U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–529 PDF 2015

U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE: 

ITS FUNCTIONS AND RESOURCES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 26, 2015 

Serial No. 114–4 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

FEBRUARY 26, 2015 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 1 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 2 

WITNESSES 

Keith Kupferschmid, General Counsel, Software & Information Industry Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 

Lisa A. Dunner, Partner, Dunner Law PLLC, on behalf of the American 

Bar Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 25 

Nancy J. Mertzel, Schoeman Updike Kaufman & Stern LLP, on behalf of 

the American Intellectual Property Law Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 36 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 38 

Robert Brauneis, Professor, George Washington University Law School 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 52 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 54 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of New York, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 75 

Material submitted by the Honorable Doug Collins, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary .. 100 

Material submitted by the Honorable Judy Chu, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ........ 104 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by Maria A. Pallante, Register of Copyrights and Director, 

U.S. Copyright Office ........................................................................................... 110 

Prepared Statement of the Association of American Publishers (AAP) .............. 120 

Prepared Statement of Mary Rasenberger on behalf of the Authors Guild ....... 128 

Prepared Statement of the Motion Picture Association of America .................... 134 

Letter from Cary Sherman, Chairman and CEO, the Recording Industry 

Association of America (RIAA) ............................................................................ 138 

(1) 

U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE: 

ITS FUNCTIONS AND RESOURCES 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:30 p.m., in room 2141, 

Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte (Chairman 

of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Chabot, Issa, King, Gohmert, 

Jordan, Marino, Collins, DeSantis, Walters, Buck, Ratcliffe, Trott, 

Bishop, Conyers, Nadler, Lofgren, Johnson, Chu, Deutch, DelBene, 

Jeffries, Cicilline, and Peters. 

Staff present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Joe 

Keeley, Counsel; Kelsey Williams, Clerk; (Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director & Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian; and Jason Everett, Counsel. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good afternoon. The Judiciary Committee will 

come to order, and without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. 

We welcome everyone to this afternoon’s hearing on the ‘‘U.S. 

Copyright Office: Its Functions and Resources.’’ And I will begin by 

recognizing myself for an opening statement. 

Two hundred twenty-five years ago, the Nation’s first Copyright 

Act was signed into law, but the U.S. Copyright Office itself is a 

more recent creation, if you can describe 118 years as recent. Although small in size, the Office is not small in importance. The 

copyright economy that the Office oversees is an expanding component of the U.S. economy. 

The endless creativity of our citizens generates new works every 

year. As two of our copyright review hearings in 2013 demonstrated, the copyright world is intertwined with the technology 

world in a symbiotic relationship that benefits both sectors. Although most of the works referenced in the more than half a million copyright claims received each year by the Copyright Office 

may never become widely known, some are seen, heard, and read 

by millions of Americans, if not billions of people around the world. 

America’s creativity is the envy of the world, and the Copyright 

Office is at the center of it. However, many have highlighted the 

fact that one cannot have a Copyright Office whose technologies 
2 

and processes are of the analog era when the economy has become 

a digital one. Although the Copyright Office has managed to direct 

its resources to maximize their efficiency, it is clear that what was 

expected of the Office in the 20th century is not what is expected 

of it in the 21st century. 

Today, most Americans carry one or more smart devices in their 

pocketbooks, backpacks, and purses. They store their favorite 

books, songs, movies, games, and more on their device, and they 

use the internet to find more. Yet trying to find much information 

about the works themselves from the Copyright Office records is 

not a useful effort for most. Burdened by a lack of funds and dependent upon the vastly different technology needs of the Library 

of Congress, the Copyright Office has been unable to respond to the 

needs of the copyright community, harming copyright owners and 

users alike. 

I have worked with three outstanding registrars of the copyright 

over the years: Barbara Ringer, Mary Beth Peters, and Maria 

Pallante. All have been strong advocates for a robust Copyright Office that can serve the needs of the copyright community while providing wise counsel to this and other Committees. In response to 

the quality of their efforts, Congress vested more power with the 

Copyright Office through rulemaking authority over the past several decades. 

Some now believe that part of the problem with copyright law 

today is that it is unable to adapt quickly enough to new technologies and business models. One possible solution would be to 

give the Office more authority to promulgate regulations that can 

more quickly interpret fundamental copyright principles set by 

Congress rather than wait for Congress to act. I look forward to 

hearing more about that possibility. 

I am also interested in learning about the potential constitutional concerns that might result by adding more regulatory powers 

to the Copyright Office or creating new programs, such as a small 

copyright claims remedies system, as some have suggested. 

The witnesses this afternoon are well positioned to explain the 

impact of poor funding and marginal IT systems upon the copyright 

system and those who interact with the Copyright Office on a daily 

basis. I look forward to hearing from them on these topics as well. 

Thank you all again for being here this afternoon, and it is now 

my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the Committee, 

the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. Members of the 

Committee, the United States Copyright Office plays a critical role 

in promoting and protecting our Nation’s copyright system. The Office examines and registers copyright claims, records copyright documents, and administers statutory licenses. It provides expert 

copyright advice to Congress as well as various Federal agencies 

concerning trade agreements, treaty negotiations, and court proceedings. And the Office recommends much needed improvements 

to the copyright system based on its research and analysis. 

Unfortunately, the existing Copyright Office itself is ill equipped 

to handle certain challenges presented by technological developments and the growing demands of the copyright system. While the 
3 

Copyright Office is well aware of its limitations, it cannot fully 

overcome them without congressional action. 

Today’s hearing provides us an opportunity to examine how the 

Copyright Office should function and how we can best prepare for 

the coming decades to benefit the overall copyright system. To that 

end, Congress should first consider whether the Copyright Office 

requires wholesale structural and operational changes to better 

meet the needs of the present and future copyright system. 

Although a strong copyright system necessitates an efficient and 

effective United States Copyright Office, there are serious concerns 

that the Office, in fact, lacks sufficient autonomy and infrastructure to meet the needs of the copyright community. Therefore, I 

would ask the witnesses, whom I join in welcoming to this hearing, 

to discuss how best to address these structural and operational constraints. 

Another factor integral to the success of the copyright system is 

for the Copyright Office to become more user friendly. For example, 

the Office’s recordation system continues to be a cumbersome and 

costly process that requires manual examination and data entry. In 

addition, the functionality of the Office’s databases and the 

usability of the Office’s website must be improved. Further, the security of deposited digital works must be strengthened, and the 

copyright community needs a system which provides a more usable 

and searchable public record of copyrighted material. 

The Copyright Office is aware of the need to modernize so that 

it can adapt to ever-evolving technology and the needs of the copyright community. We must help it do so, which leads me to my 

final observation. A strong copyright system requires that we fully 

fund the Copyright Office. As I have previously stated, the Copyright Office performs several critical roles in our copyright system. 

Yet since 2010, Congress has reduced the Copyright Office’s budget 

over 7 percent, while continuing to ask it to do more. Decreased 

funding reduces any operating cushion the Copyright Office could 

otherwise use for long-term planning, such as overhauling its entire information technology system. 

It has also undermined the Office’s ability to hire staff to fulfill 

its many statutory duties. For instance, its registration program 

currently has 48 vacancies out of 180 staff slots, and the Office has 

been prevented from representing the interests of the United 

States in international meetings and multinational treaty negotiations as a result of budget constraints. 

In Fiscal Year 2014, the Copyright Office had an overall budget 

of about $50 million. When considering that total copyright industries contribute nearly $2 trillion or more than 11 percent in value 

to the United States gross domestic product, Congress, we should 

realize the importance of the Copyright Office and increase its 

budget. Fully funding the Copyright Office will make our copyright 

system become even more effective and efficient, and enhance our 

country’s competitiveness. 

I thank the Chairman for holding today’s hearings, and I look 

forward to hearing from the witnesses. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Conyers, and without objection 

all other Members’ opening statements will be made a part of the 

record. 
4 

We welcome our distinguished panel today, and if you would all 

rise, I will begin by swearing in the witnesses. 

Do you and each of you swear that the testimony that you are 

about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you God? 

[A chorus of ayes.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. Let the record reflect 

that all the witnesses responded in the affirmative. 

I will now begin by introducing our witnesses. Our first witness 

is Keith Kupferschmid, the general counsel and senior vice president for intellectual property for the Software and Information Industry Association. Mr. Kupferschmid specializes in intellectual 

property policy, legal, and enforcement matters. He received his 

bachelors of science in mechanical engineering from the University 

of Rochester. Additionally, he holds a J.D. from American University Washington College of Law. 

Our second witness is Lisa Dunner, chair of the American Bar 

Association’s Section of Intellectual Property. Ms. Dunner is the 

founding editor-in-chief of the ABA’s Intellectual Property Law Section’s IP magazine, Landslide, and has written about numerous 

trademark and copyright issues. Ms. Dunner attended Rollins College for her bachelors of arts degree, and she continued on to receive her J.D. from the John Marshall Law School. 

Our third witness is Nancy Mertzel, who is testifying on behalf 

of the American Intellectual Property Law Association. Ms. Mertzel 

is a partner with Schoeman Updike Kaufman & Stern, where she 

focuses on intellectual property matters. Since 2009, she has been 

named annually to the list of New York’s super lawyers for intellectual property litigation. Ms. Mertzel attended the University of 

Rochester for her bachelors of arts degree. She then went on to receive her juris doctorate from American University Washington 

College of Law. 

Professor Bob Brauneis, a professor of law at the George Washington University School of Law, and the Kaminstein Scholar-inResidence at the Copyright Office. At GW, Professor Brauneis is 

the co-director of the intellectual property program. He has written 

numerous scholarly articles on intellectual property and constitutional law. Professor Brauneis received his B.A. from the University of California. He additionally holds a J.D. from Harvard University. 

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for their appearance. 

Your written statements will be entered into the record in their entirety, and I ask that you each summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that time, there is a timing 

light on the table in front of you. When the light switches from 

green to yellow, you have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. 

When the light turns red, that concludes your testimony. 

Mr. Kupferschmid, we will begin with you. You will want to turn 

on that microphone. 

TESTIMONY OF KEITH KUPFERSCHMID, GENERAL COUNSEL, 

SOFTWARE & INFORMATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the oppor-
5 

tunity to testify before you today to discuss the functions and resources of the U.S. Copyright Office. 

I am Keith Kupferschmid, general counsel and senior vice president for intellectual property for the Software and Information Industry Association. Today I hope to assist the Committee in better 

understanding the important role the Copyright Office plays in the 

creation and distribution of innovative new products and services, 

the concern we have relating to the Office’s operations, IT infrastructure, staffing, and budget, and the immediate need to take 

steps to modernize the Office. 

As the Office responsible for administering all matters relating 

to copyright, few other offices are more important to the growth of 

creativity and commercial activity in our Nation than the United 

States Copyright Office. Despite the critical nature of the services 

provided by the Office, many of these services have failed to keep 

pace with technology and the marketplace. 

Our major concerns are the Library of Congress’ demand for deposit copies in certain formats causes friction with the Copyright 

Office and copyright applicants. Some SIIA members do not register their works with the Copyright Office because it is too expensive and too cumbersome, and because they are concerned about 

the security of their deposits. For example, many newspapers are 

no longer registering their works with the Copyright Office because 

the Library requires that newspaper deposits be in microfilm format. 

Also, the functionality of the Copyright Office registry is drastically out of date relative to today’s technologies. For instance, a 

search of the registry for The Godfather does not display either the 

Oscar winning movie or the bestselling book within the first 25 

search results. 

The present recordation process is also shockingly antiquated, 

cumbersome, and costly. It requires manual examination and data 

entry from paper documents, much in the same way as when the 

recordation was first launched in the 1870’s. It takes the Office 12 

to 18 months to enter the data. This is much too long in today’s 

copyright marketplace. 

So what can be done to address these problems? First, the Office 

needs a more advanced IT infrastructure that is specifically to the 

Office and can better support the needs of its users. The Copyright 

Office is obligated to use the Library’s IT systems, which are meant 

to service the Library and its associated function. But the Copyright Office has a very different mission. It provides services that 

affect the legal rights and economic interests of those who rely on 

the Copyright Act. 

Second, the Copyright Office funding needs to be increased. From 

2010 to 2013, funding was reduced by over 20 percent, causing 

staffing shortages and technology lapses. The Copyright Office is 

unable to increase user fees enough to offset the shortfall because 

it must limit its fees to the costs incurred for providing its services. 

Third, the Copyright Office needs more staff. The number of Copyright Office staff has dropped over the past 5 years from close to 

500 FTEs to less than 400. This dramatic reduction in staff has 

placed an impossible burden on the Office to accomplish its responsibilities in a timely and effective manner. 
6 

The Copyright Office customers want the Office to do the things 

it already does, but do them better and faster, and also to do many 

new innovative things to make the copyright law more functional, 

more efficient, and more user friendly. The prospects of the Copyright Office being able to meet these demands are slim under the 

present structure and funding levels. 

Accordingly, SIIA recommends the following steps be taken to 

address these problems. Congress should authorize a study to determine the best long-term solution for the Office. Alternatives include retaining the Copyright Office within the Library while increasing its autonomy, making the Copyright Office a freestanding 

independent agency within the executive branch, and relocating the 

Copyright Office into the PTO. This study should also examine 

whether the head of the Office should be a presidential appointee. 

Congress should also increase the Copyright Office’s funding to 

enable the Office to make immediate critical improvements. Considering how important the Copyright Office and the copyright industries are to the U.S. economy, increasing the Office’s appropriations for modernization purposes is definitely justified. 

Lastly, Congress should pass legislation immediately that vests 

the Copyright Office with the same type of operational autonomy 

that Congress has granted to the Congressional Research Service. 

Unlike the Copyright Office, the Library has no authority to supervise or direct the activities of CRS. To the contrary, the Library is 

statutorily required to encourage, assist, and promote CRS. By giving the Copyright Office more autonomy, many of the operational 

problems previously identified could be resolved. 

I look forward to working with the Committee and other stakeholders as this and other copyright issues are considered by the 

Committee, and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kupferschmid follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Ms. Dunner, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF LISA A. DUNNER, PARTNER, DUNNER LAW 

PLLC, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 

Ms. DUNNER. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, 

Members of the Committee, thank you for your invitation to the 

American Bar Association’s Section of Intellectual Property Law to 

participate in this hearing. 

The Copyright Office of today is a far cry from what it was in 

1897 when it became a separate department of the Library of Congress to process registrations and acquire deposit copies for the Library’s use. The Office remains part of the Library, but its responsibilities have multiplied to include recording transfers and terminations; providing copyright information to the public; administering certain statutory licenses; providing support to Congress 

through consultation and studies on issues, such as copyright, 

small claims, and music licensing; providing legal assistance to executive agencies and the courts; participating in negotiations on 

trade agreements and international treaties; and conducting rulemaking proceedings. 

The Copyright Office provides essential services to our copyright 

industries, a vital segment of the U.S. economy. A recent report 

found that the core copyright industries contributed $1.1 trillion to 

the U.S. gross domestic product in 2013, and accounted for $156 

billion in foreign sales and exports. They employ nearly 5.5 million 

U.S. workers, more than 4 percent of the entire U.S. workforce. 

The 2009 through 2013 annual growth rate of these industries was 

70 percent more than the growth rate of the U.S. economy as a 

whole. 

The ever-increasing functions of the Copyright Office reflect the 

expansion of the copyright industries and their increasing sophistication, as well as the broader scope of copyright law itself. Over 

time, international issues have occupied more of the Office’s attention, and the U.S. has joined many bilateral and multilateral copyright and trade treaties. The internet has expanded markets for 

U.S. works throughout the world. Unfortunately, the resources 

available to the Office have not let it keep pace with the fast-moving copyright role of the 21st century. 

The ABA Section of Intellectual Property views the resources 

needs of the Office from three perspectives: autonomy, technology, 

and funding. The Copyright Office should have greater autonomy 

because efficient Copyright Office operations and sound copyright 

policy are paramount. The Librarian’s broad authority over Copyright Office functions is problematic on multiple levels. Not only is 

copyright expertise not part of the Librarian’s job requirements, 

but there is an inherent conflict-of-interest in having the Library 

sign off on and control regulations formulated by the Office. Especially since the Library, and like other libraries, often takes a position on policy matters that are the subject of the Office’s studies 

and rulemaking proceedings. 

Greater autonomy would allow the Office to more effectively support copyright owners and users of the 21st century, and it would 

expand the substantive role of the Office by granting it appro-
24 

priately crafted rulemaking authority. Importantly, it would allow 

both the Copyright Office and the Library of Congress to focus 

their energies on what they each do best. 

The Copyright Office needs a sophisticated, efficient IT system 

responsive to its needs and those of its users. Currently, it must 

work through the Library’s IT system, which is developed and 

managed with the Library’s different priorities in mind. Minor 

changes to online forms can take months. The system lacks adequate security. 

Moreover, the Library’s IT department is not always responsive 

to the Office’s needs. During the 2012 government shutdown, the 

IT department took the Office’s website offline. It took the Registrar of Copyrights days to get it restored. This is unacceptable for 

a Copyright Office that serves a vital segment of the U.S. economy. 

In these times of budget austerity, many government agencies 

are called upon to provide substantially increase services with less 

than substantial resources. With the Copyright Office it is even 

worse. Since 2010, its budget has dropped by $3.51 million, or 7.2 

percent. The Office now operates with 360 full-time employees, well 

below its authorized ceiling of 439. 

As a step toward securing adequate funding, the Office needs authority to make its own budget request. Currently, the Office presents its budget needs to the Librarian. The Office’s budget needs 

should be evaluated on their own, rather than being evaluated in 

competition with all the other divisions in the Library. 

As I hope my comments will reveal, enhanced autonomy, technology, and funding for the Copyright Office are interdependent 

and inextricably linked. Increased autonomy would enable the Office to make it more effective case for adequate funding, which in 

turn could provide much needed improvements in technology. 

On behalf of the 20,000-plus members of the American Bar Association’s Section of Intellectual Property Law, let me in closing express gratitude to the Committee for its sustained commitment to 

bringing the Copyright Office into the 21st century. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dunner follows:] 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Ms. Dunner. 

Ms. Mertzel, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF NANCY J. MERTZEL, SCHOEMAN UPDIKE 

KAUFMAN & STERN LLP, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION 

Ms. MERTZEL. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, 

and distinguished Members of the Judiciary Committee, I am 

Nancy Mertzel, a partner at Schoeman Updike Kaufman & Stern 

in New York City. Thank you for allowing me to testify today on 

behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, and 

for your continued interest in the Copyright Office. 

AIPLA is a bar association of approximately 15,000 members, including individuals who represent both copyright owners and users. 

Many of our members interact with the Copyright Office on a regular basis. I serve on AIPLA’s board of directors and recently 

chaired its Copyright Law Committee. I am a member of the Copyright Society of the USA, and previously served as a trustee of that 

organization. I have spent more than 2 decades practicing in this 

area of the law. 

Creative expression is a key driver of our Nation’s social and economic wellbeing, and the Copyright Office plays a critical role in 

our Nation’s copyright system. We recognize and appreciate the 

strong leadership of Registrar Pallante and her excellent staff. 

However, in our view, inadequate resources and lack of autonomy 

have left the Office understaffed and its technology outdated, preventing the Office from operating as well as it should. Today I will 

briefly describe some of the difficulties faced by those who used the 

Office’s services on a regular basis. 

A copyright registration or a refusal is a prerequisite to a suit 

for infringement of a United States work. Timely registration also 

creates a public record, entitles the owner to prima facie evidence 

of validity, and the potential to recover statutory damages and attorneys’ fees in cases of infringement. 

However, the electronic system for registering copyrights online 

is severely lacking. For example, it needs a more intuitive interface 

and the ability to print, view, and forward draft applications to 

third parties for signature. Otherwise some practitioners will continue to use paper applications. The deposit system also needs substantial improvement. Instead of a manual deposit of physical materials, applications should be evaluated based upon submission of 

electronic materials. We need to continue building the Library’s important collection and simultaneously improve the registration 

process. 

Because of staffing constraints, it also takes too long to retrieve 

deposit material from the Office. In copyright disputes, it is usually 

important to compare the accused material to the deposit material. 

However, it can take the Office 8 to 12 weeks to provide deposit 

material, which is simply too long for a party to wait if they are 

facing litigation. 

Recording documents that affect copyright, such as assignments 

and licenses, is also too cumbersome. We have to file documents 

with original signatures, we do not usually get a receipt, and the 
37 

information takes far too long to appear online. Professor Brauneis’ 

report describes these issues in much more detail. 

To continue to thrive, our copyright system needs a better database. The Office has in its possession a wealth of information concerning the registration status and ownership of creative works. 

However, its online catalog only dates back to 1978. To search 

older works which may still be under copyright, it is often necessary to hire a trained searcher to review card catalogues, printed 

materials, and even microfiche. The online catalogue of post-1978 

works is also difficult to search, and some perceive its results as 

inaccurate, over inclusive, or under inclusive. 

The absence of a trusted database creates uncertainty, increases 

the cost of copyright-related transactions, and hinders sound business decisions. Creating a robust database may also help mitigate 

the issue of orphan works and masked digitization as it will be less 

burdensome and expensive to identify copyright owners. 

AIPLA believes that the Copyright Office needs increased resources and greater autonomy over its budget and IT systems. Others have made suggestions about necessary changes, including 

where the Office should be located within our Federal system. 

AIPLA takes no position on that issue today, and recommends further study. In today’s digital world, copyright will continue to grow 

in importance as an economic and cultural force. A well-functioning 

copyright office is not only desirable, it is essential. 

Thank you for continued interest in these issues. We stand ready 

to assist you, and the Office, and others in any way we can. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mertzel follows:] 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Ms. Mertzel. 

Mr. Brauneis, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT BRAUNEIS, PROFESSOR, 

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, 

and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify here today. I have been teaching copyright law for over a decade, and during the last academic year, as Chairman Goodlatte 

mentioned, I had the privilege of working at the Copyright Office 

as the inaugural Abraham L. Kaminstein Scholar-in-Residence. 

Through that experience, I have come to know and respect the 

work of that office, and also to learn about some of its challenges 

and opportunities. I am honored to have the occasion to present 

some of my views. 

There are three topics on which I want to focus today: the registration and recordation functions of the Copyright Office, its independent legislative advisory role, and the constitutional challenges 

to the structure of the Copyright Office and of the Library of Congress. 

Copyright registration and recordation are core functions of the 

Copyright Office that occupy the majority of its personnel. They 

provide essential information and evidence to support the copyright 

marketplace. Because of the emerging importance of information 

technology to those functions, the funding and control models that 

once worked to support them no longer work. 

Information technology has made those functions capital intensive, requiring large multiyear investments to build the most efficient systems. Information technology has also rendered registration and recordation personnel dependent on a separate IT staff. 

Unfortunately, funding and control limitations have resulted in 

chronic underinvestment and ineffective management of necessary 

computer systems. 

To remedy these deficiencies, I recommend that Congress explicitly authorize the Copyright Office to collect fees that cover future 

capital investments and to build a reserve fund that is not depleted 

annually by an adjustment to the Office’s appropriation. I also recommend that the Office be given greater control over the computer 

systems on which recordation and registration depend, which are 

now run outside the Copyright Office by the Library of Congress. 

For over a century, the Copyright Office has provided independent advice and support on copyright matters to Congress and 

to executive branch agencies using the expertise that it has developed from administering copyright law. As I have studied the history of the Copyright Office, I have repeatedly been impressed by 

the depth of its contributions to copyright legislation, including the 

comprehensive revisions of 1909 and 1976. 

The traditional assumption is that the Copyright Office can provide independent advice to Congress because it and the Library of 

Congress are in the legislative branch of government. Recent litigation, however, has challenged that assumption. Courts have held 

that the function of the Copyright Office in developing and applying registration policy and the function of the copyright royalty 
53 

judges in setting statutory licensing rates are essentially executive 

in character. 

In order to uphold registration and rate-making decisions, the 

courts have clarified that the Librarian of Congress is the head of 

an executive department, who is fully responsible to the President, 

just as every Cabinet member is. They have also held that the Registrar and the copyright royalty judges must be fully responsible to 

the Librarian and removable at will by him. Thus, under current 

rulings the Library and the Copyright Office are in the executive 

branch. The President has already informed Congress that he is asserting control over the Librarian’s power to shift resources between the Copyright Office and other divisions of the Library. 

In the face of these developments, Congress may want to consider a number of options. Congress can preserve and reinforce congressional control over the non-copyright functions of the Library, 

including the Congressional Research Service, because they are not 

executive in character. Thus, if Congress placed the copyright functions of the Library in a separate agency, it could provide that the 

Librarian be appointed by a Member or Committee of Congress. 

Congress must place the executive functions of the Copyright Office in an executive agency. Although it has a number of options 

in that regard, I recommend that it consider an independent agency. An independent agency can be empowered to continue to give 

Congress and executive branch departments impartial expert copyright advice without clearing that advice through the President. An 

independent copyright commission could thus continue to provide 

the trusted advice that has benefited Congress for over a century, 

while also administering the copyright laws on the day-to-day basis 

that is the source of much of its expertise. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brauneis follows:] 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you all for your testimony. We will begin 

our questioning under the 5-minute rule, and I will begin by recognizing myself. I have a question for each of you, in fact, two, and 

if you could be brief, we will get through all of you and both questions. And I have another question I would like to ask Mr. 

Brauneis. 

So the first question is, it appears that a significant effort will 

be required to modernize the Copyright Office systems, but there 

is always the balance between resources and priorities. With 

change needed in electronic registrations, document recordations, 

and digitization of older copyright records, which of these problems 

should be addressed first? Mr. Kupferschmid, we will start with 

you. 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. Thank you. First off, I will be quick, but I 

want to thank you for holding this hearing. I cannot say enough 

how important this topic is. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Do not say it now because I need you to answer 

the question. [Laughter.] 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. Okay. Well, with regard to that, I mean, the 

biggest, the most important change is changing the IT system because everything you mentioned here—digitization, and document 

retention, and searchability—that all has to do with improving the 

IT system. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. No question about it, but of those three, which 

should come first? 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. Well, I guess before you do anything, you 

have got to be able to actually digitize everything to be able to put 

it in a form where it can be searchable and usable. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. So you would start with digitization of older 

copyright works? 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. I think so. If you could repeat the list again. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. That, document recordations, and electronic registrations. Ms. Dunner? 

Ms. DUNNER. That is a tough question, but I think I would start 

with recordation because it is so out of date. It affects so many 

business transactions today. I agree with Mr. Kupferschmid that 

you really need to upgrade the IT system as a whole, but recordation would be my first choice. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Ms. Mertzel? 

Ms. MERTZEL. I am speaking personally, not on behalf of AIPLA. 

But I am inclined to start with registration because people are registering copyrights every day, and people are avoiding registration 

because of the problems with it, and still using paper. And I think 

as you build as a database that can handle online registration, you 

can work on implementing recordation and digitization in the background. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good point. So, Mr. Brauneis, we have one for 

each. How do you break the tie here? 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. Recordation. I was the author of a report recently 

released on recordation, and so I will go with recordation. [Laughter.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay, thank you. Now, here is my second question, and we have got some idea that there is disagreement on 

what to prioritize, but we still have got to figure out how to pay 
70 

for whatever we do. So these efforts are going to require significant 

financial investments. Is this something that should borne by the 

copyright community, taxpayers as a whole, or some combination 

of both? And we will do it in reverse order here, so you get the benefit of listening to the answer. Mr. Brauneis? 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. I think the answer is both. I think that there 

needs to be increased appropriations, but I also think there needs 

to be increased attention paid to differentiation of copyright fees. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. All right. Ms. Mertzel? 

Ms. MERTZEL. I would agree that differentiation is an area to explore. I do not have a specific answer on the allocation between fees 

versus appropriations. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. All right. Ms. Dunner? 

Ms. DUNNER. It is a scary slope or a slippery slope when you talk 

about increasing fees because I think that can start a whole different conversation. So I think increased appropriations would 

probably be the best. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. It certainly is. Mr. Kupferschmid? 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. Yes, very clearly I think it is a combination 

of both. I think there are things that the Copyright Office can do, 

maybe increase fees, but lessen the total costs that the copyright 

registrant is paying to offset that. So I think certainly it is a combination of both, appropriations and copyright owners paying additional fees, as well as users. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Very good. So we have a clear majority on that. 

Now, Mr. Brauneis, I said a question for you as well. 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. Indeed. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. You have seen the impact of low funding of the 

Copyright Office from the inside. 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. I have. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. How would you describe the morale of Copyright Office employees? 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. Challenging. I think Copyright Office employees 

are working hard, but when they do not have enough personnel 

and they do not have enough colleagues to spread it around, I 

think I have seen some real challenges. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Very good. Thank you. Anybody else want to 

comment on that from the outside? Do you have a perspective on 

that, Ms. Dunner? 

Ms. DUNNER. I think the Copyright Office is doing the best it can 

with what it has. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. All right, thank you. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, and thank you all for your testimony. 

I would like to direct this to Mr. Kupferschmid. In your written testimony, you suggest that Congress should authorize a study to determine the benefits of a different structure for the Copyright Office. Would you elaborate on why you believe the status quo will 

not work for the Copyright Office for the 21st century? And before 

you respond, although the Copyright Office is not testifying here, 

I would like Ms. Pallante, the registrar, if she is listening, and I 

suspect she is, to submit for the record her views on the testimony 

today about whether and how reorganizing the Copyright Office 

would benefit the copyright community. 
71 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. Thank you. Yes, in my written testimony 

and statement, I mentioned the fact that the one option that frankly is not agreeable is the status quo. And the reason for that is because, as we have heard here today already, that the Copyright Office needs more funding to accomplish what it needs to accomplish, 

to make improvements to the regulation system and the recordation system. But it also needs more autonomy, and those go handin-hand, and if there is one without the other, it is frankly not 

going to be able to accomplish what it needs to accomplish and improve. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Ms. Dunner, in your testimony, you 

mentioned that the Office’s budget has decreased by over 7 percent 

since 2010. What effect has that had on the ability of the Office to 

interact with the copyright community? 

Ms. DUNNER. I think it is reflected in a number of ways, one of 

which is its IT systems are very out of date, and so it is unable 

to keep up with the fast pace of the current copyright community. 

The community wants things more readily available, more easily 

accessible, and the Copyright Office is unable to provide that with 

its current IT system. 

Mr. CONYERS. Professor Brauneis, we are here today to discuss 

the future of the Copyright Office, and all the witnesses have suggested that we consider reorganizing it, and have provided several 

alternatives for how that would look. I would like to know what is 

the timeline for when Congress needs to make a decision to ensure 

that we prepare the Copyright Office for the 21st century? 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. Well, as soon as possible with an adequate time 

for study, so I am not sure whether I can put a number of months 

on that, but I hope it does not stretch into years. 

Mr. CONYERS. I suspected you would be for the immediate action. 

Now, Ms. Mertzel, in your written testimony, you suggest that increased autonomy is essential for the Copyright Office of the future. How would budget autonomy strengthen the copyright ecosystem? 

Ms. MERTZEL. Well, budget autonomy would allow the Office to 

make decisions about how to spend the money it has without having to involve the Library and the Librarian. I think that that 

would be very important with regard to IT, with regard to space 

and purchasing of equipment and materials. And I think that the 

Office should be able to request its own budget and not be included 

and wrapped up in the larger Library budget. 

Mr. CONYERS. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I return any unused time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair appreciates that greatly, and is now 

pleased to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would have gladly taken 

the Ranking Members’ time. I am going to follow up on where the 

Ranking Member left off, and I will use the Chairman’s technique 

of going right down the row. How many people here believe that 

regardless of where the entity is, that as it is currently structured 

and it is not structured, forget about being constitutional for a moment. It is not structured to be efficient, nimble, modern, and progressive in a way that the 21st century would demand? 
72 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. 100 percent agree with that. 

Ms. DUNNER. 100 percent agree with that. 

Ms. MERTZEL. Yes, 100 percent. 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. I will join them. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So we have the consensus so seldom seen in 

Washington. [Laughter.] 

So if I understand the various options, we can obviously correct 

a separation of powers question with and without retaining historic 

assets, the Librarian, the actual body that belongs historically to 

this body, to this branch. 

But I want to explore the independent commission for a moment. 

I want you to tell me in a perfect world, because when you talk 

about major restructuring, all of which falls under this Committee’s 

jurisdiction from the standpoint of the entities, not necessarily the 

restructuring plan. When you talk about major restructuring, you 

normally say if we had it to do over again what would be good. And 

then you figure if there is a road that leads from where you are 

to where you would like to be in a perfect world. 

In a perfect world, would all of you agree that the Patent Office, 

that Patent, Trademark, and Copyright would have huge independence, would be funded in a way in which the funds and fees were 

collected and retained, in which there was both congressional and 

executive branch oversight and control sufficient to insist that 

those funds be well spent, and in which the stakeholders, whether 

it’s the copyright community or the patenting community, had a 

real seat at the table to see as customers that they were well 

served? 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. I think that is correct, but there are additional issues that come up if you are saying move the Copyright Office into the Patent and Trademark Office. 

Mr. ISSA. I am not. I am not. I am saying in a perfect world they 

would both be independent commissions. They would have both 

have those three properties: a level of independence that allowed 

them to be guardians of the constitutional responsibility, input 

from the executive branch from a standpoint of waste, fraud, and 

abuse, but enough independence that it is not a tool of a policy of 

any particular president. Obviously the oversight of this body from 

a standpoint, as we do all executive branch. And last but not least, 

the stakeholders having a real seat at the table so that it was efficient, effective for their services, because you have all told us in 

your opening statements that they are not that today. 

But unfortunately I also hear some of the same complaints about 

the Patent Office, so that is why I have included in a perfect world, 

would each of those two entities be equally independent, self-governing in that sense, have oversight from both the executive branch 

and the legislative branch, and, in fact, have a customer looking responsibility. We will go the other direction this time. 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. Yes, I think that is exactly right. 

Mr. ISSA. Just a quick yes or no, and then I have got a final 

question. 

Ms. MERTZEL. I think that is right. I am not sure about the comparison between Copyright and PTO, and whether they raise the 

exact same issues. 
73 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Then just answer for Copyright. Should it meet 

those requirements? 

Ms. MERTZEL. Yes. 

Ms. DUNNER. Yes. 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. Yes. 

Mr. ISSA. Then would you all agree, and hopefully I will get a 

trifecta, and I will quit for today. Would you all agree that, in fact, 

this Committee’s goal should be, in fact, to set up that criteria or 

a process to get to that structure that reviews how we would make 

sure the executive branch had input, but not, if you will, policy distortion, that they, in fact, had sufficient autonomy while, in fact, 

being responsive to Congress, and, most of all, responsive to the 

community of their users, all of which you have said today the 

Copyright Office as structured is not doing, not just because of a 

‘‘lack of funds?’’ 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. Yes, exactly right. 

Ms. MERTZEL. Just one point on that is that I think that some 

of the role the Copyright Office plays requires more than just input 

from the executive branch, for example, internationally. That is 

part of our foreign policy to some degree, and it does involve 

other—— 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. I will come back to you. Quickly, anymore? 

Ms. DUNNER. I should just note that the American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law does not take a position 

as to where the Office should be moved. 

Mr. ISSA. Right. I am only talking about what the structure—— 

Ms. DUNNER. And since you are proposing a hypothetical, I 

would say yes. 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. Yes, it would be a huge improvement over 

what the situation is today. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. And, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I 

wanted to comment on Ms. Metzler’s comment. One of the reasons 

I asked those questions and got your near unanimity on all of these 

is that as a Member who has looked at free and fair trade, but has 

also looked at Administrations using an international agenda to essentially distort or potentially distort decisions made here by having trade agreements, and then, back washing them into copyright 

and patent activities, that, in fact, I asked that question for a reason, because I think this Committee in a structure needs to ensure 

that these decisions are made domestically first. 

And if they are going to be looked at by a delegation in international, that, in fact, the Copyright Office not be a tool of the executive branch, but rather an independent agency with a voice and 

a reporting requirement equally to the other two branches, which 

I think is part of what we heard in the testimony. And I thank the 

Chairman for his indulgence. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman, and the Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the Chairman. It is clear the Copyright Office is facing a series of challenges from improving its tech abilities 

to enhancing it security through retaining highly-trained staff. 

What is less clear is how best to address these issues. 

The Copyright Office has maintained a high level of service to 

the public and to Congress in spite of very limited funding and se-
74 

rious staffing shortages. But as we contemplate a new Copyright 

Act, we need a 21st century Copyright Office that can fulfill the numerous responsibilities we place on it. 

In addition to its regulatory administrative functions, the Office 

provides expert advice to Congress, conducts studies, and makes 

policy recommendations, any attempt to strengthen and not jeopardize the Office’s ability to freely perform these critical duties. 

I would like to introduce into the record a forthcoming article by 

Sandra Aistars titled ‘‘The Next Great Copyright Act or a New 

Great Copyright Agency?’’ which will appear in the next issue of 

the Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts. I would like to make 

sure all Members of the Committee are aware of the article, but 

also the entire issue in which the article will appear. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 

Mr. NADLER. The article recommends that Congress should continue to examine how copyright laws are crafted and administered, 

and seek to remove practical, structural, and constitutional impediments to make more efficient laws and regulations. It is important 

for us to explore different ideas and proposals in more detail and 

evaluate the implications of any proposed changes. 

From the witness testimony, I gather there is agreement that the 

Copyright Office as currently structured faces a variety of challenges in executing the basic functions stakeholders expect from it, 

and that it lacks independent budget and administrative authority. 

While the Copyright Office under the current registrar, Maria 

Pallante, has taken the initiative to address some of these challenges, only Congress can provide the resources and flexibility the 

Office needs to continue serving the public and Congress. 

And I would like to ask Professor Brauneis, if I pronounced it 

correctly. 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. Indeed. 

Mr. NADLER. Would additional resources alone be sufficient to 

address the challenges the Copyright Office faces? 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. No, I do not think so. I guess, as I mentioned, I 

think that control over information technology is important, and 

that spending money when you do not have the control does not 

work. And I do think that putting the Office on a sound constitutional basis is important for the long haul as well. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Mr. Kupferschmid, there are a variety 

of options that could be considered if we were to modernize the 

Copyright Office. How might we best evaluate the pros and cons of 

each? Do you have a strong opinion about the preferred approach? 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. I mean, we put three options on the table. 

For that matter, there may even be more options of that. I think 

we need to get the people who have the experience from the Copyright Office, from the Patent and Trademark Office, and the Library of Congress, and other stakeholders and users, and folks 

from the Copyright Office community all together to figure out 

what is the best solution. All I know is the best solution is not the 

one that is working right now today. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. And, Ms. Dunner, how might improvements 

to the structure of the Copyright Office contribute to making the 

act, the Copyright Act, more understandable and accessible for all 

parties? 

Ms. DUNNER. I think that, first of all, if the Copyright Office had 

more autonomy and was given more control over its own rules and 

regulations, I think it would have great improvements to the act, 

which has just been added on, and added on, and added on. I think 

if the Copyright Office had the strongest voice where its rules and 

regulations were given more deference, it would ultimately help to 

clear up the act. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Let me continue, and, in fact, ask each 

of the witnesses, starting with Ms. Dunner, the following question. 

In Ms. Aistar’s article that I referred to, she argues that the Copyright Office’s duties have grown over time, and that it has evolved 

to serve not only a crucially important administrative function, but 

also to provide technical and policy expertise to all three branches 

of government, as well as to the public directly, and that it would 
93 

be wise to consider, at a minimum, elevating the position of registrar to a presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate. 

What are your thoughts about this, about elevating the registrar 

to a Senate confirmed presidential appointee? 

Ms. DUNNER. Well, I do not know if am the best person to reply 

to that, but I would say that the recent IBS case helps lean toward 

creating an independent agency where potentially the registrar is 

a presidential appointee, given more authority over the statute and 

the rulemaking, and all the things that Copyright Office currently 

does. So I think it would not be a bad idea. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Ms. Mertzel, same question. 

Ms. MERTZEL. I am sorry, but AIPLA does not have a position, 

and I do not personally have a position yet on that. I need to study 

it more. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Brauneis? 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. I think it would be appropriate to give the registrar that stature, yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Kupferschmid? 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. There is certainly some advantages like 

transparency and accountability to doing that, but there are also 

some concerns. If you are going to evaluate other options, I think 

evaluating whether the registrar needs to be a presidential appointee should be considered in that mix. 

Mr. NADLER. Well, what are some of the advantages of that and 

the disadvantages? You said—— 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. Well, so an advantage is you have got transparency and accountability which you do not have today because 

the registrar reports only to the Librarian, and the Librarian is the 

only person who can get rid of the registrar. You hopefully will get 

somebody who assuredly has expertise in copyright. The Librarian 

could appoint somebody who is just another librarian to head up 

the office who has no authority. 

In terms of the concern, there are some people who believe that 

it vests too much power in one person at the Office, or that the 

commissioner of patents and the commissioner of trademarks are 

not presidential appointees, so why should the head of the Copyright Office be? So there are opinions on both sides, and I think 

it is something that should definitely be considered. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon. First of all, 

I agree with everything that each of you have said. The Copyright 

Office that we know today faces strict limitations by way of its position within the Library of Congress. Not only does the Copyright 

Office lack autonomy in how best to run the office, but it also lacks 

the critical ability to set up and manage its own budget. 

I have had the pleasure of meeting with the Registrar of Copyrights, Ms. Maria Pallante, and I have heard firsthand the kind of 

impact these severe limitations have on her ability to do her dayto-day job. The registrar of copyrights does not have the same level 

of power and authority the director of the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office holds, which I believe undercuts the position. 
94 

The copyright industries are a vital part of the U.S. economy, 

which is why it is time we bring the Copyright Office into the 21st 

century. So being an old business guy who has run a factory, therefore, I take this position. Ms. Pallante should be made the director 

of the Copyright Office yesterday. Ask her to improve what she can 

without an increase in cost immediately, and then submit to Congress a prioritized list, along with that list the cost and a timeframe in which to implement that. 

With that, I yield back my time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this a very useful hearing to kind of focus our minds on the issues before us. And 

it is apparent that there is general agreement that something 

needs to be done to update the Copyright Office’s IT systems. I do 

not think any Members are disagreeing, and the witnesses are not 

disagreeing. 

You know, we will discuss this further, but I think a lot of Members favor the idea of fully supporting the Office through fees as 

the Patent Office has done, although I hear some disagreement 

from the witnesses. So I think we will need discussion on that. 

But one of the concerns I have is, whatever structure we end up 

with, how do we make sure that we have a diversity of views in 

the Office? And I am going to give you some examples. Ms. Dunner, 

you testified that having the Librarian was a conflict of interest, 

but looking back at some decisions, actually I was grateful that the 

Librarian was there. For example, in 2010, the Registrar recommended against renewing the DMCA exception that allowed the 

visually impaired to use text to speech software for e-books. Now, 

there was not a single comment in the comment period who said 

that the blind should be denied that exception, but the registrar opposed the exception. And luckily, the Librarian overruled the Office, and that was important. 

We remember the Stop Online Piracy Act, so-called SOPA, where 

the Copyright Office came in with all guns blaring in favor of 

SOPA, and we all know the backlash against that bill, and really 

the meltdown of the proposal in the House. Her advice I do not 

think really helped the Congress much in terms of getting to the 

right answer. And then most recently, the Copyright Office failed 

to renew the exception for cell phone unlocking. The Congress had 

to step forward and do it. It created a lot of upset in the country. 

It was, in my opinion, a nonsensical decision, and it caused a lot 

of work for the Committee to undo that problem. 

I mean, sometimes there is tensions between the tech world and 

the so-called content world that I think for the most part is quite 

unnecessary. There should be partnerships. There should be a mutually supportive world, and yet there is no voice to actually keep 

the Office from making these just boneheaded mistakes when it 

comes to technology. 

I am not sure that moving the Copyright Office or the Patent Office would fix that. I am just wondering what ideas do each of you 

have in terms of structuring to make sure that broad voices are 

heard and these mistakes do not continue to get made. And I would 

like each of you to respond, if you could. 
95 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. If I could begin here. The issues you mentioned, I am not sure that it is due to a lack of diversity of views. 

It could be very well because of a different reason. And you mentioned sort of the, you know, technology and content, that their 

views are oftentimes intentioned. I do not think there is anybody 

more qualified to speak to that issue than the Software Information Industry Association. And I can tell you, on this issue, copyright modernization, there is no diversity of views. 

Ms. LOFGREN. No, no, I understand that, and I premised my comments with that. 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. But let me get directly to your question. 

There are some who believe that instead of having a registrar of 

the Office, having like a panel of experts, like FTC commissioners, 

that type of approach might be a solution to address that type of 

concern. Like I said earlier, I think that is one thing that needs 

to be on the table to be discussed, along with making the registrar 

a presidential appointee. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Ms. Dunner? 

Ms. DUNNER. Again, the ABA IP Section does not have a position 

on this. Our Section is advocating more autonomy for the Office. 

And I could tell you generally if pushed that we would not advocate 

that the Office be moved to the PTO for a number of reasons, and 

the status quo is unacceptable as well. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Ms. Mertzel? 

Ms. MERTZEL. I think the registrar and the Copyright Office do 

typically solicit views from the stakeholders, and so a lot of copyright law evolved through negotiation, as you know. So I think that 

that type of process has to continue. I do not know the best way 

to avoid errors. 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. I think there was a time when copyright was really more about business regulation and the business insiders had 

the inner, you know, run. But I think that, as you mentioned, the 

experience with SOPA and PIPA, I think that it has been a bumpy 

road. But over the last couple of decades as copyright has come to 

affect individuals more directly, individuals have found ways to organize and made their voices heard. And I think the Copyright Office, they are getting inside the Copyright Office’s hearings and so 

forth. So I am not so sure that the Copyright Office needs to do 

something about that. I think it is a movement outside of the Copyright Office that has brought those views to the Office. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, my time has expired. But I am just looking 

for how do we get consideration so the Congress does not have to 

do the cell phone unlocking bill every year. I mean, there has got 

to be a better way. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My time has expired. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. We do have 

a vote coming. We can get one or two more series of questions in. 

How many of you plan to return? We will probably get to Mr. Collins and Mr. Johnson. Are you going to come back? So we are going 

to have at least one person coming back, and I believe, Mr. Marino, 

you agreed you can take the Chair because I cannot, so you may 

want to head over to vote, and you might want to, too. So we will 

have a short recess because I think there is just one vote. I correct 

myself. Do not worry about it. Three votes, so it is going to be a 

while anyway. 
96 

Mr. JOHNSON. And, Mr. Chairman, I will probably just yield. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Right. Well, let us go ahead to Mr. Collins. The 

gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. This is 

a great hearing, and I appreciate the testimony here because I 

think this is one of the key issues that we have been working on 

now over, you know, my whole time I have been here, and looking 

forward to continuing, because the topic of the United States Copyright Office is probably one of the most relevant and timely in this 

bigger discussion of the Copyright Act and where do we go forward. 

I have always said that this is a discussion that needs to be had 

not in the immediate. 

And what I mean by that is not what we are doing right this moment. It has got to look at where we are going to be 5, 10, 15, 20 

years down the road. If we do not do that, then we are basically— 

and I agree with my friends across the aisle. We are not doing 

what we are supposed to be doing here because we have got to get 

some direction and also some certainty into this. 

We can all agree that the Copyright Office should be able to meet 

both the needs of the users and the creators, and also act independently to carry out the intent and directives of Congress. But there 

will be difficult choices that we are going to have to make in order 

to have the Copyright Office worthy of its constitutional task. We 

have the leadership and the talent in place at the Office to meet 

the challenges of the 21st century, but unfortunately the resources 

and technologies at their disposal are inadequate. 

I will just state at this point, I think right now Maria Pallante 

and her staff are excellent. I think she is a forward thinking person 

who has come to this Committee on many occasions and challenged 

us to think about things in a different way. 

What concerns me is, frankly, it seems to me we have someone 

who I may not always agree with, but who is willing to put the 

mental mind power to saying what should my office look at, how 

should we be able to do this, and what should we look for. And, 

frankly, the system, including being under the Library of Congress, 

is straddling that and stopping that. I think there is a problem 

here that we have got to look at. 

And so, the question that comes to mind, you know, really is 

what comes first, a modernization of the Copyright Office or a modernization of the Copyright Act? You know, sort of what is the 

question here, because if you modernize the Copyright Act but the 

Office is not able to handle it, then you are setting yourself up with 

another road block. And if you modernize the Office but do not 

modernize the Act, you have got a problem, so I think we have got 

to work cohesively here as we go forward. 

I am interested, and it is something that has come up before, and 

it is just a short answer, but, I mean, if you have watched before, 

you know this is something I have asked before. Small claims court 

pilot program administered through the Copyright Office. Based on 

the status of the Office and resources, and I have done a lot of looking into this as well, do you think that they are able to handle such 

a pilot program if it was enacted today? And just start, and you 

can sort of go down whichever way. We can start at this end, and 

we will start the next down on this end. 
97 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. Is the question does the Copyright Office 

have the resources? 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, to do a pilot program, a small claims kind 

of—— 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. I mean, that would further drain the Copyright Office resources, which they do not have enough already. Resources is a big, big issue, which comes back to funding. 

Ms. DUNNER. I think anything you add to their plate will drain 

their resources. But the ABA IP Section suggested a virtual small 

claims court, which would lessen the amount of resources that you 

would need as opposed to an in-person type of panel. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you. 

Ms. MERTZEL. Same. I agree with my predecessors. 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. As do I. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay, because I think that is the issue is it is a 

drain, but it goes back to the basic question here. One of the issues 

is what is not happening now in the marketplace, you know, what 

is, and it is probably the answer to the question, that could happen 

if the Copyright Office had the ability to more efficiently serve its 

customers. If we were able to get what we need there, quick answer, what would the marketplace see if we were able to do that, 

get it out of the restraints? I would love to hear an answer. 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. I think it would see a large number of new copyright transactions, particularly smaller transactions that now are 

priced out by the high cost of registration and recordation. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. 

Ms. MERTZEL. Yes, I think we would see more licensed projects 

that are just either under the radar where money could be paid 

and would be paid if it was easy enough to do that. Instead it is 

either not being licensed and not being found, or you end up with 

a suit where there is billions of dollars at issue because there are 

a lot of small actors. 

Mr. COLLINS. Right. 

Ms. DUNNER. I think you would see increased registration. You 

would see better recordation, more searchability, better databases, 

happier Copyright Office employees. 

Mr. COLLINS. Outstanding. 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. Everything that they said. A properly functioning Copyright Office would be just a huge boon to the U.S. 

economy, to the creative community, and certainly to the public. 

Mr. COLLINS. And I appreciate what you just said because the 

creative community, this is something that I have fought for and 

will continue to fight for, and as many on this Committee. If we 

do not protect the content, we do not protect the creative minds in 

our country, then we are losing the next generation of the great 

books, the great music, the stuff that we long for, you know, that 

excitement that builds when you hear the song for the first time, 

when you open the page. I still love to have a book and smell the 

ink. 

Those are the kind of great things that are protected by a Copyright Office that works properly, and we have got to get it out of 

the antiquated system it is currently in and move forward. Thank 

you so much for your coming today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 
98 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important 

hearing. Thanks for your leadership on these issues. During the 

last Congress and into this session, we have held I think over a 

dozen copyright review hearings. It is a complex and difficult issue, 

and these hearings have, I think, been helpful in clearing up some 

of the confusion and pinpointing areas where we really can make 

progress. 

Currently, we allow the Copyright Office, an entity responsible 

for a trillion dollars in GDP spending and 5 and a half million jobs 

to operate with an antiquated and inefficient structure. We need 

the stature, I believe, the stature and power of this Office to reflect 

its real world impact on our economy. It is time to enact a restructured, empowered, and more autonomous Copyright Office that is 

genuinely capable of allowing America to compete and to protect 

our citizens’ property in a global marketplace. 

Now, I am sorry. I had another hearing at the same time, but 

I just want to get a basic sense of this. Frankly, even if just by a 

show of hands, just if you agree that the Copyright Office needs serious reform and modernization or just nod. 

[Nonverbal response.] 

Mr. DEUTCH. We are all in agreement there, which I appreciate. 

So there is widespread agreement across the board on this issue. 

And in the days ahead, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate very 

much the opportunity to work with you and our other colleagues 

on a bipartisan legislative effort to address these critical issues in 

the coming months. 

My question for the panel today is really, again, getting back to 

the role that the Office plays, and the changes in technology, and 

the impact on our economy. Should there be within the Copyright 

Office, should there be a separate focus? Should there be a chief 

economist? Should there be someone whose sole focus is technology, 

a chief technologist? Should there be other positions to better enable the Office to understand and respond to new technologies and 

to new business models, which are ultimately impacted by the work 

that they do? 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. I guess I will start. Absolutely. I mean, if 

you look at the Patent and Trademark Office, they have exactly 

those offices you are talking about, and it helps the Patent and 

Trademark Office decide sort of what improvements and how to 

make those improvements. I think that would be essential for an 

improved Copyright Office. 

Ms. DUNNER. I think that is really a question for the registrar, 

but I would think that in order to act like any other business that 

is not so crippled in the way the Copyright Office is right now, that 

that would not be a bad idea. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thanks. 

Ms. MERTZEL. I agree as well, and I would just note the Registrar did recently appoint, I believe this week, a new person in a 

technology position. 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. Yes, I particularly think it would be important to 

have something like an office of chief economist to take advantage 

of the data that the Copyright Office has and collects, and to ana-
99 

lyze it in order to understand the needs of the community, and the 

changing output of the United States. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And finally just before we head to votes and follow 

up on my colleague, Mr. Collins’ question, beyond the issue that we 

have been grappling with about the structure, the power of the 

Copyright Office, we have also been working on, as I referred to 

earlier, many issues that have arisen as technology has changed. 

Copyright crime and piracy has grown. They have adopted changes 

in law enforcement. The real question is, can we ultimately do anything to fix these issues, to address these issues in a meaningful 

way before we first fix the Copyright Office? 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. No, I do not think so. I mean, the most important issue is a copyright issue. Of all the hearings, of all the 

issues that have come up, the most important one is fixing the 

Copyright Office because you can try to address those other ones, 

but you are just going to only make so much progress if you do not 

fix the Office. That has got to come first. 

Ms. DUNNER. I would agree. I think the place to start is protecting and securing copyrighted works. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Great, thanks. 

Ms. MERTZEL. I agree with these people. 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. I actually think it can proceed on a parallel track. 

There are some improvements that can be made to the Office that 

will help in administering some new laws. But if you are considering major revisions, which are necessary, I do not think there is 

any need to wait until the Copyright Office is perfect in order to 

start considering the need for a change in the law. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Okay. I thank the witnesses. Mr. Chairman, thanks 

for letting me—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from 

Pennsylvania would return after votes. We have at least one Member, Ms. Chu, who wishes to ask questions, so we apologize, but if 

you can wait while this vote is going on, we will reconvene after 

the vote. But Mr. Collins had a motion to make. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, in my excitement for this topic, I 

ask unanimous consent for an article by Dina LaPolt on copyright 

and also an article by Sandra Aistars entitled, ‘‘The one copyright 

issue everyone should agree on,’’ to be added to the record. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, they will be made a part of 

the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
100 
101 
102 
103 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Committee stands in recess. We have 3 and 

a half minutes to get to the vote. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MARINO [presiding]. The full Judiciary Committee hearing 

will come to order. And are you ready? 

Ms. CHU. Yes. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

California, Congresswoman Dr. Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important 

hearing. I cannot stress how critical it is for our country to have 

a robust central entity to support our copyright system. We have 

heard the witnesses stress today that our core copyright industries 

added over a trillion dollars to our economy per year while providing jobs to over 5 million people. 

At the center of it all is the Copyright Office, which has proven 

to be such an invaluable resource and important partner to lawmakers, international counterparts, and creative industries. I believe that Registrar Pallante and her team do a remarkable job in 

carrying out the Office’s mission, but at the same time they face 

challenges. They work on very complex issues without technology, 

policies, and very limited resources. 

And so, it is time that we have a serious discussion about how 

we can bring the Copyright Office into the modern age and give it 

the tools and resources necessary to perform the job that we have 

tasked them to do. That includes not only more funding, but the 

flexibility to the Office to invest in a 21st century IT infrastructure. 

We also have to consider the level of independence that the Office 

needs to perform its core mission so that it can administer the 

Copyright Act. So I look forward to working with my colleagues on 

the Committee, the Registrar, and impacted stakeholders to make 

sure that we overcome the existing challenges and get it right. 

I would also like to enter into the record an op-ed that speaks 

to the importance of today’s examination of the Copyright Office 

written by former chairperson of the IP Subcommittee, Howard 

Berman, and Senator Leahy’s former IP counsel, Aaron Cooper. 

Mr. MARINO. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
104 
105 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. Now, I would like to ask Mr. Brauneis, you 

state that if Congress decides to restructure the Copyright Office, 

we need to give serious thought to the vehicle of an independent 

agency. One reason that we are here in Congress is that we are 

hearing Congress and the executive branch agencies benefit from 

the advisory role that the Office performs. Could you describe why 

you think it is important to maintain these advisory functions in 

any proposed reorganization? 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. Yes, absolutely, I will give you one example. The 

Office has become very intimately aware of the problems of identifying and locating owners of older copyrighted works, and so it has 

taken a position that orphan works are something that we really 

need to look into and do something about. And that is expertise 

that it has developed that it has wanted to explore the policy implications of. 

And it seems to me that its continued ability to do that without 

having to go through many levels of executive clearance before advising Congress is something important to maintain. It is an important role that it can play to maintain. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you for that. Ms. Dunner, I think most people 

are surprised when they learn that our Nation’s Copyright Office 

is housed under the Library of Congress because the missions are 

so different. The Library is focused on preservation, while the 

Copyright Office is focused on recording and registering works, 

and, most importantly, instituting legal and economic rights protection. The Registrar also does not have independent rulemaking authority, but she must have the Librarian officially establish regulations. 

Why is it important for the Office to gain autonomy in the rulemaking process? Is there a conflict of interest between the two, 

and, if so, why? 

Ms. DUNNER. I think the short answer is the Registrar and the 

Copyright Office, they have the expertise that the Library does not 

have on copyright law. So that is a primary reason for the Copyright Office being able to speak without having to run everything 

through the Librarian. And in terms of a conflict, what I have articulated earlier was that often the Library, because the Librarian 

has the last word, they are often having the last word on something that they may oppose policy wise that has been brought forward by the Copyright Office. 

Ms. CHU. In fact, Mr. Kupferschmid, you described the differences and the need for deposit copies by the Copyright Office 

and the Library of Congress. Could you describe the Library’s desire to receive the deposit in the physical form and what obstacles 

this presents? 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. Yes, thank you. That is a huge obstacle. The 

example I gave in the testimony is if newspapers, which are required to deposit copies of their newspapers in microfiche format, 

which is certainly being phased or has been phased out already. So 

that is too expensive for these newspapers to produce, too cumbersome, and a lot of them are not registering their newspapers 

with the Copyright Office because of that. And that is just one example. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. I yield back. 
106 

Mr. MARINO. We are waiting for one of our colleagues to come 

back. Dr. Chu, if you have any more questions—— 

Ms. CHU. Yes. 

Mr. MARINO. I am just going to throw one out until you come up 

with one—— 

[Laughing.] 

Mr. MARINO [continuing]. Just to stretch this. Is that how they 

do it on TV? I am going to stretch this thing out now. 

Can any of you respond to the statement that I made earlier 

about—I think Ms. Pallante is incredible—I think she is one of the 

smartest women that I have ever met, and I truly believe that she 

could take that ball and run with it if we gave her authority. What, 

if there is anything, that she could do that is not going to increase 

the cost, but yet try and make things more efficient at this point 

until we resolve where money is coming from? Anyone have any 

input on that? 

Ms. DUNNER. If I may respond, I really think Registrar Pallante 

has been doing everything she can do that would not cost extra 

money, for example, seeking comments from the users, bringing in 

scholars, like Professor Brauneis, to perform studies and reports. I 

think she is really doing as much as she can possibly do. 

Mr. MARINO. Let me expand that for one moment. If she had the 

authority, not just based on what has taken place, but if she had 

unfettered authority, if she were the director just like this, is there 

anything that you would add to your statement? 

Ms. DUNNER. Well, not much these does not cost money. So, I 

mean, I am sure that we could probably think about some things 

and submit report on possible items and action items that she may 

utilize. But I do not have a direct answer to that. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. I think if your question is what could be done 

without changing the Library’s budget as a whole, the answer 

might be reallocate some of the IT budget of the Library and give 

the Copyright Office greater control over its own IT. The Copyright 

Office does receive a kind of budget subsidy from the Library because it is the Library’s IT budget that is serving the Copyright Office. But it is not serving it very well because the Office and the 

Library have different missions. 

So without increasing the budget of the Library as a whole, I 

think that giving the Copyright Office greater control over the portion of the IT budget that is serving it is something that would give 

a great advantage to the Copyright Office. 

Mr. MARINO. Anyone else? 

Mr. KUPFERSCHMID. I mentioned the deposit issue, right? So if 

the Copyright Office is independent from the Library, they could 

presumably allow different type of deposits. The Copyright Office 

uses deposits for a different purpose. They do not need the best 

quality deposits. The Library needs the best quality because they 

are using them for archival purposes, so I think without any 

change to funding they could do that. But quite honestly, the vast 

majority of changes, there needs to be an increased funding component. 

Mr. MARINO. Sure, I agree. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Congressman Jeffries. 
107 

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank my good friend, the Chair, from the great 

State of Pennsylvania, and I thank all of the witnesses for their 

presence here today. I think I will start with Professor Brauneis. 

Can you just elaborate on what you think the fundamental mission 

of the Copyright Office or the Library of Congress is, and how is 

that mission either consistent or inconsistent with the mission of 

the Copyright Office? 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. Well, the mission of the Library of Congress, I 

think, is to serve as an archive of American and world culture, and 

to promote that, and to disseminate works, and I think it does that 

very well. The mission of the Copyright Office, I think, is to sort 

of promote and facilitate the copyright ecosystem, which includes, 

you know, both licensed uses of works, and also fair use of works, 

and everything else. But, in particular, the kinds of registration 

and recordation functions, which take up most of the Copyright Office’s personnel time, that is really to collect and provide information about particular copyrighted works in a way that enables copyright transactions. And that needs to be done at a far greater speed 

than the Library’s other functions need to be performed. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And has the fact that we are now in a digital era 

and that raises new challenges as it relates to the Copyright Office’s functions sort of accelerated the incompatibility between the 

Library of Congress and the Copyright Office? 

Mr. BRAUNEIS. I think there is no question about that, that, you 

know, 20, 30, 40 years ago, the Office could sort of operate in synchrony, and there was not as much problem. Now, it would facilitate matters if the Copyright Office computers could be communicating directly and automatically with computers of outside users 

to provide them with information, and they do not do that. They 

do not have the capability of doing that. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you. And, Ms. Dunner, there are a variety 

of different configurations that have been discussed in terms of 

how you might realign the Copyright Office. I am wondering if you 

can comment on a simple change that would have the copyright 

registrar appointed by the President of the United States. Would 

that be sufficient to establish a degree of independence, or do we 

really need to contemplate independently placing the Copyright Office someplace else? 

Ms. DUNNER. As I mentioned earlier, the ABA IP Section does 

not have policy on this, but my personal view is that the simplest 

way to go would be to have a registrar appointed by the President 

and make the Copyright Office an independent agency where it 

would have its own autonomy. Decisions over technology, and funding, and rulemaking would be optimal for the Copyright Office. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. One of the options, and anyone on the panel can 

respond. One of the options that has been contemplated is placing 

the Copyright Office within the Department of Commerce and perhaps partnering it with the PTO. Would that be a combination that 

would also create some incompatibility problems? 

Ms. MERTZEL. I would be happy to answer that if I may. I think 

that it would not be a good idea to put the Copyright Office inside 

the PTO. That question feels a little bit like Back to the Future because it came up about 22 years ago when there was proposed legislation to put the Copyright Office inside the PTO. At the time, 
108 

the Registrar, Mary Beth Peters, came and testified, I believe it 

was in the Subcommittee, about her views on that. 

And I think she expressed it very articulately that there are incompatibilities in the nature of what is protected under patent and 

trademark versus what is protected under copyright. Every person 

in this country is a copyright author. They may not have a registration, but everyone has written something, drawn a picture on 

a napkin. Every child is a copyright author. And not everybody has 

used a trademark. Even under common law rights, not everyone 

has created a brand name, and certainly not everyone has invented 

anything that is patentable. 

The rights are subsist from creation on copyright, and in the 

PTO they are creating those rights, and so that impacts user fees. 

It makes a lot more sense that user fees are covered in the PTO 

whereas on copyright it is different. You need to give people, individuals, the incentive to register their copyrights. And I think it 

would be very difficult for the copyright function to get enough attention if it was housed in the PTO and for the funding to be 

worked out because the copyright system probably would be very 

difficult to self-fund. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. I thank the panel. I thank the Chair, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. Seeing no other congressional Members 

here to ask questions, I want to thank you for being here. So this 

concludes today’s hearing. Thanks to all the witnesses. Thanks to 

the people out in the audience. 

And without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days 

to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional 

materials for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(109) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 

f 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 

f 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 

f 
134 
135 
136 
137 

f 
138 
139 

Æ