[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                 OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                         WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-20

                               __________

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


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov                          			
            		         ________
	       	       
	             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
	       
48-301 			    WASHINGTON : 2022




               
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      DARRELL ISSA, California
    Georgia                          KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California            W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California           MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri

        PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                         Wednesday, May 5, 2021

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     2
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Ohio...............................     3

                                WITNESS

The Honorable Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and 
  Director, U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress
  Oral Testimony.................................................     5
  Prepared Statement.............................................     7

                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE RECORD

Questions to the Honorable Shira Perlmutter, Register of 
  Copyrights and Director, U.S. Copyright Office, Library of 
  Congress, submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York for 
  the record.....................................................    56
Questions to the Honorable Shira Perlmutter, Register of 
  Copyrights and Director, U.S. Copyright Office, Library of 
  Congress, submitted by the Honorable Darrell Issa, a Member of 
  the Committee on Judiciary from the State of California for the 
  record.........................................................    57
Questions to the Honorable Shira Perlmutter, Register of 
  Copyrights and Director, U.S. Copyright Office, Library of 
  Congress, submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of 
  the Committee on Judiciary from the State of Arizona for the 
  record.........................................................    59
Questions to the Honorable Shira Perlmutter, Register of 
  Copyrights and Director, U.S. Copyright Office, Library of 
  Congress, submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a 
  Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of 
  Texas for the record...........................................    60
Questions to the Honorable Shira Perlmutter, Register of 
  Copyrights and Director, U.S. Copyright Office, Library of 
  Congress, submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a Member 
  of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of 
  Pennsylvania for the record....................................    62
Questions to the Honorable Shira Perlmutter, Register of 
  Copyrights and Director, U.S. Copyright Office, Library of 
  Congress, submitted by the Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, a Member 
  of the Committee on Judiciary from the State of Wisconsin for 
  the record.....................................................    64
Responses to questions from the Honorable Shira Perlmutter, 
  Register of Copyrights and Director, U.S. Copyright Office, 
  Library of Congress, submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, 
  Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New 
  York, the Honorable Darrell Issa, a Member of the Committee on 
  Judiciary from the State of California, the Honorable Andy 
  Biggs, a Member of the Committee on Judiciary from the State of 
  Arizona, the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas, the 
  Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania, and the Honorable 
  Scott Fitzgerald, a Member of the Committee on Judiciary from 
  the State of Wisconsin for the record..........................    64

 
                 OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE

                              ----------                              


                         Wednesday, May 5, 2021

                     U.S. House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:11 a.m., on Zoom 
Video Webinar, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [Chair of the Committee] 
presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson 
Lee, Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Jayapal, Demings, 
Scanlon, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Escobar, Jones, Ross, Bush, 
Jordan, Chabot, Gohmert, Issa, Buck, Gaetz, Johnson of 
Louisiana, Biggs, Steube, Massie, Bishop, Fischbach, Spartz, 
Fitzgerald, Bentz, and Owens.
    Staff present: John Doty, Senior Advisor; Cierra Fontenot, 
Chief Clerk; Moh Sharma, Member Services and Outreach Advisor; 
Jordan Dashow, Professional Staff Member; John Williams, 
Parliamentarian; Jamie Simpson, Chief Counsel for Courts & IP; 
Rosalind Jackson, Professional Staff Member for Courts & IP; 
Tyler Grimm, Minority Chief Counsel for Policy and Strategy; 
Katy Rother, Minority Deputy General Counsel and 
Parliamentarian; Ella Yates, Minority Member Services Director; 
Ella Yates, Minority Member Services Director; Andrea Woodard, 
Minority Professional Staff Member; Kiley Bidelman, Minority 
Clerk; and John Lee, Minority USPTO Detailee.
    Mr. Nadler. Good morning, everyone. The House Committee on 
the Judiciary will come to order. Without objection, the Chair 
is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
    We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on oversight 
of the U.S. Copyright Office. Before we begin, I would like to 
remind Members that we have established an email address and 
distribution list dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions, 
or other written materials that Members might want to offer as 
part of our hearing today. If you would like to submit 
materials, please send them to the email addresses previously 
distributed to your offices and we will circulate the materials 
to Members and staff as quickly as we can.
    I would also like to ask all Members to please mute your 
microphones when you are not speaking. This will help to 
prevent feedback and other technical issues. You may unmute 
yourself any time you seek recognition. I will now recognize 
myself for an opening statement.
    Copyrights have played an integral part in driving this 
country's standing as a leader in creativity and innovation. 
The idea that creators should reap the rewards of their hard 
work dates to the country's founding in article 1, section 8 of 
the Constitution, the founders granted Congress the authority 
to promote the progress of science and useful arts while 
securing for limited times to authors and inventors the 
exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
    While copyright laws evolved over the years, our goal is to 
remain true to the underlying aim of promoting and 
incentivizing creators' hard work while protecting their 
intellectual property. This has largely been a success. Today, 
core copyright industries account for millions of jobs and have 
contributed more than $1 trillion to the U.S. economy. The U.S. 
Copyright Office, the focus of our hearing today, plays a vital 
role in upholding this copyright system.
    I would like to extend a warm welcome to the Register of 
Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, who is at the helm of this 
important institution. Register Perlmutter is six months into 
her tenure as Register and we look forward to hearing from her 
today and to working with her on the many issues before the 
office and in the copyright space.
    This past year, as the Nation adjusted under the 
coronavirus pandemic, the Copyright Office likewise had to 
adapt. In March of 2020, the office transitioned most of its 
staff to remote work and offered electronic options to services 
that were previously paper-based. The office also used its 
authority under the CARES Act to extend the deadlines of 
certain actions. I commend the office for its work in 
transitioning smoothly.
    This past year also has highlighted the importance of an 
effective and robust copyright system. Just as the Copyright 
Office had to close its physical doors, music concerts 
vanished, theaters shuttered, and movie sets were inactive. 
This has had a devastating impact on creative industries and 
has made it even more evident how critical it is that we 
maintain a strong copyright system to bolster the creative 
community as it seeks to recover in the face of the pandemic.
    This Committee held its last Copyright Office oversight 
hearing in 2019. There have been some notable changes since 
then.
    In December, for example, Congress passed a Copyright 
Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act, or CASE Act, led 
by our colleague, Representative Jeffries, and our former 
colleague, Representative Doug Collins. The CASE Act addressed 
the prohibitive costs of pursuing a copyright infringement suit 
in federal court by establishing a small claims tribunal in the 
Copyright Office called the Copyright Claims Board. The Board 
is expected to be operational by the end of the year, and we 
look forward to hearing about the office's progress in 
implementing the CASE Act and standing up the Board.
    The Copyright Office has also been integral in the 
implementation of the blanket license that digital music 
providers established under title I of the Music Modernization 
Act. The blanket license became available this January, and the 
mechanical licensing collective has already distributed its 
initial round of royalty payments. We look forward to hearing 
more about how the first few months of the blanket license have 
unfolded so far.
    Turning to what may lie ahead, this is the Committee's 
first opportunity to hear from the office about the report on 
section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that it 
published last year. The office reviewed whether in today's 
environment section 512 notice and takedown regime properly 
balanced the growth of the internet against the protection of 
intellectual property rights. The office concluded that this 
balance was tilted askew. The office put in a tremendous amount 
of work over the course of its multi-year study, and we look 
forward to discussing the office's conclusions and 
recommendations.
    I am also interested to hear Ms. Perlmutter's views on the 
ART Act legislation I introduced responding to the office's 
recommendation in a 2013 report that Congress consider creating 
a resale royalty right to visual artists that would give 
artists a percentage of the sales when their work is resold 
under certain conditions. This addresses the disparity that 
arises in the field of visual arts because such artists do not 
benefit from the copyright system in the same way as other 
creators since they generally do not sell many copies of their 
works. This legislation assures that if their works become more 
valuable over time, they are able to share in that increase in 
value.
    Accordingly, I believe this legislation is a matter of 
basic fairness and will put us in the company of more than 70 
other countries around the world. It will also ensure that 
Americans receive royalties when their works are sold abroad in 
those other countries, which will not happen until we offer 
them such a right ourselves.
    Moving away from the law, the Committee is also following 
the Copyright Office's effort to modernize its IT systems and 
business processes. The office made a number of updates last 
year, including launching an electronic recordation pilot and 
releasing a new public records interface.
    The Library of Congress is also convening a Copyright 
Public Modernization Committee to be led by the Library of 
Congress' Office of the Chief Information Officer. The 
Committee looks forward to hearing about these and other 
developments at the office and in the copyright system.
    I thank Register Perlmutter for her appearance today, and 
again, I congratulate her on her appointment.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, it is May 5th 
and this is our first Full Committee hearing. There is a crisis 
at the border. The President is talking about abolishing ICE. 
Our local communities are being threatened by the left movement 
to defund the police. You are trying to pack the Supreme Court. 
The teacher's union are stopping kids from going to school. 
President Biden is bankrupting the country one omnibus bill at 
a time. A virus continues to threaten our civil rights. The 
House Judiciary's first Full Committee hearing this Congress is 
oversight of the Copyright Office.
    I mean no offense to Register Perlmutter and the important 
work her office is doing. In fact, copyrights are a critical 
part of the U.S. economy, and it is an area ripe for bipartisan 
work. America's creators and distributors deserve our attention 
to make sure this is a well-functioning marketplace. We are all 
proud of the major pieces of copyright legislation that were 
signed into law in recent years, some that the Chair just 
talked about including the Music Modernization Act, and the 
CASE Act, and hopefully, this is just the beginning.
    Last Congress, we began important work looking into section 
512 and other areas of the DMCA that can be approved, and it is 
our hope that consensus legislation can be identified and 
actually signed into law. We must keep a watchful eye over the 
collection and distribution of unclaimed royalties under the 
Music Modernization Act to ensure that trade associations and 
big publishers and wealthy artists are not profiting on the 
back of those without the means or access to money that they 
are owed.
    Rampant online piracy of copyrighted movies, TV shows, 
music, and other content that criminals in China, Russia, and 
elsewhere must also be stopped and bold steps taken to fight it 
such as the felony streaming law we passed late last year. We 
must continue to look for ways to improve and modernize the 
copyright system so that it can continue to be the engine for 
job creation and economic growth for decades to come.
    I look forward to working with the Copyright Office. We 
have had a nice conversation with Ms. Perlmutter to take action 
on all these vital issues and appreciate that this hearing is 
an opportunity to help that alone. I hope, I hope that the 
Chair will finally start to pay similar attention to the many 
urgent problems facing Americans today, problems I hear about 
every single time I am out in our district, as I am today, as 
many of our colleagues are, problems that Americans want us to 
address, want us to deal with. I hope we get to them soon, Mr. 
Chair. With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. Without objection, all 
other opening statements will be included in the record.
    I will now introduce today's Witness. Shira Perlmutter is 
the Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright 
Office. She was appointed to the position effective October 
25th, 2020. Prior to her appointment as Register, Ms. 
Perlmutter had served since 2012 as Chief Policy Officer and 
Director for International Affairs at the United States Patent 
and Trademark Office.
    Before joining the USPTO, she was Executive Vice President 
for Global Legal Policy at the International Federation of the 
Phonographic Industry. Prior to that, she was Vice President 
and Associate General Counsel for Intellectual Property Policy 
at Time-Warner. Previously, she served as the first Associate 
Register for Policy and International Affairs at the Copyright 
Office.
    Ms. Perlmutter received her bachelor's degree from Harvard 
University and her law degree from the University of 
Pennsylvania. We welcome our distinguished Witness and we thank 
her for participating today.
    I will begin by swearing you in. If you would please turn 
on your audio, make sure I can see your face, and you raise 
your right hand while I administer the oath.
    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. Perlmutter. I do.
    Mr. Nadler. Let the record show that the Witness has 
answered in the affirmative. Thank you. Please note that your 
written statement will be entered into the record in its 
entirety. Accordingly, I ask that you summarize your testimony 
in five minutes. To help you stay within that time, there is a 
timer on your screen. You may now begin.

                 TESTIMONY OF SHIRA PERLMUTTER

    Ms. Perlmutter. Chair Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan, and 
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
discuss the many activities and accomplishments of the U.S. 
Copyright Office. I am pleased to report that the office has 
shown remarkable resilience during this challenging year. We 
continued to provide high-quality services to the public and 
expert advice to Congress and Executive Agencies, and achieved 
several milestones in our modernization efforts.
    We also moved forward in implementing recent legislation 
and have even improved processing times for electronic 
submissions. I will describe our major current initiatives, 
report on ongoing work, and outline our high-level priorities 
moving forward.
    First, we have made great strides in implementing the 
landmark Music Modernization Act, or MMA. The office completed 
the initial regulatory framework required for the Mechanical 
Licensing Collective, MLC, to administer the new blanket 
license. We have also fully implemented title II, which 
provides protection for pre-1972 U.S. sound recordings. We are 
concluding a study on best practices for the MLC to locate 
copyright owners and encourage the claiming of unmatched 
royalties.
    Second, we are working intensively on implementing the CASE 
Act, which establishes the Copyright Claims Board, which will 
be the first ever IP small claims tribunal in the United 
States. The office has issued a notice soliciting public 
comment on features of the new system and a proposed Rule 
establishing a process for expedited registration for claims 
pending before the Board. We are close to making 
recommendations to the Librarian for the appointment of the 
three copyright claims officers. We are collaborating with 
other units in the library to ready the technology and office 
space that will be needed for the board to launch, and we have 
developed a dedicated webpage which sets out the key facts 
about the tribunal and its status.
    Finally, we have made significant progress on office 
modernization. In Fiscal '20 we met objectives on three major 
workstreams: The launch of an electronic recordation pilot, the 
release of a new interface for the copyright public records 
system, and the internal release of a clickable prototype of 
the planned new registration application. We are in the process 
of digitizing our historic public records, and we moved into a 
new warehouse, where we will be consolidating all our copyright 
deposit materials.
    Let me turn to other ongoing work. The Office quickly 
adapted to the pandemic, transitioning 98 percent of the staff 
to full or partial telework within just a few weeks. The bulk 
of our operations has been largely unaffected by the 
transition.
    In Fiscal 2020, we registered nearly 450,000 claims to 
copyright involving millions of works. Even with the pandemic, 
we significantly reduced our processing time for examining most 
claims. We maintained an effective e-deposit program for the 
library, with the value of deposits just shy of the previous 
year's total. The Office continued to provide legal and policy 
advice, including the report on section 512. We have issued 
numerous rules and regulatory proposals since the start of the 
fiscal year, participated in several high-profile litigations, 
and continued our international work in multiple venues.
    After a virtual listening tour with a wide range of 
stakeholders, I have identified several high-level priorities 
going forward. First, we will ensure that Office modernization 
is not a one-off event, but a process of continuous 
improvement. Once we have fully digitized our collections and 
records, we will leverage that trove of data for the public's 
benefit and utilize new platforms and new technologies.
    Second, we will work to open the copyright system further 
to more participants. We want copyright to be as accessible as 
possible; that will include broadening our outreach in 
education efforts and focusing on underserved communities to 
expand diversity.
    Third, we will enhance the office's development and use of 
data by adding economic expertise. We will be hiring a chief 
economist to assist in producing and analyzing factual evidence 
for decision making on both policy and financial matters.
    In sum, the office's 150th year has been exceptionally 
busy, challenging, and productive. I want to thank our 
dedicated staff for all their work to serve the copyright 
community and the public, especially during the pandemic. We 
appreciate this Comittee's continued support of the office and 
its mission. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Perlmutter follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you for your testimony. We will now 
proceed under the five-minute Rule of questions. I will begin 
by recognizing myself for five minutes.
    Last May, the office released its report on section 512's 
notice and takedown regime, which preceded your appointment as 
Register. Now, that you are the Register, do you concur in the 
report's ultimate conclusion that the balance Congress intended 
to strike in section 512 has been tilted askew? Is there 
anything you would add or change in the section 512 report?
    Ms. Perlmutter. The Copyright Office Report was a 
comprehensive and thoughtful analysis after five years of 
gathering input and looking at judicial interpretations and 
data. I agree with its conclusions and recommendations.
    As the report set out, the original goal of section 512--
and I should add that I was at the Copyright Office assisting 
Congress in drafting the initial legislation--the goal was to 
find the right balance between the stakeholders in the online 
ecosystem to ensure that copyright owners could effectively 
enforce rights in the online environment, but also at the same 
time ensure that service providers had legal certainty to be 
able to offer innovative platforms without facing crippling 
liability for the actions of all their users. Then, of course, 
users' interests were reflected in various ways, in part 
through the put-back provisions for content that was improperly 
taken down.
    Now, in many ways, section 512 has achieved those goals, 
but more than 20 years later, there have been a lot of changes 
in practices, markets, and technologies, and of course, as the 
courts' interpretations have evolved and been applied.
    So, the result is that, as the Copyright Office outlined in 
its report, at least for the copyright owner community, the 
expected results today are not what were hoped to be, and it 
has become more difficult to assert rights than was originally 
anticipated.
    So, what we hear primarily is what is often being referred 
to as a whack-a-mole problem--that as soon as content is taken 
down under the system, it may be immediately re-posted. Then 
there are challenges for small copyright owners in monitoring 
the huge amount of content on the internet and being able to 
locate and address infringements of their work.
    On the other side, while service providers and consumer 
groups, in general, think the system is working well, they also 
have noted some concerns, including about potential abuse of 
the system and what the impact might be of automation as it is 
increasingly utilized, in particular, on free speech interests.
    So, I do think there is room for adjustment. The Copyright 
Office did not make very specific detailed recommendations but 
pointed to areas where Congress could profitably Act to restore 
the originally-intended balance, or potentially to change it in 
some ways to adapt to new circumstances. I think all those 
proposals are well worth continuing to discuss and to pursue.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. In 2013, the Register at the time, 
Maria Pallante, submitted to this Committee an updated analysis 
of the resale royalty issue in which she stated, ``that 
Congress may wish to consider a resale royalty for supporting 
visual artists.'' I believe you have been studying this issue 
since your time as a law professor. Do you agree with Register 
Pallante's assessment?
    Ms. Perlmutter. I do. I do. As you have noted, I have been 
personally supportive of the concept of resale royalties since 
early in my career. I believe there are very good policy 
arguments to adopt such a right, and since I first studied the 
issue, more and more countries have adopted such a right--I 
think now around 70, as you noted in your opening comments. 
There is also more evidence about the impact of such a right, 
showing that some of the concerns about its adoption and some 
of the potential negatives have not materialized. So, I do 
support continuing to look at this.
    I note that the ART Act from the 115th Congress reflected a 
number of the points made in the Copyright Office's report, and 
especially given the office's recent experience with 
implementation of the MMA and the CASE Act, we would be happy 
to contribute technical assistance drawing on those experiences 
to work with the text and be of assistance.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Recognizing that the Copyright 
Royalty Board operates independently from the Copyright Office 
in terms of its rate and distribution and adjudication 
proceedings, I am concerned about reports from the creative 
community about a backlog in commencing proceedings and 
ordering distribution of royalties payable to claimants.
    How can Congress and the Copyright Office work together to 
ensure the CRB reduces the backlog and distributes royalties in 
a timely fashion moving forward?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, that is an important question. Thank 
you.
    The main thing that Congress can do to help the CRB, I 
believe it has already done, and that is to remove the previous 
statutory cap of three people on the CRB staff, and the 
approval of the CRB funding request to enable it to add those 
additional staff Members. So, that should help a lot with the 
workload going forward, but it will take some time for those 
effects to be fully felt.
    I think it is important to note that the current caseload 
of the CRB is really unprecedented. It is dealing with two 
remands from the D.C. Circuit, which means that the judges are 
handling three of their most complicated rates setting 
proceedings simultaneously, and there has also been some impact 
of the pandemic which has caused some delays because of 
adjustments needed in process. For example, some of the 
hearings were delayed a number of months because they had to be 
conducted virtually, and the CRB was not equipped for that 
previously.
    I do think that it is worth mentioning that--I understand 
from the judges--they have actually authorized a greater sum of 
royalties for distribution in FY 2021 to date than the amounts 
that were authorized in any of the last 6 years. So, there are 
some positive changes. We will continue to monitor the 
situation and consult with the judges to see whether there are 
any additional structural changes or adjustments that could be 
helpful in improving efficiency.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you. My time has expired. Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I ask a few 
questions of our distinguished Witness here today, I would like 
to make a point as the Ranking Member, Mr. Jordan, did 
previously, that this Congress was sworn in over four months 
ago and the Democrats, and you, Mr. Chair, have had complete 
control of this Committee for all that time and this Nation has 
faced a number of crises, perhaps most significant, the crisis 
at our southern border which it has been completely self-
inflicted by the Biden Administration, I might add.
    The so-called kids in cages issue which was used to 
bludgeon the previous Administration and it turned out the 
photographs that were released were actually taken during the 
Obama Administration, all those policies and the kids in cages 
continued through this Administration, the Biden 
Administration.
    Now, they are trying to peddle the story that it is better. 
These kids and thousands and thousands of adults, too, they 
have merely been put on buses, in planes, and shipped around 
the country. Some have been given court dates, but as it turns 
out statistics show that over 90 percent of the people never 
show up for their court dates, so they are basically released 
into the population. This border crisis is a huge problem, 
something that is actually within the jurisdiction of this 
Committee, yet not one hearing in four months. Instead, we are 
here to talk about copyright law.
    Now, don't get me wrong. As Mr. Jordan said, there is a 
time and a place to discuss copyright law, but the building is 
on fire. We are talking about rearranging the furniture. The 
ship is sinking. We are talking about what tune the band ought 
to play.
    Mr. Chair, you get to decide what we are going to talk 
about. We are talking about copyright law, so I will ask some 
questions of Ms. Perlmutter. We do appreciate her being here 
today.
    Ms. Perlmutter, in addition to serving on this Committee 
with oversight of the Copyright Office, I spent the last six 
years as the lead Republican on the House Small Business 
Committee. In that role, I heard from countless from small 
businesses and individuals across the country and in my 
congressional district who register creative works with your 
office, from books and music to software, and photographs, your 
office handles it all. As you know, Congress as you already 
mentioned, gave you a bit more responsibility late last year 
when we passed, and the President signed into law, the 
Copyright Alternative and Small Claims Enforcement Act, 
otherwise known as the CASE Act.
    I co-sponsored that and voted in favor of that, because in 
my view, it represented a way for copyright owners, 
particularly the smallest creators, to enforce their rights and 
receive compensation for their hard work when someone 
essentially copies it and rips it off and traditional 
litigation in Federal court would be too costly to pursue.
    So, Ms. Perlmutter, let me ask you if you expect the 
Copyright Office to fully implement the CASE Act and have the 
Copyright Claims Board up and running by the end of this year.
    Ms. Perlmutter. Thank you for that question. We are working 
very hard to make sure that we have everything in place for the 
Copyright Claims Board to start hearing cases by the end of the 
year. That involves work on hiring. It involves work on getting 
the regulations that are needed in place. It involves 
developing the technology tools for the Board.
    So, we are optimistic that we will be able to do it. We 
have already, in April, received a number of applications for 
the claims officer positions, and I expect to provide a 
recommendation to the Librarian for appointments to those 
positions in the coming weeks.
    We are working closely with the Library's Office of the 
Chief Information Officer to identify the IT needs, which will 
include a case management system and the technology needed to 
conduct remote hearings, which is an important part of making 
the Board as accessible and easy to use as possible.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Let me stop you there, if I can. We 
have got the time to squeeze in one last question. I assume 
that you agree that the registration of copyrights cannot be a 
one-size-fits-all process, and it should take into account and 
protect the works of creators, large and small, including those 
who probably can't afford the assistance of legal counsel. So, 
I hope that you will be taking that into consideration as well.
    Ms. Perlmutter. Absolutely, thank you. We need to make this 
new system as totally inexpensive and usable and user friendly 
as we possibly can, and that is our goal.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thanks very much, and thanks to you, Mr. 
Chair, and to the Register for being here today. There are a 
lot of important things that your office must do, but I think 
the number one priority, and they are all important, is to 
finish the modernization of the office. Because, if we manage 
to do that and have that transparency, copyright holders will 
actually be empowered in a way that they never had before, to 
have the protections that they seek in a way that is seamless 
and inexpensive.
    So, I know you have very important obligations implementing 
the CASE Act and the like, all that I respect. I want to hear 
from you that you will not allow anything to divert you from 
the goal of complete modernization of the office. Are we on 
track in that modernization?
    Ms. Perlmutter. We are on track, and it is absolutely a top 
priority. I couldn't agree with you more that this is critical 
to the future of the office and the future of our ability to 
serve the American public.
    So, we are moving forward. We have had, as I mentioned, a 
number of major milestones just this past year. As you know, 
and as the Chair mentioned, we are forming a public 
modernization Committee to consult with on the IT issues. We 
are working closely with the library on all the IT 
modernization activities that include the project time lines 
and budget. I do want to say that we are still aiming to meet 
our goal of retiring our legacy systems by the end of 2024 and 
replacing them with the new Enterprise Copyright System which 
will be much more accessible to the public.
    Ms. Lofgren. That is great. Now, I know, there's been 
discussion of the DMCA. I think only three of us were on the 
Committee when we drafted the DMCA and, obviously, the 
technology was very different at the time.
    Certainly, in a lot of ways, this has proven to be a huge 
success. For example, the Motion Picture Association reported 
global industry revenues of more than $100 billion for the 
first time ever in 2019. The music industry, in 2019, reached 
over $11 billion for the fourth straight year in a row, double 
digit growth, and it's powered by online services. Video games 
also through the roof.
    The numbers, we don't have them yet. During the pandemic, 
we're pretty sure are even going to be higher. So, there's 
concern about technology and protecting rights. It's also a 
platform that has allowed for exponential growth for the 
distribution of creative content and the collection of funds 
for those creative contents.
    So, we do want to make sure that the little guys don't get 
squashed, and I did support the CASE Act, although some in 
America were concerned that there was the potential for abuse 
or trolling on that system. I thought it was important to move 
forward to make--to give an avenue for small, not the big 
studios, but the little guys to get access.
    How are you going to keep track to make sure that there is 
not abuse of this system as there was at one time before our 
reform of the patent system with trolling?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, thank you for that question. It's a 
very important issue. We are taking very seriously the 
importance of controlling abuse as the system goes into effect.
    So, first, of course, the statute itself--and we thank you 
for that--includes a number of safeguards to protect against 
abuse. So, for example, a claimant can't serve a respondent 
until the board approves the claim.
    Ms. Lofgren. If I could--I understand the law, but I just 
want to know that you are paying attention to it, so you can 
raise alarms to us if it goes off the rails. Hopefully, that 
will not occur.
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, we absolutely are, and in the notice, 
we recently issued asking for public comment, we asked people 
to talk about how we make sure we avoid abuse, including 
looking at the conduct of attorneys and parties.
    So, we will be very much on top of that.
    Ms. Lofgren. I have time for one more question. There's 
section 1201 rulemaking this year, and one of the issues--I 
actually helped draft that section--and we don't want to 
circumvent when we're protecting content.
    We saw the growth of protection for non-content, for 
example, in the famous John Deere tractor case where they 
slapped a piece of code so that the people who bought the 
trucks couldn't actually repair them themselves.
    That's a misuse of the circumvention provision because it's 
not protecting content. It's protecting a monopoly. I'm 
wondering in the rulemaking how are you going to address this 
issue?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, that is an important issue, and I know 
we have looked at issues having to do with using copyrighted 
software as a back door for other goals having to do with 
especially consumer products.
    We have a couple of exemptions that touch on those issues. 
We are recommending some legislative change as well. So, stay 
tuned.
    We have just conducted two weeks of virtual hearings in the 
current Rule making process and are looking at issues that 
relate to this topic, in addition to having recommended 
permanent exemptions to allow diagnosis, repair, and 
maintenance of computer programs and allowing the librarian to 
adopt exemptions that allow third party assistance. So, I think 
all those things may go toward your goal.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. My time has expired. I 
yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate you being 
here, Ms. Perlmutter.
    Having spent so much time on our southern border, we have 
got to do something to address that issue. That's wholly within 
our authority and there's so much suffering of those coming.
    We're continuing to pour billions of dollars to the drug 
cartels, and fentanyl, things that are killing Americans, are 
coming, sex trafficking at levels never seen. We really need to 
address that. That's nothing to say about the job you're doing, 
ma'am.
    I do have a number of questions. With regard to the 
Satellite Television Community Protection Promotion Act, are 
you seeing an effect that would restrict local news 
transmission? I hear a lot of complaints about that.
    Ms. Perlmutter. We're in the process of developing a report 
on the effect of the recent amendments. We held hearings on 
this. We expect to issue the report by the deadline, and I'm 
checking what the deadline is exactly, and, hopefully, we will 
be addressing all those issues.
    Mr. Gohmert. So, you don't even have an observation at this 
point?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Not at this point. I would be happy to 
follow up with a further response.
    Mr. Gohmert. Well, that is rather critical to many of us. 
It should affect all of us. So, I hope that we'll get those 
responses sooner rather than later.
    With regard to the resale royalty issue, I'm concerned 
about new quasi-government bureaucracies collecting royalties 
on some art market participants but not others. What is your 
observation to this point regarding some art market 
participants and not others?
    Ms. Perlmutter. I think the statute has to strike an 
appropriate balance, and that's one of the issues that we 
talked about in the report and would be happy to give further 
advice on the exact lines that are drawn in the statute. You're 
right, it has to be appropriate to the level of sophistication 
and commercial activities of the participants.
    Mr. Gohmert. Well, it seems like the government is often 
the last to come along and utilize the most recent 
developments, and so I would hope that would be more a role of 
a nongovernment entity when it comes to royalties.
    We have seen that with the music industry. They seem--if we 
just give them the tools, they seem quite capable of addressing 
the royalty issues even better than government or quasi-
government bureaucracies.
    Ms. Perlmutter. I know the statutes have considered the use 
of a collecting society as a way to handle that.
    Mr. Gohmert. Yeah. Of course, with regard to the patent, I 
know we were told repeatedly that oh, this bill will yet 
finally deal with the trolling issue, and it seemed to be a way 
to keep smashing and whacking all the individual inventors.
    You mentioned whack-a-mole previously. It seems like we 
have been whacking our individual inventors to the benefit of 
the largest corporations and I sure don't want to see that 
occur in the Copyright Office.
    What do you see from your position that you can be doing to 
assure the propriety and the protection of individual copyright 
owners? I know you had mentioned the problem when you take some 
inappropriate material down it gets put back up. What do you 
say can be done on those things?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Are you talking about, Congressman, the 
small claims court or, in general, the online infringement?
    Mr. Gohmert. In general. Right.
    Ms. Perlmutter. We need to make the system work so that not 
just big entities representing major commercial interests can 
use the notice and takedown system but also individuals.
    So, that's one of the concerns and one of the issues that 
led the Copyright Office in its report to recommend that 
Congress focus on clarifying the red flag standard for service 
providers, to figure out a way to make sure that individuals 
weren't completely left to their own resources to locate each 
individual Act of infringement.
    So, I do think that's something that needs further 
attention.
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. My time has expired.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has--the gentleman 
yields back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Good morning. Thank you very much, 
Director Perlmutter. I appreciate your testimony.
    I noticed in your testimony that you stated one of the 
overarching goals of the U.S. Copyright Office is to further 
open the copyright system, involving more participants.
    We want the law and our services as easy to understand and 
as accessible as possible for individuals as well as businesses 
of all sizes, and this will include broadening our outreach and 
education efforts with a focus on underserved communities.
    Copyright, of course, is the engine of our economy, giving 
more people the opportunity to be innovative and exciting, and 
create businesses and new ideas. How have certain communities 
been under served by the current copyright system, and what 
communities are you focusing on to ensure that we have this 
kind of expanse or expanding?
    Can you expand on the current status of U.S. Copyright 
Office's outreach and education efforts?
    I do have other questions. Thank you.
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes. This is a very important priority, and 
one that I'm very committed to. So, there are a number of 
things the office has already been doing in this respect and I 
want to expand further.
    So far, the office has focused very much on improving its 
outreach and doing a lot of promotional work to reach out to as 
many audiences as possible and make the copyright system as 
understandable as possible. So, that should help in itself.
    Second, the office for a while now, has been engaged in 
putting on events that focus on getting historically 
marginalized communities more involved in copyright 
discussions, including working with a group called Take 
Creative Control, which is an educational and advocacy group on 
social justice and IP.
    In connection with the MMA, in addition to outreach with a 
lot of different organizations representing under-resourced 
communities, we also are hiring--thanks to Congress' funding--
one particular position that would focus on reaching those 
underserved communities.
    Then, what I want to do, going forward, which really goes 
to your first question, is to have our chief economist, once he 
or she is on board, really do a study of what groups are under-
represented in using copyright services and in using the courts 
to bring their claims. So, I think we will have a lot more 
information then.
    The last thing I would mention is that we have just started 
participating in the National Commission on Expanding American 
Innovation, which the Patent and Trademark Office set up--while 
I was there I worked on it--and we are talking about expanding 
the focus on innovation to include creativity as well as 
technical innovation.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I'd like to work with you on that 
and invite you as we proceed to be involved in communities 
across America.
    Let me quickly talk about section 512 report where you 
concluded that the Congress, when we intended to strike--when 
it enacted--strike a balance, when it enacted the DMCA has been 
tilted askew.
    That balance seems to have not been where we'd like it to 
be, and so rather than maybe a complete overhaul, the office 
highlights some areas that Congress can work on. I'd be 
interested in how you came to those conclusions.
    My last question is, to deal with the different legislative 
approaches that foreign countries have taken to combat online 
infringement, and are there any international approaches that 
would translate well to the U.S. copyright system that Congress 
should look at? Conversely, are there approaches that we should 
not align ourselves with?
    Thank you.
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, of course, I was not at the Copyright 
Office when the report was written, but having read it and 
discussed it with people, clearly the conclusions and the 
recommendations were based on the idea that the system as a 
whole has worked in many ways and should not be thrown out 
completely and reimagined.
    Rather, there are ways that improvements can be made to 
deal with the problems that have been raised. The nature of 
those improvements that were recommended or at least 
highlighted as potential were very much based on the input that 
we received from all sides to try to identify those things 
where we could make the most difference, or where Congress 
could make the most difference, without leading to other 
problems. It's a complex statute that does the job of really 
setting a balance that is not easy to set.
    In terms of international approaches, it's interesting 
because the U.S. approach in enacting the DMCA in 1998 has been 
hugely influential internationally, and countries around the 
world have based systems on it. Perhaps with some tweaks, but 
primarily on it.
    What we have seen, particularly recently, is the European 
Union moving ahead with new approaches and new sets of 
obligations in their digital single market directive.
    Member States are supposed to implement that by, I believe, 
June. It seems unlikely they all will. They're all following 
quite varying approaches to implementation, and U.S. businesses 
are quite involved in looking at that and trying to decide how 
they will react to the different implementations that will take 
place around Europe. Some of those implementations may require 
changes in the nature of how service providers structure their 
services.
    So, we will be watching with great interest and talking to 
stakeholders including, of course, the service providers 
themselves to see how that affects their views going forward 
and what they think might be done all differently in the United 
States, whether through voluntary measures or through 
legislation.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I think the two areas I want to concentrate on is the DMCA 
modernization potential, and the ART Act. So, starting with 
DMCA, I think we could all agree that before the digital age, 
when somebody simply ran a printing press on your work, and 
then you would find copies being printed, it was very possible 
that you wouldn't be able to find where they were printed or 
who was the person who was selling them. If you did, they could 
close their corporation, get a new printer and a new company 
and go do the same thing again.
    So, would you agree that, in a sense, we're dealing in a 
digital world with a model that is not really too different 
from what the bootleggers of music and books were doing in the 
'60s and before?
    Ms. Perlmutter. I would agree it's not different in that 
respect. I think the main difference is in sheer volume and 
geographic dispersion.
    Mr. Issa. In that sense, as we look to, perhaps, further 
modernize the DMCA, would it be fair to say that the whack-a-
mole problem, if you will, is a problem that artificial 
intelligence, in cooperation with the Copyright Office, would 
be able to allow, through the notice and takedown, but then 
automating the second, third, fourth and twelve-hundredth time 
that somebody moves, to be able to do them in milliseconds 
rather than in a longer period of time that allows for it to be 
profitable for the copyright violator?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, I am optimistic that there are 
solutions that technology can find to this problem. The 
question is how you do it in a way that is not too heavy-handed 
and doesn't sweep up things that shouldn't be swept up, what 
exactly are you preventing being reposted where.
    I believe that stakeholders could come together and find 
ways forward using technology that's appropriately tailored.
    Mr. Issa. Well, thank you, and I look forward to this 
Committee and your office's being involved in that negotiation 
to, hopefully, a successful conclusion.
    Moving on to the proposed ART Act, I have just a couple of 
quick questions, as you understand the Act. The first one is, 
we all understand that a sale is a contract between a willing 
buyer and willing seller.
    Today, is it fair to say that when you sell an art, a piece 
of art, a carpet, whatever it is, you have no expectation of a 
further revenue?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes.
    Mr. Issa. Under this bill in its current form, wouldn't 
there be, effectively, up to a hundred years of new revenue for 
existing works of art that have already been sold from a 
willing buyer to a willing seller at a price?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes. I'm not sure what the term is for the 
bill. But that is true. I think the goal is to allow visual 
artists to participate in the future popularity of their work 
and enhanced popularity of their work in a way that they can't 
now, and that, for example, an author of a book can through the 
sale of further copies.
    Mr. Issa. Well, and I agree with you, and we want to find a 
way to make this happen in our modernization. The question is, 
although, historically, we have increased copyright lengths and 
that has been retroactive, it's more a term, not an actuality, 
meaning if somebody doesn't have a copyright obligation they 
don't get one as a result of past legislation throughout the 
history of Congress.
    The term again might be extended but not others. So, if we 
were to enact it in its current form, isn't it, in fact, a 
retroactive taking in that a willing buyer, willing seller, 
very possibly would have a different price for passing on who 
gets that future royalty potential, because the future royalty 
can be sold by the artist along with the painting or other 
artwork?
    It could also be sold to a third party. So, the question 
is, are we considering creating a right or a value that was not 
in the existing contract?
    Ms. Perlmutter. That's an interesting question. That is one 
way of looking at it. I do think that a lot of the additional 
value that gets added over time is not something that anyone 
could have predicted.
    So, it's a little bit difficult to say that it was foreseen 
at the time of the initial sale.
    Mr. Issa. Well, but whoever holds the piece of art when 
it's sold, it will come out of the revenue they would receive. 
So, the person who made the investment--
    The reason I'm asking it--I appreciate your indulgence, Mr. 
Chair--is we want to get this bill right and, to me, the 
existing art is the biggest challenge to the change in the law.
    Mr. Chair, I thank you for your indulgence, and I yield 
back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    First, Ms. Perlmutter, you've got an excellent resume an 
excellent history, and I compliment you on your work for the 
copyright division, and the Music Modernization Act is 
certainly important to Tennessee, Nashville, and Memphis with 
all the music that's been written here.
    I do want to say, Mr. Chair, I agree with some of the 
things the Republicans have said earlier today--Mr. Jordan, Mr. 
Chabot--that they're right. There are issues of more importance 
than copyright.
    We do need to look at copyright, and they're right that the 
house is on fire and it's our southern border. It's not quite 
in our southern border. It's down in south Florida.
    What we saw yesterday in an opinion from Judge Amy Berman 
Jackson about the President's conduct that was hidden from us 
by the attorney general who lied to the Congress and lied to 
the American public about the Mueller report is the house being 
on fire.
    Are our colleagues on the other side concerned about that? 
No. They're concerned about immigration. Immigration is 
important and the Biden Administration is working on it. The 
previous attorney general contemptuously avoided appearing for 
our Committee, and then when he finally did he arrogantly 
answered questions and he lied to us, and Judge Jackson has 
seen information that shows he lied to the American public when 
he released the Mueller report, or he released this synopsis, 
his summary of the Mueller report, four pages summarizing a 
400-page report and said that he could not indict the 
President, that Mueller said that.
    That was not true. Judge Jackson has ordered that the paper 
that was used to support his mendacity should be released to 
the public.
    Merrick Garland is an outstanding attorney general; I 
believe. He was a great judge. I hope the Chair will write him, 
as I plan to, and urge him not to appeal this case and to let 
the American public in the spirit of transparency and democracy 
see what happened and what was done in justice--to pervert 
justice and to not allow the American people in Congress to 
know what went on with the Mueller report, why the President of 
the United States was not charged with obstruction of justice 
when there were 10 counts in the second section of the Mueller 
report where Mr. Mueller said there appeared to be obstruction 
of justice, that it was up to Congress to decide, that we had 
to remedy and to go into those issues, and to see why the most 
unredacted Mueller report that does take into consideration 
sources and contacts, as much as it can be unredacted is 
released to our Committee and possibly at some point later to 
the public so the public knows what the Mueller report had in 
it.
    The American public needs to know about the illegalities, 
the lies, the contempt, the disregard for democracy, and the 
continuation of it. The southern border problem in Florida 
still goes on.
    On Monday, the former President said that the election was 
fraudulent, that it was not a legal election. As Liz Cheney 
properly said, ``it's a continuing attack on democracy.'' The 
election was the most honest, the most thorough, the most 
investigated, the most reviewed by courts. I think 62 or 64 all 
said everything's fine. Threw away all the Trump challenges and 
thrown away by Trump judges.
    Yet, the former President is still trying to put out to the 
American public the idea that this was not a valid election of 
Joe Biden and make him out to be a President without papers.
    That's what Donald Trump might have been if we'd have seen 
the Mueller report and seen it. We now know that Kilimnikov was 
given papers by Manafort, the campaign manager--given polling 
data that he took to Russian intelligence. Direct connections.
    So, Mr. Chair, I would ask you to look at Judge Jackson's 
statements, to look at what we have done with Don McCain 
refusing to testify before us, to pursue these issues, to get 
the truth out to the American public and to our Committee, and 
to protect our Constitution and to look into the lies and the 
misdeeds of the previous president.
    True, the Senate did not impeach him, which they should 
have, two times. The American public still needs the 
information and, if possible, if they won't go along with the 
study of January 6th, the American public needs to know what 
went on there.
    Insurrection is coming in and beating policemen. Not just 
innocent Americans wanting to protest, not people just wanting 
to exercise their rights though the President said, ``go 
peacefully and politically.'' He wouldn't say go to the Capitol 
peacefully and politically if you knew they weren't going 
peacefully and politically.
    So, maybe our Committee should look into what went on 
January 6th when our country had the biggest threat since the 
Civil War and the Capitol had its biggest offense and damage 
since the War of 1812.
    It's not anything to be forgotten. We take an oath. We, as 
judiciary Members, need to see to it that the Constitution of 
the country is preserved and protected.
    Mr. Chair, thank you for your work. God bless the United 
States of America. Let's put the fire out. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    Chair Nadler. I would simply point out that the Committee 
is still pursuing Mr. McGann. The subpoena that we issued, I 
think, almost two years ago, we're still pursuing that in 
court.
    The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Massie?
    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for having a 
hearing on something where I think we could work across the 
aisle.
    I want to start at a high level, Ms. Perlmutter, and then 
go down from there. I'm going to start with the directive that 
the Founders gave us in the Constitution for establishing the 
office that you lead.
    It said in the Constitution, still does, to promote the 
progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited 
times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their 
respective writings and discoveries.
    I think it's wonderful that the Founders saw fit to put 
that in there. I'm glad that you're a strong defender of 
intellectual property and copyrights.
    I want to ask you about the length or the term of 
copyrights in relation to patents, for instance. So, in the 
beginning of our country, 1790, the term for copyright was 14 
years and the term for a patent was 14 years, and now you can 
get extensions, in one case 14 years, in another case seven 
years.
    Now, patents last for 20 years from the date of filing, and 
copyrights have grown to be the life of the author plus 70 
years. In fact, there have been over 10 extensions since 1970.
    Can you talk about how we got to this period of time that--
over a century really, in most cases for copyrights, whereas 
patents are still at 20 years?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, thank you for the question. It's 
difficult to compare copyrights and patents in terms of 
duration because the nature of the right is so different. A 
patent is the ability to exclude others entirely from using 
your invention for the period of time that the patent endures.
    For copyright, you are not allowing others, to copy your 
expression. So, the copyright does not prevent people still 
from using the ideas and facts in the work and, in fact, it 
doesn't even prevent them from using the exact same expression 
if they came up with it originally without copying from you.
    So, for example, while it seems like it would be unlikely, 
you could have two people come up with the same melody for a 
popular song without having copied, or perhaps a design for a 
textile pattern.
    So, the protection itself is much weaker than for patents. 
So, I think it's difficult to compare them--
    Mr. Massie. The Founders started--sorry to interrupt. The 
Founders started them both out at 14 years apiece, and some 
would argue that patents have zero term now because the courts 
have eroded injunctive relief which the right to exclude.
    So, patents--I find it interesting. Hopefully, we'll have a 
hearing on patents, too, and I know you're head of the 
Copyright Office, not the Patent Office.
    Patents are harder and harder to enforce these days. How 
did we get to what is 70 years plus the life of the author and 
how does that serve the constitutional directive to promote 
progress by securing for limited times?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, over the years, the thought was that 
copyrights should provide a livelihood to authors so that an 
author who wrote books for a living would be able to continue 
to create, and the author and his family would be able to be 
provided for.
    So, there has been some discussion over the years of the 
copyright term approximating the term of someone's life and the 
life of their children. That's, I think, gradually how it got 
to that point.
    The most recent extension, which was in 1998, which was the 
only extension during the time that I've been working on 
copyright, was a deliberate decision by Congress to respond to 
an extension of copyright term in the European Union where 
Europe was only going to give that extra 20 years to American 
works if we provided a similar term.
    So, at the time, the then Register of Copyrights testified 
that while there might or might not be strong arguments 
domestically for extending further, from an international 
perspective and a balance of competition and payments 
perspective, there were reasons to do it.
    That's, essentially, how we got to where we are today.
    Mr. Massie. Okay, and we got 20 seconds left here so I want 
to get in another question.
    My concern is that there will be a sneaky attempt by 
Congress to extend this beyond 70 years, like, let's say 
another nine--make it 90 years plus life for the author, which 
could end up being a century and a half, which I think does 
violate the constitutional directive.
    Can you tell us today that you will not advocate for an 
extension to extend that beyond the current period of time?
    Ms. Perlmutter. I have not heard anyone pushing for a 
further extension, and I would find it very surprising if that 
were to happen.
    Mr. Massie. Okay. You would not support it?
    Ms. Perlmutter. At this point, I can say I have no 
intention of supporting it.
    Mr. Massie. Okay. Thank you very much for answering the 
question. Most people don't do that when they come before us. I 
yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding 
today's hearing, and welcome, Register Perlmutter. I join in 
congratulating you on your appointment to this very important 
position at this critical time, especially for creators as well 
as other stakeholders in the copyright ecosystem.
    As Chair of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, I'm 
particularly concerned with the runaway rise in online IP 
infringement. The office's report on section 512 notice and 
takedown has prompted some important discussions about the 
future of online enforcement.
    One common theme that we have heard from stakeholders, and 
that the office also mentioned in its report, is that the level 
of cooperation between online service providers and rights 
holders that Congress envisioned has not come to fruition.
    Given how much technology has advanced in the last two 
decades, it's clear that a consensus-based approach to taking 
down is not viable for creators.
    Last fall, the office convened a series of discussions with 
stakeholders about standard technical measures.
    What insights did the office glean from those discussions, 
and what is the office's view on how Congress should be 
encouraging progress in developing these measures?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Thank you. I think that is a very important 
discussion. Part of the balance, as you suggest, in the 
original DMCA was the idea that online service providers would 
accommodate and not interfere with standard technical measures 
that could be used to protect copyrighted works.
    Those standard technical measures have never been 
developed, in fact, in the 20-some years since then. So, our 
roundtables were intended to explore what such measures might 
exist, how they might be developed, and how they might be used.
    We did not hear a lot of--not to overuse the word 
consensus--we didn't hear a lot of consensuses about how to 
achieve consensus. I think there was general openness to the 
Copyright Office staying involved and assisting in continuing 
the conversations.
    I think it's a valuable route to continue. It may be that 
at some point Congress will need to look at how to define what 
is a standard technical measure for purposes of the dialogue 
because, for example, it may be that there won't be standard 
technical measures that will operate across all areas of 
copyright creativity and there needs to be separate rules, or 
maybe it won't be possible to achieve 100 percent consensus.
    We do think this is an important and fruitful area to 
continue work in, and we look forward to working with the 
Committee.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Recent reports, such as 
the U.S. Trade Representative's 2020 review of notorious 
markets for counterfeiting and piracy, showed the devastation 
of unauthorized streaming of all sources of copyrighted content 
both here and abroad.
    Do you believe that the current copyright laws are robust 
enough to effectively handle this increasing problem, and if 
not, what are some of the adjustments you would recommend 
Congress consider in restoring balance to the system?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, one very important step was the 
Protecting Lawful Streaming Act that was passed last year. This 
issue about having appropriate criminal penalties for unlawful 
streaming has been something that the Copyright Office has long 
advocated for.
    So, that was, clearly, a step in the right direction. We're 
monitoring what's going on with streaming and other types of 
piracy, both in the United States and abroad, and working 
within the interagency to talk about what could be done going 
forward, and we hope to continue to work with Congress as you 
look at those issues.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Okay. Thank you.
    I also support your efforts to bring on a chief economist 
and have seen through the USPTO what great value those 
positions can bring.
    What will be the chief economist's primary initial 
priorities, and how will the chief economist function be 
supported?
    Ms. Perlmutter. The initial priority will really be to 
develop an appropriate research agenda. I think there is a 
plethora of issues that would be extremely valuable to have 
analyzed.
    One of them will surely be looking at the question about 
the representation of women and minorities in the copyright 
system. That's a role that the chief economist at the PTO has 
played very importantly.
    In terms of support, we, of course, are going to start 
relatively small. We're going to hire just a chief economist 
and have them be supported by the existing staff at the office.
    We also anticipate that the Copyright Office chief 
economist will be able to work closely with the chief economist 
at the PTO, whose remit also includes copyright policy issues, 
and that they can be force multipliers for each other in the 
initial stages. Then as things move on, we will see what 
additional support might be needed.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Gaetz?
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to follow up on a 
thread of questioning from Congresswoman Jackson Lee regarding 
foreign entities and foreign interests.
    Director Perlmutter, could you comment on the role of any 
foreign entities and, really, the extent to which the Copyright 
Office has to focus on that versus any type of domestic 
infringement?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, as you suggest, Congressman, a lot of 
the infringement that copyright owners face these days comes 
from abroad, and that is, clearly, a major issue.
    For that reason, one of the things we spend a lot of time 
on is working with the U.S. Trade Representative, including in 
their notorious Market Report and their Special 301 Report, to 
identify and call out those sources of tremendous foreign 
infringement, and then the Administration takes various types 
of action to try to address those sources.
    Mr. Gaetz. Are there additional tools that you think the 
Copyright Office can have to combat that foreign malign 
influence?
    Ms. Perlmutter. That's a good question. We, of course, 
don't actually have enforcement powers ourselves, but we do 
advise on enforcement issues, on policy and on drafting, and we 
do work with counterparts in other countries to try to improve 
their laws to allow them to address some of these issues in 
their own territory.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, it seems that your job is to inform the U.S. 
Trade Representative and other entities within the government 
where this action occurs and then they really have the hammer. 
You provide the data and the information, but they have the 
hammer.
    So, could you provide us the information? Where in the 
world do we see this foreign malign influence coming from, 
principally?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, I would refer you primarily to the 
Special 301 Report that USTR just released, which identifies 
very clearly where the main areas of concern are and actually 
ranks them in terms of the level of danger.
    Mr. Gaetz. Do you worry that there are any increasing 
trends, particularly from China, to violate U.S. copyright 
laws?
    Ms. Perlmutter. On the issue of infringement and infringing 
product coming into the United States, certainly China is a 
major player.
    I think it is something that the government as a whole 
continues to keep a very close eye on and that includes, of 
course, looking at how and to what extent China is implementing 
phase one of the trade agreement struck with the United States 
in the last Administration.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Deutch?
    Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Register 
Perlmutter. It's a pleasure to hear from you today and to work 
with you in your role as Register.
    I'd like to start with a report that predates your time at 
the Copyright Office, but it's an issue that I'm sure you know 
well.
    In 2015, the U.S. Copyright Office released a report 
entitled, ``Copyright in the Music Marketplace.'' The office 
identified shortcomings of the existing music marketplace and 
made recommendations for policy fixes.
    One of the recommendations was the creation of a full sound 
recording performance right, which would include terrestrial 
radio. The report highlights the lack of a performance right as 
inequitable to rights holders and curtails reciprocal flow of 
such royalties into the United States.
    It also pointed out what seems obvious to so many of us, 
that the failure to require terrestrial radio to pay performers 
for their works, while internet and satellite radio do pay 
performers, the report--to quote the report, ``harms competing 
satellite and internet radio providers.'' The report went so 
far as to say that the market-distorting impact of the 
terrestrial radio exemption probably cannot be overstated.
    Is this still the position of the Copyright Office, 
Register Perlmutter?
    Ms. Perlmutter. It is absolutely still the position of the 
Copyright Office. That has been, actually, the position of the 
office for a very long time.
    Immediately after I joined the office, I actually cosigned 
a letter with Andrei Iancu, who was at that time the Director 
of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, urging that Congress 
extend the public performance right for broadcasting to sound 
recordings.
    Mr. Deutch. The report, that 2015 report, discusses the 
negative impact that the lack of the traditional performance 
rate has on international royalties for U.S. performers. Can 
you just explain that to the Committee, please?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes. Under international law, countries are 
not required to extend protection to performers and record 
producers from other countries if their laws don't provide a 
similar protection. It's called reciprocity.
    What is happening is that because American sound recordings 
are so popular in other countries, a lot of money is being 
collected for their broadcast abroad, but there is no 
obligation under this principle of reciprocity for the money to 
actually be paid out to Americans.
    So, we are losing, I don't have the exact figures at my 
fingertips, but we are losing a tremendous amount of money each 
year from the enjoyment of American music in other countries.
    Mr. Deutch. I appreciate that explanation. The Committee, 
this Committee has a strong and bipartisan record of supporting 
performance rights. The Chair has been a leader on this issue, 
a leading voice on this issue for years. I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to finally establish a performance 
right across all radio platforms.
    From a basic fairness perspective, it's well past time to 
respect the rights of U.S. performers and ensure that 
terrestrial radio plays by the same rules as Internet and 
satellite radio.
    I thank you very much for your insight, Register 
Perlmutter.
    I also want to ask about, I want to follow up on Mr. 
Johnson's question on section 512 of the Digital Millennium 
Copyright Act and the standard technical measures that were 
intended to be used by a broad consensus of stakeholders. As 
you point out, that consensus was never reached.
    It could be a powerful element of the notice and takedown 
system and make it work more effectively. It would give both 
creators and online service providers a set of common tools and 
standards. This seems like small, a small and obscure change, 
but if those measures were in place, rights holders would 
benefit from these simpler tools.
    You said there's--you pointed out there's no consensus at 
this point. You're open to continuing the conversation. You 
also talked about perhaps having separate rules for different 
kinds of technology. Can you expand on that a little bit? How 
would that look?
    Ms. Perlmutter. What I was referring to is not so much 
different rules for different types of technology, as different 
technologies that would work in different sectors. So, perhaps 
different technologies for motion pictures than for music, 
books, or software.
    It seems as though one-size-fits-all might not be the most 
effective way to move forward, both in terms of how the actual 
negotiation process of the development would work and who was 
at the table, but also in terms of what the technical measures 
would look like.
    Mr. Deutch. Very well, Register Perlmutter, we appreciate 
your being here. I look forward to working with you on these 
issues and so many others. Grateful for your service, and Mr. 
Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Johnson of 
Louisiana.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have to 
start off by echoing what many of my colleagues have already 
pointed out today, that this is the first hearing of the Full 
Judiciary Committee in nearly five months, and it really is 
outrageous that we're not focusing on the growing humanitarian 
crisis at our southern border and the policies of the Biden 
Administration that are causing that dangerous surge.
    This Committee has a duty, as has been said, to address 
this crisis. We're derelict in that duty by not doing it. 
Instead, today we're talking about how we can fine-tune 
copyright law. I'm not saying copyright law is not important, 
but it's not an excuse to ignore the border, but here we are.
    So, let's address the issue. As many on this Committee are 
aware, we are locked in struggle with China right now to remain 
the preeminent global economic superpower. One of the great 
strengths that's allowed our Nation to defeat the Soviet Union 
and to maintain our status on the globe is our American 
ingenuity and our ability to spread American ideas throughout 
the world.
    Today, America remains the ideas factory of the world, and 
thanks to a legal ecosystem for protecting IP that enables us 
to be the global destination for commerce. In the last congress 
I chaired the Republican Study Committee. It's the largest 
caucus of Republicans on the Hill.
    We published a lengthy task force report detailing how to 
effectively deter China's attempts to surpass us economically. 
A lot of that focus was on critical items centered around 
continuing to build legal frameworks capable of protecting the 
intellectual property of Americans. We have to do that if we're 
going to maintain our status and be the hub of ingenuity as 
we've always been.
    The Copyright Office's effectiveness plays a big role in 
that, of course, protecting America's status in that way. Laws 
such as the Music Modernization Act take similar steps to 
achieve that much larger end.
    So, with that, Director Perlmutter, I just wanted to ask 
you about the status of the Mechanical Licensing Collective, 
that database, in terms of its completeness to date, its 
accuracy, accessibility, usability. What would you say about 
that?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, we're still in early days. Of course, 
the new license only went into effect on January 1. The MLC has 
started to operate and to administer the blanket license and 
just made its first distribution just a few weeks ago.
    We are monitoring the progress; we are looking at how the 
system is going to operate. Of course, in five years we will be 
called on to make a decision again about whether to re-
designate the MLC.
    So, there's that ongoing review process, and we're open to 
receiving comments from users of the system all along. We've 
established a few regulations regarding what the MLC has to 
disclose and make available in its reports.
    So, it's still an ongoing process, but I agree with you 
completely that it's critical that that database be as accurate 
and reliable as possible, and that is the goal of the 
legislation, of course.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, I'm glad to hear that 
you're engaging directly with the MLC. We did have one question 
about that database. It's currently limited to information 
about mechanical rights, as you know.
    So, some of the discussion has been should we, or could we, 
improve the database to include information about performing 
rights organizations as well. Then the next question is does 
the MMA, the Act itself, provide sufficient authority to do 
that. Do you have thoughts on that issue?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, that's a good question. It's my 
understanding that there have been some discussions along that 
line, but I don't think it's happened. I'd be happy to get back 
to you with more information.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That would be great, because I 
think we all agree it's an important tool and we want to fine-
tune that and make it as useful and effective as possible. So, 
we'd appreciate your input on that.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I'll yield back the remainder of my 
time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Jayapal.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Perlmutter, 
thank you so much for being with us. Your office is very, very 
important in my Seventh District of Washington, home to the 
rich history of the Seattle music scene and musicians like Jimi 
Hendrix, Ernestine Anderson, Nirvana, Bing Crosby, Sir Mix-a-
Lot, Pearl Jam, Brandi Carlile, ShabazzPalaces, and so many 
more, as well as nearly 17,000 people directly employed by the 
music industry, most of whom earn their money playing gigs, 
teaching music, and recording music.
    The Copyright Office's report on section 512 affirmed what 
musicians and songwriters have known for years, which is that 
the current system has been failing music creators and those of 
us that love music and the musicians in our communities. Now, 
because of the pandemic, these creators are even more reliant 
than ever on online revenue streams.
    Can you speak to what the Copyright Office has done to 
respond to the needs of creators during the pandemic?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes. It's been an interesting time, and 
we've spent a lot of time making sure that we are being as 
responsive as we possibly can.
    So, we've certainly, among other things, used the 
flexibilities given to us in the CARES Act to give relief for 
certain deadlines where people might have difficulty pulling 
together the material they needed. We've used the flexibilities 
to modify procedural requirements so that they can deposit 
electronic copies rather than physical copies during the 
pandemic.
    There have been a number of--and we keep looking at ways 
that we might need to adjust as we get information from people. 
I have been extending the flexibilities and will continue to do 
so until such time as it's clear they're no longer needed. So, 
we're certainly trying to do things to help.
    Ms. Jayapal. I really appreciate that. I wanted to pick up 
on something that Representative Deutch was starting to focus 
on, and that is some of these small, independent artists, like 
the musicians in my district, they really do face very 
different challenges than what a large copyright owner like 
Universal Music Group or Sony Music faces.
    They lack the resources, these smaller independent 
songwriters, lack the resources to track infringements on the 
internet because it's so big. Even when a takedown notice is 
sent, the material can pop right back up again on the very same 
platform, with the burden on the musicians to track themselves.
    In the two decades since Congress passed the DMCA, large 
companies like YouTube have developed their own infringement 
detection tools that they make available to larger companies, 
but not always or consistently to independent musicians or 
other small creators.
    What is your office doing to help ensure that these small 
creators have access to some of the voluntary tools that larger 
creators have access to on YouTube or other large platforms?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, that's a good question and a real 
concern. We certainly, one of the things we are doing on a 
regular basis on all issues is trying to reach out and provide 
good educational materials and be available to answer 
questions.
    Absolutely one of the tensions is that it is technology 
that will enable a lot better use of the system from everyone's 
perspective, including for small creators who find it difficult 
to scour the entire internet on a regular basis.
    Yet, at the same time, to the extent that that technology 
is developed, it may not be easily within the reach of smaller 
users. In fact, whether they're copyright owners or small 
service providers, for that matter.
    So, this is definitely an issue that we need to look at. 
Our report did make the point that one-size-fits-all just 
doesn't work in today's system. While I don't think we yet have 
all the answers, we are very focused on this problem and will 
continue to be so.
    Ms. Jayapal. Well, I hope you'll keep our office informed 
on that, because it's just something that keeps coming up over 
and over again, and we need to address it as quickly as 
possible.
    Of the suggested changes to the law on the office's section 
512 Report, which ones would do the most to help create parity 
among all content creators, including small creators?
    Ms. Perlmutter. I think one of the main recommendations, 
which is to clarify what the red flag knowledge standard means 
and how it relates to actual knowledge, would be extremely 
helpful.
    We also focused on the fact that there's no standard 
requirement for how to notify a service provider. There may be 
some extra burdens being placed on individuals in terms of what 
providers require in the form of the notice.
    We are concerned about that. We do think maybe having more 
of a standardized form could be useful. On our website now we 
do have model forms for notice and counter-notice, and we think 
it could be useful for people to use those.
    So, I think those are among the things that could really 
help.
    Ms. Jayapal. Well, I really appreciate this. It's so easy 
to get lost in the technology and the bureaucracy of copyright 
discussions, but really this is about making sure that 
creatives are justly compensated for their work.
    Thank you so much, Director Perlmutter. Mr. Chair, I yield 
back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Steube.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I'd like to join 
my colleagues in expressing disappointment that several months 
into this congress this is the first time that the Full 
Committee is holding a hearing and holding a hearing on 
copyright. While today's topic is important, so is the crisis 
at the border, attacks on the Second Amendment, court-packing, 
and countless other issues coming from the Biden 
Administration.
    So, I hope to see the Committee hold an oversight hearing 
with actual officials from the Biden Administration to discuss 
these pressing issues facing our country.
    Ma'am, thank you for being here today and for your service 
to the Copyright Office. I have a question related to your 
position in general. The Register of Copyrights is appointed by 
the Librarian of Congress and not the President. The Librarian 
of Congress, while appointed by a President, serves a ten-year 
term that crosses over administrations.
    So, this means that your position is very insulated from 
political pressure and from voters. Given the important 
functions of your office, is this level of insulation 
appropriate? Besides occasional hearings such as this, how is 
your office held accountable?
    Ms. Perlmutter. I've followed and am aware of the 
discussions of this issue over the past years and some of the 
bills that have been introduced. My view is that there are both 
pros and cons to the idea of making a change and having this 
position be a presidentially appointed position.
    In my experience in, certainly in six months on the job, it 
is working well as it is. I do think that we have a Librarian 
who's presidentially appointed who I report to. We work very 
closely with the Hill, with this Committee and also with the 
Senate of course. We work closely with other agencies in the 
Executive Branch that are focused on IP policy issues.
    We report regularly, including an annual report, to 
Congress. I believe there are plenty of opportunities to make 
sure that there's adequate oversight. To the extent that there 
was a perception of a problem, of course that is always 
something to discuss.
    It has to be borne in mind that any change comes with both 
positives and negatives that would need to be thoroughly 
considered.
    Mr. Steube. It is my understanding that very few make use 
of the counter-notice provisions of section 512 of the Digital 
Millennium Copyright Act. What do you believe is the main 
reason for that, and what do you believe should be done about 
it?
    Ms. Perlmutter. I would have to be speculating about the 
main reason. It is possible that most of the notices that are 
received do not involve any mistake or misidentification but 
are just very blatant cases of infringement, and so there's no 
need for a counter-notice.
    There's also a possibility that those whose content is 
taken down may not be aware of the full rights that they have 
to use the counter-notice process.
    Then, as our 512 Report pointed out, there's also some 
concern that the time period set out for the counter-
notification process may be both too long and too short. 
Perhaps too long in terms of how long one has to wait to get 
content re-posted, and too short in terms of the fact that the 
right holder is required to take steps to initiate a Federal 
litigation to counter the counter-notice.
    We would like to make sure that people know how to use 
their ability to submit a counter-notice. Again, on our website 
we now have model forms for that, which we hope will help, as 
well as a lot of information.
    Mr. Steube. Okay, on the topic of the DMCA, should there be 
different ways to handle different types of content, such as 
livestreaming of sports or other such events? If so, how would 
that be accomplished?
    Ms. Perlmutter. At present in the DCMA, there has not been 
an attempt to specify, at least through statute, different 
routes, and different methods for different types of works. I 
am not aware of any areas where that would be necessary. If it 
were, then I certainly think we should be looking at that.
    Mr. Steube. The Mechanical Licensing Collective was created 
by the Music Modernization Act and was in some ways the focus 
of that legislation. How is your office making sure that the 
MLC exercises fiscal responsibility with respect to the 
royalties it collects and distributes, both matched and 
unclaimed?
    Ms. Perlmutter. We don't have general oversight into all 
the activities of the MLC, but we are responsible for 
designating and redesignating. That process will include 
ensuring that the entity is doing a good job at what it's 
supposed to be doing.
    So, we are accepting comments, and we will be looking at 
that. As well as, of course, our work in generally setting out 
regulations governing how it operates and how it reports.
    Mr. Steube. Well, thank you for being here today. My time 
has expired.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Demings.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. 
Perlmutter, for being with us today.
    I know a couple of my colleagues have addressed this issue, 
but I'm not sure, I may have missed it, some of the questions 
dealt with the approaches that we are taking to address foreign 
online infringement. I would like to know if there are any 
international approaches that translate well.
    I know Ms. Jackson asked a similar question, and I know 
we're monitoring. Have you identified any international 
approaches that translates well to the U.S. copyright system?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, we are constantly looking at that. I 
think it is extremely important to always be aware that other 
countries may come up with ideas that we can adapt here, if we 
find them useful, just as much--well, in addition to our work 
in advocating for the U.S. policy positions outside the 
country.
    I think there's a lot of work being done now, which is 
somewhat unproven in terms of how well it's going to work. So, 
we're still in a watch-and-see mode when it comes to things 
like the European Union's article 17, which some have 
interpreted to require filtering or notice and staydown.
    So, we want to see what it means, how it can be 
accommodated from a technological perspective and what the 
impact will be before we would be ready to say that we would 
recommend any part of it here.
    Ms. Demings. So, we have not seen anything coming out of 
the European Union that we are quite ready to adopt?
    Ms. Perlmutter. It's still early days. They're still in the 
process of implementation.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much. I know that COVID-19 has 
hit us all hard; we've all had to make some adjustments. Can 
you elaborate on the measures your office implemented to 
continue operating and serving the public virtually over the 
past year?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, we've done a number of things. 
Certainly internally, we've moved to telework, and we tried to 
adjust our processes because some of our processes deal with 
physical material. Whether it's physical deposits or 
certificates of registration or mail, there are certain things 
that we have suffered from not having people onsite to be able 
to handle.
    In terms of the public, we've put in place a number of 
flexibilities, either through authorities that we already had 
or under the CARES Act.
    That's included finding ways for people to submit payments 
that in the past they did through checks and money orders to be 
able to do it electronically, and ways to be able to not have 
to submit best editions in physical form in order to get a 
filing date and to start the clock running on their copyright 
registration.
    Ms. Demings. You also extended some of the deadlines, is 
that correct?
    Ms. Perlmutter. We extended deadlines, and we're continuing 
to do so. I'm extending all the flexibilities, or most of the 
flexibilities as they are still needed.
    Ms. Demings. Do you believe Congress should be considering 
a permanent version of these emergency powers for future 
emergencies?
    Ms. Perlmutter. I think it could be useful, yes.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you. Finally, what new legal or policy 
issues does the office foresee becoming important over the next 
few years?
    Ms. Perlmutter. I think the overall issue of the roles and 
responsibilities of Internet intermediaries is going to 
continue to percolate. Obviously, that's true not just in the 
copyright area.
    There's also a lot of discussion about artificial 
intelligence and the related issue of text and data mining. 
Then we keep looking at the existing specific exceptions and 
limitations in the Copyright Act, and some of them we believe 
need updating.
    Then of course fair use and how it's applied by the courts 
keeps evolving, most notably with the recent Supreme Court 
decision in Google v. Oracle.
    So, I think those are some of the highlights that I would 
mention.
    Ms. Demings. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Mr. Chair, I 
yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I appreciate the comments of a number of Members who've 
come before about how the priority has been set for this 
hearing amid the many issues that that are pressing. In 
particular, maybe the irrepressible gentleman from Tennessee, 
who certainly couldn't resist taking the bait for 
understandable reasons.
    Many of the questions, Ms. Perlmutter, you've already 
answered--asked covering the issues of refinement of the 
Copyright Office operations. That's already been done well.
    I thought I'd just offer one other perspective on the issue 
of the priority-setting by the majority here. There are 12 
Members of this Committee who have not been Members in the 
116th Congress, or not initially, 29 percent of the Membership 
of this Committee.
    Here are, it's a list that I can think of as I sat here of 
major pieces of legislation within the jurisdiction of this 
Committee that were brought on the floor this year without ever 
having a Committee hearing to address them.
    H.R. 1, the bill to federalize all election regulations and 
ban voter ID. The two immigration mass amnesty bills. The bill 
for DC statehood. The PRO Act, which would nullify right-to-
work laws in 20-something states and substantially destroy the 
independent contractor model.
    The bill to simply defund or cripple police forces 
masquerading as a police reform bill. The so-called Paycheck 
Fairness Act, having the government scrutinize the pay 
practices of the employers all over the country. The Violence 
Against Women Act extension or reauthorization to cover 
transgender ideology. The ERA deadline extension. The crime 
victims funding amendments.
    I'm probably leaving out some big ones. Even the 
impeachment matter at the beginning of session and the urging 
of the House of the Democrat majority--for the Vice President 
to exercise the power of the 25th Amendment.
    None of that came before this Committee, none of it 
afforded an opportunity for the 12 new Members to participate 
in the Committee process that would be normal.
    I agree with the gentleman from Tennessee and others that 
there are other issues, that it's inconceivable to have them 
subordinated to this hearing. We have preliminary data; we'll 
see more date from the Customs and Border Protection within the 
next several days.
    It appears that following the 174,000 apprehensions of 
illegals at the border last month, we're going to be at or 
slightly above that level for another month. Having no 
precedent within the past 20 years.
    We see that there are issues concerning irregularities in 
the election that occurred that have not been examined by this 
Committee. The fact that there were 400 lawsuits approximately 
filed to attack basic elections regulations by a democrat, by 
the Democratic National Committee in the hands of Marc Elias.
    There was Big Tech suppression of information like the 
Hunter Biden laptop in advance of the election. We haven't even 
had a hearing to address the court-packing scheme Democrats 
have rolled out.
    It's just astonishing that the press--the priorities that 
are set here by the majority are, in terms of the hearing time 
of this Committee, are a reflection on the regard that the 
majority has for the functioning of this Committee and its role 
in this congress. The American people should take note.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Chair Nadler.
    The issue of copyright infringement and enforcement is a 
big one in my district. I regularly meet with our artists and 
small businesses who struggle to effectively use the notice and 
takedown system to enforce their copyrights online.
    The system is arranged in a way that makes accuracy and 
efficiency difficult for our smaller creators, who often have 
trouble enforcing their intellectual property online.
    So, while larger content creators have some solutions and 
resources with which they can navigate the notice-and-takedown 
system, the solutions offered to smaller creators are 
burdensome and prone to error. It's resulted in a system that 
really isn't fair.
    We need to create a system that works for even the smallest 
of solo content creators, one that doesn't sacrifice the 
variety of internet content, while also protecting rights 
holders.
    So, Ms. Perlmutter, we had a hearing in September, and I 
spoke then about the burden on small businesses and solo 
content creators in navigating the notice and takedown process. 
As it stands right now, I'm hearing that the process doesn't 
seem to be working for creators who lack large financial 
resources or access to automatic infringement detection tools.
    I understand that the Copyright Office's May 2020 five-year 
study on section 512 found similar discontent among individual 
rights holders navigating this process.
    Now, I wanted to dig a little into the knowledge part of 
section 512. So, section 512 contemplates that if a service 
provider has actual knowledge or red flag knowledge of an 
infringement, then its obligation to take that material down is 
triggered.
    We've seen in application, the balance is tipped away from 
the needs of the creative community and in favor of the large 
internet platforms.
    We know, for instance, that the creative community sent 
over 900 million takedown notices each year to Google and 
YouTube alone. The Copyright Office found that one of the 
issues we're contending with here is that the courts have 
blurred the lines between actual knowledge and red flag 
knowledge.
    So, I understand from the report that the office believes 
that maybe Congress could pay some attention to clarifying the 
distinction between actual and red flag knowledge. Can you 
discuss that a little bit?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, I wanted to start by saying I 
completely agree that the system has to work for individuals as 
well as for large companies. That was always intended, and 
that's one of our goals.
    I was at the Copyright Office and involved in crafting the 
language on red flag knowledge in the DMCA. I know the intent 
at the time was something that was less than constructive 
knowledge but more than actual.
    So, the idea was there was both a objective and a 
subjective element. So, there had to be actual awareness, but 
only of facts and circumstances from which infringement was 
apparent.
    The intent was not for it to be that every individual Act 
of infringement had to be specified and specified in a notice. 
So, I think this is an area where the courts have interpreted 
the law in a way that is different from what was originally 
intended, and some clarification would be useful.
    Ms. Scanlon. I was also interested in the report finding 
that the application of the willful blindness standard is also 
problematic in this space. We certainly know that these Big 
Tech platforms have developed algorithms which enable them to 
do an awful lot of things.
    So, putting their use, their widespread use of algorithms 
to make a profit next to the fact that they seem willfully 
blind to the fact that there's all this copyright infringement 
going on, sometimes even in their favor. That seems like an 
area that should be ripe for congressional action.
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, and there needs to be a balance. It's 
a difficult area, because clearly the statute says there should 
be no requirement of monitoring, and so you want to avoid a 
general monitoring obligation, but also not countenance the 
deliberate turning of a blind eye.
    Ms. Scanlon. Do you think we should move to some kind of 
monitoring? Because we certainly see with the big platforms, 
and maybe it's just with respect to those OPSs or whatever, 
that you know, they're monitoring everything else we do. Could 
it be fair to impose some level of monitoring duty?
    Ms. Perlmutter. I think there's a way to achieve our goals 
without requiring general overall monitoring, which could be 
quite prohibitive.
    Ms. Scanlon. Right, and I understand that there's dangers 
in going too far that way as well, which we're combating in 
other sectors as well.
    I think my time is expired. Thank you very much.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Spartz.
    Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the 
testimony.
    I wanted to really echo my colleagues and mention that we 
had some discussion on immigration in the Immigration 
Subcommittee, but this Committee need to have discussion on 
border security. Very important issue, and hopefully we can 
come together and do it.
    I also wanted to thank you for really talking about this 
issue and also wanted to echo some of the concern with Big Tech 
and section 512 issues. I would like to ask you to work with 
Librarian of Congress and just to see how we can really address 
it in effective way.
    I think President Obama, when he made that office to limit 
it to ten years, he wanted to make sure that we can have this 
issue addressed and changes in technology being addressed by 
the office more effectively. I think that was a good way to do 
that.
    I have a question for you about something that President 
Biden in his address to Congress last week. He said that he 
will continue to stand up to unfair trade practices that 
undercut American workers and American industries, like 
subsidies to state-owned enterprises, and the theft of American 
technology intellectual property.
    Intellectual property is very important issues. Have you 
met with the President and really have a plan? What are you 
planning to do to implement some of these policies?
    Ms. Perlmutter. I have not met personally with the 
President, but we work very closely within the interagency 
group that works on all these issues, including with the IP 
Enforcement Coordinator once that position is filled again.
    So, we are quite cognizant of how critical these issues 
are. I think in the government everyone is very much in the 
same place on the importance of controlling the infringement of 
American products abroad, the piracy and counterfeiting side of 
the equation.
    Ms. Spartz. Do you believe you have a plan that you would 
be able to give periodic updates on the results and kind of 
where on the progress this, what you're going to be working on? 
The is a big issue and it's building. Presidents and 
[inaudible], because we talk a lot but when shows if we have 
policy.
    So, is that something you already have a plan and some of 
the key steps and would be able to share, or are you still 
working within office?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, there are plans and steps in process. 
We don't have the lead on this, it is more a matter for the 
U.S. Trade Representative. We are certainly involved and happy 
to answer any question at any time.
    Ms. Spartz. Right, and so you would be able to, next time 
we talk, you will be able to update on some of the progress and 
accomplishments and results of that plan. Would you be able to 
do it for us?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, happy to give a report to supplement 
and add to anything that the U.S. Trade Representative is 
reporting.
    Ms. Spartz. Okay, well, I would like for us to work very 
closely with Congress and with the Executive Branch as we 
actually done, because this is a big issue, and it really 
effects a lot of companies in our country and a lot of 
constituents in our district, and we need to make sure that we 
have policies and not just talking points, but actual results 
and plans how we're going to implement.
    So, thank you for being here, and I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. McBath.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you so much, Chair. Thank you so very 
much, Director Perlmutter, for being with us this morning. We 
really appreciate your testimony.
    I'm glad that we've actually had this opportunity to 
discuss how we can continue to promote the arts and make sure 
that we're really thinking very carefully about how we protect 
the rights of our musicians and our writers, our visual 
artists, and other creators.
    This is no easy feat in our modern technological era, in 
which we must also be really thoughtful about how information, 
music, art, and our very culture is shared.
    Something that I don't think was really touched upon 
today--and I've been also trying to be on another hearing as 
well--but like, I would like to talk a little bit about what's 
been happening under COVID.
    Like many of workplaces, the Copyright Office had to adapt 
to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the need for telework, 
which now of course all of us have been teleworking. Then also 
the use of temporary extensions of deadlines and allowing for 
more electronic submissions.
    So, what has the office learned from these adaptations? For 
example, could more processes be moved to electronic 
submissions?
    Ms. Perlmutter. That's an excellent question and one that 
I'm spending a lot of time thinking about. I think for some of 
our processes we will be able to take advantage of what we 
learned and move to more electronic submissions.
    In some ways, the experience in this year of the pandemic 
has enabled us to speed up what was already in process and what 
was already planned in that respect. So, I think that will all 
be to the good.
    So, the question is just, in those areas where we can't do 
things fully electronically, how we make it more efficient and 
more effective.
    Then a lot of our processes that were paper-based in the 
past, we're really quite rapidly moving to electronic systems, 
like in particular the recordation system, which was almost 
entirely paper-based until now.
    So, there's a lot of new developments. In terms of the 
workforce, we've been able to be quite productive teleworking. 
We now have about a quarter of our staff coming on site at 
least part-time because of the physical needs of the job.
    I am sure we are going to end up doing more telework and 
relying more on those abilities, both in terms of day-to-day 
work and in terms of events and outreach and programming than 
we have done in the past.
    Ms. McBath. So, thank you for that. The Music Modernization 
Act directed the Copyright Office, in consultation with the 
Government Accountability Office, to conduct a study to 
recommend the best practices for the Mechanical Licensing 
Collective to implement for identifying and locating copyright 
owners that have unclaimed royalties, for encouraging copyright 
owners to claim their royalties, and for reducing the incidence 
of unclaimed royalties.
    I've spoken to many, I live here in Georgia, so I've spoken 
to many individuals that have posed that same problem to me. 
When will this study be completed, and what have you learned so 
far about how we can make sure that royalties get to the 
musicians who've actually worked really hard to earn them?
    Ms. Perlmutter. It's a very important study, and we've 
heard a lot of ideas from a lot of different sources. We have 
held hearings and round tables and gathered a lot of 
information in written form as well.
    We are fully on track to complete the study by the 
deadline, which is July 8. So, we're talking about only, if I 
can calculate correctly, two months from now.
    Ms. McBath. Okay, well, thank you so much, I appreciate 
your time. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Fitzgerald. 
It looks like Mr. Fitzgerald stepped away, so we'll go to Mr. 
Owens.
    Mr. Owens. First, thank you for this hearing, I find it 
very informative. I have no questions at this time, and I yield 
back my time. Thank you very much.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Stanton.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for holding 
this important hearing. Can you hear me okay?
    Chair Nadler. Yes, we can.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Ms. Perlmutter, for the outstanding 
information. I wanted to direct my questions to issues as it 
relates to the CASE Act and making the Copyright Office more 
accessible to small- and medium-sized copyright owners.
    You addressed it a little bit earlier, but I want to 
reiterate the December 27, 2021, date for getting the copyright 
[inaudible] up and running. How's that going?
    Ms. Perlmutter. It's going well. It's a short deadline for 
getting a lot of work done, but we are operating on all--firing 
on all cylinders at the moment.
    So, we are working on the regulatory side. We've issued a 
notice asking for comment on how the regulations should be 
drafted and what issues they should address. Then we will be 
issuing draft regulations based on those comments for further 
comment.
    We are deep into the hiring process for the three judges, 
and we are engaged in developing the technology that they will 
need for case management and for conducting remote hearings.
    So, things are moving along. Our hope and our plans are to 
have it done by the end of December. I know the statute gives 
me a little bit of flexibility if needed, but we are certainly 
hoping not to need that flexibility.
    Mr. Stanton. That's great. Well, we are excited to get the 
board up and running as soon as possible to make the system as 
accessible as possible for less sophisticated actors, those not 
represented by counsel, many needing a little more help.
    How do you plan to make the Copyright Claims Board 
accessible to Members of the public who are not as 
sophisticated in copyright law and not represented by counsel?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Yes, equally important to all the work 
setting it up is the work in making sure that people know about 
it and know how to use it or choose not to use it.
    So, we have already set up a website, a dedicated website, 
with information about the CCB and Q&A, and we'll be updating 
that as the regulations start to take form and the processes 
and structure start to take form.
    We're doing a lot of outreaches with different groups and 
organizations, and we're making sure that it is all of these 
processes are as understandable and clear and usable as they 
possibly can be. That includes both for people who have claims 
they want to bring, and people who may want a declaration of 
noninfringement before they start some sort of activity.
    For people who have claims about misrepresentations under 
the DMCA notice and takedown system. We also need to make sure 
that people know not only that they can bring claims, but for 
respondents, that they know what the costs and benefits are of 
deciding to opt out and how they can do it.
    Mr. Stanton. One of the innovative things about the CASE 
Act was provisions allowing for representation by law students, 
not Members of [inaudible] of the bar. I think that's a great 
advancement, and it will help some of the claimants. It will 
help the law students themselves as they prepare for legal 
careers in this important area.
    How is the office planning to work with law schools to help 
begin this process, help begin the facilitation of law student 
representation?
    Ms. Perlmutter. We have a lot of good connections with law 
schools around the country. We partner with them on a lot of 
different issues. So, I'm sure we're going to be using those 
connections.
    Of course, the more people we can get who can help those 
who want to use the CCB, the better. So, this will be also a 
focus of attention.
    Mr. Stanton. Okay, I really appreciate that. As when I was 
a law student, I had a chance to work with a Child and Advocacy 
Law Clinic and represent children [inaudible] terminate their 
parental rights. It was great training for a legal career, so 
I'm delighted that was included in the CASE Act.
    So, we are really looking forward to working closely with 
you to get that claims board up and running. Anything you need 
from us here in Congress to make the Claims Board successful, 
please let us know. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. Ms. Dean, I think you're on mute.
    Ms. Dean. I'm sorry, I didn't hear. Thank you, Mr. Chair, 
and thank you, Register Perlmutter, for being with us today.
    I wanted to follow up relatively quickly on your three 
priorities, which I champion along with you. The continuation, 
as Representative Lofgren said, of modernization, that it can't 
be a once-and-done, that it has to be continuously updated.
    I just wonder, from your experience, you said that 98 
percent of your staff went to full or partial virtual at the 
same time you're trying to effect modernization. How was that 
path? What bumps and obstacles were in the way, particularly 
for those seeking copyright protection?
    Ms. Perlmutter. I think it's been, as I said, a challenging 
year because people are doing their regular full-time jobs and 
adapting to doing them remotely at the same time as they're 
also working on the modernization initiative, because we need 
subject matter experts to work with the IT experts all along 
the way.
    Things are moving along well. People have adapted and 
adjusted well. We have not seen a decline in registration, in 
the use of our services. People have been using the 
flexibilities that we've put into place.
    So, I'm tremendously gratified to see, in fact, how 
smoothly things have gone from the perspective both internally 
in the office, and from what we're hearing from stakeholders.
    Ms. Dean. Do you have any guess as to how much you might 
retain virtual employees?
    Ms. Perlmutter. Well, of course we work within the library, 
which has centralized responsibility for HR. They are currently 
in the process of determining what the library-wide policy will 
be for remote work. It will undoubtedly give a fair amount of 
flexibility to the Copyright Office and the other service units 
within the library to determine what makes sense for us.
    What I have been saying to staff is that I am sure we will 
have more flexibility for telework than we've had in the past, 
although probably not quite as much as we've had during the 
pandemic.
    We're trying to figure out the right balance to give people 
flexibility but also not to lose some of the benefits from in-
person interactions that we've missed during the past year.
    Ms. Dean. Yeah, we all have missed those. Adding to the 
conversation, I too think it's fantastic that you will be 
hiring a Chief Economist to collect data to do greater 
research. Let's talk about your initiative regarding diversity.
    I know Representative Jackson Lee talked about this. Could 
you be a little more specific? I know you have not yet hired 
the Chief Economist, but certainly you can see the gaps, or 
have identified, assessed gaps in diversity.
    Can you tell use specifically where are those gaps most 
chronically? I know you're going to be doing outreach and 
hiring a person for outreach. Can you identify where those gaps 
are in the creative world?
    Ms. Perlmutter. I think one of the big questions right now 
is finding out where those gaps are, and that is something that 
the Chief Economist will be very helpful with.
    Just to give as one example, I had always assumed, just 
based on my personal experience, that women were extremely well 
represented in the copyright world. In fact, within the 
Copyright Office, approximately 60 percent of our employees are 
female.
    It turns out that about ten years ago, an informal study 
was done of copyright applicants, which concluded that actually 
women were significantly underrepresented among copyright 
applicants. I want to update that data.
    I was at the PTO when the Chief Economist did a major 
research project on women in patenting, which showed even lower 
rates of participation than in the copyright system. So, we 
need to get a better handle on what the current reality is, 
both for women and for minority groups. Also, look at possible 
geographic underrepresentation. There may be a lot of 
creativity all around the country that is somewhat untapped 
because people aren't aware of what copyright is.
    Ms. Dean. I think that's really valuable information that 
we should have. Maybe other areas of diversity as well, for 
example, folks who are disabled or differently-abled or however 
we want to say it. LGBTQ, and others. What barriers are there 
to a real depth of diversity in the taking advantage of the 
protection of copyright.
    So, I honor the work that you do. Congratulations on your 
assignment. With that, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Bush.
    Does anyone else wish to speak? There seem to be no other 
Members currently. Does anyone else seek recognition? Well, see 
anybody?
    Well, in that case, this concludes today's hearing. We 
thank Ms. Perlmutter for participating. Without objection, all 
Members will have five legislative days to submit additional 
written questions for the Witness or additional materials for 
the record.
    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

?

      

                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE RECORD

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

	
	       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
	

                                 [all]