U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

88–109 PDF 2014

FIRST SALE UNDER TITLE 17 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 2, 2014 

Serial No. 113–98 

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 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

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 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

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 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JOE KEELEY, Chief Counsel 

HEATHER SAWYER, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 2, 2014 

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 Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 

Property, and the Internet .................................................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Stephen M. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer, John Wiley & 

Sons, Inc. 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

John Ossenmacher, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, ReDigi 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 21 

Ed Shems, Illustrator and Graphic Designer, edfredned Illustration & Design 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 39 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 41 

Jonathan Band, Counsel, Owners’ Rights Initiative 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 46 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 48 

Greg Cram, Associate Director, Copyright and Information Policy, The New 

York Public Library 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 63 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 65 

Matthew B. Glotzer, Media Consultant 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 80 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 82 

Sherwin Siy, Vice President, Legal Affairs, Public Knowledge 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 87 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 89 

John Villasenor, Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution, and 

Professor of Electrical Engineering and Public Policy, University of California, Los Angeles 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 95 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 97 

Emery Simon, Counselor, BSA l The Software Alliance 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 108 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 110 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Association of American Publishers (AAP) .............. 138 

Letter from ACT l The App Association ................................................................. 155 

Prepared Statement of Sandra M. Aistars, Chief Executive Officer, Copyright 

Alliance ................................................................................................................. 157 
Page

IV 

Prepared Statement of Keith M. Kupferschmid, General Counsel and Senior 

Vice President, Intellectual Property Software & Information Industry Association ................................................................................................................ 166 

Letter from the United Network Equipment Dealers Association (UNEDA) ..... 181 

Prepared Statement of Kim Fender, Director of the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County, OH ..................................................................... 182 
(1) 

FIRST SALE UNDER TITLE 17 

MONDAY, JUNE 2, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:41 a.m., in Ceremonial Courtroom 9C, Daniel Patrick Moynihan Southern District of 

New York Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 

10007, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte (Chairman of the Committee) 

presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Chaffetz, Holding, Nadler, 

Deutch, and Jeffries. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Joe Keeley, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; Olivia Lee, Clerk; (Minority) Heather Sawyer, Chief Counsel; 

and Jason Everett, Counsel. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet will come to order. 

And without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses 

of the Subcommittee at any time. 

We welcome all of our witnesses today. I will begin with an opening statement. 

This morning, the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet of the House Judiciary Committee will hold 

its first field hearing in our ongoing comprehensive review of our 

Nation’s copyright rights. 

First, let me thank the Southern District of New York for their 

willingness to host this Congressional hearing, along with the efforts of the staff of the court as well as Mr. Nadler’s district staff 

to ensure that this hearing would be a success. 

New York City is an appropriate location for this hearing. As a 

business hub for decades, this city has witnessed the growth of 

international commerce that has enabled American copyrighted 

works to have a positive balance of trade in our economy. As a 

growing eCommerce hub, this city is also at the heart of several 

copyright policy challenges that have arisen in the digital era. One 

could even say that this hearing returns to the birthplace of first 

sale jurisprudence. 

In a 1908 decision in a case of first impression, the United States 

Supreme Court heard arguments involving the 1897 Copyright Act 
2 

between a book seller and two brothers by the names of Isidor and 

Nathan Straus. In the early 1900’s, the Straus brothers had just 

opened a new location of their store nearby in Harold Square, 

where they sold books at a lower price than that desired by the 

publisher. The publisher had printed a minimum resale price directly below the copyright notice. That retailer was then and is still 

known today as R.H. Macy and Company. 

In its 1908 decision, the Supreme Court held that the first sale 

doctrine prevented such conditions of sale. In the following year, 

the first sale doctrine was codified as Section 47 of the 1909 Copyright Act and continues today at Section 109 of Title 17. 

Building upon this 1908 case and several others after that, in 

2013, the Supreme Court provided additional interpretation of the 

first sale doctrine in the context of reimported items. The 

Kirtsaeng case is something we will learn more about this morning, 

including from the CEO of the company that was the opposing 

party in this case. Although some legal doctrines may be invisible 

to Americans, the first sale doctrine is not one of them. 

First sale has been such an integral part of our economy that entire businesses have been built upon it, such as Blockbuster video 

stores and Netflix by mail. Consumer expectations have also been 

built on this doctrine. Laws and consumer expectations are developed independently, but they can help shape each other. This 

morning we will hear about both as they apply in the first sale context. 

As digital business models have grown and in many cases supplanted analog business models, the role of licensing has become 

more important. From software offered at lower prices in educational settings to movies offered at lower prices for 24-hour viewing periods, licensing enables a greater range of business models 

that benefit consumers. 

Expectations in the digital context are still developing. For example, consumers seem to have embraced business models that set a 

lower price for educational uses than commercial uses of software. 

Consumers are also accustomed to files such as apps, songs, and 

movies being accessible on any device on a consumer’s home network at one purchase price without having to pay for multiple copies. 

Consumer expectations in other areas appear to be more fluid. 

For example, do most consumers expect to be able to sell their digital files? One of our witnesses this morning provides such a service, but has been involved in litigation over his business model. 

Finally, several of our witnesses have ongoing experience in the 

business-to-business context where consumer expectations do not 

necessarily apply. The Subcommittee looks forward to hearing their 

perspective on first sale as well. 

In closing, the first sale doctrine is an essential part of our Nation’s commerce, and understanding its impact in the digital age is 

something this Committee looks forward to hearing more about. 

It is now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member of the 

Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee, Mr. Nadler of New 

York, for his opening statement. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome to New 

York. I also want to welcome my other colleagues, Representative 
3 

Deutch from Florida, my colleague from New York City, Representative Jeffries, Representative Chaffetz from Utah, and Representative Holding from North Carolina. We appreciate your traveling to 

be with us in the greatest city in the world. 

I would have liked to say, ‘‘welcome to my district.’’ This was my 

district for 20 years, but my district is across the street. 

I would also like to welcome and thank our witnesses and everyone else with us today. Many of you also traveled to be here today. 

Thank you for doing so. And welcome. 

New York City is home to thousands of creators, song writers, 

performers, musicians, playwrights, journalists, authors, and inventors. It is the heart of the publishing industry. Some of the Nation’s leading technology companies call New York City their home, 

or at least one of their homes. Several of the country’s leading colleges and universities are located here, including my alma mater, 

Columbia University, and we have one of the finest public libraries 

in the Nation. 

Given the wealth of talent, experience, and expertise in the city, 

it is fitting that Chairman Goodlatte chose to hold one of the Subcommittee’s comprehensive Copyright Act review hearings here. 

Today we explore the first sale doctrine codified in Section 109 

of the Copyright Act. First sale allows the owner of a particular 

copy of a copyrighted work to resell or otherwise dispose of that 

copy without the right-holder’s consent. Once a copyright owner 

sells or transfers ownership of a particular copy of the work, the 

exclusive right to distribute that particular copy is exhausted, and 

the person who now owns that copy is free to gift, resell, or otherwise dispose of it. 

Because of first sale, I can give a book that I have purchased and 

read to a friend, donate it to my public library, or sell to it a secondhand book store. Our public libraries rely heavily on first sale 

to lend books, thus providing access to thousands of creative works 

that help inspire lifelong learning and greater engagement in this 

Nation’s rich cultural and historical heritage. 

First sale had its origins in a world of physical, not digital, 

goods. The Supreme Court first announced the doctrine in the 1908 

case of Bobbs-Merrill Company v. Straus. And Congress first codified it in the Copyright Act of 1909. It is a gross understatement 

to say that much has changed since that time, more than a century 

ago. 

Innovative technologies have made it possible to create, access 

and share content through digital platforms. At the same time, the 

marketplace for physical goods has become increasingly international, raising questions about whether the law currently strikes 

the proper balance between first sale and the right to control importation of one’s creative works. Today’s hearing gives us an opportunity to explore these critical issues. 

More than a decade ago, the Copyright Office reported to Congress on the first sale doctrine in the digital age, concluding in 

2001 that the first sale doctrine in Section 109 does not extend to 

digital works. Because first sale exhausts the right of distribution 

but not the right of reproduction, and because the transmission of 

digital works results in the creation of a new digital copy, the 
4 

Copyright Office concluded that first sale was not a defense to infringement for digital transmissions. 

More recently, in August of last year, the Department of Commerce’s Internet policy task force reached the same conclusion. The 

Internet policy task force also recently announced that it will conduct roundtables in Nashville, Tennessee; Cambridge, Massachusetts; Los Angeles and Berkeley, California; to discuss numerous 

topics, including the relevance and scope of the first sale doctrine 

in the digital environment. These roundtables will provide an opportunity to continue to hear from relevant stakeholders about this 

issue. 

After concluding that Section 109 does not protect digital transmissions, the Copyright Office recommended against expanding 

Section 109 to do so. It noted that because a digital transmission 

results in a perfect copy, the market for original goods would be 

harmed significantly. It also raised concerns that digital distribution would introduce vast numbers of pirated copies into the marketplace. At that time, the Copyright Office also felt that the likely 

harm of expanding Section 109 outweighed any need for doing so. 

I am interested in hearing from our witnesses today whether 

they believe this remains true today. Is there any greater need for 

expansion now? And if so, how would any changes impact copyright 

holders, consumers, and the existing marketplace for digital works? 

In addition to exploring first sale in a digital environment, I am 

also interested in hearing whether the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons appropriately interpreted 

and applied the first sale doctrine to imported goods. In that case, 

books manufactured and sold abroad were imported without the 

copyright holder’s consent and resold in the United States. At issue 

was the interplay between the first sale doctrine and the prohibition on importation without consent of the copyright owner in Section 602 of the act. 

The court ruled that the first sale doctrine applies to copies of 

works lawfully made abroad, and that importation and resale of 

such goods is therefore permissible without the copyright owner’s 

consent. In so ruling, the court noted that book sellers, libraries, 

museums, and secondhand stores rely on first sale to protect them 

when lending or reselling copyrighted works made outside the 

United States. 

At the same time, the court acknowledged that its ruling would 

make it impossible for copyright holders to produce and price works 

differently for domestic and foreign markets. Several amici warned 

that this would discourage U.S. copyright owners from competing 

in foreign markets at all because goods sold abroad could be imported to compete in the domestic market. They cautioned that this 

would harm American workers and businesses and reduce access to 

works, both here and abroad. 

While it may be too soon to know the full impact of the Kirtsaeng 

decision, I am interested in hearing from the witnesses on how, if 

at all, publishers and other rights holders have modified their business practices to accommodate the ruling, the impact on consumers 

as well as American workers and companies, and whether any response from Congress is warranted. 
5 

These are just a few of the many issues that we’ll begin grappling with today as part of Subcommittee’s ongoing comprehensive 

review of the Copyright Act. 

Once again, we are fortunate to have a broad range of witnesses 

to provide a diversity of perspectives and wide range of experience, 

and I look forward to hearing from them. 

With that, I yield back the balance of my time. I thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And, without objection, other Members’ opening 

statements will be made a part of the record. 

We have a very distinguished panel today, and I will begin by 

swearing in our witnesses before introducing them. 

So if you could all please rise. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Let the record reflect that all of the witnesses answered in the 

affirmative. 

Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into 

the record in its entirety. We have an extremely large panel, nine 

witnesses. So I ask that each witness summarize his testimony in 

5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that time, there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the 

light turns red, that’s it. Your 5 minutes have expired. 

Our first witness this morning is Mr. Stephen Smith, President 

and Chief Executive Officer of John Wiley & Sons, a global publishing company that specializes in academic publishing. Mr. Smith 

joined Wiley in 1992 as Vice President, where he oversaw all operations in the Asia region. He received his bachelor of science degree 

in psychology from Oxford Brookes University. 

Our second is Mr. John Ossenmacher, Chief Executive Officer of 

ReDigi, the world’s first marketplace for the resale of used digital 

goods. He holds his M.S. in economics from Trinity College and his 

B.S. in electromechanical engineering from Michigan State. 

Our third witness is Mr. Ed Shems, founder, illustrator, and 

graphic designer of edfredned illustration & design. He is an 

award-winning graphic designer and freelance illustrator, specializing in editorial illustrations and kids books. Mr. Shems has also 

served as head of the Boston Graphic Artists Guild. He received his 

degree from Rhode Island School of Design. 

Our fourth witness is Mr. Jonathan Band, Counsel for the Owners’ Rights Initiative. Mr Band has long been active in intellectual 

property and Internet policy issues. He received his J.D. from Yale 

Law School and his B.A. from Harvard College. 

Our fifth witness is Mr. Matthew Glotzer, a media consultant. 

Mr. Glotzer helped found the Digital Media Group at 20th Century 

Fox and spent 15 years with the company. Mr. Glotzer received his 

M.B.A. from Anderson School at the University of California, Los 

Angeles, and his B.A. in economics from Wesleyan University. 

Our sixth witness is Mr. Greg Cram, Associate Director of Copyright and Information Policy for the New York Public Library. In 

his position, Mr. Cram assists the library in its efforts to make its 

collections more broadly available to researchers and the general 
6 

public. Mr. Cram received his J.D. from the Cardozo School of Law 

and his B.A. in political science from Boston University. 

Our seventh witness Mr. Sherwin Siy, Vice President of Legal 

Affairs for Public Knowledge. Before joining Public Knowledge, he 

served as Staff Counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, working on consumer and communications issues. Sherwin received his J.D. with a certificate in law and technology from U.C. 

Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law. 

Our eighth witness today is Mr. John Villasenor, professor of 

electrical engineering and public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles. He is also a fellow at the Brookings Institution 

back in Washington, D.C. He received his Ph.D. and M.S. from 

Stanford University and his B.S. from the University of Virginia. 

A very good school, I might add. 

Our ninth witness and final witness is Mr. Emery Simon, Counselor at BSA l The Software Alliance. In his position, Mr. Simon 

advises BSA and its member companies on a broad range of domestic and international policy issues, including intellectual property, 

technology, and trade. Mr. Simon holds his J.D. from Georgetown 

University, his master’s degree from Johns Hopkins University 

School of Advanced International Studies, and his bachelor’s degree 

from Queens College. 

Welcome to you all. 

And we will start with you, Mr. Smith. 

TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN M. SMITH, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, good 

morning. 

At the risk of appearing to be the witness from the quaint old 

world of print, I would like to spend most of my 5 minutes talking 

about the impact of the Kirtsaeng ruling on Wiley’s business, on 

our authors, our customers, and on the U.S. political, cultural, and 

economic interests around the world. I will briefly touch on the 

issue of digital first sale. Given that Wiley now earns 55 percent 

of its revenues from digital products, that is also of paramount importance to us. 

I speak to you as Wiley’s 11th president and CEO in our 200- 

year history but also as someone who has personal experience selling, publishing, and distributing books into international markets 

for over 35 years. I have personally spent much of my career with 

hands-on experience selling books in over 40 countries in Asia, the 

Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. 

At the point when I joined the industry in the late 1970’s, piracy 

was a major issue, and I have spent a lot of time working together 

with publisher associations, such as the AAP and others, on antipiracy issues. Where available to us, we have used enforcement 

remedies and the law in countries where we face heavy piracy. But, 

of course, we also have sought to build our market by pricing differentially by offering market-based pricing to enable us to compete 

in international markets and serve the needs of students, teachers, 

and consumers in those markets. 

For most of my career, we were able to depend on those copyright laws and enforcement remedies to protect our interests. We 
7 

were able to price differentially based on consideration of those 

international sales as being incremental to the overall life of a title 

or a publication. We were able to operate international pricing on 

the basis that this was a market entry strategy. We have invested 

heavily to create brand awareness, to create trust around our content and our products to bring the work of our authors to those 

markets with the expectation that as economic conditions improved 

around the world we would be able to benefit from that as prices 

increased. 

The Kirtsaeng ruling has changed all of that. As a result of the 

Kirtsaeng ruling, we are no longer able to use enforcement remedies to protect our core markets against those who would seek to 

use arbitrage to create a gray market and reimport those books for 

commercial gain into the U.S. and European markets. 

As a result, we have changed our policies, and in many cases, we 

are no longer operating in important emerging and international 

markets. We have either sought to address the challenge by moving 

to parity pricing, and moving to parity pricing effectively means 

withdrawal from certain markets, or in some markets, where we 

have good knowledge of the distribution network and trusted distributors, we have been able to operate on a basis of restricted access. But it means that we are selling fewer copies into those markets. And we have also sought to get around the impact of 

Kirtsaeng by creating unique and clearly differentiated international editions for specific markets. But that is a substantial, significant further investment. 

So we feel that the Kirtsaeng ruling is not in accordance with the 

initial intention of Congress. It has had no benefit on pricing in the 

U.S. What, in fact, it has done is damage export revenues for the 

country. It has limited the ability of our authors to reach their audience around the world, and in many cases it has taken away valuable content from students and teachers in strategically important 

marketplaces where previously we were building awareness and 

friendship for the United States and U.S. scholarship. 

So, in addition to the impact of Kirtsaeng, as I said, we do see 

digital products as being potentially a way to continue to operate 

in international markets, but of course, that would depend on us 

being able to continue to have protection for copyright for digital 

products in the marketplace as well. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Ossenmacher, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN OSSENMACHER, FOUNDER AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ReDigi 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member 

Nadler and other Congressional members. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the Subcommittee on an issue of significant importance to the American 

economy and culture and to approximately 200 million Americans 

who buy digital goods. 

I am the founder and CEO of a company called ReDigi. Our company has been on the front lines of digital copyright and first sale 

doctrine, which this panel is addressing. 

For those of you who are not aware of it, ReDigi started technological initiatives about 5 years ago and launched its service just 

over 2 years ago. 

Our company has built an innovative mechanism that verifies 

digital ownership and authenticity. We then built a technology-enabled marketplace that allows users to transfer title of their lawfully acquired preowned digital goods to a willing buyer or charity 

without making copies. 

American consumers have responded to ReDigi enthusiastically. 

They do so because of the frustration they feel, that we all feel, 

when we buy digital goods. When we buy a digital song from 

iTunes or an eBook from Amazon, we expect the same deal we 

have always been offered when we buy a physical book or song: to 

own the song or book until we are done with it and take advantage 

of the free market to resell it, donate it, or give it away. 

Yet this deal isn’t available to us from digital vendors today. So 

ReDigi was created to give consumers that option for digital goods 

and to ensure that first sale doctrine, the right to sell what you 

have purchased, a fundamental principle from early common law 

and a long mainstay of commerce, lives into the digital age. 

Every year, American consumers lose billions of dollars in resale 

value because digital goods they lawfully purchased remained 

locked up on devices without a mechanism to permit them to resell 

or donate the books or music they no longer want simply because 

the goods are in digital form. That is wrong. 

During the 106 years since the first sale doctrine was applied by 

the U.S. Supreme Court in a case involving the resale of books, the 

combination of case law and statutory law worked well. The balance between consumers and copyright holders began to tilt away 

from consumers. Consumers found they could no longer make use 

of software they thought they owned. 

The same thing is happening now with digital books and music. 

Consumers are given the option to buy music, movies, and books 

on the screen and the ‘‘buy’’ button looks identical for digital and 

physical items alike. But in largely unintelligible legalese that no 

one reads, the rights of ownership are watered down or, worse, dissolved altogether. Content holders are attempting to take away a 

fundamental consumer choice by styling what they call long-term 

leases, or licenses, into their less-than-forthright marketing strategies. 
20 

If the consumer wants a lease, that is fine. But ownership has 

always been and always should remain an option. More importantly, if a transaction involves an upfront payment for a digital 

good, not limited in time, then it should be considered a sale. The 

European Court of Justice took exactly this approach to apply the 

principle of copyright exhaustion to cases in which a publisher 

sought to prevent sales of software originally licensed. 

The first sale doctrine is premised on a simple concept: You 

bought it, you own it. And has never concerned itself on the issue 

of ownership with a specific format or technology, nor with the condition of the goods being sold. It establishes the legal and commonsense principle that the creator deserves to be paid once, and then 

the buyers and subsequent buyers have the right to resell that 

good, to donate it, to give it away, without further compensation to 

the copyright holder. 

This is the status quo. It is not an extreme position. It is a logical, conservative position. It applies to every other type of good. 

The reason it applies to those goods are the same reasons that 

should apply here as well. I am always surprised when I hear, unlike paper, a book or physical medium, digital, does not get old, so 

we cannot allow a used market. Friends have purchased used diamonds for fiance ́s. From what I have been told, none of the fiance ́s 

objected. The diamonds are as perfect as they were they were first 

cut. Should we no longer allow a used jewelry market because the 

quality is too good? And, unlike books or music, the diamonds always remains in favor, regardless of the cut; whereas, with the 

passage of time, books, songs, may be outdated because culture has 

shifted, not because the paper has become tattered or yellowed or 

the vinyl scratched. It is the copyright item that has aged, not the 

method of delivery. 

Those who claim first sale for digital goods would destroy the 

publishing industry because digital material does not deteriorate 

and fail to take into account an obvious and simple truth: the secondary markets have always existed and have always supported 

primary markets. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Ossenmacher. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ossenmacher follows:] 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Shems, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF ED SHEMS, ILLUSTRATOR AND GRAPHIC 

DESIGNER, edfredned ILLUSTRATION & DESIGN 

Mr. SHEMS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Nadler, 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today about the experiences of visual artists in making their 

work available to clients and consumers in the digital age. 

It is important when making policy decisions that will impact authors of all types of copyrighted works to hear from creative people 

from all parts of the creative community, so I thank you all for 

holding this hearing in New York City. As we have heard already, 

it is one of the most vibrant centers of creativity and the visual 

arts and home to the Graphic Arts Guild, as well as for understanding that your deliberations will have far-reaching impacts on 

artists, such as myself. 

Before I received my diploma from RISD 23 years ago, I had already decided to own my own business for one reason: it was important to me that I retain control over the work that I create, and 

this is something you cannot do when you are a salaried employee. 

The artwork an employee creates becomes the property of the employer to do with as they will. But an independent business owner 

is bound only by the contract he or she negotiates with the clients. 

Graphic artists are service providers, and we provide a service to 

our clients through our creativity to enhance their businesses in 

the marketplace. Our exclusive rights and our original artwork and 

the potential to earn income from licensing our work to different 

clients, businesses, and media in different forms and formats are 

essential to our income as creative professionals and small business 

owners. 

Graphic artists, illustrators, and photographers generally license 

rather than sell their work commercially, and this allows us to provide our clients exactly the rights that they need and set a price 

that fairly compensates for those rights while allowing us to retain 

control over the copyright in our work for other purposes. 

This is beneficial to us both because it keeps the costs for the client reasonable and the compensation of the artist appropriate to 

the rights licensed. We set prices for our work based on how it will 

be used. If the design or illustration will be featured over an extensive geographical graphical area, fees are significantly higher than 

when a design or illustration is used only locally or limited usage. 

I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that two related 

ideas have been floated which would be relevant to my work: one, 

whether the first sale doctrine should be expanded in order to 

grant users greater rights in the digital world, and, two, whether 

some elements of the first sale doctrine should be imposed even on 

businesses that are based on licensing rather than selling work. 

I am concerned about proposals to expand the first sale doctrine 

in the digital world to allow reselling of creative works over the 

Internet. There is no such thing as a used book in the digital 

world; every copy of a file is as good as the original, doesn’t degrade over time. So every digital book sold under the first sale doctrine would compete directly with my client sales. This means my 
40 

clients will have fewer sales and fewer resources to devote to hire 

illustrators, photographers, and designers. 

As a result, I would likely have fewer clients, and we might see 

a decline in the industry in which I make my living. 

I am also concerned that infringement will become even harder 

to police than it is now. How will we know that all copies of the 

original file have been deleted before it has been sold or given away 

under a digital first sale doctrine? If my artwork is infringed, it 

may also be altered by an end user in a manner to which I may 

object. This may include reworking the art in an objectionable way 

or using it to promote or convey a message with which I do not 

agree. My artwork represents me and my point of view, and 

changes unapproved by me might impact negatively upon my reputation and my ability to attract clients. 

As a creative professional and small business owner, I am able 

to choose which clients I will work with. And if requirements of the 

first sale doctrine were imposed on my licensing relationships and 

my clients could legally sell copies of my work to others, that right 

would be taken away from me. 

The proposal to expand the first sale doctrine in the digital world 

would make it wholly unmanageable for creative professionals to 

oversee the distribution of our work. A change to this doctrine is 

something that the visual arts community is not asking for and, 

more importantly, is not something our clients are asking for either. 

The second related question is whether artists and other copyright owners should be able to write the terms of our license agreements with our clients based upon their actual needs, without 

terms being dictated by law. Licensing is core to the business of so 

many visual artists who work commercially. Intervening in the license agreements we negotiate with our clients would be incredibly 

destructive to the livelihoods of commercial visual artists and 

would raise prices for clients. 

To sum up, a law expanding first sale could easily cut creators 

out of value change for their own work and artificially force the 

price of our work below sustainable levels. It would almost certainly increase sky-high levels of infringement in a way that is impossible to police. If first sale requirements were imposed on licensing relationships allowing my clients to resell my work, it would 

commoditize that work to the point where it would lose its value 

for my business. 

The effects of such a change would also force me, an independent 

entrepreneur, into the equivalent of a work-made-for-hire world, 

where I no longer manage rights to my own artworks. This is a 

path I explicitly rejected and have been rallying against throughout 

my career. I would be forced to surrender my most precious economic asset, my copyright. The impact on me as a small business 

would be monumental. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Shems. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shems follows:] 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Band, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF JONATHAN BAND, COUNSEL, 

OWNERS’ RIGHTS INITIATIVE 

Mr. BAND. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Nadler, Members of the Subcommittee. 

The Owners’ Rights Initiative is an organization of over 20 companies and associations dedicated to protecting the first sale doctrine. 

The first sale doctrine reflects a basic feature of property rights. 

When you own a physical good, you can have the right to dispose 

of it as you please. You can sell it, lend it, or give it away. The fact 

that some aspects of the good are covered by copyright does not diminish your rights in the good. If I purchase a legal copy of a novel 

written by Elmore Leonard, his estate owns the copyright on the 

novel, but I own the physical copy. Leonard’s copyright prevents 

me from copying the novel, but it doesn’t prevent me from selling 

it or giving it away. 

The first sale doctrine protects my property rights in my copy. 

If I buy a North Face jacket, with is its distinctive logo, North 

Face’s copyright in the logo doesn’t prevent me from donating the 

jacket to the Salvation Army or the Salvation Army from selling 

the jacket. 

The first sale doctrine works because it matches consumer expectations relating to their property. They understand that they can’t 

copy the novel or make counterfeit copies of the North Face jacket. 

At the same time, they fully expect to be able to sell or give away 

these products. Whether the copies of the novel are printed in the 

United States or in Canada makes no difference to the consumer. 

He expects to be able to resell it regardless of where it was printed 

or purchased. 

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kirtsaeng makes sense because 

it is consistent with consumer expectations. The purchaser’s right 

to transfer the copy of the novel or the North Face jacket should 

not turn on where the copy was made or where it was first sold 

but on whether the copy was manufactured lawfully. Any other 

rule would be counterintuitive and impossible to implement. 

In today’s global market, downstream sellers often have no way 

of knowing where a product was manufactured or first sold. Mr. 

Smith, with Wiley, argues that the rule adopted in Kirtsaeng will 

prevent copyright owners from price discriminating against American consumers. But the Supreme Court ruled that nothing in the 

Constitution suggests that copyright should include the right to 

price discriminate. Furthermore, price discrimination will not help 

American workers because most copyrighted products are made 

overseas, increased foreign sales will not lead to more manufacturing jobs in the U.S. 

Remember, we are not just talking about books. The previous Supreme Court cases in this area dealt with the logo on a watch and 

the label on a shampoo bottle. Even after Kirtsaeng, publishers can 

still price discriminate. They just can’t use copyright law to enforce 

it. Publishers can use contract to prohibit foreign distributors from 

shipping to the U.S.; publishers can sell only enough copies in any 

country to meet local demand; publishers can make minor changes 
47 

in products to discourage importation. In short, they can act exactly as every other business that can’t rely on copyright to enforce 

price discrimination. 

Our coalition would like the Subcommittee to examine an aspect 

of first sale that affects a specific category of tangible good, of products that are distributed with software essential to their operation. 

Even though consumers buy the physical products, ranging from 

computers to toasters, some manufacturers claim that they are just 

licensing the software essential to the product’s operation. The 

manufacturers further claim that because the consumers are just 

licensees, they do not have the first sale right to transfer the software when they sell the rest of the product. These licenses may 

have other restrictive terms that interfere with the resale of the 

products, for example, specifying that only the original licensee will 

receive security patches or bug fixes. But interfering with resale, 

these license terms harm both the consumers who want to sell the 

products and the secondary consumers, often government agencies, 

that want to buy them. 

The license terms are also harmful to cybersecurity. If a manufacturer refuses to provide the secondary consumer with security 

patches, the security of the computer system could be compromised. 

Resale rights also help the environment by keeping recycled products out of landfills. 

This is a concrete problem of manufacturers attempting to leverage their copyright in a component into control over a much larger 

device. We believe that this problem can be fixed by relatively simple amendment to the Copyright Act. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Band. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Band follows:] 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Cram, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF GREG CRAM, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, COPYRIGHT AND INFORMATION POLICY, THE NEW YORK PUBLIC 

LIBRARY 

Mr. CRAM. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Nadler, and 

Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. My name is Greg Cram, and I am the Associate Director of Copyright and Information Policy at the New York Public 

Library. My testimony has been endorsed by the Library Copyright 

Alliance. 

The New York Public Library system encompass four world-class 

research centers and 88 community branches located in Manhattan, Staten Island, and the Bronx. NYPL serves 50 million users 

annually of all ages, backgrounds, and needs, offering free programs, classes, exhibitions, and, of course, access to our circulating 

and research collections. NYPL’s collections contain more than 57 

million books, eBooks, CDs, DVDs, and other archival materials. 

The first sale doctrine is critical to the operation of libraries. It 

makes clear that transferring a legally acquired copy of a work to 

another individual by sale or lending is not an infringement of the 

distribution right of the copyright owner. 

First sale supports and protects something American libraries 

have been doing for almost 400 years: lending books and other materials to the public. This function is the cornerstone of public libraries and public education, allowing citizens to become informed 

and participate in our democracy. 

If the scope of the first sale exception were narrowed or reduced, 

libraries would face a difficult policy decision, accrue significant 

copyright liability exposure by continuing to lend affected collections, or deprive a public hungry for knowledge by ceasing circulation of those materials. Many libraries with limited and constrained legal budgets would choose to limit access to the affected 

items to avoid potentially costly copyright liability. 

Unfortunately, libraries faced this scenario after the Second Circuit’s decision in the Kirtsaeng case. The Second Circuit agreed 

with the publisher John Wiley & Sons that the first sale doctrine 

did not apply to copies of its textbooks printed outside the U.S. By 

limiting the doctrine to copies manufactured in the U.S., the Second Circuit’s decision threatened the ability to libraries to continue 

to lend materials in their collections. 

Many books have foreign publishers or are printed by U.S. publishers in other countries. Although some books indicate where 

they were printed, many do not. Libraries, therefore, have no way 

of knowing whether these books comply with the Second Circuit’s 

rule. Thankfully, the Supreme Court rightly overturned the Second 

Circuit’s discussion and ruled that the first sale doctrine applies to 

all non-infringing copies, regardless of where they are made. 

This means that libraries throughout the U.S. could continue 

their existing purchasing and lending practices with new confidence. The rule set by the Supreme Court is the right rule for libraries and their users. Congress should not disturb it. 

Libraries are increasingly licensing electronic resources, including trade eBooks and databases of academic journals. The license, 
64 

not copyright laws set the terms under which the library is permitted to make the content available to its users. This is a major 

shift from the traditional model where libraries buy physical copies 

of books and other materials and lend them to users pursuant to 

the first sale doctrine or preserve them for future access. 

This new digital model has both advantages and drawbacks. The 

library license rate for an eBook can be more expensive, both initially and over time, than its print counterpart, putting additional 

strain on already tight budgets. 

Moreover, if the publisher or content provider goes out of business, the library may no longer be able to license or access the content. This would have serious preservation consequences, leaving 

large holes in the cultural and scholarly record. Libraries preserve 

materials to ensure they can be studied and enjoyed by future generations. If libraries are unable to access and preserve digital content, then they will be unable to fulfill their preservation mission. 

The good news is that libraries and publishers are working collaboratively to resolve digital transition issues. Business models 

are evolving and experimentation is occurring. NYPL has taken an 

active role in encouraging publishers to responsibly participate in 

the library market for eBooks and explore new ways to address 

their concerns and the needs of library users. 

Furthermore, a consortia of libraries have formed partnerships 

with publishers for digital preservation. NYPL was an early participant in Portico, a digital preservation service that operates in 

partnership with publishers to protect digital journals others materials. 

At the same time, as progressively more content is licensed rather than sold, Congress needs to consider whether to prohibit enforcement of contractual limitations on copyright exceptions in certain circumstances. Congress, therefore, needs to closely monitor 

the evolving and complex digital marketplace to ensure that it is 

sufficiently competitive to provide widespread access works. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Cram. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cram follows:] 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 

TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW B. GLOTZER, MEDIA CONSULTANT 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Glotzer, welcome. 

Mr. GLOTZER. Thank you. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member 

Nadler, Members of the Subcommittee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing, 

and I recognize the need to regularly review copyright, given the 

near constant flux in media landscape. 

For content-driven companies, emerging technology represents a 

mix of opportunity and challenge. And it is incumbent upon IP creators to be proactive in leveraging these new tools to sustain 

growth. 

Any business, no matter how established it may be, is better off 

working to adapt itself to the future landscape than blindly trying 

to preserve the past. In the course of such adaptation, the content 

industry has embraced online licensing as a means to provide consumers the flexibility they demand in the Internet era. 

With this forward-leaning view, I submit that the creation of a 

new first sale doctrine that applies to electronically delivered content is both unnecessary and potentially detrimental to the longterm health of many content markets. I have spent more than two 

decades working within large organizations designing products and 

distribution models that are responsive to technological change. 

Although I do not appear on behalf of any particular company 

today, my views are based on firsthand experiences in navigating 

market shifts and will focus more on commercial and economic reality than legal theory. 

There are three primary reasons for my opposition to creating a 

new first sale doctrine for electronically delivered content. To 

begin, consumers have eagerly adopted the array of flexible electronically delivered models that are now available alongside physical media. Since the delivery of Internet video became available in 

the mid-2000’s, consumers have led the shift toward access-based 

models, in sharp contrast to the rabid collection of the tapes and 

disks that had been prevalent for many years prior. 

Screen Digest reports that by 2009, U.S. Households were already accessing to 376 million films and 20 billion television programs online per year. By 2013, annual consumption ballooned to 

5.7 billion movies and 56 billion TV shows via electronic delivery. 

To be sure, the traditional proposition to own physical media has 

historically been one of the industry’s most potent, and I suspect 

it will continue to offer this model as long as consumers demand 

it. But today, consumers increasingly demonstrate a preference for 

the broad choice and ubiquitous accessibility that is offered by popular online services. The marketplace has turned a corner. 

Secondly, the distribution challenges inherent in physical media 

addressed by the first sale doctrine do not exist in the electronic 

realm; in other words, there is no incremental problem to solve. 

Content distribution by a physical technical host, such as paper, 

tapes, and disks, is subject to a series of costs, including manufacturing inventory risk; there is the degradation of copies over time; 

and the costs of dissemination, which itself includes the need for 

a consumer to maintain possession of a copy in order to access the 

content. 
81 

But electronic delivery is highly efficient, such that these costs 

are greatly reduced or eliminated outright. Most importantly, electronic content can be transferred from user to user almost instantaneously, much faster than any physical host could be transferred 

hand to hand, and with no degradation in quality. 

Thirdly, unlike secondary markets for physical media, those for 

electronic licenses are actually efficient enough to disrupt their primary counterparts. A secondary market for physical media can coexist with the primary market because the inherent costs and limitations of that physical media make used copies a separate value 

proposition from new ones. 

But the hyper efficiency of electronic delivery is rooted in the 

speed, ubiquity, and anonymity of Internet-based communications. 

In this realm, parties wishing to exchange goods need not be colocated and, in fact, need not be known to one another. Low-cost 

intermediary service could automatically effectuate not only permanent transfers of licenses but also temporary loans of them. 

So it is easy to imagine that a single instantiation of a content 

license could provide utility to hundreds of users as long as only 

one user wanted the content at any given time. 

Such a mechanism would force content owners to price each license based on its capability to serve many rather than one. But 

how many willing buyers would there be if a film cost 10 to 100 

times its customary price? The result would be a failure of the primary market. 

My fellow witness, Dr. John Villasenor, has acknowledged this 

problem and suggests limiting the frequency with which secondary 

market licences could be exchanged so transfers might be allowed 

but loans would not. 

But where do we draw that line? How would we analyze the 

problems so that demarcation between a loan and a transfer would 

be something more than an arbitrary distinction? 

In summary, content producers have embraced the efficiency of 

electronic delivery, arguably at the expense of some of the those 

most time-tested business models. And they will continue to do so 

as long as the markets for their products remain robust. Currently, 

studios are working on exciting mixes of content and services 

around their intellectual property that are intended to deepen the 

engagement with fans. But this sustained innovation relies on the 

elegant balance of producer and consumer incentives. The rise of 

secondary market for used electronic goods that are indistinguishable from their new equivalents would harm this balance and eventually result in a market failure. 

Mr. Goodlatte, Mr Nadler, my opinions today are not in any reflexive defense of old models. I offer them out of a genuine interest 

in maintaining the market dynamics that have fostered so much 

innovation to date. The continued investment and experimentation 

by content creators will yield myriad benefits to the entire value 

chain. 

Again, I appreciate your time, and I look forward to any questions you may have. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Glotzer. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glotzer follows:] 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Siy, welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF SHERWIN SIY, VICE PRESIDENT, 

LEGAL AFFAIRS, PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE 

Mr. SIY. Thank you. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Nadler, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to 

testify here today on the critical issue of the first sale doctrine. 

In my testimony today, I would like to emphasize one crucial 

point, that the first sale doctrine is not just a technical exception 

or limitation to copyright law but a fundamental principle that balances consumers’ basic rights to their personal property with authors’ rights to their intellectual property. 

The way the Copyright Act is structured today, it grants broad, 

exclusive rights to copyright holders, rights that are so broad that, 

without exceptions, the result would be absurd if not intolerable. 

The exclusive rights of distribution and display, for example, would 

give copyright holders rights that violated our basic understanding 

of personal property. The author of a book, for example, would be 

able to prevent a buyer from giving it to her daughter, lending it 

to a friend, or donating it to a library. 

In other words, first sale is a limitation or exception to copyright 

that is necessary because copyright creates big exceptions to the ordinary rules of personal property. 

While Bobbs Merrill stands as a foundational case in the first 

sale doctrine, over a hundred years later, we can see it be undermined in a number of ways today. One notable example of this 

happened recently, when Aspen Publishers said they would require 

students who bought certain legal textbooks to return them at the 

end of the semester. In essence, Aspen was claiming that these 

printed books were being licensed and not sold to the students. The 

point of this presumably was to make sales of the used books copyright infringements and therefore eliminate the market of used 

books. So more than 100 years after Bobbs-Merrill, we see publishers still trying to use disclaimers attached to books to limit 

ownership and resale. Basically, consumers need to know that they 

own what they buy. Owning it in this case means being able to distribute it and also the ability to simply use it as intended. 

But the use of external language to limit ownership is even more 

prevalent in the world of software. Typically, software comes with 

an end-user license agreement that will, among other things, characterize a transaction as a license rather than a sale. Even if the 

exchange looks in all aspects like a sale and may even be called 

such in a store or on a Web site, a disclaimer attached to the work 

will claim otherwise. This not only puts restrictions on the initial 

buyer, but it also places potential liability on anyone else downstream who might in turn receive the copy, even if they never even 

signed or never even saw that agreement. 

To prevent consumers from being saddled with these burdens, 

the law should not enforce contracts that result in noncontracting 

parties facing liability. And it should resist enforcing the text of 

fine-print agreements that deny a sale is taking place when every 

other indication from the producer is that the transaction is a sale. 
88 

It may even be worth investigating whether certain types of licensing structure should be avoided altogether, the way certain 

type of interests in land are not recognized under property law. 

Next, ownership of copies is not just the ability to sell and distribute them. After all, those rights are useless if the copies themselves cannot be used. Yet, often, the owners of digital copies could 

still infringe copyright by merely using those copies. This is because practically any use of a digital file, merely loading or running 

it, results in copies of that file being made inside the digital device. 

Every time you play music or movies on your phone, load an eBook 

or open up a Web site on your laptop, you are making reproductions of likely copyrighted works. 

Currently, a first-sale-like rule in Section 117 prevents owners of 

the computer programs from becoming inadvertent infringers due 

to those essential step copies. However, that rule does not extend 

to other types of digital works, like MP3s, movie files, or eBooks. 

A simple update of Section 117 would allow for these necessary and 

harmless reproductions to be made. 

As Congress continues its review of copyright law, Section 117 

could also be a useful model for addressing the issue of first sale 

in digital downloads. Just as Section 117 allows you to make reproductions that are essential to the use of a computer program, we 

can see a provision that would allow for limited and temporary reproductions that are essential for the transfer of a file from one 

party to another. I believe such a provision would permit the first 

sale doctrine to continue to be relevant in the digital space, even 

as so much of our media comes to us only in a digital form. 

Every day, thousands of people hand copies of their works that 

they love to one another. As loans, as gifts, in transactions that are 

under the law but unseen by commerce. Every day, millions of 

more people use and thus copy the digital movies, music, and 

books, that they own. Preserving their first sale and ownership 

rights is therefore not just important in terms of commercial interactions but to make sure that all of these millions of people continue to have a vibrant cultural world into the future. 

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Siy. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Siy follows:] 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Villasenor—is that correct? Say it to me so 

all of us know when we question you how to pronounce your name. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN VILLASENOR, NONRESIDENT SENIOR 

FELLOW, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, AND PROFESSOR 

OF ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 

Mr. VILLASENOR. It is Villasenor. Yes. 

Good morning, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Nadler, 

and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you very much for the 

opportunity to testify today regarding the first sale doctrine and 

U.S. copyright law. 

I am a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, 

and I am also on the faculty at UCLA. However, the views I am 

expressing here are my own and do not necessarily represent those 

of the Brookings Institution or the University of California. 

In my testimony, I would like to make two main points. First, 

modification of U.S. copyright law to introduce a broad digital first 

sale doctrine would lead to unintended consequences that would 

dramatically reduce the ability of content creators to be properly 

compensated for work sold digitally. For example, consider what 

would happen if loans that might last only a few minutes or even 

a few seconds could be made instantly, without the authorization 

of the copyright holder, and among parties who might be separated 

by thousands of miles. 

A recording artist who sells only a few hundred copies or digital 

copies of a song might find that 1 million people are sharing those 

few hundred copies. How could this be possible? Because those few 

hundred copies could be aggregated into a lending pool serving 1 

million people. Listeners would only need to borrow from the lending pool at the very moment when they want to hear the song. 

I am not aware of any statutory language that could be used to 

craft a digital first sale doctrine that would somehow avoid these 

sorts of unintended consequences while also being practical and 

workable. 

Secondly, the question of digital first sale, as important as it has 

been, is becoming less so with each passing year. We are moving 

and in fact have largely already moved to a license-based ecosystem for digital content distribution. And when there is no sale, 

the first sale doctrine does not apply. Instead, the permissible 

downstream uses of digital content in a license-based ecosystem are 

addressed through a combination of contract law and intellectual 

property law. 

Today’s consumers have access to a remarkable and quickly 

growing range of license-based content offerings. But there are also 

some concerns. Consumers who shop at content-provider Web sites 

featuring opportunities to ‘‘buy’’ a digital version of a song, movie, 

or book, can reasonably expect that when the transaction is completed, they will own a copy of the work. But in many cases, that 

is not what occurs. Instead, consumers who buy digital copies, copies of digital works, are often subject to terms-of-use agreements 

specifying that they are, in fact, licensees, not owners. Consumers 

can find these agreements to be mind-numbingly complex, often 

containing clauses with ambiguous wording susceptible to con-
96 

flicting interpretations, even among attorneys who specialize in 

contract law. 

I am not sympathetic to the argument that the onus is on consumers to resolve these ambiguities as a pre-condition to obtaining 

new digital content. I believe that content providers have at least 

an ethical obligation and quite possibly a legal obligation under 

consumer protection laws to clearly structure offerings so that consumers are informed about restrictions accompanying their purchase of digital copies of copyrighted works. 

When consumers are weighing offers enabling them to ‘‘buy’’ content that they in fact will not own, that information should be 

clearly and explicitly conveyed before the transaction is completed. 

When consumers are considering acquiring content that they will 

be prohibited from loaning, selling, giving as a gift, or bequeathing 

to an heir, that information should be presented in easy-to-understand, unequivocal language before the purchase is completed. 

These issues are of vital importance to the creative content ecosystem. But my view is that they cannot and should not be addressed through changes to copyright law. And I do not believe 

these issues should be addressed through new legislation that 

would restrict or otherwise alter American contract law. 

Instead, they should be addressed by ensuring what in fact 

should be common sense, that consumers who license copyrighted 

works have access to clear, upfront descriptions regarding the permitted and prohibited uses of the content. Once that occurs, I am 

optimistic that market forces will lead to future license space content offerings giving consumers many more options than those commonly available today. 

And in contrast with attempting to address digital content dispositions through a one-size-fits-all statutory approach, allowing 

the market to experiment with the diversity of solutions is more 

likely to result in balanced approaches. Among other things, this 

could lead to a growing number of offerings permitting licensees to 

engage in dispositions of digital content analogous to those that 

have long been available to owners of tangible copies of works. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Villasenor follows:] 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Simon, you get the last word. 

TESTIMONY OF EMERY SIMON, COUNSELOR, 

BSA l THE SOFTWARE ALLIANCE 

Mr. SIMON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good for me to be 

here today. I am a product of New York City Public Schools. I am 

a product of New York City public universities. And when I stood 

up to say ‘‘I do,’’ it reminded me of being sworn in as a citizen, in 

I think this very building, some 40 years ago. So it is a little bit 

of a homecoming for me; it brings back a lot of memories. 

So probably of the many issues that this Committee is considering in the area of copyright, this issue, first sale, is the most important to the software industry. Software industry relies on copyright law for three basic purposes: to prevent piracy, to fight piracy; to fight people who freeload by copying code and cloning it; 

but most importantly, it is the foundation stone on which we build 

our licensing agreements. 

Software is licensed, in most instances, not always. It is a contract. That contract is enforceable. That contract gives rights to the 

consumer while preserving obligations on the part of the software 

developer. 

So it is in that context that we look at this discussion today, 

which is, how do you continue to respect the freedom of the parties 

to engage in contractual relationships? How do you continue to promote the kind of success that the American software industry has 

had? 

BSA members are the dream team of the world’s most innovative 

companies. IBM, Microsoft, Intel unleashed an era of unparalleled 

change; now we work and live by developing the PC. Apple transformed the smartphone and broke new ground with tablets. And 

today, we are at the center of the next wave of innovation as we 

transition to a data-centric economy. Data and analytics powered 

by software providing insights and unprecedented opportunities 

from the factory floor, to medicine, to classrooms. All these things 

are possible because the copyright law provides a sound foundation 

for licensing. 

We have heard that first sale applies only to the owner of a copy 

of work, and that is right. This Committee, when it issued its report some years back, made it crystal clear, it said, ‘‘first sale applies only to outright sales.’’ That is what it should be. It should 

apply to sales, not to licenses. 

Converting the first sale doctrine into a first license doctrine, as 

some argue, by extending to its licensed copies would brush aside 

existing law. Such an extension would upturn a cornerstone of our 

economy, our ability to contract and our ability to rely on contracts. 

And I agree with Mr. Villasenor on that point very strongly. 

And it would especially create confusion among consumers about 

the rights and quality associated with secondhand software. Buyers 

of secondhand software will be unable to tell whether the copy they 

paid for is genuine or counterfeit or, even worse, suffer irreparable 

harm if the copy is infected with spyware or viruses, as they often 

are, and purport to be genuine. 

Just this morning, I saw a report from one of my colleagues in 

the Czech Republic, where we are having a slew of illicit copies 
109 

being distributed by people who allege they are re-selling, they are 

selling used copies. 

Courts are not confused. The courts have been clear. Most recently, in Vernor v. Autodesk, the Ninth Circuit said unequivocally, 

if it looks like a license, if contains use restrictions, and if it restricts transfer, it is an enforceable license. We think that is the 

right case. There are some other cases, Krause here in the Second 

Circuit, which previously had a different point of view. But what 

that distinguishes was not based on enforcement of a license. 

Finally, today, nearly one in five copies of software used in the 

United States is unlicensed. We lose about $10 billion just in the 

U.S. Threats of infringing use of software would be significantly exacerbated if the first sale doctrine or the first sale rule were applied to licensed copies. Because it is nearly impossible to police 

whether the person purporting to transfer has actually done so. 

I would like to say three things in conclusion. One is, applying 

the first sale doctrine to licensed copies would substantially increase the infringement risk. Two, it would reduce consumer choice 

by undermining the legal foundation that software developers rely 

on. And, finally, it would shake the very notion that licensing, 

which is completely recognized by the Copyright Act as a legitimate 

way to commercialize, it would undermine the concept that licensing is an integral part to be protected and nurtured by the Copyright Act. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Simon. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simon follows:] 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you all for excellent testimony. 

Before I begin the questioning, I wanted to introduce to our New 

York audience and our online audience the other Members of the 

Committee, who have been able to travel to be here in New York. 

In addition to Mr. Nadler not having to travel very far, since his 

district is a stone’s throw away, across the street—don’t throw 

stones here—the gentleman from New York, Hakeem Jeffries’ district is just a few miles away in Brooklyn. And he is a new Member 

of the Judiciary Committee and keenly interested in intellectual 

property and technology issues. 

As is the gentleman from Florida, Peter Deutch, who spends a 

lot of time in intellectual property, particularly copyright issues. 

We are glad to have both of them with us today. 

Congressman George Holding from North Carolina, just introduced a significant copyright reform bill last week in the Congress. 

He is also a new Member. 

And Congressman Jason Chaffetz has the record of having traveled the farthest distance to be with us, or at least has to travel 

the farthest distance to get home to his district in Utah. He also 

has an obligation later on this morning, so I am going to give him 

the opportunity to begin the questioning so that he can not feel too 

much pressure when he has to slip away to get to his other meeting. 

Congressman Chaffetz recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. And thank you, Chairman, for holding this hearing. 

And to Mr. Nadler and Mr. Jeffries, we appreciate always being 

in the city. It may be a stone’s throw across the street, but I don’t 

think 50 Cent could make that all the way across the street. I 

would love to try to see him throw a rock all the way across the 

street. 

Listen, we do appreciate it. It is a very difficult issue. If this was 

simple, we would not be gathered here this day. 

And I really appreciate all of the people on this panel. I know 

Mr. Deutch, in particular, has been very thoughtful on this issue. 

We have looked at it from some different angles. But I really do 

want to come to a resolution. 

Mr. Band, I would like to start with you, as sort of a two-part 

question, if I could. 

How widespread is the problem you identified with the transfer 

of software essential to the operation of products? Because that— 

so many of our products have literally hundreds of different applications involved with them. And then are these restrictions on essential software a copyright issue, a contract issue, or a bit of both? 

Mr. BAND. Thank you, Mr. Chaffetz, for that question. With respect—or the two questions. 

With respect to the first question, right now, the problem is 

mainly in sort of the computer and the telecommunications industries. So you see these kinds of restrictions with the sale of computer hardware or telecommunications devices. 

But particularly because, as you indicated, the software is everything. I mean, I am sure this microphone probably has some software. That timer probably has software. Our watches have software it in. The problem now is sort of relatively limited. But it is 
118 

going to be a bigger and bigger problem as we go forward. Cars, 

of course, have software in it. And so it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to see the restrictions that are now used with respect to 

computers could very soon be applied more broadly. 

So I think this is a very appropriate time for Congress to focus 

and figure out how to resolve it. 

With respect to your second question, yes, I think it is a combination of both contract and copyright law. It is in the first order 

of copyright question because the first sale doctrine, the manufacturers are saying the first sale doctrine does not apply because 

they are considering it a license of the software rather than a sale 

of the software when it is part of this bigger product. 

But then also you do have a license. And so you are arguably 

breaching both the copyright and the license when you sell the 

product. So I think it is one of these overlapping areas, which of 

course makes it more complicated. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And that is the concern, right? That ultimately 

you have got a consumer who is trying to do the right thing. They 

are not going to weave their way through, you know 72 pages of 

disclaimers and questions. 

And we also have a piracy problem. I mean, let’s be honest. We 

have a big piracy problem in this Nation and certainly globally. So 

how do we address that? I mean, are we going to facilitate more 

piracy? How do we solve that? 

Mr. BAND. I think with the specific—with the larger digital first 

sale issue that others have talked about, I mean, I think that is 

a complicated issue that needs to be considered. 

Fortunately, with the specific issue that we are addressing about, 

you know, the essential—the software essential to the operation of 

hardware products, you don’t really have to worry about that. Because either the software is already embedded in firmware or it is 

already contained in some manner in the hardware. So you don’t— 

you don’t have the proliferation of copies or the potential for the 

proliferation of copies that you do in the other examples that we 

have heard about on this panel. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Siy, you talked about a simple update of Section 117. Can you elaborate on that a little bit, how simple this 

could be? 

Mr. SIY. Certainly. Well, there is a couple of different things. One 

of them will account for the sale of used digital goods, which is 

maybe not as simple. 

The simpler part would simply be to—currently, it says that the 

owner of a computer program can make essential step copies, so 

that they are not an infringer. Two small changes, one is to change 

‘‘computer program’’ to ‘‘works or copies of works generally.’’ So 

that it applies to other forms of digital media that aren’t defined 

as computer programs, like video files, music files, and eBooks. The 

other one would be so that users of the program aren’t found to be 

infringers. 

If I simply hand somebody my phone and they open up a game 

on it, they wouldn’t have the protections of Section 117. So if they 

are a legitimate, lawful user of that software, they should also be 

able to afford that protection. 
119 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I think that the court got 

Kirtsaeng right. I am a big proponent of that. I believe strongly in 

it. I also understand and respect the idea that we have a major piracy problem. That innovation and technology is a good thing. That 

speed, efficiency, and anonymity, as you talked about in your testimony, Mr. Siy, these are all good things for American consumers. 

And how we find that proper balance, I just don’t want the Congress to screw it up. 

So thank you, yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. 

And I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from New 

York, Mr. Nadler, for 5 minutes? 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In its 2001 report, the Copyright Office concluded that there was 

no demonstrated need to extend first sale digital works that would 

outweigh likely harms of such an extension. 

Professor Villasenor, has the landscape changed since that report? Is there enough of a need now to warrant extension of first 

sale of digital works, in your opinion? 

Mr. VILLASENOR. I respectfully do not believe that there is. As I 

mentioned in my testimony, we have largely already moved to a license-based ecosystem, and first sale doctrine doesn’t apply when 

there is no sale. 

I think it is very important to respect contract law. And the concerns I have with respect to the license-based distribution content 

is not that licenses themselves are improper; it is that the disclosures accompanying the delivery of license-based content to consumers are, frankly, often lacking. And I think that consumers 

have a right to clear disclosures about what the content of those 

licenses are. And that when that occurs, I think that we will find 

the market will respond and provide a wealth of solutions, giving 

consumers the ability to choose to get content on terms that are 

more favorable to them. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Smith, are you seeking a legislative fix to the Kirtsaeng decision? And, if so, what fix could also adequately protect the interests 

of entities like libraries and museums, those entities the Supreme 

Court recognizes as needing and relying on first sale? 

Mr. SMITH. Our interest would be to see Congress revisit that decision to look at clarifications in the law around first sale to really 

protect against distribution and resale into. 

Mr. NADLER. Probably a legislative fix. 

Mr. SMITH. We think it would be advisable for Congress to look 

at that again. 

In terms of the impact on libraries and downstream uses, we believe that there are legislative options that can protect the interests of those who have legitimate cases to reuse similarly to the 

way they reused them always. It is really the attrition of copyright 

protection through the allowance of large-scale redistribution and 

reimportation that we seek to remedy. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Back to Professor Villasenor. 
120 

When I buy a book, I know that I own it and can resell it or give 

to it a friend. Should this same principle, you buy it, you own it, 

apply to digital works? And why not? 

Mr. VILLASENOR. I think that content providers and copyright 

holders have the option of choosing to provide content under licenses that could allow various levels of flexibility, and I think consumers have a right to make that choice. 

I don’t think—and as I mentioned earlier in my testimony, I do 

not think that it is proper to market to consumers with terms that 

clearly suggest ownership when in fact the ownership is not what 

happens. 

But I don’t think that it would be appropriate for Congress to require that content distributors or content providers own or must 

offer their content pursuant to ownership. 

I think that copyright holders should have the flexibility to offer 

the content under the terms that they see fit, and the market will 

respond. Consumers have an enormous amount of power over copyright holders because if no one buys or licenses the content, the 

content will not get into the hands of consumers. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. 

Mr. Cram, if the law allowed copyright owners to prevent unauthorized importation, but also kept protections for owners of foreign-made copies once imported and allowed distribution once in 

the United States, thus penalizing the original importation only, 

would that have a negative effect on libraries? 

Mr. CRAM. It still might. So libraries—when the Kirtsaeng decision was being contemplated, we did an analysis on our research 

collection and found that close to about two-thirds of our research 

collection could have been manufactured outside the U.S. So we 

brought that collection in, or we purchased it, or however we acquired the collection, we would be concerned about an importation 

right that would prevent us from importing those things in. And 

we are a first buyer. So even those, it might protect downstream 

uses, we would still be subject to it. 

Mr. NADLER. You—— 

Mr. CRAM. We would be the first importer, the one who brought 

the works into the country. So we would still be concerned if there 

weren’t adequate exceptions and limitations to that importation 

right. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. And probably my last question, given that 

the orange light is on. Mr. Ossenmacher, Professor Villasenor predicted if loans, sales, or other dispositions of digital content could 

be made instantly through first sale for digital works, then those 

transactions would largely replace the market for initial sales, to 

the harm of copyright owners. What is your response? Is this not 

a risk? And how can it be mitigated? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. Congressman, my response to that would be, 

I understand his point. But first sale doctrine didn’t look at method 

of delivery or speed of delivery. First sale doctrine was more about 

how to extinguish—— 

Mr. NADLER. Maybe now in the digital world, it should? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. I don’t think so either. Because I think by 

doing that, the balance that we all talked about changes greatly. 

And I think one of the things we worry about is there was always 
121 

the issue of a physical sale. And in a physical sale, certain rights 

existed. Everybody marketed their business based on those rights 

and consumers responded to those rights. 

In a digital world, I think there is a lot of hype about the speed 

of delivery. I mean, I can literally go to Amazon and buy something 

right now physically, and it almost happens as quickly. I mean, it 

is shipped—a drone will be delivering it shortly. Does that mean 

that shouldn’t happen? And so I think speed of delivery is kind of 

a red herring in terms of copyright law. 

And I think, again, it is more the issue of ‘‘if I do acquire something or I believe I am acquiring something, what are my rights 

with that,’’ not ‘‘how quickly did I get it or how quickly can I dispose of it.’’ So that is how I would respond, Congressman. 

Mr. NADLER. My time has expired. I thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. 

I have a question that I will—since there are nine of you, I am 

not going to ask each of you to answer it. But I am going to ask 

those of you who want to volunteer to answer three questions. 

First one is, should the law expressly provide some definition as 

to what constitutes a sale and what constitutes a license? 

Do I have volunteers? 

Is this something we need to clarify? 

Mr. SIY. I am not entirely sure that the law needs a specific definition. However, I do think the law does need to recognize that 

something might not be a license simply because one of the parties 

asserts that it is, that the characteristics of the transaction between the two parties should be taken into account. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. In what respect are you trying to draw that distinction? 

Mr. SIY. So, for instance, Mr. Simon mentioned the Vernor decision. And in the Vernor decision, the court drew up a test to determine whether or not you had a license or a sale. And it looked at 

a number of factors: Was there a transfer of title? Were there 

usage restrictions? Were there restrictions on distribution? 

But the question is, how is it determining where those restrictions came from? Is it just because the manufacturer put them in 

a long, fine-print license? Are we going to take their word for that, 

that that is what the transaction looked like? Or are we going to 

also account for whatever conversation happened between buyer 

and seller, or what the Web site looked like. Did they click a giant 

button that said ‘‘buy’’? 

So I think the difference is, you know—I don’t know that Congress necessarily needs to draw a bright-line definition. But the 

law does need to recognize that simply because one party says it 

is so doesn’t make it so. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Simon. 

Mr. SIMON. I don’t know. But I think it is going to get more complicated over time. And here is why. We know that all content is 

quickly moving to license-based distribution, whether it is streaming, whether it is in other forms. 

A single payment, arm’s-length transaction under a license, feels 

like a sale. That is the Weiss case in the Ninth Circuit from 30 
122 

years ago. That is the European Court of Justice opinion in the Oracle UsedSoft case. 

A lot of content is going to be distributed that way, on a single 

payment, no ongoing relationship. Software is different, because 

software does have an ongoing relationship. 

But I think you have hit on the right question. And I think figuring out how you maintain the validity of licenses over time when 

courts are going to have this attraction to turn them into sales is 

a real challenge. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Let’s take it to the point that Mr. Siy raised. 

Does it matter for consumers if the on-screen button says ‘‘license’’ 

or ‘‘buy’’? What are the impacts for consumers? 

Mr. SIMON. I bought an Amtrak ticket to come here. I didn’t 

think I bought the seat. I think I licensed the right to sit on the 

train. So this notion of ‘‘buy’’ buttons being ‘‘buy’’ buttons I find a 

little fanciful. Because we buy all kinds of things which we know 

to be licenses. Customers, consumers are pretty smart. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Do we need to clarify that in the law? 

Mr. SIMON. I don’t think so. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Band. 

Mr. BAND. But I think the example that Mr. Simon gave is a 

good example of the bigger point. So you—the question is obviously 

you don’t buy the seat, you buy a license to use the seat. But then 

the question is, is your license transferrable? Should you be able, 

if you decide you cannot use the ticket, should you be able to let 

someone else use the ticket? And Amtrak I think says no. 

But, you know, those are—the kinds of issues one needs to get 

into. And at least in the specific issue that I was raising of the installed software, you know, the essential software, rather than 

start to figure out is it a license, is it is a sale, I think it is better 

to simply say, you know, if you are the rightful possessor of the 

hardware, then you are able to transfer that hardware and the 

software with it. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. What about the consumer’s expectations? Do 

users expect to be able to sell digital copies of all works, or do they 

simply expect to be able to move it around to various devices tied 

to that user’s account? 

Mr. BAND. Well, I think—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. When I buy a digital book, and I view buying 

it, because I am going to be on those devices permanently, I don’t 

do it with the expectation that I can do what I do with my hard 

copies, which is, once I am finished reading this, I can take it down 

to Too Many Books in Roanoke, Virginia, and they will give me 

one-quarter of the face value of this, and they will sell it in their 

bookstore for one-half the face value. 

But I don’t view my online book as something that I am going 

to be able to take somewhere and sell it to somebody. Mr. 

Villasenor. 

Mr. VILLASENOR. Can I respond to the question about license 

sales? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Sure. Whatever. 

Mr. VILLASENOR. I think the, you know, it is hard to see what 

is going to happen in the future. But the courts recently have actually I think had the right decisions on that. There are two cases 
123 

in the Ninth Circuit. There is the Vernor case, which affirmed the 

licensees’ obligations under a license. And the licensee in this case 

was an organization called CTA. And then also in the Ninth Circuit, there was a case called UMG Recordings, where someone had 

received a promotional CD that said, you know, you are bound by 

the terms of the license, but then the court found that the person 

was not bound, in fact, because the person, the recipient, had never 

actually agreed to the terms of the license. So there is some, you 

know, generally good case law on that. 

And I think my personal view is that for Congress to wade in as 

this point and try to tackle that would potentially create more confusion than clarity. I don’t see that the system has broken to the 

extent that it needs fixing in that particular respect. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. My time has expired, but I know Mr. 

Ossenmacher wants to respond to my last point there. 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

I think, should there be a ‘‘buy’’ button? A ‘‘lease’’ button? A 

‘‘rent’’ button? I think yes. I mean, our experience is directly with 

consumers. And unlike most people in this room, the average consumer, when they push a ‘‘buy’’ button, believes they are owning 

something. And I think that is really important. Because we are 

not against licensing. I don’t think that consumers are against licensing. Consumers are about pro choice. They want to choose, do 

I own something? Can I choose that I am streaming it? And I think 

all that we see the consumers asking for is just be clear with us, 

as the professor had said, about what we are getting. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay. But let’s use the example I gave you, 

though. The Amazon book that I have downloaded, I have paid a 

price for it. That price is lower than I would pay for the hardbound 

copy. But it is a price I paid for it, and it will be on my devices 

for as long as I have those devices. 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. Unless Amazon deletes it. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. What is that? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. Excuse me, sir. Unless Amazon deletes it, 

like in ‘‘1982,’’ you know, the book ‘‘1982.’’ I mean. Sorry. 

So I think, I guess the issue there is, most consumers like the 

right that when they buy that—when they push that button from 

Amazon to buy, it is different than when they are pushing the 

‘‘movie’’ button to rent a movie. They think they are buying that 

book. 

And many consumers are alienated in digital goods today because socioeconomically they may not be able to afford that book. 

And that eBook is not necessarily less expensive than a physical 

book. Used markets in books have helped our society become 

smarter and more knowledgeable because the value of that book is 

less when it is used. And many people in America today cannot afford a $14.99 eBook. But maybe if it is sold used for $8.99 or $9.99, 

which helps people want to buy the book because they know it has 

that value, but it also opens the door to people of all socioeconomic 

levels to be able to enjoy digital, not just the high-income and the 

middle-income people. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We will come back to this. 

Next I want to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Deutch. 
124 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks for holding the hearing. I think it is a really important 

discussion. 

I just wanted to go back to a couple of themes that we have 

heard. Mr. Ossenmacher, I think you touched on both. One is this 

whole idea, if you buy it, you own it. But, two, as a number of our 

witnesses have referred to, the balance that exists between consumers and copyright holders. 

And there are, I think it is worth noting that there are lots of 

examples of ways that that balance has been struck in very productive and innovative ways. I think that is the case. And I know for 

a lot of us here, myself included, I watch—I stream shows, I watch 

movies on Netflix and Hulu. And I listen to music on Spotify, and 

my kids look to YouTube for their music. And there are lots of 

ways that actually balance these competing interests that are alive 

and well. 

So we are not making it more difficult; we are making it easier 

for people to access the content that they need while at the same 

time protecting the copyright holders. 

And on the issue that you buy it, you own it, again, if we look 

at what currently exists in terms of what we buy, call it a license 

or not, if I buy something, if I buy music, it will allow me to do 

a lot of things that go beyond listen to it. It will allow me to sync 

it across all my devices. I can redownload it if I lose it. I can access 

my library in the cloud. For some services, I can share my music— 

my movies—with multiple users in my household or in my family. 

The mobility and the interoperability is much better than just having a right to resell one file. 

And I think, lost unfortunately thus far this morning, is the fact 

that there are tremendously innovative approaches that provide all 

kinds of access while at the same time protecting the copyrights of 

the creators and the innovators who provide this content. 

I would like to just touch on a couple of points, though. Mr. 

Band, and this gets to Mr. Chaffetz’ point, a really important one, 

that there is—a reminder that there is a piracy problem. 

Mr. Band, you spoke about, I think you used Elmore Leonard as 

an example. And you said Elmore Leonard, Elmore Leonard’s copyright prevents you from copying the book. And you said that people 

understand that they can’t make counterfeit copies. And so they 

don’t make a copy of that book before they donate it to someone 

that they know, love, care about, that they want to share their passion for Elmore Leonard with. 

That may be true with respect to the book. It is not true—I 

mean, let’s not kid ourselves. It is not true. There are plenty of people who everyday are working hard to make a lot of money by making counterfeit copies. That exists. That is what we have to combat. 

We know that is the case. 

I guess the question I have first is, is there a service, is there 

any service at all that allows for transfer and delete without making a copy? Is there any way to do any of this that absolutely guarantees that there wouldn’t be copies made? And if there are copies 

made, then aren’t we only furthering the opportunity for counterfeiters to continue to prey upon the folks like Mr. Shems and his 
125 

clients who try to work hard to provide this content? Mr. 

Ossenmacher? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. Yes, sir. Technology exists today to be able 

to do exactly that. And I think in addition to the fact that technology exists, one of the things we should—— 

Mr. DEUTCH. Let me just ask. So there is technology that ensures 

that you can’t—that one won’t copy anything on his—can’t make a 

copy of his hard drive; right? And still transfer after that. Because 

I am not familiar with it. I have not heard of it. I thought the 

courts have looked at it. 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. So let’s now, if we want to look at technology, 

we can break it up. There are certain ways. You asked if there are 

ways. There are ways. 

If, for example, the original copy or the sold copy goes directly 

to a user’s cloud and that cloud is the only way they can then access it and title can transfer from buyer to seller through the cloud, 

the technology absolutely exists to allow a digital item to be sold 

without copies being made. 

Mr. DEUTCH. If it goes directly to the cloud—isn’t that a big if? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. No, it is not a big if. This is where content 

providers can decide how the delivery—just like they are allowing 

today, people who sell digital content allow it to be downloaded. We 

started years ago with DRM. We thought by putting lots of DRM 

around things that would control how this process worked. Well, 

what we found is DRM actually created piracy because people 

didn’t feel comfortable with the fact that the DRM existed. That is 

why it was removed. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Smith, and then I have one more question for 

Mr. Ossenmacher. 

Mr. SMITH. So I believe there are technologies that exist that 

may do some of what you suggest. However, I think at the moment 

enforcement would still be a serious concern for copyright holders, 

and from my understanding, there are serious privacy issues that 

are raised by any technology that it seeks to identify. 

Mr. DEUTCH. How do you enforce that without going back and 

checking the computer of the person who transferred it? 

But, Mr. Ossenmacher—just last question, Mr. Chairman, if I 

may. 

You had said earlier that—you used the example of diamonds. 

And you said that the diamonds, diamonds remain unchanged 

when there is a sale, when someone gives a diamond to someone 

else to use. That was your example, I think. 

But the question I have is, every diamond is unique. Right? Isn’t 

that the difference? Every single diamond is unique. Every copy of 

a song, every copy of a film is identical to every other copy of the 

song or film, which is what—or book, which is what gets us into 

this piracy morass that we are in now. 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. So, okay, well, I will respond to that. I think 

actually, to be technically correct, every digital download is specifically unique. Every digital download has its own unique identifiers. 

The copyright material may be the same, just as it is in a physical 

good. But each downloaded item is completely unique. It is that 

uniqueness that allows us to do certain things with that. 
126 

When we talk about piracy, though—I just want to point this out 

because I think it is very important. You know, today, piracy exists 

in a massive scale, especially in the music industry. Not so much 

in the book industry, but in the music industry, it is rampant. 

Now, when we look and say, should we allow or not allow first 

sale, is first sale going to hurt piracy, the fact of the matter is piracy is a massive issue that all of us dislike that exists today. 

So a simple solution to help piracy, and it may sound too simple, 

is if we give digital goods value, if the people would actually buy 

them, feel they own them, like they are going to protect them as 

their personal property, piracy will decline, there will be no reason 

for piracy, because if a good is stolen or pirated, the fact that that 

good now will have no value. 

So I think one of the ways to actually combat piracy is to allow 

digital first sale to exist, give digital items value so that they are 

not this, you know, thing in cyberspace, and let people realize the 

value of those digital goods. That will help everybody. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I hope as we go forward, this will 

be the opportunity to pursue further this notion that an Elmore 

Leonard book that one gives to someone and—versus copies of that, 

is the same as a musical copy. And the differences in the digital, 

digital copies and whether or not anyone is ever able to tell the difference between one copy or the other, I would assert not, but I 

hope that we will give others the opportunity to—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I think that is a good part of this discussion. 

And we probably won’t have time for a complete second round. 

But we will allow Members to ask some additional questions. 

First let’s go to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Holding. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Picking up what Mr. Ossenmacher left off with, that if we give 

value to these digital works so that they can be resold, it will cut 

down on piracy or eliminate piracy. 

Who agrees with that? 

Mr. Glotzer, do you agree that if they have the—you know, construct some first sale ability on these digital works, that it will cut 

down piracy in the movie industry? 

Mr. GLOTZER. No, not necessarily, not—I think the mechanisms, 

the economic drivers that create piracy are completely separate 

from what we are talking about here, which is the notion of whether or not something that is licensed should be re-marketed, essentially, by the holder. 

Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Ossenmacher, if we had a government-mandated used market for content in a nonphysical form, you know, 

what kind requirements of surveillance would there be? How 

invasive would that surveillance be to ensure that people aren’t 

keeping copies of it or retaining copies? 

Because, obviously, the copyright holders would have to have 

some, you know, assurance that what you are proposing would 

work, and their copies, you know, really are unique and being 

passed on and not just being duplicated. 

So the surveillance, the invasive surveillance nature of what you 

would have to give up in order to participate in your business 

model. 
127 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. So, Congressman, I think that is an excellent 

question. But I want to start with an example that may help clarify 

before I answer. 

Today and for many years, it has been very common practice to 

sell CDs. We go to the store, we go online, we buy a CD. What is 

the first thing most American consumers do when they buy a CD? 

They put it in their computer, and they rip a copy. So that CD now 

is on their hard drive. It ultimately ends up on cellphones, on other 

devices. And that CD has multiplied. 

In today’s kind of general acceptable practice, whether it is right 

or wrong, general acceptable practice has been, I now go to sell my 

CD on a wonderful site like eBay or Amazon. And I sell my CD. 

And the next thing I know, what enforcement has the government 

required? What have you expected of me in selling my CD? That 

I actually delete and remove copies of that CD I subsequently sold, 

because I no longer have, theoretically, the right to have them on 

my other devices? I think if we explore that and look at that, that 

is what has been happening today. 

With digital, in the way at least our system works, and there are 

many ways to do it, with digital, what we do is we help a user— 

and so, in that case, when the user sold their CD, the user was violating copyright law because they got rid of their right to access 

that good. 

So what we have done is we have taken the approach of how do 

we help the consumer be aware of copyright law, which helps the 

piracy, but how do we help them be aware of copyright law, so 

when they go to sell a digital good, if they happen to connect their 

phone or their iPad or any other device, we pop up a notification 

saying, ‘‘Hey, do you know you actually sold this? You need to remove it now.’’ 

And just as the law has always required the users to be lawful 

in their activity, we still give them the tools. We give them better 

tools today to actually maintain compliance with copyright law 

than they have ever had before. 

Mr. HOLDING. You touch on a point that has come through a lot 

of the testimony, that the problems arise perhaps not with the law 

itself but with the consumer awareness of what the law is. 

So is the question more of a consumer protection or consumer 

education issue than actually changing, you know, what the law is? 

I mean, Mr. Simon, the software industry, from the get-go, I 

think licensing has been something that your consumers have understood, that they are buying a license to this software. You can’t 

copy it; you can’t pass it on, so forth. 

Perhaps as we move forward with other digital works out there, 

as the consumers become more educated and understand that they 

just have a license to it, it will ameliorate, if not come close, to 

eliminating the problem. 

Mr. SIMON. Just a couple of points, Mr. Holding, because I guess 

Mr. Deutch asked a question of, is the technology there? 

So we know from, sad fact, NSA revelations, work this Committee and other congressional Committees have done, there is a 

lot of monitoring that can occur out there. We have a lot of technology to do so. But there is a price associated with it. And we 

have to balance these things. And we don’t want to be overly intru-
128 

sive. But we also want to make sure that people do not engage in 

illicit activity. 

The suggestion that somehow moving everything to the cloud 

solves it all by making it all a streaming business is antithetical 

to the whole concept of what copyright and the business models are 

about, which is we want lots of choice. And if we drive everything 

to a single way of acquiring and enjoying, it is the opposite of what 

this law has done and the benefit that I think this Congress has 

created for all of us. 

So we have got to be very careful here. We want secondary markets, but not at any price. And the suggestion that secondary markets overwhelm all other considerations I think is a little fanciful. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Gentleman from New York, Mr. Jeffries, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Congressman Nadler, for hosting us here today. 

Mr. Ossenmacher, in terms of first sale doctrine, secondary 

owner has the right to sell, loan, or give away any physical property that it purchases. Is that correct? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. That is—yes, that is correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And this is commonly known as the right of distribution. Correct? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. It is part of the first sale doctrine, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. It is an exclusion of the copyright holder. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. The first sale doctrine does not provide the secondary owner, the initial purchaser with a right of reproduction. Is 

that right? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. That is correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, in the Capitol Records case, the court 

concluded that in the context of your business, the digital reproduction occurs as part of the transaction. Is that right? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. In one aspect of our software, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. But in your view—correct me if I am wrong—but 

your position is that the actual transfer of the digital item does not 

constitute a reproduction. Is that right? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. That is correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And can you elaborate on that position? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. Yes. So one of the things that the judge had 

said in his ruling was that he didn’t completely understand technology. And based on his not understanding technology, he would 

go with a conservative approach. So I wanted that to be said. 

But the way our system works is we allow two different types. 

We had a type where we called it migration. So a lot of times people don’t completely understand how things get to our computers, 

but basically computer code is 0s and 1s that energize a disk either 

positively or negatively. 

And what we did is, just as that song originally came down to 

our disk, we literally picked up the same 0s and 1s. We reversed 

the electronic coding going to the disk, the positive and negative 

charges. 
129 

And so, for example, if on my disk I have 100 charges, 100 percent of a song, and where I want to move it to where there is 0, 

as I move 1, there is 1 here, there is 99 here, 98/2, and so forth. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Let me stop you there. That is important, and I 

appreciate that elucidation. 

In terms of your position as it relates to what constitutes reproduction and not under first sale doctrine, there is the transfer; you 

just talked about that. 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. But then secondary aspect or the second aspect is 

whether a deletion occurs. This is Ted Deutch’s line of inquiry. I 

just wanted to explore that for a minute. 

So the court concluded, I believe, that a deletion in its view 

didn’t matter. Though I would tend to hold the position and deletion, if it is an actual deletion, is consequential to the discussion 

that we are having here as part of the Committee. But I want to 

explore this notion as to whether an actual deletion occurs. 

Now, when you hit the ‘‘delete’’ button on an email, is that email 

actually deleted? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. No. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Now, that email content is then transferred 

to a trash folder. Correct? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, if you hit the ‘‘delete’’ button, in that trash 

folder, is that email actually deleted? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. Not necessarily. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Right. Because there is a process, I guess it is 

called technically recovery and restore. And obviously, there is a 

ghost of that email that exists that can be recovered. Correct? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. Correct. Typically, deletion is basically an 

overwriting process. So it leaves the original material there and 

overwrites it so that it appears it is no longer there. That is not 

what we are talking about. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. So how can you assure us in the context of 

the technology that you are talking about that a deletion is actually 

occurring such that someone cannot subsequently retrieve the digital file that you contend has been deleted? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. We would be happy with technology to submit to forensic people. Our team is primarily MIT-based scientists, 

who are very, very smart. But I think even more so than that, I 

think the issue that we have found is we are not actually doing a 

deletion so that there is nothing left. I mean, there is nothing to 

actually recover, is how the process is, that we use. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. But isn’t it possible—and this was pursued in an 

earlier line of inquiry—isn’t it possible that the original content 

could have been purchased on a smartphone or an iPod, for instance, and then transferred over? In your model, you are saying 

that you would exclude that type of secondary sale. Is that right? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. We can identify those as having happened 

that way, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And then you would exclude it if you identify it as 

having happened that way? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. If we are aware the user has not caused subsequent copies they made to be removed, we would exclude it, yes. 
130 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Chair thanks the gentleman. 

We have 10 or 15 minutes left. So we will, as Mr. Deutch had 

suggested, entertain on additional questions. 

I want to pursue this line. And I will start with you, Mr. 

Ossenmacher. 

So going back to our analogy of the book, the audio book—or not 

audio book, but digital book—do you think that Mr. Smith and 

Wiley, have the right to offer that book for sale, for sale under two 

different conditions? One would be for sale at a price that limits 

your use within the devices that—generally, when I buy something 

from Amazon today, it is limited within those devices—and then a 

second sale at a higher price, presumably, where you could do more 

with it, where you could sell it through the cloud? Does he have 

the right to do much now? 

And if your answer is no, should Congress legislate that distinction? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. That is an excellent question. I believe Mr. 

Smith does have the right to offer that now. I think the concern 

is that only one of those is being offered. That the right for a consumer to make a choice between those does not exist. And so if Mr. 

Smith were to offer consumers—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. He has a right to do it. He also has a right to 

not do it, though. Is that correct? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. Well, I think that is maybe what this discussion is about. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Correct. 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. I think that is what this discussion is about. 

So if we are only offering a model that, as we have heard from others, is a licensed model but is not transparently a license, I guess 

the first recommendation we would have is just simply call it a 

rental. Call it what it is, and let’s not try to confuse consumers 

about what they are actually getting. If they don’t actually own 

something, don’t put a ‘‘buy’’ button there. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Do you think we need to legislate that? Or do 

you think the law covers that already? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. I think the law covers that. But I think there 

is also confusion, as Mr. Jeffries had pointed out, even in our own 

court cases, where the court system is not really aware of how technology maybe works or doesn’t work. And even back to the original 

Copyright Office letter that has been referred to, in 2001, I know 

you started off about this, how fast things change. And they do 

change quickly. So I think there might be support somewhere in 

how to help this. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Anybody else want to respond to that? We will 

go to Mr. Smith and Mr. Villasenor. 

Mr. SMITH. So I think we are very clear that all of our digital 

products are licensed. The technical, technological solution offered 

by Mr. Ossenmacher’s company could actually be an interesting 

and value-added component to that model. 

To actually sell a digital copy for unlimited re-use, I can’t conceive a business model that would make that work for the consumer, if there is no limit to the number of copies that can be produced and sold onwards. The point is—— 
131 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Ossenmacher is suggesting that you could 

limit the number of copies made available. You could transfer your 

rights within the cloud. Give up your rights and someone else takes 

them. Is that correct? 

Mr. SMITH. Again, if we had reliable enforcement, if we answered 

the questions that Mr. Holding raised about surveillance, perhaps 

the technology solution is possible. 

But our belief is that there is no need for Congress to legislate 

around this. We are offering value today. We are giving consumers 

more choice than ever before. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay. Mr. Villasenor. 

Mr. VILLASENOR. The law already provides copyright owners with 

a huge amount of flexibility in structuring their offerings, and so 

there is no need to change it in that respect. 

If a copyright owner wants to offer a license specifically authorizing resale or transfer, then the copyright owner is free to do that. 

If a copyright owner wants to offer sales, actual sales conferring 

ownership but to allow that ownership to be transferred via a reproduction, the copyright owner has the right to offer that because 

the copyright owner has the exclusive reproduction right. It is just 

not automatically available to the consumer unless the copyright 

owner actually authorized it. So there is enormous flexibility under 

the law already for copyright owners to offer these kinds of things. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I don’t want to monopolize the conversation, so 

let me turn to Mr. Nadler, see if he has questions. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I have two questions. I may now only 

get to one of them. 

The concern with reproduction on digital is that, because the 

product is so identical when digitally reproduced or transferred, is 

the digital copies will compete directly with and essentially replace 

the market for initial sales, thus driving creators out of business. 

Does anybody see a way around this if first sale is applied 

digitally? Mr. Shems? Mr. Glotzer? 

Mr. SHEMS. Yes, sure. If we price our work or price those files 

much higher, which will help us cover the costs of losing further 

business from the secondary use. 

Mr. NADLER. That doesn’t help society to suddenly—— 

Mr. SHEMS. No, it does not help society. Right. 

Mr. GLOTZER. Yes. As I stated before, you will have a market 

failure at that point. Which, in practical terms, that is the price, 

the customary price of a film or a television show, for example, 

being 10 to 100 times, simply because there are mechanisms in 

place. 

Again, we are not—I think this whole, the construct, needs to be 

recognized that intellectual property delivered via these various 

physical hosts is inherently constrained because of the behavior of 

those hosts. Once you liberate it from that, you are delivering it, 

it is not to say, well, it just happened to come via the Internet as 

opposed to on a tape or a disk. That has liberated the content to 

travel in a way that creates a whole different economic proposition 

for creators. So if the balance between creators and consumers is 

to remain balanced and is to remain undisturbed, then we need to 

treat content that travels via this more liberated means in a different way. 
132 

Mr. NADLER. Does anybody want to take a contrary view? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. Yes. I think, you know, that all sounds very 

nice and good. But the fact is the Internet also constrains things. 

So to transfer a digital good means there is a full trail of documentation of where it went, how it went. To take a physical good 

and actually illegally make copies of it, distribute them on street 

corners is very easy to do. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Let me very quickly ask one other question. That is, would it be useful to treat the software that enables 

this cell phone to function differently than the software that you 

may download onto it? 

Mr. SIMON. Let me try, since I am the software guy. Couple of 

thoughts, so the software industry is evolving very rapidly. And 

there are lot of different—so apps. You can get apps for free. But 

if you want additional functions, you pay for it. There are a lot of 

people out there playing a game called Candy Crush these days. 

You get it for free. Right. Candy Crush players? I do it. 

You get it for free, but if you want to do additional things, you 

have to pay for it. 

Mr. NADLER. Candy Crush or any game is an app, whether it 

comes with it or not. 

I am simply saying, maybe we should have the same first sale 

doctrine for the software that makes this cell phone other than a 

hunk of metal, but for anything else that you might want to play 

on it, read it, use it, have a different—— 

Mr. SIMON. So the point I was trying to make, Mr. Nadler, and 

I apologize for being sort of roundabout, is, there are a lot of different layers of software that make that cell phone work. There is 

a chip in there, which has layers of software in it. There is an operating system in there. There are particular applications. And differentiating between those things and trying to apply the doctrine 

to some and not to others I think would be enormously complicated. 

The better way to go is to look at whether there is a license and 

enforce the intent of the parties. 

Mr. NADLER. What? 

Mr. SIMON. Enforce the intent of the parties, as expressed in the 

license or in the contract. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I want to let everybody get at least one more 

question in. 

Go to Mr. Holding next. 

Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Siy, currently, software companies offer significant discounts to educational users. And if we went to a digital 

first sale system, you know, wouldn’t software companies face competition from educational and other discounted versions, kind of the 

same arbitrage problem that Kirtsaeng has produced for Mr. Smith 

over here? 

Mr. SIY. Yes, I think that would be the case if the software was 

offered as a sale. I think in all of these proposals, certainly the 

ones that I have looked at, of allowing for there to be a digital first 

sale, none of them are going to prohibit people from offering things 

as rentals or leases. The idea is simply that those things that look 
133 

like sales are sales. And those things that look like rentals or 

leases act that way. 

So if a software company wanted to offer something under a 

lease to an educational provider, they can do that. And the educational provider reselling that under different terms is in violation 

of that contract. 

The difference being that you don’t have the confusion, and the 

difference being that you are not necessarily going to leverage what 

should be a contract dispute into a copyright dispute. 

Mr. HOLDING. One of the arguments that has been put forward 

regarding the licensing, is, you know, they are complicated. Even 

contract attorneys have difficulty figuring out what these licenses 

mean. So your average consumer, how are they supposed to know 

what the licensing, you know, what the covenants are and so forth? 

You know, the market, you know, will dictate ultimately what 

consumers—consumers go, in, you know, they are going to purchase what they want. If they find them too complicated, they may 

decide that they don’t want to purchase them. 

So, in your view, is it necessary for Congress now to act and get 

into the realm of the licensing? Or should we just step back and 

let the market sort out these issues as consumers become more 

educated in what they are buying? 

Mr. SIY. I think these contracts can be so complicated that the 

consumers acting on their own are not necessarily going to influence the market. Because there will be a long delay between somebody seeing the existence of that contract—they might have already bought it and brought it home and started installing it, let 

alone read it and understand it and had a lawyer take a look at 

it—and their decision to, you know, they have already made their 

purchase decision. 

So I think that there are things that can be done to protect consumers other than waiting for the market to act. 

There is also the case of a lot of times the terms where they 

would be technically in violation of these things. Well, the copyright holder or the manufacturer isn’t going to enforce against 

them until much, much later, until they start doing something that 

they really object to. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Mr. Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Villasenor, the fundamental principle behind copyright is 

that intellectual property rights enable creators to learn a return 

on their investment and incentivizes them to make it available 

widely so that that return grows. 

If Congress mandated a resale right for Internet-distributed content, would that in any way jeopardize the balance? Ironically, 

would it discourage those holders of that right from making it more 

widely available? 

Mr. VILLASENOR. To ask, so I can properly answer the question, 

would you suggest—is this Congress mandating a resale right and 

then simultaneously prohibiting other methods of distribution? Or 

simply mandating a resale right for that content which is sold with 

ownership? 
134 

Mr. DEUTCH. Mandating a resale right for Internet-distributed 

content. 

Mr. VILLASENOR. In other words, saying it is—you are no longer 

allowed to offer don’t that is nontransferrable under licenses. Yes, 

I think that would frankly be a disaster. I think it would basically 

be trampling all over contract law. And I think it would up-end a 

lot of the dynamic that we have with respect to the balance between content creators and consumers. 

That said, as I am on record, that consumers need better disclosure. But I don’t think that the step that you mentioned is the 

right response. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Shems. 

Mr. SHEMS. I agree. Thank you for the question. 

Expanding the first sale online would greatly limit the creators’ 

abilities—and creators’ abilities to innovate and experiment. And I 

think that that would have a negative effect on the industries. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

Mr. Jeffries. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Band, in terms of your position, is it your position that we 

should create a digital first sale doctrine. Is that right? 

Mr. BAND. No. My Committee, my coalition—you are the Committee. The coalition I represent does not have a position on digital 

first sale, per se. 

Our position is on this narrower issue that Mr. Nadler raised of, 

you know, the software in the iPhone that is critical to the operation of the iPhone. So we are just talking about that specific piece 

and that to make sure that, you know, that when you transfer the 

iPhone that the operating system goes along with it. 

We don’t have a position on the bigger digital first sale issue that 

other people here have been talking about. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. 

Mr. Ossenmacher, in terms of, you know, protecting sort of the 

rights of the owner, which presumably is inherent in the business 

model that you have set forth as it relates to the person who purchases the digital item from the original owner, let’s focus on the 

original owner initially. 

Obviously, I mean, we, I think, Judiciary Committee, Congress, 

we have a constitutional charge, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, 

Clause 8, to create a robust intellectual property system to promote 

the progress of science and useful arts. 

In terms of undermining that constitutional charge, piracy, 

would you agree, presents a great threat at the end of the day to 

undermining a robust intellectual property system and isn’t the 

risk of piracy greater in the digital context? 

Mr. OSSENMACHER. That is a very complicated and complex question. But, yes, piracy absolutely undermines the creators and the 

intent of the laws that have been set forth. 

How that is enacted or how we protect against that I think is 

where maybe we differ. We believe that ownership will help protect 

against that. And, you know, I think consumers believe that as 

well. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 
135 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all of the Members of this panel for a very enlightening discussion. And all the Members of the Committee for 

participating today. This concludes today’s hearing, and I want to 

thank again all of the witnesses for attending. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional 

materials for the record. 

And this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(137) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 

f 
155 
156 

f 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 

f 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 

f 
181 

f 
182 
183 
184 

Æ