Federation of Musicians Local 174-496 from 
  the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative from New York, 
  Committee on the Judiciary.....................................    72
A letter from the American Federation of Musicians Local 47 from 
  the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Representative from New York, 
  Committee on the Judiciary.....................................    73

                                APPENDIX

Questions for the Record from the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a 
  Representative from New York, Chairman, Committee on the 
  Judiciary......................................................    92
Questions for the Record from the Honorable Doug Collins, a 
  Representative from Georgia, Ranking Member, Committee on the 
  Judiciary......................................................    93
Questions for the Record from the Honorable Greg Stanton, a 
  Representative from the State of Arizona, Committee on the 
  Judiciary......................................................    94
Response to questions for the Record from Ms. Karyn A. Temple, 
  Register of Copyrights, and Director of the U.S. Copyright 
  Office, Library of Congress....................................    95


                 OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2019

                        House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                            Washington, DC.

    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 
2141, Rayburn Office Building, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [chairman of 
the committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, 
Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Jeffries, Lieu, 
Demings, Correa, Garcia, Stanton, Dean, Murcarsel-Powell, 
Escobar, Collins, Chabot, Gohmert, Jordan, Buck, Roby, Lesko, 
Reschenthaler, Cline, Armstrong, and Steube.
    Staff present: David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; John Doty, 
Senior Advisor; Madeline Strasser, Chief Clerk; Jamie Simpson, 
Chief Counsel, Courts and IP Subcommittee; Danielle Johnson, 
Counsel, Courts and IP Subcommittee; Matthew Robinson, Counsel, 
Courts & IP Subcommittee; Rosalind Jackson, Professional Staff 
Member, Courts and IP Subcommittee; Brendan Belair, Minority 
Staff Director, Bobby Parmiter, Minority Deputy Staff Director/
Chief Counsel; Jon Ferro, Minority Parliamentarian/General 
Counsel; Sally Rose Barnes, Minority Judiciary Policy Adviser; 
and Erica Barker, Minority Chief Legislative Clerk.
    Chairman Nadler. The Judiciary Committee will come to 
order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the committee at any time.
    We welcome everyone to today's hearing on oversight of the 
U.S. Copyright Office. I will now recognize myself for an 
opening statement.
    Today's hearing will allow us to assess the current state 
of the Copyright Office and the U.S. copyright system. Each 
year core copyright industries employ 5.5 million workers who 
produce $1.2 trillion in economic activity and generate roughly 
$180 billion in foreign sales. These industries also promote a 
wide range of artistic expression and intellectual thought.
    The Copyright Office plays a vital role in helping to 
uphold this system and in helping to ensure that works are 
effectively protected by copyright. Maintaining this vibrant 
copyright ecosystem depends on having an effective copyright 
office to oversee it. And, we are pleased to be joined today by 
Karyn Temple, the Register of Copyrights and Director of the 
U.S. Copyright Office.
    This committee held its last Copyright Office oversight 
hearing in 2015, 4 years ago, and a lot has changed since then. 
Notably, last fall, Congress passed the Orrin Hatch-Bob 
Goodlatte Music Modernization Act, which provides critical 
updates to modernize the musical licensing system and better 
serve both creators and digital music providers. This historic 
legislation, which I was proud to help author along with the 
Ranking Member, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Jeffries, assists digital 
music providers with the licensing of musical works, while 
ensuring that performers, songwriters, and other music creators 
receive fair market value for their work.
    The Copyright Office is responsible for implementing 
several features of the Music Modernization Act, or MMA, 
including aspects of the blanket license established in Title I 
of the act. The office's July 8th deadline to designate the 
mechanical licensing collective and the digital licensee 
coordinator created by the MMA is fast approaching, and so I 
look forward to hearing more about the status of the Copyright 
Office's work in implementing these and other provisions.
    The Committee is also closely monitoring the Copyright 
Office's much-needed efforts to modernize its IT systems. In 
recent years, we have heard a consistent message with respect 
to the Copyright Office, that the Office must be modernized to 
meet the needs of the public and the copyright community and to 
reduce the backlog of pending registrations. The Supreme 
Court's decision in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. 
Wall-Street.com, which held that registration, and not merely 
the filing of an application for registration, is necessary 
before a copyright owner can sue for infringement, further 
underscores the need for modernization of the office's IT 
system.
    Following the Fourth Estate ruling, I wrote a letter, along 
with Ranking Member Collins, asking Ms. Temple about the 
office's plans for reducing registration processing times in 
light of that decision. I appreciated the thorough response and 
her testimony on the same topic today on the Office's plans to 
speed up the registration process. These efforts should remain 
a top priority for the office.
    Another timely issue is the upcoming expiration of the 
Distant-Signal Satellite Television License at the end of this 
year and whether Congress should reauthorize it. Ranking Member 
Collins and I also recently wrote Ms. Temple a letter on this 
topic. Again, I appreciate the thorough response, and I hope we 
will be able to explore more of the Office's rationale for 
recommending that the license be allowed to expire in light of 
the changing media landscape.
    In addition, the Office has been studying the effectiveness 
of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 512, safe 
harbor provision. This issue exemplifies the critical role that 
copyright law plays in balancing the needs of right holders to 
receive value for their works and the interest of the public in 
having access to information. I look forward to learning more 
about the insights the Office has gained over the past years 
and the forthcoming report.
    I thank Ms. Temple for being here today. I congratulate her 
on her recent permanent appointment as register, and I look 
forward to her testimony on the important work of the Copyright 
Office. The gentleman from Virginia. Excuse me. The gentleman 
from Georgia, Mr. Collins--not that there is anything wrong 
with Virginia. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, has 
been a good partner and an important leader on many copyright 
issues, and it is now my pleasure to recognize the 
distinguished Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee for his 
opening statement.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and just for anybody 
out there who may have gotten any wrong impression, ``Go 
Dawgs.'' Okay.
    Mr. Chairman, thanks for having this hearing today. There 
are many ongoing copyright issues that deserve our attention, 
and you and I have a history of working on these issues 
together in a bipartisan way.I would like to see this committee 
focus more on issues like copyright that are critical to our 
economy and represent areas where we can actually legislate and 
get things rather than redoing a lot of what we have been 
redoing recently.
    I also want to thank Ms. Temple for appearing before us 
today. It is good to see you, it is good to have you here, and 
it is good that you are permanently there, and I am glad to 
have that. It is her first time appearing before us as the 
officially-appointed register of copyrights, but she is by no 
means a stranger to this committee or to copyright law.
    Copyright is a right provided for by the U.S. Constitution. 
Strong copyright protections are critical to promoting 
innovation and creativity, and they are critical to our 
economy.According to the International Intellectual Property 
Alliance, core copyright industries contribute more than $1 
trillion to the U.S. GDP and make up almost 7 percent of the 
U.S. economy. The Copyright Office plays a key role in this 
system, and we in Congress are fortunate to have their advice 
and analysis on numerous policy matters.
    Last year, the Music Modernization Act was signed into law. 
This bill is a culmination of years of work and the first major 
update of the music licensing system in a generation. The 
Copyright Office provided its expertise throughout the process 
and is now in the process of implementing the law. We look 
forward to hearing how that implementation is proceeding and to 
continue to work with the Copyright Office to ensure that this 
law is functioning as intended.
    In addition to the Music Modernization Act, there are 
numerous other copyright-related matters that deserve our 
attention. Copyright modernization remains a priority, and as 
the Copyright Office moves to a new IT system, we must ensure 
that it has all the resources that it needs to fulfill its 
requirement. I am still believing that it needs further change 
and needs to be continued in this, and I would hope that 
actually the Librarian would actually join in this and not hold 
us on this because this is something that needs to happen.
    The committee has jurisdiction over the Satellite 
Compulsory License for Distant Signals, as the Chairman had 
mentioned, Section 119. We have heard from the Copyright Office 
about its belief that the license should be allowed to expire 
consistent with their historic opposition to the statutory 
license. While not all expiring provisions are in the 
jurisdiction of this committee. This committee should review 
those that are.
    We must also ensure the copyright system functions well for 
content creators and content users who rely on it. Too often 
today we are seeing small creators effectively sidelined from 
enforcing their rights. That is why I am glad to see that the 
team is back, and Congressman Jeffries and I are again with the 
CASE Act. And for those in here who see the shirts, that is 
something important to me.
    And just a moment. If we forget the creators, if this body 
forgets that is the original idea, that spark, that hope, that 
dream, that idea, that music, that poem, that verse, whatever 
it may be, it comes from within someone. If we ever get to the 
point where that is not valued in our system, when we ever come 
to the point where a creative spark in whatever genius it may 
appear is not protected under our system, our basic 
civilization goes down because it is those moments of spark and 
creation and hope that the CASE Act would allow for people to 
enforce their rights. But it is also that spark that keeps us 
going, and it is not for us in this room. It is for those who 
are going to have that next spark tomorrow, that next film, 
that next stream, that next book, that next moment that will 
literally change the world. That is why I love being a part of 
this committee on most days. [Laughter.]
    But we will continue. [Laughter.]
    Piracy also continues to be a problem. While registration 
pendency times have gone down, questions still persist about 
how to protect property rights properly as works are 
registered. Piracy can happen in seconds, but registration can 
take months. I commend the Copyright Office's efforts to 
shorten pendency, but these are questions that we must 
consider. We must also work to ensure copyright laws, many of 
which are decades old, reflect the needs and realties of 
today's digital world. They are not in competition. They are in 
a mutual symbiotic relationship if we allow them to be, and we 
need that.
    Many challenges remain in the copyright ecosystem, but I am 
committed to finding solutions. I look forward to hearing from 
the Register today and to continue the bipartisan work to 
strengthen our copyright system and ensure it is working for 
all creators and content users alike. And with that, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentleman. I will now 
introduce today's witness. Karyn Temple was appointed Register 
of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office on 
March 27th, 2019 after having served as acting register since 
October 21st, 2016. Previously she served as Associate Register 
of Copyrights and Director of Policy and International Affairs 
for the Copyright Office.
    Before joining the Copyright Office in 2011, Ms. Temple 
served as Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General of the 
United States. She earned her J.D. from Columbia University Law 
School, in my district, and her B.A. from the University of 
Michigan. We welcome our distinguished witness, and we thank 
you for participating in today's hearing. And if you would 
please, I will begin by swearing you in.
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Ms. Temple. I do.
    Chairman Nadler. Thank you very much. Let the record show 
the witness answered in the affirmative.
    Please note that your written statement will be entered 
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask that you 
summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. To help you stay within 
that time, there is a timing light on your table. When the 
light switches from green to yellow, you have 1 minute to 
conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals 
your 5 minutes have expired.
    Ms. Temple, you may begin.

   TESTIMONY OF KARYN A. TEMPLE, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS AND 
  DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS.

                  TESTIMONY OF KARYN A. TEMPLE

    Ms. Temple. Good morning, Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member 
Collins, and members of the committee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today to provide important 
updates on the operational and policy activities of the United 
States Copyright Office.
    For nearly 150 years, the U.S. Copyright Office has been at 
the very center of a thriving copyright ecosystem, serving as 
the primary Federal agency administering the Nation's copyright 
law. During that time, the U.S. Copyright Office has registered 
over 38 million claims to copyright, representing even more 
individual copyrighted works. We have provided crucial advice 
on copyright law to executive agencies and courts, engaged in a 
wide variety of public educational outreach, and answered 
almost 200,000 public inquiries just last year. We manage over 
$1 billion annually in statutory license fiduciary assets.
    Importantly, through our traditional role as the key 
advisor to Congress on copyright policy matters, the Copyright 
Office has participated in every major update to U.S. copyright 
law, from the development of the 1909 and 1976 acts to the 
recent Music Modernization Act. The Copyright Office's legal 
policy and regulatory activities support our cultural and 
economic wellbeing. As recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, 
copyright is intended to be the ``engine of free expression,'' 
and U.S. copyright law ably fulfills that intent.
    Congress developed a thoughtful balance of rights, 
exceptions, and limitations which promote the progress of our 
Nation's culture through traditional creative industries to the 
flourishing tech landscape. With this robust framework of 
rights and limitations, it is not surprising then that the 
United States leads the world in both entertainment and 
technology. Indeed, according to recent estimates, core 
copyright industries represent nearly 7 percent of the total 
U.S. economy and add more than a $1 trillion to the U.S. GDP. 
The Copyright Office is honored to be a critical part of this 
copyright ecosystem.
    Since the Copyright Office last appeared before this 
committee for an oversight hearing, we have made tremendous 
progress on a variety of initiatives, including in operations, 
law and policy, outreach, financial management, and 
modernization efforts, which are described in more detail in my 
written testimony.
    The Copyright Office's work supports all affected by 
copyright. When many think of copyright, they often think of 
major corporations and large businesses, but those are not the 
only ones who are supported and who benefit from copyright law. 
What is often overlooked is that copyright also supports and 
sustains small businesses, individual photographers and 
artists, first-time novelists and bloggers, garage bands, and 
independent filmmakers. By providing a way for these creators 
to make a living doing what they do best, copyright enriches 
our culture and enhances our daily lives.
    Every time I hear from an individual creator about the 
first time they registered a copyright with our office or the 
first time they actually were able to make a living doing what 
they do best, I am inspired. It reinforces in a real-world and 
practical way the important work we, and the entire copyright 
law, do for our Nation. This includes, of course, an essential 
framework of exceptions and limitations, like fair use, that 
also helps support and sustain a vibrant and flexible creative 
culture.
    The importance of copyright to individuals and smaller 
businesses is one of the many reasons that the Copyright Office 
strongly supports a voluntary small claims tribunal. The 
Copyright Office has studied this issue for well over a decade, 
listening to the views from all sides, and has come to the 
conclusion that many simply do not have the ability to enforce 
their rights or contest claims of infringement. A small claims 
tribunal would go far in ensuring that those granted certain 
legal rights under the Copyright Act actually have the ability 
to enforce them.
    I look forward to continuing the Copyright Office's 
progress and service to the country. To help guide the way, the 
Copyright Office released a new strategic plan just 2 months 
ago. It identifies critical focus areas that will chart our 
course over the next 4 years.
    None of this work, of course, would be possible without the 
dedicated staff of the United States Copyright Office. During 
my tenure heading the office over the past 2-and-a-half years, 
I have been continually amazed and inspired by their 
resilience, flexibility, and support during a time of 
tremendous Copyright Office growth and change. Copyright Office 
staff often work long hours with limited resources. Their 
efforts have resulted in the recent elimination of our backlog 
of pending claims and significant reduction in the processing 
time for registration applications. So I would like to take 
this opportunity to thank the exceptional Copyright Office 
staff for their contributions to the U.S. copyright system and 
the American people.
    I would also like to thank Congress for your ongoing 
support of the Copyright Office. I look forward to working with 
you closely as we continue to modernize and update the Office 
and the copyright law for the benefit of all. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Temple follows:]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    

    
    Chairman Nadler. Thank you very much. We will now proceed 
under the 5-minute rule with questions. I will begin by 
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Temple, the Mechanical Licensing Collective will be 
authorized to distribute unclaimed royalties to rights holders. 
We have heard from some stakeholders with an interest in the 
process. For example, I received a letter from the Recording 
Academy on this topic, which I ask unanimous consent to place 
in the record.
    Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

      

                        CHAIRMAN NADLER FOR THE 
                            OFFICIAL RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chairman Nadler. Ms. Temple, what are the Copyright 
Office's views on how the MLC should handle the initial 
distribution of these funds? And in the Copyright Office's 
opinion, what are the best practices the MLC should employ to 
ensure that unclaimed royalties have a chance to reach the 
owners of works that are currently unmatched?
     Ms. Temple. Thank you very much for the question. As you 
know, we in the Copyright Office, and I know Congress, believe 
that the most important aspect of the Music Modernization Act 
is to ensure that songwriters and music work copyright owners 
are actually getting paid for their work. One of the issues 
with respect to the Music Modernization Act and the MLC will be 
distribution of those royalties to everyone who is entitled to 
them.
    We were very pleased that both of the submissions by 
entities who have been requested to be designated as the MLC 
have made this one of the priorities in their submissions. We 
are also looking forward to working with Congress to ensure 
that those royalties are distributed appropriately. For 
example, under the MMA, we are required to do a study on best 
practices to ensure that matching is working appropriately and 
to reduce the amount of unclaimed royalties. So we will be 
beginning that report shortly after the designation, and that 
report will be given to Congress as well as to the designated 
MLC in July of 2021. And they are expected to follow the best 
practices that the Copyright Office actually provides in that 
report.
    And additionally, we were pleased that both of the entities 
that wanted to be designated as the MLC have agreed that the 
first distribution of unclaimed royalties cannot occur until 
2023. This will give them both an opportunity, or the 
designated entity an opportunity, to ensure that they have good 
practices in place to make sure that they are able to 
distribute to the most people and have the least amount of 
unclaimed funds.
    Chairman Nadler. Thank you. And once the Mechanical 
Licensing Collective is designated, the Copyright Office will 
have to draft rules for how this entity will function and 
operate on a day-to-day basis. How does the Office plan to 
conduct the forthcoming rulemaking proceedings, and how will 
you engage stakeholders, including the new mechanical licensing 
entity, in that process?
    Ms. Temple. Yes, we were very pleased at the amount of 
regulatory authority that was provided to us and the confidence 
that Congress provided to us in the implementation of the MMA. 
We are focusing, as you know, right now on the designation of 
the MLC, which we will do by July 8th. After that designation, 
we will immediately start working on the regulatory and other 
aspects of the MMA implementation. We have to provide 
regulations, for example, about the notices, the form of the 
notices of blanket license, notices with respect to usage. We 
have to provide regulatory information about privacy and 
confidential information. So we will be engaging in those 
rulemakings immediately.
    And then we also have broader authority under the MMA to 
effectuate the statute by regulations. And so we will look into 
whether we need to do additional regulations once the MLC has 
been designated as well.
    Chairman Nadler. Thank you, and I would like to ask you 
about the upcoming expiration of the Distant-Signal Satellite 
Television License under Section 119. One concern I frequently 
hear is that letting this statutory license expire will result 
in thousands of people losing access to television. Since the 
office supports letting the license expire, what is your 
response to this concern?
    Ms. Temple. Yes, we have studied this issue in the 
Copyright Office for several years. As you know, we issued two 
comprehensive reports several years ago recommending that 
Congress allow that Section 119 license to expire. Recently at 
your request, we reviewed and analyzed those issues again. We 
concluded that in the last 5 years between 2014 and 2019, the 
actual royalties that we received under the Section 119 license 
has dropped precipitously, so it has dropped between 85 percent 
to 99 percent in terms of the royalties that would come in. So 
that license is really not being utilized in the market.
    Also we noted that the marketplace has risen up to address 
issues with respect to satellite transmission, and that those 
underserved markets are not being underserved in the way that 
they had been in the past. The Copyright Office has always said 
that we view compulsory licenses as only needed in market 
failure. And in this instance we have concluded that there is 
no market failure----
    Chairman Nadler. No market failure. Thank you.
    Ms. Temple [continuing]. That justifies those licenses.
    Chairman Nadler. Thank you. Let me get in one more 
question. I remain concerned about the pace of IT modernization 
at the Copyright Office, especially in light of the recent 
Supreme Court decision in Fourth Estate Public Benefit 
Corporation v. Wall-Street.com, which clarified that 
registration is precondition of filing an infringement lawsuit. 
In your view, what aspects of the Copyright Office are in most 
urgent need of modernization, and has the Office of Strategic 
Planning prioritized addressing those needs? My time has 
expired. The witness may answer the question.
    Ms. Temple. Thank you. Yes, we agree that IT modernization 
of the Copyright Office is one of the most critical priorities 
for the Office. It was listed as a primary and core key focus 
area in the recent strategic plan that I just released. In 
terms of which areas need to be prioritized with our IT 
modernization, I will have to say all of them because we 
desperately need to have a full enterprise copyright system 
that is an integrated system that addresses both our 
recordation aspect of the Copyright Office, our registration, 
and our public records.
    So we are actually engaging in modernization efforts on all 
three of those different areas at the same time because they 
are such a priority.
    Chairman Nadler. Thank you very much. My time has expired. 
I now call on the--I now recognize I should say--the Ranking 
Member, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for his 
questions.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2013, the 
Copyright Office recommended the creation of a small claims 
court and recommended legislative language that eventually 
resulted in the CASE Act that Mr. Jeffries has so eloquently, 
talked about and I have joined on with him, on that H.R. 2426. 
In your testimony, you discussed some of the challenges faced 
by small creators and the Office's support for a small claims 
tribunal. Can you talk about this and your support and how we 
would go about that?
    Ms. Temple. Yes, the U.S. Copyright Office has supported 
developing some type of alternative forum for small individual 
creators and smaller businesses for some time. If you may 
recall, Representative Smith had a hearing in 2006 on this very 
issue in which the Copyright Office testified and said that 
this was a worthy issue to study. In 2013, we provided a full 
report after a public process where we received a number of 
comments looking at this issue.
    We concluded that unfortunately with respect to the current 
system, due to the high cost of Federal litigation and the 
complexity, many individual creators and smaller business are 
essentially precluded from getting into Federal court to really 
protect their rights. And we have noted that having a right 
without a remedy really means that you have no right at all. 
And so it is our strong view that we have to provide some 
alternative forum to allow for those individual creators and 
smaller businesses to be able to protect their legal rights.
    We noted and others have noted, for example, that the 
median cost of a litigation is over $200,000 to be able to 
litigate that to a jury trial. And so that is something that is 
really just beyond the ability of most individual creators and 
smaller businesses. And so that is why we strongly support the 
creation of a copyright claims board.
    Mr. Collins. And I think that, as asserted in this audience 
today, I think this is something that, again, we don't often go 
to the doable here many times. This is doable and should be as 
we go forward, and I think it is something that would really 
work. I want to go back. Let me switch gears, and I want to 
come back to the Office itself. The committee recently received 
information from you regarding registration processing times, 
and I read that letter to say that registration backlog was 
basically gone. Is that correct?
    Ms. Temple. Yes, we were very pleased that we were able to 
eliminate our historic backlog of pending claims.
    Mr. Collins. What does that, you know, actually mean, and, 
you know, how do you avoid a return to a backlog?
    Ms. Temple. Well, that is a great question. We have 
typically counted our registration backlog of pending claims to 
be over 150,000 workable claims. Those are claims on hand that 
have all of the materials that we need to be able to process 
the actual registration application, including the fee and the 
deposit, and that are pending with-in the Office. So that is 
traditionally what we have identified as a backlog, and we have 
gone significantly under that in the last year.
    But we do realize that most people aren't as concerned 
about our backlog. What they are most concerned about is the 
processing time itself. So we have really kind of switched away 
from focusing on the backlog to focus on what is the processing 
time for our claims. And we were very, very pleased this year 
to be able to say that we have within the last 2 years reduced 
the processing time by 40 percent. It is now not perfect, but 
it stands on average at 5 months, and we are working very, very 
hard to continue to improve that.
    Mr. Collins. Elaborate on the pendency issue. What is a 
problem that would keep you from getting better at that under 5 
months?
    Ms. Temple. Well, one thing that we identified, or I 
identified in my recent letter to the committee was resources. 
One of the issues that caused our backlog and caused us to have 
very high pendency times was that we actually had a reduction, 
I think, of more than 30 percent of our staff over the last 5 
years, or before the last 5 years, between 2010 and 2014. We 
lost a significant number of our registration specialists.
    We were very pleased that the committee has supported the 
Copyright Office getting more resources. So in Fiscal Year 
2015, 2017, and 2018, and 2019, we did get additional resources 
from Congress to hire additional registration specialists. So 
having the resources to hire staff is one of the most critical 
aspects with us being able to continue to have that processing 
time go down. Obviously another key aspect is modernizing the 
office. Our system right now is not the most efficient, and we 
expect that once the IT system is modernized, we will be able 
to maintain and even reduce processing times further.
    Mr. Collins. Look, I understand the delicacy of your 
position and especially in dealing with the Library of Congress 
as well, but it is an untenable situation. I will take the heat 
for this. You know, the Librarian can come see me about it, I 
don't care. But the IT part of this and the other functions 
that you need to actually have an office that works has got to 
be, there is no turf battle here. In fact, there needs to be a 
removal of you from that turf all together.
    But we need these IT issues and we need this to be broke up 
in a way that you understand the jobs that you do. I think you 
have done a great job and previous registers as well. Ms. 
Pallante and others have done a great job of saying why you are 
different. The thing that has gotten me the most is you all 
seem to want to work within a broken system as best as I have 
ever seen, but yet you continue to get hindered at every turn.
    So, again, we look forward to moving more in that 
direction. I am glad you are here. Thank you for your help. And 
I yield back.
    Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize 
the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. 
Temple, for being here today, as well as your terrific staff. 
You know, in all of the interface I have had with the Office, I 
have been impressed by the dedication of the staff of the 
Office, the commitment they have to the rights of people who 
are seeking protection. And I just want to thank you and them 
for your hard work.
    Ms. Temple. Thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. You know, we have an interesting situation. 
Actually the House Administration Committee has jurisdiction 
over the Library and every component within it, and we actually 
have had oversight hearings relative to the operations. 
Copyright policy is the jurisdiction of the Judiciary 
Committee. But in terms of the IT system, we have received very 
strong commitments from the Librarian as well as from you that 
the IT system is well underway. And really I think that was 
neglected too much, for a long period of time. We are playing 
catch up now. So I am wondering could you give us a little more 
detail on the IT improvements and when we can expect to see 
them come online?
    Ms. Temple. Yes, that is a great question. We have been 
working hard to improve our systems for some time. We have been 
in the planning stage for a long time, but we are now right in 
the position to be able to realize some concrete successes from 
the modernization plan.
    So right now we have three different areas, again, that I 
mentioned that we are focusing on. We are excited about our 
recordation modernization. As you may know, our recordation 
system is still paper based.
    Ms. Lofgren. Right.
    Ms. Temple. So that is something that it was long in need 
of modernization. We have been working on that for some time. 
According to our OCIO, who is actually here today, we are going 
to be able to launch a public pilot of a new digital 
recordation system early in the spring of 2020, and so that 
will be----
    Ms. Lofgren. So next year. Less than year from now.
    Ms. Temple. That will be next year, yes. So that will be a 
tremendous, I think, advantage for the----
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have a 
little order so I can hear the witness.
    Chairman Nadler. We will be in order. [Laughter.]
    Ms. Temple. That would be a tremendous, I think, advantage 
for the public to be able to actually see this new digital 
recordation system. The pilot will be small in nature, but it 
will enable us to get feedback from the public on necessary 
improvements as we continue to develop. We are also working on 
our public records system. We are in the process of contracting 
with vendors to be able to develop our public records, and 
those are our records of applications, registrations. The goal, 
of course, is to be able to connect our applications, our 
registrations, and all of our data in one system so that the 
public will be able to get as much information as possible 
about copyrighted works and copyright ownership. So we are in 
the process of doing that.
    And then we have been working on----
    Ms. Lofgren. And what is the date on that, do you think? I 
mean, this is good news overall.
    Ms. Temple. Yes, we are hopeful that we would be able to 
have a pilot of the public records system late next year, so 
late in 2020 as well. Again, that would be a limited pilot, but 
it would allow for us to have something concrete that a limited 
amount of the public would be able to utilize to provide input 
and feedback to us as we continue to develop that system as 
well.
    And then finally, we have been working on our registration 
system. That is part of the overall enterprise copyright 
system. We have been engaging in a lot of public interface to 
develop the frontal portal of that system. We have wireframes 
that we are working on. We have tested that system, the 
wireframes at least, with the public, and we are going to 
continue to do a number of kind of user usability testing, UX/
UI processes over the course of the next several months as 
well.
    Ms. Lofgren. So really we are on the verge in the next year 
we are going to see a huge change in the IT in the office, and 
I think that will benefit rights holders greatly. And, you 
know, the whole trick here is to find out who to pay and to pay 
them, and that is really a matter of information and the ease 
of information.
    Let me ask you just a quick question on the consent 
decrees. I realize that that is really not up to the Office, 
but DOJ is now renewing its review of this. I don't know what 
has changed since the last time they looked at it, but it does 
seem to me that for a broadcaster to be fully covered for any 
song that might play, the broadcaster has to purchase a blanket 
license from all four PROs. You know, to me, that seems 
complicated and expensive. I am wondering if the committee 
asked you whether you could study in the Copyright Office 
whether Congress should modernize blanket licenses for the 
performance of musical works, the same way it modernized sound 
recordings and mechanical licenses. Would that be something 
that would divert the office from its necessary IT upgrades, or 
would that be something that could be accommodated?
    Ms. Temple. Certainly if Congress would like us to review 
that issue, we would be pleased to do so. We obviously have 
been monitoring the consent decree process on the IP side. The 
DOJ is reviewing it on the antitrust side. This is an issue we 
touched upon briefly in our music licensing report that we 
issued in 2015 where we did recommend, for example, that we 
migrate any rate setting to the CRB to be more consistent. So, 
again, certainly we would be definitely willing to continue to 
review that issue with Congress if you thought that would be--
--
    Ms. Lofgren. My time is over. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
indulging me in that lateness, and congratulations on your 
appointment, Ms. Temple.
    Ms. Temple. Thank you.
    Chairman Nadler. Oh, yes, I am remiss in not congratulating 
you also.
    Ms. Temple. Thank you.
    Chairman Nadler. You are welcome. The gentleman from 
Virginia, Mr. Cline.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Ranking Member is 
gone, but ``Go Wahoos.'' I want to thank you for your 
leadership and Ranking Member Collins also, Chairman Johnson 
and Ranking Member Roby for their leadership on intellectual 
property, and Congressman Jeffries for introducing the CASE 
Act. I am proud to join him as a co-sponsor of that bill. And 
congratulations to you, Ms. Temple, on your appointment. You 
have done a great job, and we look forward to many years of 
leadership from you.
    Copyright is particularly important to my home State of 
Virginia. We have had around 100,000 registrations from 
Virginia over the last 6 years, 12,000 jobs through the motion 
picture industry, and 2,500 production-related jobs. And the 
software industry in Virginia has accounted for over 180,000 
jobs. Copyright ownership brings jobs, steady wages, and money 
to our local economies. And we are here and we have been 
discussing many of the issues surrounding copyright, including 
modernization of the Library of Congress, the copyright 
registration process, music modernization implementation, 
consent decrees, STELA reauthorization. I want to focus on 
digital piracy for a moment.
    You know, it is an oldie but a goodie, but your office is 
studying Section 512 of the DMCA, which is coming up on 20 
years' anniversary. ``notice and takedown'' is a critical part 
of copyright protection, but a lot has changed in 20 years. 
Many advancements have not been anticipated. Can you talk at 
all about this study, how it is going and when you plan to 
release it?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. We agree that a lot has gone on in the 
last 20 years, and that is why we were very pleased when 
Congress did ask us to study Section 512 and the notice and 
takedown regime. We are in the process right now of analyzing 
all of the comments that we received. We received over 90,000 
individual comments on Section 512 and whether it is operating 
effectively today. We also engaged in a number of roundtables. 
Our most recent roundtable was just earlier this spring where 
we wanted to make sure that we had all of the information in 
terms of updates that might have occurred since our last set of 
written comments were requested.
    So we now have all of that information, the 90,000 comments 
that we are going to read each and every one of them as well as 
the transcripts from the roundtables, and we will be drafting 
over the summer. We are hopeful that we will be able to release 
that report by the end of this year.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you. And as you said, it is an important 
issue that you have received a lot of comment on. And video 
streaming piracy is costing the U.S. between $30 and $70 
billion annually, between 230,000 to 560,000 jobs, between $45 
and $115 billion in GDP. Can you explain how the Office 
continues to monitor video streaming piracy and how you are 
working to address the threat of piracy in this ever-changing 
environment?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. We, you know, obviously are not an 
enforcement agency, but we do work closely in the interagency 
with the rest of USG to ensure that on the policy side we have 
strong protections against piracy. That is, for example, one of 
the reasons why we testified several years ago on the issue of 
illegal streaming. We noted that there has been an increase and 
a rise in illegal streaming even years ago, and that it would 
be appropriate at this stage for Congress to consider providing 
parity in terms of the penalties for unauthorized 
reproductions, distributions, and public performance.
    Unfortunately, under our current law, unauthorized public 
performances actually are not able to be charged as a felony, 
while unauthorized reproductions and distributions are able to 
be charged as a felony. As many of you know, streaming has 
risen in the type of distribution model that has been done by 
the content industry, and so it is our strong view that it is 
appropriate for Congress to consider providing parity for the 
penalties of all of the types of piracy that is out there so 
that the Department of Justice will have effective tools to 
combat piracy.
    Mr. Cline. Thank you. And with the few seconds remaining, I 
want to address something you mentioned in your testimony, the 
Eighth Triennial Section 1201 proceeding that is going to begin 
next year. You adopted a streamlined process during last year's 
rulemaking when you recommended the renewal of exemptions for 
all 22 types of uses covered by the 2015 rulemaking, and you 
supported the expansion of seven of those earlier exemptions 
and the adoption of two new exemptions. Can you speak to the 
work that you are going to be beginning and whether you see 
anything different on the horizon?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. We were really pleased at the outcome of 
or last Section 1201 rulemaking. We did, as you noted, 
introduce a streamlined process. That process worked very, very 
well. So for those exemptions where there wasn't really a 
change in the marketplace since our last proceeding, we 
instituted a process where an individual could come forward and 
basically note that and note that they were going to be relying 
on the evidence of the last triennial rulemaking. And then they 
wouldn't have to actually resubmit all of that evidence again 
if there weren't changes in the marketplace.
    And that allowed for those exemptions, where there wasn't 
really a significant amount of opposition, for us to really be 
able to thoroughly analyze the previous record, yet again, but 
not have the burden of those who are proponents of the 
exemptions having to provide a new record that really had not 
changed. And that streamlined process is the process that we 
will be following for the upcoming triennial as well.
    Mr. Cline. Great. Appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman 
from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, is recognized.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you for hosting this hearing. And thank you for your presence 
to testify, and congratulations to you.
    Ms. Temple. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I understand that the Copyright 
Office's IT systems are centralized as part of the Library of 
Congress' interoperable software programs. As a result, the 
Copyright Office must provide funds for its IT modernization to 
the Library only for the Library to in turn provide the new 
services back to the Copyright Office. What safeguards exist to 
ensure that funds designated for the Copyright Office's IT 
needs only serve the Copyright Office's needs once they are 
transferred to the Library of Congress?
    Ms. Temple. Thank you for the question. As you know, after 
centralization of all of the IT systems and management of the 
IT systems within the Library, our IT is now under the 
authority of the Office of the Chief Information Officer. The 
way that we do request additional funds for IT development is 
we do have our own appropriation line, and we do request 
specific IT modernization funding. Once we receive that 
funding, we transfer that funding to the OCIO for use in the 
development activities.
    Under the appropriations law, they are required to utilize 
those funds and resources solely dedicated to Copyright Office 
modernization. We do want to work with the OCIO, though, to 
ensure that it is a transparent process because we know that 
stakeholders want to ensure that their money and any fees, for 
example, that are going towards modernization are going 
specifically to Copyright Office modernization. So we are going 
to work with OCIO to ensure that we do have even better 
communications and more transparency in terms of the usage of 
our funds for IT modernization.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Thank you. How have 
modernization efforts in the Copyright Office been impacted by 
having to operate within the Library of Congress?
    Ms. Temple. Well, you know, it is certainly----
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I guess maybe I should ask have the 
efforts of the Copyright Office been negatively impacted by 
having to operate within the Library of Congress.
    Ms. Temple. Well, I will say that it is certainly a change. 
We previously did have, for example, direct access to vendors 
where the business was guiding the IT development. And so one 
of the issues that I know is important for myself as well as 
the rest of our staff is just to ensure that in this new 
framework, the Copyright Office still does have that direct 
access to the vendors, to the contractors, so that we are 
actually the ones who are guiding the modernization efforts.
    Of course the Library also has a lot of priorities. They 
are modernizing other aspects of their systems as well. And so 
the other issue that we want to ensure is that when there are 
all these competing priorities, obviously we feel that the 
Copyright Office IT system is the number one priority. And so 
it is my really hope that the Librarian and the Library will 
continue to have IT modernization of the Copyright Office as 
one of its highest priorities.
    And so that is really what we are focusing on, ensuring 
that the business requirements and needs that we have for the 
Copyright Office are conveyed and listened to by the those who 
are developing our system, and that our system development 
remains a priority even among competing interests as well.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Thank you. Well, you 
will keep us abreast of how things progress.
    Ms. Temple. Yes.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. The distant-signal satellite 
television license is set to expire on December 31, 2019, and 
in your letter you reported that the use of the Section 119 
compulsory license has decreased in the past 5 years, but there 
are still over 870,000 subscribers. If we allow the compulsory 
license authorization to expire, then what will happen on 
January 1, 2020?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. We have said in our review that the 
marketplace has already risen up to address this issue. And so 
we do.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. How so?
    Ms. Temple. For example, in the marketplace, you have 
different ways in order to get signals. For example, you can 
now watch on YouTube. Streaming services have risen up.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well now, with broadband having not 
been extended to the far reaches of our society, of our 
country, that poses a problem.
    Ms. Temple. Well, I will say that, in our review, we did 
hear from the satellite providers, that there were about 
800,000 subscribers. But one of the issues that we mentioned 
was, one, the royalty rates have gone down significantly. 
Again, that was an 85 to 99 percent reduction in the royalties 
that we received. And even for that 800,000 number, it is not 
clear that those are all actually subscribers within 
households. Some of them are RVs and other types of entities.
    And so we don't think that there will be a significant harm 
to rural communities by allowing this license to expire. Again, 
this is something that we actually supported for many, many 
years. Over time I think that it has even gotten better in 
terms of the marketplace. So we think that even if the licenses 
were something that was useful a few years ago, to allow the 
marketplace to take advantage of all of the advancements, it is 
even more so now to do so because of the limited use of that 
particular license.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 
gentlelady from Alabama, Mrs. Roby.
    Mrs. Roby. Ms. Temple, I want to thank you so much for 
coming here and testifying today, and thank you for the time 
that you have spent with me in my office. And congratulations, 
and I look forward to working with you on ways that we can 
ensure our copyright system is working efficiently and 
effectively. So, again, thank you.
    As the co-chair of the Congressional Songwriters Caucus, I 
am particularly interested in effective implementation of the 
Music Modernization Act, and I know the chairman touched on 
this, but to ensure that songwriters are getting paid 
accurately and fairly for their work. And under the MMA, the 
Copyright Office must designate an entity to serve as the new 
Mechanical Licensing Collective by July 8. And we talked about 
this some in my office.
    But as you review the submissions and prepare to make 
regulations to implement the MMA, can you speak to the ongoing 
transparency and oversight responsibilities of the MLC to 
ensure correct matching of data that will help ensure that 
songwriters are paid fairly? And then I will just add one more 
thing. What would you recommend that we in Congress, and 
particularly this committee, do to provide meaningful oversight 
of the MLC and ensure that the MMA accomplishes its goals?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. So as I mentioned earlier, you know, we 
were pleased by both submissions that we received in the 
Copyright Office for the entities who wish to be designated as 
the MLC, recognizing that one of the most important goals of 
the MLC is to ensure that songwriters get paid for the use of 
their works, and that they reduce the amount of unclaimed, 
unmatched royalties. So that is something that both proposed 
designees have actually identified.
    One of the things that Congress has also already done to 
ensure that this process works effectively is to ask the 
Copyright Office to do a study on best practices with respect 
to unmatched royalties and ways to reduce the unclaimed funds 
within the MLC. So that is one thing that Congress has already 
done. We will be starting to prepare that report as soon as the 
designation is made, and again, that report will come out in 
July 2021 where we will be recommending best practices.
    And so I think once the report goes to Congress, as well as 
to the MLC, ensuring that those best practices, that we 
recommend are actually adopted, I think will be a key aspect of 
making sure that the system is working effectively.
    Mrs. Roby. Thank you. I am an original co-sponsor as well 
of the CASE Act, and it is great to see many creators here in 
the audience today. So currently it is cost prohibitive for 
many creators to enforce their rights in Federal court. So how 
will a copyright small claims tribunal or the copyright claims 
board in the CASE Act not only benefit creators, but also 
benefit users of content.
    Ms. Temple. Yes. As I said earlier in my opening testimony, 
it is really important for this system to work, that the legal 
rights that are created, that people have the ability to 
enforce those rights. And so with respect to many smaller 
creators, smaller businesses, individual authors, right now the 
legal right is there, but it is not effectively enforced 
because they don't have the ability to get into Federal court. 
So having this new alternative forum, I think, will be very 
important to really provide respect for the system and ensure 
that all who are supposed to benefit from the system are able 
to do so.
    One area that hasn't been highlighted a lot with respect to 
the CASE Act, however, is that it does also benefit users. You 
are able to, if you, for example, want to use a copyrighted 
work and aren't sure whether it is a fair use, you are able to 
go into the alternative form of the CCB and actually get a 
determination of noninfringement. So it is not just to go after 
those who are pirating works, but those who are using works and 
want, again, the confirmation that they are allowed to use 
those works and are able to go into that CCB with a streamlined 
process and get a determination of noninfringement as well.
    Mrs. Roby. So speaking of piracy, my home state of Alabama, 
like others, has seen an increase in movie and television 
production, bringing jobs and opportunities. But digital piracy 
remains a concern, and it can threaten possible future 
productions. The vast majority of people would never think of 
walking into a store and stealing a DVD, but don't give a 
second thought to streaming movies or shows online from illicit 
sites. So what suggestions would you have, and I have got 18 
seconds, on ways that we can educate the public, and 
particularly young people, on the illegality and harm of 
digital piracy?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. I think that often unfortunately when 
people think of digital piracy, they don't think that it really 
does harm individuals. They just see the major artist and 
think, oh, well, if they don't get paid for that one DVD, it is 
not going to harm them particularly. But they don't realize 
the----
    [Audio malfunction in hearing room.]
    Chairman Nadler. It did go over.
    Ms. Temple. Okay. It is on again? Thank you. They don't 
realize the impact that piracy has not only on artists, but all 
of those who are really participating in the copyright 
ecosystem. So I think that, yes, as you mentioned, outreach and 
education on this issue is critical. Teaching the young people 
that, if you wrote a paper, you wouldn't want your friend to 
take that paper and pretend that it was their own. That is 
basically piracy if you draft a song and somebody steals that 
song.
    So I think, again, once people understand the ramifications 
of how piracy really affects our culture and our ability to 
have a thriving copyright ecosystem and a thriving marketplace 
for culture, I think people will be more willing to understand 
the importance of protecting those intellectual property 
rights.
    Mrs. Roby. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Nadler. You are welcome. The time of the 
gentlelady has expired. The gentleman from New York, Mr. 
Jeffries.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I ask 
unanimous consent to enter into the record several letters in 
support of the CASE Act.
    Chairman Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

      

                  MR. JEFFRIES FOR THE OFFICIAL RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, and congratulations, Ms. Temple, 
on your permanent elevation to the position. I continue to 
appreciate the leadership that you provide. I want to thank my 
colleagues, Chairman Nadler, Chairman Johnson, Ted Lieu, Doug 
Collins of course, Congresswoman Roby, and Congressman Cline, 
for their support of the CASE Act.
    Ms. Temple, has copyright infringement increased 
significantly over the last several years?
    Ms. Temple. Well, that is, an issue that we have studied. I 
think according to some reports, yes, copyright infringement 
continues to increase steadily, and the type of copyright 
infringement changes, for example, from, illegal downloading to 
illegal streaming. So that is something that is a current 
concern because the more effective laws that we have, the more 
effective pirates are in trying to circumvent those laws.
    Mr. Jeffries. Under current law, when there is a claim for 
copyright infringement, that, of course, must be heard in 
Federal court? Is that right?
    Ms. Temple. Yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. And that applies regardless of the amount in 
controversy? Is that true?
    Ms. Temple. Yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. So if the amount in controversy is $5,000, if 
someone wants to vindicate that right, they still have to bring 
a Federal court case, correct?
    Ms. Temple. Right, yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. Now, I think you mentioned earlier today that 
the average cost of litigating a case in Federal court is 
approximately $200,000 if you take it to trial. Is that true?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. Yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. So in many instances, the cost of litigating 
in Federal court is often higher than the damages that one may 
be seeking as a petitioner. Is that true?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Jeffries. So is it fair to say that as a result of this 
sort of vexing situation, you have creators, visual artists, 
others who are left with a right, but no remedy to vindicate 
that right? Is that true?
    Ms. Temple. Yeah, that is one of our key conclusions.
    Mr. Jeffries. And do you support sort of a less burdensome 
alternative, such as a small claims court-like tribunal housed 
within the Copyright Office?
    Ms. Temple. Yes, and we issued a full report, as mentioned, 
recommending the creation of just such a court within the 
Copyright Office in 2013 with our Small Claims Report.
    Mr. Jeffries. And in terms of that 2013 report, that system 
that you recommended I think would be overseen by a panel of 
three copyright experts called the Copyright Claims Board?
    Ms. Temple. I don't know if we called it the CCB, but, yes, 
it would essentially be the same framework that is in actually 
the current CASE Act.
    Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And it would allow petitioners and 
respondents to participate without an attorney and without 
necessarily appearing in court. Is that right?
    Ms. Temple. Right, and that is the main purpose, allowing 
people to appear, for example, pro se, so they don't have to 
spend that $200,000. Also they might be able to utilize, for 
example, law students who are able to come in and help them. 
And I know under the CASE Act, the claims attorneys who are 
part of that bill would also be able to help guide those who 
are pro se in how to file their claims as well, which will be a 
very helpful aspect of the law.
    Mr. Jeffries. Also do you think that there is value in 
having copyright experts who will be part of the tribunal sort 
of assess the merits of a case and determine what, if any, 
damages would be available in the context of a dispute?
    Ms. Temple. Yes, copyright can often be very complex, and 
that is why we did recommend in our report that the CCB or 
whatever small claims tribunal, have authority by having 
expertise in copyright law. So at least two of the people who 
would be appointed would actually have to have expertise, both 
representing copyright owners as well as users.
    Mr. Jeffries. And I think the 2013 report also recommended 
considering imposing a ceiling on the damages. Is that right?
    Ms. Temple. Yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. And as far as you understand it, does the 
CASE Act sort of incorporate those recommendations by setting a 
$30,000 cap for each dispute, and $15,000 per work in terms of 
claims that are brought before the copyright review board?
    Ms. Temple. Yes, and that was our exact recommendation in 
our 2013 report.
    Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And in terms of the importance of 
individual artists being able to vindicate their rights under 
copyright, could you speak to the significance of it? Many of 
us have noted that Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United 
States Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate 
intellectual property law in order to promote the progress of 
science and useful arts, is sort of at the core of the founding 
of this Nation. And so to have a circumstance where you have 
artists who have a right but no remedy, and can't vindicate 
that right seems inconsistent with one of the foundational 
principles of the United States of America. But I would be 
interested in your thoughts.
    Ms. Temple. I couldn't say it any better. I will say that I 
certainly agree. We have recognized that individual artists and 
creators are really the backbone of our copyright ecosystem, 
and so having a system where those individual artists and 
creators aren't really able to participate and legally enforce 
their rights really isn't an adequate system at all. And that 
is why we do support a small claims tribunal so that those 
individual artists and creators are able to have a forum in 
which they can vindicate their rights.
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you for your service. Thank you for 
your testimony. I yield back.
    Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman 
from California, Mr. Lieu.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Temple, for 
your public service and for being here. My district in Southern 
California is home to a lot of creators. The Music 
Modernization Act was very important both to America as well as 
my district, and I look forward to your office's implementation 
of it. My first question is, how will artists and songwriters 
and creators be able to comment on or give feedback to your 
office regarding the implementation of MMA?
    Ms. Temple. Yes, so they have already been able to 
participate and provide comments in response to our 
designation, or our proposed designation, of the MLC, which is 
the first regulatory activity we have under the MMA. We have 
received over 600 comments from individual artists and others 
interested in providing their views as to which entity should 
be designated as the MLC. And then after we do designate, there 
are a number of regulatory implementation activities that we 
have to engage in.
    For each of those activities, we will go through a formal 
rulemaking process where we will seek comments from all of the 
public and especially, of course, those affected by the MMA, so 
that they will be able to participate in that process.
    Mr. Lieu. So if a creator is watching this and they want to 
know how to submit a comment, how do they specifically do that? 
Do you have a website? Do you----
    Ms. Temple. Yes, we have a website. In fact, just the day 
after the MMA was implemented, we put a specific webpage with 
FAQs about the MMA and the importance of the MMA to individual 
songwriters. We encourage songwriters and anybody who is 
interested to come to our website, our Music Modernization 
website page and actually get further information. They can 
also sign up for various notices that we put out. Any time, for 
example, that we do a regulatory process, we will issue a 
notice. We will tweet about it, but we also send it out to our 
subscribers so they are aware of it. So we encourage them to 
sign up with the Copyright Office so they can get those types 
of notices as well.
    Mr. Lieu. Great. Thank you. Once the Mechanical Licensing 
Collective is stood up, how will it be held accountable for 
accurately distributing royalties?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. I think that there are a number of 
provisions in the MMA that are critical and important to 
ensuring that whatever designation is made, that the system and 
the entity that is designated will be appropriately ensuring 
that songwriters are actually able to get their royalties.
    Again, we will have a number of rulemakings to ensure that 
the process is working effectively. There are audit right 
responsibilities in the Music Modernization Act itself that 
provide that, for example, the MLC will have to provide an 
audit that will then be made public and sent to Congress, as 
well as the Copyright Office. And then, again, we do have 
regulatory authority to help to implement and effectuate the 
Music Modernization Act if there is something that we feel 
needs to be clarified, for example.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you.
    I would like to ask a question on intellectual property 
theft. A recent study showed that it was around $225 billion in 
cost to the U.S. What are some of your greatest challenges in 
fighting back against that?
    Ms. Temple. I am sorry. I didn't hear----
    Mr. Lieu. I am sorry. Against IP theft.
    Ms. Temple. Yes. As I said, we aren't an enforcement 
agency, but, we work closely with the wider United States 
government to ensure that, again, the U.S. has strong 
protections in its law to ensure that we can fight effectively 
against piracy. I mentioned earlier that, unfortunately, as we 
update our law, often the pirates update their activities to 
try to get around our laws. And so one of the critical--
critically important things for us to do is just ensure that 
our law does keep up to date and that we are able to and the 
Department of Justice is able to, effectively go after the 
pirates, despite or however they are operating so that we can 
ensure that piracy does not continue to rise.
    And so we are working, continuing to work closely with 
Congress and with the Department of Justice and others who are 
interested in ensuring that the laws are kept up to date to be 
able to address the rising cost of piracy.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you.
    So my understanding of NAFTA 2.0 that is being negotiated 
is that there is a notice and takedown system for infringement, 
but that if a member state meets certain legislative 
requirements, that that is sufficient to comply. Do you believe 
that both Canada and Mexico will be able to comply and actually 
enforce that?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. NAFTA 2.0 has a notice and takedown 
system. We work closely with the interagency on any trade and 
treaty negotiations. We participated in the--on the delegations 
and ensuring that the provisions of the updated do reflect the 
U.S.'s position in that resulting provision is a good one and 
terms of the strength of IP laws. And we feel that we are 
hopeful that our trading partners will be able to effectuate 
that.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Nadler. I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from 
Texas, Ms. Escobar.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you so much for your testimony today and for being 
here to answer our questions.
    Only one entity, the Digital Music Association, has made a 
bid to become the DLC. The DiMA comprises executives from 
Apple, Spotify, Google, Amazon, and Sirius XM. Do you think 
smaller digital music platforms or new entrants have been 
overlooked by these large corporations?
    Ms. Temple. Well, I will say that, the process to be 
designated as the DLC is an open process. So anyone who wants 
to be considered as an entity to be the DLC is certainly, or 
was certainly, allowed to provide a submission to be 
designated. It wasn't limited to just the larger corporations. 
It just so happened we only received one submission to be the 
DLC, unlike the MLC, where we did receive two designations.
    Under the MMA, we don't actually have to choose a DLC. The 
DLC does have to comply with the statutory requirements of the 
MMA. So we will thoroughly look at the submission that we 
received from the one applicant and ensure that it does reflect 
the goals of the statutory provisions. And then we will make a 
decision as to whether that entity should be designated as the 
DLC.
    Ms. Escobar. Okay. Thank you.
    If Congress does not reauthorize the Section 119 license, 
should it play a role in establishing another market-based 
alternative, or should the market play out on its own?
    Ms. Temple. Yes, we have said with respect to the Section 
119 license specifically that, again, that license has really 
reached its limit in terms of its effectiveness, and we think 
that the marketplace itself has been able to rise up. So we 
don't think that there necessarily needs to be an alternative 
to the Section 119 license, but instead, we think that the free 
market would be appropriate to allow for those entities who had 
been using the license to be able to compete effectively.
    Ms. Escobar. What impact would the reauthorization of this 
section have on the Copyright Office, and is there any burden 
in maintaining the Section 119 license?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. As I said, for several years we have 
recommended to Congress that they sunset that license. We will 
obviously continue to administer the license and to distribute 
royalties if the license does remain. But it is something, 
again, where the royalties under that license are dropping, and 
they are continuing to drop.
    And so we just don't see that license as being an effective 
way to support the copyright ecosystem. Instead, we think that 
the free market at this stage, again, is more appropriate.
    So we will continue to administer the license if it is 
reauthorized, but we do strongly believe that over the course 
of the last few years, it has really been obvious that that 
license is no longer needed and that it should be allowed to 
sunset.
    Ms. Escobar. Do you think the Section 119 license 
diminishes the value of copyrights?
    Ms. Temple. Well, we have always said that for compulsory 
license, which does allow for the use of copyrighted works 
without the permission of the copyright owner, that they should 
only be done in instances of true market failure.
    And so if there isn't a market failure--and right now, we 
don't think that there is--then we don't believe that the 
compulsory licenses are needed any longer, and that is how the 
copyright ecosystem should actually work. And so because there 
is no more market failure with respect to the need for a 
Section 119 license, we do think that, again, it is appropriate 
to allow the market to take over.
    Ms. Escobar. And what new legal or policy issues does the 
office foresee becoming important over the next few years? Are 
you planning on undertaking any new initiatives?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, I 
think in response to a question, we do have our Section 512 
study that is still ongoing that we hope to issue by the end of 
this year. So looking at how effective the Section 512 notice 
and takedown regime is with respect to piracy and the balance 
that it is supposed to effectuate within the system will be, I 
think, a critical aspect. We may have recommendations to 
Congress on that issue.
    We are also very interested in Congress potentially 
addressing the issue of illegal streaming. Again, as I 
mentioned, right now the penalties are really not on par for 
violations of the unauthorized use of public performances in 
contrast to the felony penalties that are in our law for 
violations of the reproduction and distribution rights.
    So I think looking at illegal streaming is certainly an 
area, and we actually did--we just recently received a letter 
from Congress, from the Senate side on this particular issue 
that we will be responding to in the upcoming weeks as well.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady 
from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean?
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And may I add my congratulations to you, Director Temple, 
for your recent appointment. It is terrific and exciting.
    I wanted to ask you two areas of inquiry, some of which you 
have touched upon, but in particular, you mentioned the 
analysis of overall workforce needs in your 2020 study. So when 
you look at needs, I am wondering specifically what areas are 
you looking at, and what do you hope might be some of your 
takeaways? What are some of the biggest challenges and threats? 
So a little more information on the 2020 study.
    Ms. Temple. Yes, in terms of the Copyright Office workforce 
needs?
    Ms. Dean. Yes.
    Ms. Temple. So one of the things that we have said is that 
when we are modernizing the Copyright Office, we know it is 
critical to focus on IT, but we don't want to just focus on IT. 
We want to modernize our entire systems.
    We want to make sure that our workflow and our processes 
are really being modernized as well. We want to make sure that 
we have the right positions that reflect either our new IT 
systems or the new ways that we are going to have to do our 
job.
    So right now, we do have--we are working on having several 
contractors come in to assist us with that process. We already 
have the Office of Personnel Management in our office right 
now, which is looking at our position descriptions and our 
positions to make sure that, for example, they are adequately 
graded, that we have enough. They will be in our office until 
2020, and then they will issue a study on that issue.
    Then we are also going to be engaging with a contractor to 
help us with business process reengineering, looking at the 
workflow aspects of our office to make sure again that we have 
the most effective and efficient processes. And then we are 
finally looking at organizational change management. We are 
going to bring in a contractor to help us with that area as 
well.
    We understand in a business transformation of this 
magnitude, it is critical that we have the buy-in of all of our 
staff and that they understand how their positions may change 
and are supportive of that. And so we are going to have a 
consultant come in to help us with that.
    So we have a number of areas that we are working on to 
support IT modernization and modernization of the office as a 
whole that really aren't focused exclusively on the IT 
development side.
    Ms. Dean. Are you also looking at diversity and inclusion 
across the board in the organization? I serve on the Diversity 
and Inclusion Subcommittee in Financial Services. And it is 
interesting to take a look at organizations. I had a roundtable 
in my district. We had business. We had law enforcement. We had 
educational leaders.
    As part of your study, are you looking also at that, not 
just percentage of diversity--women, people of color, those who 
are disabled, all kinds of diversity--but across the spectrum 
of the Copyright Office?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. You know, I take those issues very 
seriously, myself personally. We are working with the Library. 
The Library actually just did develop a group, Library wide, to 
look at diversity and inclusion issues. So we have a--my senior 
adviser, actually, a direct report of mine, is actually working 
on that group.
    So she is going to be helping the Library, Library-wide in 
terms of those initiatives and is also spearheading those 
initiatives for me personally within the Copyright Office.
    Ms. Dean. Some of my common sense takeaways from having 
conversations about that is, number one, sometimes people just 
think their offices are diverse, and then they actually take a 
moment to look around, and then they find they aren't. So it is 
being sort of deliberate and intentional about making sure you 
are looking at that.
    And number two is sort of setting goals. So I am delighted 
you are looking at that.
    I will flip real quick in the one minute I have remaining. 
Can you tell us about any plans you have to evaluate or 
potentially outsource additional functions, privatizing any 
functions that you might be doing, or are you trying to, in 
your overall study and modernization, not do that kind of 
outsourcing?
    Ms. Temple. We think that it is important that the 
copyright system of the United States is run by the United 
States and is controlled by the Copyright Office. So that is 
the main focus. We are, of course, looking at creative options 
for resources and funding.
    So, for example, we are exploring the possibility of no-
cost contracting as part of the way to fund our IT 
modernization. So while we think it is important to maintain 
the Copyright Office IT systems within the Copyright Office, we 
are certainly willing and are looking right now at ways to 
creatively fund the development of that system.
    Ms. Dean. Terrific. Thank you, Director Temple.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield the remainder of my time.
    Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady yields back the remainder 
of her time. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Bass.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And let me join everyone 
else in congratulating you on your position, and I enjoyed our 
conversation, look forward to working with you.
    Ms. Temple. Thank you.
    Ms. Bass. The Music Modernization Act presents a unique 
opportunity to address inequities artists of color have faced 
for decades due to a lack of access and representation. Today, 
there has been a 72 percent increase in on-demand audio 
streaming. Hip hop surpassed rock as the most popular in terms 
of total consumption in the United States, and 9 out of 10 most 
streamed songs in 2018 were hip hop songs.
    African-American and Latinx artists, hip hop and R&B 
accounted for 29.7 percent of all streams in 2018, more than 
doubling rock. This is also at a time when Latin music has 
experienced record-breaking revenue growth due to streaming in 
both English and Spanish.
    The MLC will be tasked with ensuring that owners of music 
composition copyrights receive royalty payments and maintain a 
music ownership database that will allow copyright owners to 
stake claims to their songs. So it is critical that the thought 
leadership driving this process reflects every type of music 
copyright owner. So when considering an entity responsible for 
the Mechanical--excuse me--Licensing Collective, have you 
considered the issue of diversity or encouraged diversity in 
its leadership?
    Ms. Temple. I will say, yes, that is certainly an issue 
that we have heard some concerns about from some of the 
commenters who have participated in our rulemaking process. 
We--by statute, of course, the entity that is designated as the 
MLC does have to represent, be endorsed by, and be supported by 
the largest number of musical work copyright owners or the 
largest percentage of musical work copyright owners. And so 
that will by statute ensure that the MLC does have a diverse 
representation in terms of the types of artists that it will 
have on its board.
    We did receive one comment, or a couple of comments, about 
just the diversity in terms of ethnicity and race on the board 
as well. We were pleased that in response to those comments, we 
did ask questions of both MLCs, and both who have proposed to 
be designated as the MLC have actually submitted comments to us 
committing to actually having a diverse and considering a 
diverse board. So we are very pleased by the response that we 
received from both of the entities proposing to be designated 
that this is an issue that they take seriously.
    Ms. Bass. Excellent. Excellent. Thank you.
    Some have argued that the new blanket licensing system 
flips the burden from digital service providers to the rights 
holders and songwriters. Jeff Price, a board member of the 
American Music Licensing Collective, which is one of the 
candidates for the Mechanical Licensing Collective, said that, 
``Unlike before, where the digital service providers would have 
to find you and pay you, now you have to know about the MLC, 
regardless of where you are on the planet.''
    So how do you respond to these concerns, and are they 
addressed in your designation process?
    Ms. Temple. Well, I think that partially they are actually 
addressed in the Music Modernization Act language itself. There 
is an obligation on the part of the entity that is designated 
as the MLC to make sure that they do outreach activities to 
alert songwriters to the need to sign up with the MLC.
    Ms. Bass. Do you know how they would do--how they would 
conduct the outreach?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. That is something that we did actually ask 
for information on from both of the designees, and so that is 
actually in terms of how they plan on doing it, and that is 
something that anyone can go on our website and see some of 
their plans in terms of outreach.
    They are also supposed to work with the DLC once it is 
designated, and the DLC itself is also supposed to provide 
outreach activities to those who come to their platforms, 
letting them know that the MLC exists and that they are 
encouraged to sign up. And then, separately, the Copyright 
Office also has statutory responsibilities under the MMA to 
provide outreach and education activities.
    And so we are committed, once the designation occurs, to 
take seriously those activities and really ensure that we can 
do our part in supporting the operation of MLC and ensuring 
that songwriters are aware of the need to participate to ensure 
that they are able to get paid and get their royalties.
    Ms. Bass. And do you have a way of monitoring how that 
outreach is going?
    Ms. Temple. Well, as I mentioned earlier, you know, one of 
the main issues is to ensure that there are not a large number 
of unclaimed funds remaining in the MLC, and that is why it is 
important for us to conduct a study on best practices, to 
reduce the amount of unclaimed funds. And so I think that will 
be a key area, us reviewing the practices of the MLC once it is 
designated, as well as best practices overall, and making 
recommendations to Congress and to the MLC itself in terms of, 
again, best practices to reduce the amount of unclaimed 
royalties that they might have.
    Ms. Bass. Thank you very much.
    Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman 
from North Dakota, Mr. Armstrong.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I know you had spoken with Mr. Cline and Mrs. Roby and 
touched on digital piracy, and you spoke to the Copyright 
Office's role on this subject. I would like to highlight some 
findings from a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and NERA 
Consulting issued a study on the impacts of digital video 
piracy on the U.S. economy.
    As of 2018, there were more video streaming subscribers 
compared to paid TV subscribers and approximately 500 licensed 
online video portals. Twenty-six-point-six billion viewings of 
U.S. films were digitally pirated each year, costing over $29 
billion annually. You mentioned that this harms not only the 
content creators, but also the broader economy. And I know that 
your office is not the enforcement agency, but can you explain 
current enforcement authority to prevent such piracy?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. The current enforcement authority is 
handled by the Department of Justice. Again, as I mentioned 
earlier, we do work with them closely on policy issues with 
respect to IP rights and updating our laws. We also work 
closely with the Department of Justice, the Patent and 
Trademark Office, and other parts of the interagency to ensure 
that our trading partners also have strong IP laws in their 
regimes. And so that is one thing that we do when we support 
the interagency on treaty and trade negotiations to, again, 
ensure that the global copyright ecosystem does protect 
strongly the copyrights of individuals and of businesses.
    Mr. Armstrong. And I am assuming pirating technology, I 
mean, it is a constant battle. Which would be to my next 
question and no matter how many enforcement agents we have, I 
mean if there is 26.6 billion pirated viewings, I mean, you are 
not going to get it at the viewer side. You have to get it 
where it is being pirated. I mean, I just can't imagine the 
monumental task that this is.
    Ms. Temple. Yes. It certainly is a monumental task, and I 
think that is why there is just not one way to address it. 
Certainly, making sure that we have a strong IP framework is an 
important aspect of it, but we are also encouraged by voluntary 
initiatives where the digital platforms and content creators 
are working together voluntarily to address this issue. So that 
is another area that can really help to combat the rising 
piracy as well.
    Mr. Armstrong. And you recommended that we continually 
update our laws to keep up with piracy. What policy changes can 
we make, either in the laws themselves or allowing these 
agencies to adapt more quickly to better protect this content?
    Ms. Temple. Yes, as I said, making sure that we are 
reflecting the way that piracy occurs is one of the most 
important things that we need to do. So updating our laws, for 
example, to provide for felony penalties for illegal streaming 
is something that, again, we strongly support and have 
supported in the past. We are, as I mentioned earlier, also 
reviewing the notice and takedown regime of Section 512 to see 
whether it is still providing the balance that Congress 
intended and whether there are areas that need to be tweaked 
either through legislative change or through additional 
voluntarily initiatives. And so those are some of the ways that 
both Congress and the Copyright Office can help to ensure that 
piracy is combated.
    Mr. Armstrong. And I guess this is just kind of my last 
question, and I am not sure there is an answer for it. But we 
do a really good job of--well, I hope at least sometimes we do 
a really good job of dealing with the issue in front of us. But 
in this universe, how do we promulgate policy that allows us to 
deal with something we don't even know exists yet that could 
come on the horizon in 6 months?
    Ms. Temple. Right. That, again, is the perennial issue in 
terms of trying to get ahead of the pirates. Any time we have 
new technology, new technology can often be used by pirates as 
well. So I think, again, having a multipronged process to get 
out ahead of it is important, ensuring that our copyright laws 
are kept updated, but also ensuring that there are effective 
ways for the industries themselves on a voluntary basis to work 
together to address piracy is an important aspect as well.
    Mr. Armstrong. Thank you. I yield back.
    Chairman Nadler. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady 
from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    It is stunning that we have not had a hearing since 2015. 
So I congratulate the Chairman and Ranking Member for a very 
important hearing. And as well, congratulate Ms. Temple for her 
appointment, moving from so many different positions, but now 
the person. And so, again, congratulations to you and your 
team.
    I, too, want to focus on the Music Modernization Act and 
also the question of modernization dealing with the technology 
in your office, which I think is extremely important, the 
status of the Copyright Office IT. And at the same time, what 
kind of firewalls are you putting in place to avoid hacking, 
the infringement from foreign adversaries, to be very honest, 
because what you have may have some measure of intelligence to 
it in terms of its quality or value to international operators.
    But let me raise this point. Some have argued that the new 
blanket licensing system flips the burden from digital service 
providers to the rights holders and songwriters. Jeff Price, a 
board member of the American Music Licensing Collective, AMLC, 
which is one of the candidates for the Mechanical Licensing 
Collective, said that, ``Unlike before, when the digital 
service providers would have to find you and pay you, now you 
have to know about the MLC, regardless of where you are on the 
planet.''
    So how do you respond to these concerns, and are they 
addressed in your designation process? Question number one. And 
Price also estimates that the new system could leave $4 billion 
to $5 billion of accrued royalties undistributed, which 
concerns me. I have lived with the music licensing issue and 
trying to balance it for many years in this committee, and we 
did make great progress in the past year.
    Price also estimates--and so what measures can be taken to 
ensure that rights owners are properly compensated and not 
unduly burdened in collecting that compensation?
    Ms. Temple. Yes, thank you for the question.
    This, again, is a very important one, and it is a critical 
part of whatever entity is designated, that they ensure that 
they reduce the amount of unclaimed royalties. I will say that 
we are unaware of where Mr. Price got the figure of $4 billion 
to $5 billion. That did not come in any of the comments that we 
received in terms of the possibility of unclaimed royalties. So 
we would be interested in terms of where that estimate is 
coming from.
    But we do think, again, that there are specific provisions 
in the statute that will help to reduce those unclaimed 
royalties. Again, in addition to this having to be a priority 
of whichever entity is designated, by statute the entity has to 
create an unclaimed royalties committee to review these issues. 
They have to provide audits to ensure that they are operating 
effectively. Those audits are going to be made available to 
Congress and to the Copyright Office.
    And then, again, we will be undertaking a full study that 
will seek comments from all of those who are affected by the 
MMA to ensure that there are best practices implemented by the 
MLC to reduce the amount of unclaimed royalties. And again, 
that study will be issued in July of 2021.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So your action item would be that you will 
be studying the processes that have been established. Well, let 
me follow up by saying under Title I of the Music Modernization 
Act, digital music providers, such as Spotify and Apple Music, 
will soon be able to obtain a blanket license. So how will the 
Copyright Office help ensure that the transition to the blanket 
license system will be seamless?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. We are committed to helping to make sure 
that that process works effectively. We, again, immediately 
upon the passage of the MMA, issued certain rules and 
regulations that were required primarily for the pre-1972 sound 
recordings part of the MMA and then now are in the process of 
implementing regulations for the Section 115 aspect of the MMA.
    Once we designate the MLC and the DLC, we will then work 
closely on implementing regulations. Again, we have to do 
regulations on the form and type of notices, of the blanket 
license, the form and type of notices of license activity, 
usage reports, usability issues, interoperability issues, as 
well as privacy and consideration of privacy and confidential 
information.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me----
    Ms. Temple. So we have a lot to work to do.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Right.
    Ms. Temple. And we are committed to doing it.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, let me get these two other questions 
in. Let me try to understand how your IT is working to avoid 
breaching and security breaches. And then, two, your outreach 
to minorities who need that kind of outreach as you go forward 
to understand this process.
    Ms. Temple. Yes. So in terms of IT modernization and the 
security of our systems, that is a primary goal of our office, 
to ensure that our systems are secure. We obviously take in a 
lot of very important and valuable information both information 
as well as the data and deposits themselves. So we think it is 
critical that the Copyright Office----
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Minority outreach?
    Ms. Temple. Hmm?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Minority outreach?
    Ms. Temple. And minority outreach. In terms of minority 
outreach, again, that is a critical area. We are expanding and 
have expanded our outreach and education program recently. We 
just recently had some students from the Hispanic Bar 
Association in our office to encourage them to seek IP law as 
an appropriate career.
    I just recently spoke at the Howard University about 
copyright and social justice, which is something that a lot of 
people don't equate copyright with, but copyright is an aspect 
of social justice. So that is an area that I personally am 
interested in and that we have been pursuing in recent months 
as well.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 
much. Congratulations.
    Ms. Temple. Thank you.
    Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired. 
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch.
    Mr. Deutch. Thanks very much. Mr. Chairman, thanks for 
holding the hearing.
    Thanks to our witness for being here, and congratulations 
on your formal nomination.
    I know you have been doing the job for quite a while, and I 
appreciate your service and willingness to lead the office into 
the 21st century. I just want to follow up on some of the 
questions that my friends Mr. Nadler and Ms. Jackson Lee have 
already touched on.
    As co-chair of the Songwriters Caucus with my friend 
Congresswoman Roby, we meet with songwriters from across the 
country, and there has been a good discussion about the MLC and 
compiling the information for the MLC and matching the 
information of songwriters. I just wanted to make sure I 
understood.
    On the issue of market share, market share is going to be 
determined based on streaming and ownership information. But 
obviously, if the database isn't complete, then payments could 
end up poorly representing the actual marketplace. The statute 
provides discretion.
    I just wanted to reemphasize some of what has already been 
discussed about the focus being on making sure that this is 
done right, obviously. Not focusing solely on accomplishing a 
task in time for a deadline, which would then lead to rushing 
to make payments from unmatched funds before the database is 
complete, as complete as possible anyway, and making sure that 
the pool is as small as possible.
    That is--that is the way you are approaching it, and I just 
want to confirm that.
    Ms. Temple. Yes, and we were again pleased that both of the 
entities that wanted to be designated as the MLC agreed with 
the interpretation that unclaimed funds cannot be distributed 
until 2023. So that will actually ensure whoever is designated 
as the MLC has time to actually develop a framework to reduce 
the amount of unclaimed funds.
    Mr. Deutch. Great. I appreciate that.
    Second, as you know, Cloudflare is a large company that 
provides a number of services related to Internet security and 
the delivery of content over the Internet. There is no doubt 
services are valuable to its many legitimate, law-abiding 
customers. Indeed, I have recently seen reports that the 
Copyright Office uses its services as well.
    I have also seen, however, some concerning reports of what 
appears to be a darker side of the use of Cloudflare describing 
its widespread provision of services to known bad actors, 
including hate speech sites, counterfeiters, even terror 
groups, according to one of the reports that I read. And I just 
ask whether you would agree to review the Copyright Office's 
use of Cloudflare in light of these really disturbing reports.
    Ms. Temple. That is an important question. As you know, 
post centralization of IT was in the Library. Those issues are 
decided by OCIO, the Librarian's OCIO. We have raised this 
issue, in light of stakeholders' concern, with OCIO that some 
have questioned the use of that particular entity, and so we 
are hopeful that they will review that issue.
    Mr. Deutch. So you have raised it and asked them to do 
what?
    Ms. Temple. We asked them to review the issue to see if it 
is appropriate for them to use that entity.
    Mr. Deutch. Okay. I appreciate that, and we would 
appreciate being kept abreast of that analysis as well.
    I would like--I would like to ask about the fast-paced 
nature of creation and publication online today. 
Photojournalists obviously tweet images of breaking news. 
Artists and poets post moving works on Instagram. Authors now 
write on blogs. And this modern-day publishing is done in an 
instant.
    And the tools make it incredibly easy to share creative 
content online, but obviously, there are challenges for your 
office. If you could talk about some of the challenges and 
opportunities that you see as you work to keep pace with 
protecting those creators who share their work online who are 
doing really important work, creators who are fortunate to have 
copyright protection. But if they don't have the benefit of 
statutory damages, their work then in the blink of an eye is 
then put at risk.
    So if you could just talk about how you see this going 
forward?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. And we know that this is a critical issue. 
Obviously, in order to get statutory damages, they have to have 
registered within a certain amount of time with the Copyright 
Office, and so we want to make sure that, again, as we develop 
a modernized system, we make it as easy as possible to register 
and also to register, you know, a high volume of works.
    We understand, for example, photographers will take 
thousands of pictures in one session. Right now, we have a 
group registration option for photographers that does allow 
them to provide up to 750 photographs with us at one time, and 
that is to ease the burden of individual filings of copyright 
registration applications.
    In the future----
    Mr. Deutch. If I can just ask, has that been successful 
since February when it was implemented?
    Ms. Temple. It has been successful in the sense that it 
allows the Copyright Office to adequately use its resources to, 
handle a large volume of photographs. We do understand that 
there are some concerns by photographers that that number is 
too low. And so one of the things that we are looking at as we 
that continue to modernize is whether there are ways that we 
can use technology to more quickly review those types of claims 
where they are high-volume claims.
    And yes, we would be able to raise that limit beyond 750 if 
we are able to use technology. One of the things that we would 
love to do is, for example, allow people to register through 
their mobile telephone so that they are able to do it easily, 
use API to be able to be interoperable with our office. So 
those are some of the areas that we are exploring in terms of 
modernization right now.
    Mr. Deutch. Terrific. Great. Thanks very much.
    Ms. Temple. Thanks.
    Chairman Nadler. The time of the gentleman is expired. The 
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Garcia.
    Ms. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And Ms. Temple, thank you for being here. I would like to 
congratulate you, and I do apologize. I did have another 
hearing that I am sort of bouncing around from one to the 
other. But, so if I ask anything that you have already talked 
about, please excuse me.
    But I wanted to start with picking up where my colleague 
and fellow Houstonian left off, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson 
Lee. In the blanket license that you are going to be able to 
give now to Spotify and Apple Music, is there a reason that a 
blanket license was chosen versus the old song-by-song 
licensing, and will that cause any additional challenges for 
you?
    Ms. Temple. So a blanket license was chosen to really 
further effectuate the efficiency of the music 1854 licensing 
system. The old song-by-song license, as you can realize, these 
individual services are using millions and millions of works. 
So if they cannot find the songwriter or copyright owner in our 
database, they will have to file it.
    For example, they had to file notices with the Copyright 
Office to be able to get a license under Section 115. We 
received in millions of individuals NOIs, pursuant to that 
song-by-song license approach. And so that really was not the 
most efficient way to market or music licensing under----
    Ms. Garcia. Do you see any issues arising from that?
    Ms. Temple. Arising from the----
    Ms. Garcia. From doing the blanket license?
    Ms. Temple. No. This is, again, something that the 
Copyright Office has reviewed for several years. We supported 
the creation of a blanket license under Section 115 for many, 
many years even before our Section 115 report in 2015. So this 
is something that we think will actually further support the 
efficiency of the music licensing market and actually allow 
songwriters to get paid more effectively.
    Ms. Garcia. Right. And then I wanted to also talk a little 
bit about the piracy issue. I realize that DOJ does the 
enforcement. You do not. But what steps are you taking or are 
you taking any steps now to kind of monitor and create the 
data, and can you share with us today if there is--since you 
started doing it, if you are already doing it, how big the 
increase is? Is it as big as we think, or we don't even know 
the full of it?
    Ms. Temple. I don't want to get out ahead of us in terms of 
the fact that we are right now--in the process of completing 
our report on Section 512, and so we will have some more 
specific data once that report is released.
    Ms. Garcia. When will that be released?
    Ms. Temple. So that will be released by the end of this 
year.
    Ms. Garcia. Okay.
    Ms. Temple. And so that is, again, one of the areas that we 
are working on in the policy side to ensure that our laws are 
kept updated to deal with piracy. Again, we also work with the 
interagency to ensure that our copyright framework, both 
domestically and internationally, is strong. So we do support 
delegations for treaty and trade negotiations as well.
    And then, finally, I think the U.S. government has been 
interested in supporting, if it can, voluntary initiatives 
between digital platforms and content creators to see if there 
are things that they can do even outside of specific laws to 
address this issue voluntarily.
    Ms. Garcia. Well, but to assure the public today, I mean, 
you are telling me that you are monitoring----
    Ms. Temple. Yes.
    Ms. Garcia [continuing]. And you are looking at it. And you 
look at it not only here in the continental U.S., but you are 
looking at it globally?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. We have a full international policy 
affairs department that helps assist the rest of the United 
States government as they look at these issues. We often 
review, for example, the laws of other countries to see if they 
reflect the strong IP framework that we have here in the United 
States, and we will provide suggestions to them to consider as 
they are updating their laws to ensure that that they are 
effectively addressing piracy as well.
    Ms. Garcia. And you, as a representative of the United 
States, are fully engaged and fully participating in any global 
forums or, you know, coalitions that are looking at this topic?
    Ms. Temple. Yes. We, you know, by statute participate in 
foreign delegations, as mentioned. We work very, very closely 
with the United States Trade Representative. We also serve on 
delegations to the World Intellectual Property Organization. So 
that is something that we do regularly.
    Ms. Garcia. Right. Very quickly, I just want to go on 
record as being supportive of the small claims court. I think 
anything we can do to make it easier for the average, everyday 
American to be able to go through this process would be very 
helpful to many people that we represent, and I hope that you 
can support that and assist in any way you can if that were to 
become the law.
    Ms. Temple. Yes. We do fully support that.
    Ms. Garcia. All right. Thank you.
    Yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady 
from Arizona, Ms. Lesko.
    Ms. Lesko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. 
Temple.
    And I think since you are going to be done pretty soon 
because I think I am the last one over here at least. I think 
there was questions already answered because I was going to 
talk about STELAR and the reauthorization or your 
recommendation not to reauthorize it. And I was told somebody 
asked you what will happen to the satellite subscribers that 
utilize Section 119 license. But more specifically, you know, I 
have concerns about maybe the people that have recreational 
vehicles, truckers, those type of folks. What are their options 
going to be, and are you considering grandfathering in some 
customers?
    Ms. Temple. As I said earlier, we looked at this issue for 
many years. We do think that the usage of that license has 
really dropped significantly so that there will not be a 
significant market harm to those rural communities that rely--
have relied on the license in the past and that the free market 
will allow for other entities to come up and to allow for the 
actual usage of various satellite transmission. So we don't 
think that it needs to be done rather through a compulsory 
license, but it can be done through the free marketplace.
    Ms. Lesko. And Ms. Temple, since I wasn't here for your 
answer, how many people, how many consumers utilize that 
service?
    Ms. Temple. So, right now, I think it was mentioned earlier 
that there was an estimate that there were about 800,000 
subscribers, and I think you mentioned that in your testimony 
as well. One of the issues that we recognize is that it is not 
clear and we did ask, I think, that question of the services 
exactly what types of subscriptions they are reflecting. Are 
they household subscriptions or others?
    And so that is one issue that we are seeking further 
information on.
    Ms. Lesko. And Mr. Chairman, I guess I just want to say 
please keep in mind these people. And even though it is a 
relatively small number, I know that when the service is taken 
away, I assume they are not going to be happy. So if we can get 
some more information on that, and I will try to find out how 
many of these subscribers are in my district. And so thank you 
very much, Ms. Temple, and I yield back.
    Ms. Temple. Thank you.
    Chairman Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. The gentlelady 
yields back.
    There being no further questioners, this concludes today's 
hearing. We thank the witness for attending and for her work.
    Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days 
to submit additional written questions for the witness or 
additional materials for the record.
    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

      

                                APPENDIX

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]