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

89–810 PDF 2015

U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE 

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 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Serial No. 113–116 

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 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 

Property, and the Internet .................................................................................. 1 

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

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

Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet .. 25 

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 .................................................................................. 26 

WITNESS 

The Honorable Maria A. Pallante, Register of Copyrights and Director U.S. 

Copyright Office 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 30 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet ........................................... 4 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet ........................................... 60 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 85 

Prepared Statement of Mary Rasenberger, Executive Director, The Authors 

Guild, Inc. ............................................................................................................. 88 

Prepared Statement of Sandra Aistars, Chief Executive Officer, Copyright 

Alliance ................................................................................................................. 97 

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

Vice President, Intellectual Property, Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA) ..................................................................................................... 102 

Letter from the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) ........................ 109 

Prepared Statement of Rick Carnes, President, Songwriters Guild of America 116 

Prepared Statement of the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. 

(MPAA) .................................................................................................................. 120 

(1) 

U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 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 2:14 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Howard Coble, 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Coble, Marino, Chabot, Issa, Holding, 

Collins, DeSantis, Nadler, Conyers, Chu, DelBene, Jeffries, and 

Lofgren. 

Staff Present: (Majority) David Whitney, Counsel; Olivia Lee, 

Clerk; (Minority), Norberto Salinas, Counsel; and Jason Everett, 

Counsel. 

Mr. COBLE. The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, 

and the Internet will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Subcommittee at any time. 

We welcome our witness today, and we will introduce her at a 

subsequent time, imminently. 

With that in mind, let me give my opening statement. 

Within Congress, the Judiciary Committee is responsible—strike 

that. 

I want to apologize to all of you for our belated commencement 

time. We had votes on the floor. That is why we are running about 

10 minutes late. 

Within Congress, the Judiciary Committee is responsible for 

overseeing and legislating on matters that derive from or are substantially affected by the Constitution’s grant of authority under 

Article 1, Section 8, Intellectual Property Clause. In the context of 

today’s hearing, there are two points I want to make regarding this 

authority. 

First, the Constitution’s drafters didn’t merely give Congress the 

authority to grant exclusive rights to authors and inventors; they 

gave the Congress the responsibility to execute it by literally prescribing the means of securing these exclusive rights. 

Secondly, since the 19th century, the Congress has sought to administer and secure these rights through a design that has largely 
2 

been left unchanged, a statutorily created Copyright Office housed 

in the Library of Congress. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the operations of the U.S. Copyright Office. In doing so, we will not merely gaze backwards to assess how the Office has constructed its business in recent years. 

We will look forward and begin to examine the more difficult and 

substantial questions of whether we are equipping the Office to 

succeed and ask what steps we need to take to position it to promote the interests of authors and the public and perform its statutory responsibilities in the 21st century. 

From time to time, we need to step back and see not only if we 

should make changes to substantive law but also whether we 

should continue to do things as we have done them for years. On 

the substantive side, the Committee is engaged in an ongoing and 

historic comprehensive review of copyright law. On the process and 

operations side, we need to begin a complementary effort to ensure 

that we are considering how to administer the law and whether we 

are furthering its constitutional and statutory objectives on a substantial basis. 

Over the years, I think the location of the Office in the Library 

of Congress served largely to serve the objectives and interests of 

both organizations and the American people as well, but we live in 

a dynamic and increasingly digital environment and it is clear that 

the Office’s structure was designed for an analog era or an analog 

age. Today, the Office serves as a repository for vital information 

that helps to promote and advance the interest of free expression 

and has an epicenter of commercial activity that educates and entertains not only Americans but citizens throughout the world. This 

will only increase tomorrow. 

Congress has looked to alternatives in the past. In the mid1990’s, we contemplated reorganizing the PTO as a government 

corporation and one of the proposals reviewed would have been to 

combine the Copyright Office with the PTO. We subsequently 

adopted reforms to the PTO organization but put aside the question of whether the Copyright Office and, more importantly, the 

principles we seek to advance through the institution of the Office 

would be of benefit therefore. 

The Subcommittee has been concerned about the Office’s ability 

to perform its functions and duties for some time. It is an open 

question whether the Office has the support it needs from the Library, and I don’t mean to be in any way critical of the Library. 

But nonetheless, I think that is the case. Its operations and function are 24/7 as a marketplace requires and the American people 

deserve. 

This discussion needs to be a public one, and it needs to be approached with an open mind, with the clear objective of building 

a 21st century digital Copyright Office. 

We look forward to receiving the testimony of Ms. Pallante, the 

United States Register of Copyrights. But before she begins I want 

you to know that she recently delivered an important address entitled ‘‘The Next Generation of Copyright Office: What It Means and 

Why It Matters.’’ In those remarks, she reported on the progress 

the Office has made in modernizing its operations under existing 

authorities and made recommendations for needed improvement. 
3 

Without objection, I ask that we include a copy of that speech in 

the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 

Mr. COBLE. I am now pleased to recognize—Mr. Nadler is not 

here—Mr. Conyers. I will recognize the gentleman, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, former Chairman of the full 

Committee, Mr. Conyers, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Coble. I am delighted to join 

you in welcoming the Register of Copyrights. I would like to merely 

observe that this Office plays a critical role in promoting and protecting the integrity and vitality of our Nation’s copyright system. 

And to that end, today’s hearing should focus on several factors. 

As a fundamental matter, the Copyright Office must be on the 

forefront of our fight against piracy. As I have stated many times, 

copyright is critical to job development and the overall health of 

our Nation’s economy. An intellectual property system that protects 

copyrights, incentivizes their owners to continue to innovate—that, 

of course, creates jobs and strengthens the Nation’s economy. 

Unfortunately, piracy is devastating to our economy and harms 

our creators and innovators. It is directly responsible for the loss 

of billions of dollars and millions of jobs. The Copyright Office 

helps to combat piracy by educating the public and Congress on the 

seriousness of piracy and how to prevent it, and it works with 

other agencies to strengthen copyright enforcement. 

In addition, the Office, through its International Copyright Institute, helps deter piracy of copyrighted works by encouraging the 

development of effective intellectual property laws and enforcement 

abroad. Accordingly, we should encourage the Office to further explore ways to strengthen its efforts to maintain a robust copyright 

system and combat piracy. 

A factor integral to the success of the copyright system is for the 

Copyright Office to upgrade to the digital age and become more 

user-friendly, and accordingly we must support the Office’s efforts 

to modernize. For example, the Office’s recordation system continues to be a cumbersome and costly process that requires manual 

examination and data entry. The functionality of the Office’s databases and the usability of the Office’s website frankly need improvements. The security of deposited digital works should be enhanced. The copyright community needs a system which provides 

a more usable public record of copyrighted material. 

The Copyright Office is aware of the need to modernize, and we 

must help it do so. And most importantly, a strong copyright system requires that we fully fund the Copyright Office, and in that 

regard the Chairman of this Committee, Bob Goodlatte, joins me 

in supporting that idea. 

The Office performs several significant roles in our copyright system, including examining and registering copyright claims, recording copyright documents, and administering statutory licenses. Yet, 

since 2010, Congress has cut the Copyright Office’s budget 7.2 percent while continuing to ask the Office to do even more. And as a 

result, the Office has had to rely on its small reserve fund of customer fees to barely meet operating expenses. This reduces any operating cushion the Office could otherwise use for long-term planning. 

Further, the recent sequester further compounded the resource 

problems at the Copyright Office. It limited the Office’s ability to 

hire staff to fulfill its many duties. In fact, just considering the reg-
26 

istration program, it currently has 48 vacancies out of 180 staff 

slots, according to our research. 

Unless Congress can’t agree on a Federal appropriations plan 

next year, the Office will face another mandatory sequester in Fiscal Year 2016. Fully funding the Copyright Office will help it carry 

out the increasing volume and complex work that we expect it to 

perform. This, in turn, will make our copyright system become 

more effective and efficient. 

And so I thank Chairman Coble for holding today’s hearing, and 

I look forward to hearing from the Register of Copyrights herself. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan. 

The Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from New 

York, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Nadler, for 

his opening statement. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this oversight hearing with respect to the U.S. Copyright Office. 

I would like to thank the Register of Copyrights, Maria Pallante, 

for appearing again before the Subcommittee, and thank you and 

your staff for serving as a resource during the Committee’s comprehensive copyright review. I look forward to hearing how the 

Copyright Office can continue to provide valuable services for both 

copyright owners and users, which is particularly important as intellectual property and copyright matters constitute an increasingly 

significant segment of our economy and culture. 

Many people might be surprised to learn just how many functions the Copyright Office performs. The Copyright Office registers 

copyright claims, records documents, administers several statutory 

licenses, performs regulatory responsibilities, and provides information to the public. In addition to these administrative functions, the 

Copyright Office provides expert advice to Congress, conducts studies, and makes policy recommendations. 

Over the years, the Copyright Office has given Congress a number of studies on a variety of topics, including orphan works, library exceptions, statutory licensing reform, Federalization of pre- 

’72 sound recordings, and master digitalization of books. 

The recent and ongoing reports and studies have been extremely 

helpful to Members of Congress and their staffs. I am particularly 

thankful for the updated report examining the issue surrounding 

visual artists and resale royalties in the United States that was released in December of last year, and I look forward to reviewing 

the music licensing report that will be released in the near future. 

The future success of the Copyright Office will largely depend on 

how technology at the Copyright Office is connected and managed 

through the Library’s technology enterprises. For that reason, I am 

interested in hearing about how and if the Copyright Office’s technical capacities are fully able to accommodate the long-term goals 

of the Office. 

Electronic submission standards for copyright documents will 

also continue to grow in importance. The Copyright Office should 

continue to make recordation inexpensive and workable for copyright transactions. 

The Copyright Office has been able to perform their numerous 

responsibilities with very limited funding. In Fiscal Year 2014, the 
27 

Office had an overall budget of just $45 million, with about $28 

million of that coming from fees paid by copyright owners for registration, recordation and other public services, and $17 million 

from appropriated funds. 

The Copyright Office continues to face staffing shortages, budget 

reductions and workloads, and as the distinguished Ranking Member of the Committee mentioned, the sequester. With these challenges, the Copyright Office may need to consider creating new positions to support the complexity of statutory technology and regulatory responsibilities. 

Copyright owners depend now, more than ever, on searchability, 

reliability, and security of Copyright Office records. Copyright owners want to know that their digital files will remain secure as digital works become used more often. The Copyright Office and the 

Library need to maintain secure repositories so that users can continue to have confidence in participation in the copyright system. 

I know this is a goal that is shared by Ms. Pallante and her leadership team, who have taken steps to improve the core services and 

technical capacity at the Copyright Office. I look forward to hearing 

from Ms. Pallante today about how we can continue to improve the 

Copyright Office and ensure that it provides state-of-the-art services in the years to come. 

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

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

We have been joined by the gentle lady from California, the 

gentle lady from Washington, I think, Washington or California, 

the Evergreen State, and the distinguished gentlemen from Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. 

As I said earlier, we are honored to have the United States Register of Copyrights as our witness today. Maria A. Pallante is the 

12th appointed Register of Copyrights and Director of the United 

States Copyright Office. In her position, Ms. Pallante directs the 

legal policy and business activities of the Office. The position of the 

Register of Copyrights is a unique, historic, and vitally important 

one, and Ms. Pallante assumed control of the Office at an especially 

challenging and momentous time. Among other key duties, the 

Register serves as the principal adviser to Congress on matters of 

copyright law and policy. 

Ms. Pallante had to spend much of her career in the Office where 

she previously served as the Associate Register for Policy and 

International Affairs, Deputy General Counsel, and Policy Advisor. 

She also served as a senior advisor to the Librarian, Dr. James 

Billington, immediately prior to being appointed Register. She 

spent nearly a decade as Intellectual Property Counsel and Director of Licenses for the Guggenheim Museums in New York. She 

earned her J.D. degree from the George Washington University 

School of Law and her Bachelor’s degree from Misericordia University. 

Madam Register, it is good to have you with us. 

We try to comply with the 5-minute rule, if possible. When you 

see the green light turn to amber, the ice on which you are skating 

is becoming thin, but you won’t be penalized if you violate it. But 

try to stay within the 5 minutes, if you can. 

We are pleased to have you with us today. 
28 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARIA A. PALLANTE, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS AND DIRECTOR U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE 

Ms. PALLANTE. Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Nadler, Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you as well as 

Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Conyers of the full 

Committee for inviting me to testify today. 

The Copyright Office is a significant Federal institution. We 

interact with and provide services to businesses of all sizes, from 

small proprietors to multinational corporations, many of which are 

in a state of constant growth and innovation. Never has the delivery of creative content been faster, more interactive, or more global 

than it is now. 

In turn, it has become clear to me that the Copyright Office must 

also become more forward-thinking than it is; that is, more flexible 

and more interoperable with the marketplace that we serve. 

In the past couple of years, I have focused the Office on two primary goals: first, carrying out the day-to-day workload of administering the law; and second, engaging in discussions with the public about future strategies and direction for the Office. Mr. Chairman, we have been very transparent about this work. We have 

published numerous public inquiries, we have solicited written 

comments, we have conducted numerous roundtables, and we have 

participated in dozens of meetings at bar associations, conferences 

and seminars. 

In 2011, we published and have since followed a multi-year work 

plan. This included a series of special projects designed to inform 

the priorities and future path of the Office. Notably, this occurred 

alongside budget cuts, further challenging us to not only think big 

but to think creatively about our operations. Here are some of the 

highlights of what we have accomplished. 

We analyzed and wrote the first revision in decades of the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, which we released in 

draft form to the public last month. At 1,200 pages, the Compendium is replete with our core administrative practices and helpful 

examples for authors, artists, and other customers. It is the instruction manual for our staff in the examination process, and it 

is a key legal source for the courts. We have received tremendously 

positive feedback regarding both the authoritative text and the 

clear presentation of the material. 

I would like to underscore some of the groundwork that we have 

done in the area of technical upgrades, which was really a form of 

self-evaluation for the Office. Essentially, we conducted a public review of our relative strengths and weaknesses in providing services, with a focus on the user interface of our electronic systems; 

the quality of our public records; security issues; the usability of 

our website; industry standards, for example with respect to 

metadata, copy controls and private registries; and the overall customer experience of interacting with the Office. 

We spent considerable time evaluating our recordation service, 

which Ranking Member Conyers has pointed out is still a paperbased process. Recordation is separate from registration. This is 

the process by which licensing information, security interests and 

other copyright documents are recorded with the Office on an ongo-
29 

ing basis. We need to transform it from a paper process to an interoperable digital platform. 

We are grateful to everyone who has participated in this work, 

including book publishers, public interest groups, technologists, the 

music and movie industries, photographers, authors’ groups, and 

others. 

Turning to my final point, I want to discuss our budget, which 

in turn affects staffing and technology. As mentioned, we have a 

$45 million budget; about $28 million of that comes from fees. In 

May 2014, we implemented a new fee schedule following a 2-year 

public process, raising the general fee for registration from $35 to 

$55. We did retain a lower fee for certain small actors. This was 

the first time we have ever differentiated our fees, but there has 

been strong public support for the concept, and I think we probably 

have to do more of it in the future. 

To be very clear, and notwithstanding the direction of our statutory mandate on fees, I should note that the Copyright Office fees 

do not recover the full cost of our services. This is because we share 

IT infrastructure with the Library of Congress and receive our IT 

support services from a central Library department. 

If we want the public record to be better, we will need better resources. And if we want the resources to come primarily from fees, 

then we should expect that copyright owners will, in turn, want 

better systems and services than they have now. Moreover, under 

the current statutory language, we are limited to charging for the 

cost we incur for providing services. That is, our fee authority does 

not permit the Office to collect for capital improvements or other 

forms of investment above actual cost after the IT infrastructure 

that is subsidized by the Library. This equation may be something 

that Congress wants to visit. 

In terms of staffing, I will just say the Copyright Office is smaller than it should be to carry out the volume and complexity of the 

work that we are charged with. Unfortunately, as the staff has 

been reduced, the work of the Office and the complexity of the 

copyright system have increased dramatically. 

Chairman Coble, that concludes my statement, but I wonder if 

I might have a minute on a different point. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pallante follows:] 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Chairman Coble, I am aware that you have presided over copyright issues on this and former Committees for close 

to 3 decades, including as Chairman. As you prepare to retire, I am 

moved to say that today may well be the last time that a Register 

of Copyrights will appear before you. Therefore, on behalf of myself, my predecessors, and the entire staff of the U.S. Copyright Office, I wish to personally thank you for your dedication to our Nation’s copyright system and for your service to us. We will miss you 

tremendously, as will the rest of the copyright community. Thank 

you. [Applause.] 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. I appreciate that. [Applause.] 

Thank you. You all know how to make an old man feel good. I 

thank you very much for that, for your generous words, Madam 

Register. I appreciate that. I appreciate the response from the audience as well. It is good to have all of you with us today. 

I think you beat the timeframe too, Madam Pallante. I think you 

beat the illumination of the red light. 

Understanding there are many different views on substantive 

copyright law issues, do you think, Ms. Pallante, there is a general 

agreement on the importance of ensuring that the Office itself is 

properly resourced and modernized for the digital age? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Well, Mr. Chairman, I haven’t heard anybody say 

stop looking into modernizing your operations and don’t bother 

going into the 21st century. So in answer to your question, I think 

copyright owners have legitimate concerns about our services, 

many of which were designed in the analog age, and I think the 

tech sector would like to see our database be more interoperable 

and authoritative so that they can also rely on it for their work in 

the chain of commerce. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you. Old habits die hard is why I put the 

question to you. 

Do you have any business plans or credible estimates of what it 

would take to build a substantial 21st century digital Copyright Office? 

Ms. PALLANTE. I am afraid I don’t, in part because I think we 

have the same fee structure we have always had, which doesn’t— 

I would need to work with you and work with the Committee to 

figure out what portion of that should be fees and what portion of 

it should be appropriated dollars, because there are things that we 

can do that are reasonable, and there are things that we can do 

that are really incredible, and we may have to figure out what the 

goals are together. 

I will say that when the electronic system was implemented in 

2008, before my time, it was I think reasonably intertwined with 

the Library’s existing enterprise. I think that subsidy has made it 

difficult to figure out what our actual costs are. So, in other words, 

we share that with the entire Library as a cultural institution, and 

trying to figure out what portion of their budget is attributable to 

us is not something that has really been done. That kind of crossaccounting has not been done. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you for that. 

Yesterday, Madam Register, it was reported that Representative Greg Walden criticized the FCC for having spent $352 million on 
43 

IT over the last 5 years. How much have we spent on the Copyright Office during the past 5 years, and how much do you think 

we have dedicated to the Office’s IT for consumers? 

Ms. PALLANTE. We have a very, very miniscule budget for IT because our IT department has 23 people in it, plus a number of contractors. It really is a liaison office to the Library. The Library’s IT 

budget is somewhere in the neighborhood of $60 to $100 million. 

You would have to ask the Library how that breaks down completely. 

So again, we don’t have a mature, independent IT structure in 

the Copyright Office. We have people who help to develop software 

modifications to existing programs. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you again, Madam Register, for your generous words. I appreciate that very much. In fact, for the record, 

I think our Subcommittee has enjoyed a very excellent rapport with 

not only you but your immediate predecessor. Remember me to her, 

if you will, when you see her. 

I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from New York, 

Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Register, can you outline some of the steps that have 

been taken to improve the copyright registration system in light of 

the fact that many businesses offer works by streaming or displaying them with an array of technologies? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. This is one of the issues I think that keeps 

the leadership of the Copyright Office up at night. We are dealing 

with multiple problems. We have an electronic interface for registration, but that is based on the paper-based system. In other 

words, the paper system was transposed into an electronic interface. We have yet to go to the next generation of really having the 

real advantages of a 21st century digital system. 

We also have a statute that was written in—well, enacted in 

1976, written for 20 years prior to that, and it envisions a system 

of analog works. So it envisions a process whereby you send us 

works, we examine them, they are available for the Library’s collection. 

Mr. NADLER. Does that statute need to be revised to account for 

digital? 

Ms. PALLANTE. I’m sorry? 

Mr. NADLER. Does that statute—did you just imply that you are 

mandated to do things in analog and that we should revise that to 

allow for digital? 

Ms. PALLANTE. I didn’t quite say that. What I said is that the 

statute did not anticipate the tensions that we have now that 

works are digital. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. I think you may have just answered part of 

the next question, which is what are some of the improvements 

that may be needed at the Copyright Office in the future? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. I think we really need to figure out, first and 

foremost, what we want the registration system to be. So we may 

not need the best possible quality of a work for purposes of examining it and keeping it safe for litigation purposes. That ‘‘best copy’’ 

concept was designed for the Library of Congress so that it could 
44 

preserve and have access to the best work available in the marketplace. 

The Library has separate provisions, like every national library 

in the world does, where it has the right to acquire copies of published works for the national collection. That is different than registration copies. 

What we have done in our copyright system, and it was done to 

protect copyright owners, or at least to relieve them of the burden 

of having to comply with dual systems, was say that if you register, 

we will use those copies for purposes of the provisions regarding 

the national collection. 

I think where we are in the Copyright Office is do we now need 

to kind of step back and maybe segregate those provisions? So the 

registration system works for copyright owners and the public 

record, and the Library has very clear regulations and statutory instruction about what it can and cannot acquire. And if it does acquire digital works—and I wanted to say for a moment that the Library of Congress is an incredible cultural institution, and it has 

actually preserved works that copyright owners have failed to preserve over the years. 

But assuming you want it to have access to digital works in the 

future, we do need to have safeguards because we are talking about 

copyrighted works. 

Mr. NADLER. That was my next question. How will the Copyright 

Office be able to meet the challenge of enhancing the security of 

deposited digital works? 

Ms. PALLANTE. We really need to apply our all-hands-on-deck on 

this question. Operationally, we share servers with the Library, 

and I don’t think we—well, I know—— 

Mr. NADLER. Is that a danger to the security? 

Ms. PALLANTE. I think so. Nothing insidious and terrible has 

happened, but it is certainly a risk. Again, it goes back to—— 

Mr. NADLER. Should we consider severing your sharing that with 

the Library, and would that be very costly? 

Ms. PALLANTE. I think optimally we should have separate servers 

for the registration system than the Library has for its other business, yes. 

Mr. NADLER. And do you have any—are we talking millions, billions, thousands? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Well, here is the question that I grapple with. 

What is the reasonable cost of a registration system if the copyright owner and the public are getting the kind of return that they 

want? And if we are not charging $55 but we are charging—— 

Mr. NADLER. I’m sorry, you misunderstood my question. I am not 

asking about the value. What is the magnitude—what would it cost 

to give the Office a separate service from the Library? 

Ms. PALLANTE. What would it cost as opposed to how to fund it 

you mean? 

Mr. NADLER. Right. 

Ms. PALLANTE. I don’t know. 

Mr. NADLER. What magnitude are we talking about? Millions or 

a billion? Do we have any idea? 
45 

Ms. PALLANTE. At a very high level in terms of modernizing the 

Office, I think it is an investment of somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 million. 

Mr. NADLER. Over a time period. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Of that, you could say half of that must come 

from fees, do some public-private partnerships, be creative. 

Mr. NADLER. And my last question, since I have the orange light, 

how has the registration program been hurt by budget cuts and 

early retirement packages? 

Ms. PALLANTE. It has really been cut to the bone. We have huge 

vacancies, and we have the kind of staff that requires several years 

of training to get them to the point where they are applying the 

law and the regulations and the Compendium accurately so that 

courts and others can rely on it. 

So they are really exhausted, and then they are dealing with an 

electronic system that sometimes crashes, doesn’t work all the 

time, and isn’t anywhere near the generation of services that copyright owners want. 

Mr. NADLER. So we are talking about both operating and capital 

costs there. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Correct. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you very much. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you. 

Mr. NADLER. My time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

The distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. 

Good afternoon. 

The U.S. Copyright Office was created in 1897, I believe. Then, 

music was written on paper, and recorded music was listened to on 

a phonograph, starting with wax records, so to speak. 

Music creators and listeners use computers and mobile devices to 

create, distribute, purchase, and listen to music. So could you 

please tell me, would moving your Office into the 21st century cut 

down on unnecessary litigation, and how? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes, sure. Our role, I think, in the 21st century 

is to have the most authoritative, accurate information about copyright ownership and licensing terms available anywhere, globally. 

And if people can find that kind of information by clicking on a 

record and getting the licensing terms and being sent to a private 

registry, you begin to see how our role can really facilitate the licensing marketplace. 

Mr. MARINO. The Copyright Office is not an agency or even a 

sub-agency, and you do not report to the President; correct? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Correct. I report to the Librarian of Congress. 

Mr. MARINO. Okay. How would your Office in the United States 

be seen internationally if your Office were independent, its own entity? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Well, I will say two things. In deference to all of 

the Registers who have come before me and all of the talents that 

they had, the Register position is recognized internationally. But 

we have this system with our own interagency process where we 

have people from PTO and elsewhere in the Administration really 

leading the international discussions on copyright law because of 
46 

our unique situation in terms of where we are seated. So presumably we would have more authority and recognition if the position 

were different. 

Mr. MARINO. Could you give me an example, could you give us 

an example of, if you need to do something in your Office, whether 

it is equipment-wise, whether it is rearranging more space, anything at all, what is the process you must go through? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Well, again, we are a department of the Library 

of Congress like every other department in the Library of Congress. 

So for all of those kinds of infrastructure questions, they go 

through central Library practices and processes. 

Mr. MARINO. With all due respect to my colleagues at the Library 

of Congress, which are fantastic because every time I need something they are on it just like this, but you are a copyright lawyer? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. 

Mr. MARINO. An intellectual property lawyer? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. 

Mr. MARINO. You are—I am making an assumption here—and I 

think it is rather accurate. You are the expert over there, but yet 

you have to go through an unorthodox chain to even make your office operate back in the 19th century standards; correct? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. Another way to look at that—I think about 

this a lot, as you might imagine—there is no position in the government like the Librarian of Congress. It would be a little bit like 

having the head of the Patent Office also run the Smithsonian Institution. Constitutionally, that is the situation that you have. And 

I would say for almost 120 years, it served the Nation fairly well. 

What we are experiencing now is an explosion of the prominence 

of the copyright system. So I understand this to be about what is 

best going forward. 

Mr. MARINO. Well, no matter where we go today, no matter 

where we go today, my kids, my mother, who is 82 years old, carries one of these and does all kinds of things on it, and you are still 

in a position where you are looking at documents. 

So I am speaking on, I think, behalf of a lot of my colleagues. 

You need to be brought into the 21st century. You need to be an 

independent entity. You are part of the executive branch, and I 

think your job is so important and you have done such a fantastic 

job, as your predecessors have done, I think you should report to 

the President. With your ability and your foresight, I am sure you 

could take that Office into the 22nd century for us. 

So, thank you, and I yield back. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you, Mr. Marino. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

The distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Coble. 

We have appreciated you coming before us and explaining your 

circumstances. 

Ms. Pallante, in your written testimony, you mention a 7 percent 

decrease in the Office’s budget since 2010. What effect has that had 

on the ability of the Office to fulfill its duties, and are there other 

financial constraints that you believe are limiting the Office from 

running more effectively? 
47 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you, Ranking Member Conyers. We immediately—one of the first things I experienced as Register right after 

my appointment was to do an early-out buy-out to move people into 

retirement, for people who were willing to do that, to reduce the 

staff. 

I will say, that is not necessarily a terrible thing to go through 

because we have lot of people who worked for decades in the Library of Congress and in the Copyright Office, and it creates the 

opportunity after those good years of service to rethink positions, 

digital positions instead of, say, cataloguers. 

The problem is we can’t replace them because we don’t have the 

budget to fund them, and we are really, really small. I think we 

are smaller than we have ever been in modern times. The irony for 

us is that we are busier than we have ever been. 

Mr. CONYERS. So creating a more aggravated problem. Well, 

since 2008, the Copyright Office has moved into an electronic registration system. How has that worked out, and what needed improvements might there be required? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes, that was a big moment for the Copyright Office. It wasn’t on my watch. I was still in New York in the private 

sector. But I think our issue is that we haven’t moved past it. That 

was a good foundational first-generation system. We haven’t gotten 

to recordation. That is still paper-based. And we haven’t made the 

registration system truly interoperable, meaning that we can’t necessarily have people send us deposits of their works because we 

can’t accept them because our system won’t handle them. We don’t 

connect through metadata to ASCAP or BMI or SoundExchange or 

other registries. 

Mr. CONYERS. So what do they have to do? 

Ms. PALLANTE. We need to rethink the whole thing, drawing on 

the tremendous expertise of the copyright community from here to 

California and back. 

Mr. CONYERS. What has the Office done to rectify current issues 

with recordation, and what are the major concerns thereto? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Okay. So we have done everything we can do 

without money. We ran numerous public processes, asking people 

what the system should look like in the future. We had dozens and 

dozens of meetings. We had three public hearings, one in New 

York, one in L.A., and one in Silicon Valley. We assigned to the 

first Abraham Kaminstein Scholar in Residence—which is a program we started based on one of the Registers who presided over 

the ’76 work leading up to that Act—the task of really thinking it 

through as a scholar, and he is finalizing his report. And now we 

have options, and the question is how to get to a strategic plan 

given budget cuts, but also the infrastructure that we have, and do 

you want to invest in it the way it stands currently. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, we know that you need help fast. What do 

you see is going to happen if you don’t get the funding that you 

need? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Well, there is already a significant gap between 

our services and the way the copyright marketplace actually operates, so obviously that gap will grow. I will also say, though, as 

kind of the head of the staff of the Office—this sounds like a weird 

term—we cannibalize our staff, right? The same people do every-
48 

thing. They register, but then they are writing a compendium that 

is 1,200 pages long. They are running trade negotiations with 

USTR, helping Congress, writing significant regulations, and we 

just aren’t big enough and we don’t have the depth of experience 

that we need. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much for your candor. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

The gentleman from California, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. 

Issa. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Boy, I’ll tell you, hearings like this let us know how long it takes 

to do anything here on Capitol Hill. 

Let me run through a couple of quick questions. I think the public and all of us want to sort of make sure it is in the record. 

Currently, if I write a book, I can send two copies of the book 

to you on paper, and you will take them, and then I have a copyright; right? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Correct. You have enhanced protection, in fact. 

Mr. ISSA. Yes, or I can do nothing and I have a copyright. Is that 

right? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Correct. 

Mr. ISSA. What do you do with those two books? 

Ms. PALLANTE. We have a repository by regulation, or the Library has the ability to inspect and acquire those deposits and then 

use them under applicable law. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay, which means—— 

Ms. PALLANTE. That is statutory. 

Mr. ISSA. Which means I can check out one of those two books 

because it is my library, after all. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. 

Mr. ISSA. Or all of our library. 

Ms. PALLANTE. The Library of Congress has arrangements with 

other libraries and is the—— 

Mr. ISSA. So for a little over 100-and-some years, this has been 

kind of how it works. You send your two books in, and Congress 

can get smarter, and you have the capability. There was a time 

when you had to send them in to have a copyright. Works that 

were not sent in simply enjoyed no copyright protection. When did 

that change? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yep, they went into the public domain. We moved 

to that system for international compliance purposes, or to become 

more internationally harmonized, with the ’76 Act. That was a sea 

change for the United States. 

Mr. ISSA. So basically we took those things which people wanted 

to protect and turned it into everything is protected. 

Ms. PALLANTE. That is one way to look at it, for sure. 

Mr. ISSA. And this is interesting because we did it in harmony 

with the rest of the world that normally doesn’t respect these 

things very well. So, always interesting. 

And you already stated that we haven’t come into the digital age 

particularly well because if I want to make sure that you have cop-
49 

ies of everything digitally, every day, every newspaper, et cetera, 

et cetera, you are not prepared to accept those. 

Ms. PALLANTE. It is difficult. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, ‘‘it is difficult’’ is an interesting thing. We say 

that a lot in Washington. If the Wall Street Journal and 400 other 

newspapers tried to send you, either on paper or digitally, one copy 

digitally, two copies on paper every day, you couldn’t handle them, 

could you? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Well, we don’t handle them well. We accept them. 

We register them. But here is where we are going with our—— 

Mr. ISSA. Look, I saw Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost 

Ark. They accepted the Ark, too, in that movie, and they have their 

best people working on it. [Laughter.] 

Ms. PALLANTE. That’s right. 

Mr. ISSA. We are here today because you represent the most arcane part of government in many ways. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you. 

Mr. ISSA. We budget one part. We have you report to somebody 

who, in fact, doesn’t really have the same mandate, while over at 

the Department of Commerce we have the primary oversight that 

we do, which is the Patent and Trademark Office. 

Now, I am not going to put you on the spot, but hypothetically, 

if we harmonized the functions of the PTO and harmonized your 

functions in some acceptable way, wouldn’t that enhance the efficiency of dealing with digital and non-digital media, dealing with 

copyright, trademark, patent and, if you will, the potpourri if evolving intellectual property? 

Ms. PALLANTE. I think so, yes. 

Mr. ISSA. Wouldn’t it also harmonize or improve, assuming that 

they all worked together, what happens when there is an alleged 

copyright violation and people want to get to justice? You don’t 

have administrative law judges, do you? 

Ms. PALLANTE. No. 

Mr. ISSA. They do, don’t they? 

Ms. PALLANTE. We don’t have enforcement authority of any kind. 

Mr. ISSA. So we are dealing with 1897 thinking even after a 1976 

enhancement which, by the way, there was an Internet then, it just 

wasn’t available to anybody in the public. 

So just to wrap up, budget is always a problem, but you are not 

even beginning to be positioned to handle well the absorption, the 

cataloging, the referencing and the searching of the media being 

produced in the United States, let alone the rest of the world. 

Ms. PALLANTE. I am afraid that is accurate. 

Mr. ISSA. And in a digital age, if we are going to protect copyright and we are going to make, if you will, works available to the 

public, both of those have to change. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. 

Mr. ISSA. Now, let me close with just one question because everyone is talking about, well, maybe we ought to just move you to 

PTO. But let’s ask one question, because I think it is more complex 

than that. 

Isn’t it true that the function of the Library of Congress to enhance and make available for education and informational pur-
50 

poses to the United States and ultimately the world, that is a mandate that the Librarian has? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. 

Mr. ISSA. And yours is, of course, the protection. Don’t we have 

to modernize both of them, the availability that the Librarian has 

and the systems for protection, including metadata that allows for 

searches? Aren’t those both things that have to be done on this 

Congress’ watch? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes, I think that is an excellent way to state it 

and a very fair way to state it for the Library. They need to be a 

21st century institution as well. They are a leader among cultural 

institutions. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we have outlined 

some of the problem. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from California. 

The distinguished gentle lady from California, Ms. Chu. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I think most people are surprised and perplexed when they learn 

that our Nation’s Copyright Office is housed under the Library of 

Congress because your missions are very different. The Library is 

focused on preservation, while the Copyright Office is focused on 

recording and registering works and, most importantly, instituting 

legal and economic rights protections, and your technical needs are 

so different because the Library is that of preservation, whereas 

your Office functions like a 24-hour business that intersects with 

the global marketplace. And I have been astounded to learn of the 

implications of this. 

First, you, the Register, are authorized to establish regulations, 

but such regulations are subject to approval by the Librarian, 

whose specialty is not copyright. 

Secondly, you are able to collect fees, but you have no control 

over what happens with those fees. In fact, they are managed by 

the Library staff. 

Thirdly, on security, the Copyright Office should be ensuring the 

security of works, including digital works, but the mission of the 

Library is to share works with the public. 

And finally, there is the issue of the appointment and authority 

that you have. Similar positions such as yours, the Intellectual 

Property Enforcement Coordinator and the Executive Director of 

the Patent and Trademark Office, this is a presidential appointment and you report to the President. They report to the President. 

But instead, your position is appointed by the Librarian and you 

report to the Librarian. 

So can you talk about these specific challenges and how they impede your desire to make the Copyright Office thrive in a digital 

economy and support a modern copyright system? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. Thank you for those questions. 

I will say this. Everything that you set forth is true and was relatively without incident for a long time, decades, didn’t cause any 

harm. I think, again, we are now seeing kind of growing pains and 

natural tensions between the Library as a library and the Copyright Office as the copyright system of the United States. 

So I do feel like we are at a point where there either have to be 

safeguards put in place within the current institution or you really 
51 

need to think on this Committee about new paradigms, maybe 

some of the things that you were discussing earlier. 

Interestingly, the IPEC was created recently, right? In 2008. And 

the Under Secretary in the mid-’90’s. Those positions intersect with 

the Register’s authority by statute, but you are correct that they 

are much higher elevated than the Register position is. 

I think what you are really asking me is who is the head of the 

copyright system, and the truth is the Librarian of Congress is the 

head of the copyright system for purposes of the Constitution. The 

Register works under the general direction and supervision of the 

Librarian. So there are many duties in the Copyright Act that say 

‘‘the Register shall,’’ but at the end of the day it is really your Librarian, all of your Librarians back to 1897, who have had responsibility for the system. 

Ms. CHU. And so to be specific, I brought up the example of regulations that are written. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. 

Ms. CHU. These, and security of works. Could you—— 

Ms. PALLANTE. I don’t know if this is so different from agencies 

outside of the IP space, but basically the expert in the agency and, 

in turn, my experts on my staff conduct rulemakings, prepare regulations. We work under the APA, by statute. The Library doesn’t. 

But I send them to the Librarian for signature, and he has to approve them. So it really isn’t just a rubber stamp, and that is how 

it works. 

There could potentially be a conflict in the future. We haven’t 

had that, really, to date. So I think, again, if we are talking about 

the future, that might be a better way to think about these issues. 

For example, if the Register were to say I don’t think we should 

be accepting digital deposits without copy controls in the registration system because it is a conflict for the statute and for the people registering, technically the Librarian has a right to say ‘‘that 

is what I want.’’ 

Ms. CHU. In fact, can you guarantee the security of digital works 

right now? 

Ms. PALLANTE. No, because we don’t have—well, I can’t. I don’t 

have control of the IT system. My avenue for that is to make the 

case internally. And in defense of the Library of Congress IT department, they are doing a lot of different things. We are not their 

only client or customer. 

Ms. CHU. And what are the implications of not having control 

over your own fees? 

Ms. PALLANTE. It is a legal question. People are paying us for 

services, and that money is routed through centralized IT systems. 

So on the one hand, you have synergies. On the other hand, you 

don’t have control of the product that you are delivering for those 

fees. So what stakeholders have said to me is that they—I mean, 

we are talking about some stakeholders who invest tens of millions 

of dollars in their copyrighted works. So a $55 fee is not a big deal 

for them, and I think if they were getting the kind of service that 

they want, and the security and confidence that they want, they 

would pay more, and I think our fees are too low for those kinds 

of copyright owners. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 
52 

I yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentle lady from California. 

The distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Holding. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Pallante, thank you for being here. I think either in your testimony or in response to a question, we were talking about the Office functioning as the principal advisor to Congress on copyright 

law and policy, both domestically and internationally. And you also 

have a duty as the Copyright Office to provide information assistance to other Federal departments and agencies and the Judiciary 

on copyright law. 

So with all of the happening issues in copyright law, I was wondering how many lawyers do you have assigned to these discrete 

tasks and what percentage of your work is this duty that you have 

to provide advice to us and others? 

Ms. PALLANTE. It is a huge percentage of the work right now because you have had 16 policy hearings in the last couple of years. 

We have 18 lawyers in the legal departments. A couple of people 

are actually lawyers and the heads of other departments. But the 

people doing the legal and policy work number about 18. That is 

not enough, and we have a particularly acute need for very experienced copyright lawyers who can run the kinds of significant public 

rulemakings and discussions and policy studies that we are responsible for. 

We do everything. Regulations alone could keep that number of 

lawyers constantly engaged, and that doesn’t count getting on a 

plane and going to Vietnam to help the USTR negotiate a Pacific 

Rim trade agreement. It doesn’t include meetings at WIPO, where 

we are required to be. It doesn’t include thinking through the legal 

implications of the things you are asking me about, fee structures 

and technology. So, we don’t have enough people. 

Mr. HOLDING. Right. Are you able to supplement that at all? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Again, we are really good at trying to do things 

with no money. We have gotten really good at it in the last couple 

of years. 

We created a couple of programs to supplement our staff with 

short-term costs, as opposed to long-term staffing costs. One is the 

Kaminstein Scholar in Residence that brought a scholar to us for 

a year. We will now try to get another scholar to come. That helps 

immensely because they are extremely capable and talented and 

quick and can do all the kinds of deep thinking that we need. 

We created the Barbara Ringer Honors Program. We got hundreds of applications. We just a couple of weeks ago started our 

first two Ringer Fellows, one from New York and one from Chicago. 

We created a Copyright Matters program to kind of bring people 

into the Office to help us think about marketplace issues. Chairman Goodlatte has spoken at that. We have had artists. We have 

had presentations on fair use. 

And finally, we created a research partnership with law schools, 

and our first success with that was Stanford Law School, where 

two classes in a row under the tutelage of Professor Paul Goldstein, 

who is a giant in the field, worked on some of our recordation challenges. 
53 

So we are trying every which way to bring in talent and support 

to supplement. 

Mr. HOLDING. Right. Mr. Marino brought up the issue of precisely where the Copyright Office sits in the structure of government and who it answers to ultimately. I was wondering, with the 

very important role that you play as an advisor to Congress and 

the other agencies on copyright law, is the stature of the Copyright 

Office within the structure of the government sufficient? Does it 

impact your leadership role as you are trying to foster our American copyright system? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Well, that is a big question. Again, I think over 

the decades, prior to this recent period that we are in, the Register 

was given a lot of deference. But you created two positions that 

now are intersecting in copyright policy in the past 20 years. One 

is the IPEC, and one is the Under Secretary for Commerce, which 

is the head of PTO. It is a complicated structure because the PTO’s 

statute says the head of the Patent Office must confer with the 

Register on copyright policy issues. 

But I think what you are asking me is, is the head of the Copyright Office at the upper echelons of the Federal Government in the 

Administration like these other positions? 

Mr. HOLDING. Yes. 

Ms. PALLANTE. The answer is clearly no. 

Mr. HOLDING. Do you have a seat at every table that you want 

to sit at to influence policy? 

Ms. PALLANTE. And many stakeholders have said that to us, and 

we don’t take it personally, but the answer, of course, is we are not. 

Mr. HOLDING. And how does that inhibit you carrying out the responsibilities that you think Congress has vested you with? 

Ms. PALLANTE. I think we are not in the room all the time, right? 

We are not leading the delegations as the substantive agency. We 

are not necessarily in all of the discussions of the Administration. 

We are a little bit confused about which branch of government we 

are in following this IBS-CRB case that came down and said all of 

our functions are executive branch. 

So I think it is a complicated structure, and to be fair to my staff, 

I think people make it work at the staff level across this interagency process, but nobody really understands it. 

Mr. HOLDING. And if, indeed, which I think you are part of the 

congressional branch, the legislative branch, whether or not there 

is a fiduciary responsibility or not, we have that. But perhaps we 

in the legislative branch are not being adequately represented because of your exclusion from some of these tables where policy is 

being made. 

Ms. PALLANTE. It is a fair point. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. 

The distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Jeffries, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Ms. Pallante, for your presence here today, as 

well as for your leadership. 
54 

I think I want to pick up where my colleague left off and ask you 

about the recent IBS v. Copyright Royalty Board case. I believe you 

are familiar with the case. You referenced it in your written testimony; correct? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And the case involved a decision by the D.C. Circuit, I believe, that held that in promulgating copyright regulations, setting rates and terms, the Library of Congress is undoubtedly a component of the executive branch. Is that correct? 

Ms. PALLANTE. That is what the case says. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, it was already a complicated mix related to 

your structure, as discussed during this hearing. How does this decision impact what was already a complicated situation? How do 

you interpret the decision, and what guidance can you provide to 

us as to how we should interpret the decision and what it means 

in terms of how we move forward? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you. I think it is a fairly significant decision. On the one hand, it confirms that the Library of Congress is 

like no other agency in the Federal Government in that it is clearly 

a hybrid agency. You have the copyright functions, clearly in the 

court’s opinion, being executive branch in nature; and then you 

have, for example, the Congressional Research Service, which can 

only be legislative, in the same agency. As I said earlier, I think 

you have this position where the Librarian of Congress has really 

kind of an incredibly Herculean job where you are running Library 

functions, legislative functions, and then also executive branch 

copyright functions. 

You are right that these issues are not new. One of the things 

that is very interesting to me is that from 1802 to 1897, the Librarian of Congress was not a Senate-confirmed position. It was when 

Congress in 1897 formalized the copyright system within the Library that Congress—and it is very interesting to go back and read 

this, speaking about constitutional issues that have now popped up 

again—said these issues must be constitutionally correct. They 

must flow constitutionally so that the Librarian of Congress must 

be Senate confirmed. The copyright system affects the legal rights, 

economic interest of those who rely on it. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Right. Well, the copyright system, in fact, or Congress’ power to legislate copyright and intellectual property indeed 

stems from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, the United States Constitution, which is, I gather, why the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over this very important area of law. 

Now, you mentioned in your testimony that the agency finds 

itself in a situation where copyright issues have become increasingly complex, and at the same time our resources have become increasingly strained, a very difficult situation to be in. Could you 

clarify what has increased the complexity of the copyright landscape? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Well, the digital revolution has made it more 

complex. And so where people used to, in the chain of commerce, 

work with analog physical items, CDs and books and DVDs, they 

are now getting their content on mobile devices and digital platforms. So copies may not be involved. 
55 

It may or may not be a generational thing as well. I happen to 

have teenagers. They don’t want to own anything. They just want 

access to it. So it is this real focus on display and access and 

streaming, making the public performance right arguably more important in the future than the reproduction rights and distribution 

rights have ever been. So we have all of that coming into the mix. 

Then that requires us in our registration system to also make 

those shifts. How do we examine a work that is really only made 

available to the public through streaming? 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Given the increased complexity as you have laid 

out, and I think in a manner that is shared by a significant number of people in this institution, clearly in my view that suggests 

that we have got to look at providing the agency with the resources 

needed to deal with an increasingly complex landscape. 

But does the complexity also suggest, in your view, that it is reasonable for us to take a hard look at what an appropriate structure 

would be in the 21st century? 

Ms. PALLANTE. I think you have to, and I appreciate the question. I will say it this way. A 21st century legal framework requires 

a 21st century agency, and the structure, the budget, the IT, the 

principal duties, the stature, all of those come into play as you look 

at the question, I think. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you. 

Mr. MARINO [presiding]. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the congresswoman from California, 

Ms. Lofgren. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Madam Register. It is good to see you. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. As we are enmeshed in this sixth tri-annual review, it just reminds me of Congress’ obligation to reform Section 

1201 to prohibit not only infringing action and to not tie up innocent use. I think in a way we have had an opportunity to do—‘‘experiment’’ isn’t the right word, but to see what happens when legitimate content is offered and pirated content is available. The 

public goes to the lawful content. I mean, there are always some 

outliers, but in overwhelming numbers that is what the public 

wants to do, and I think that is something we didn’t know for sure, 

but I think it is a very welcome discovery. 

I think we have also seen that when we don’t too tightly tighten 

up the circumvention, we promote innovation. You take a look at 

the app market, for example. It has just exploded in terms of creativity when we have not tamped down, as you could have using 

section 1201. 

So I think it is certainly not your responsibility. It is our responsibility to make sure we go after infringement, but that we do not 

squash technological innovation that has nothing to do with infringement. 

It is like a broken record. I have been saying that for more than 

a decade. But it is time for us really to do that, and I think the 

facts and the developments prove that we don’t have to be afraid 

of doing that. 
56 

Just a couple of quick questions. In the Notice of Inquiry that 

your office released yesterday, I was surprised honestly to see the 

intent to require separate petitions for each type of wireless 

device—tablets versus readers versus hotspots versus smart 

watches—and even a distinction between different kinds of wireless 

and connected e-readers and tablets. It strikes me that this is 

wrong. 

Now, by dividing or subdividing wireless devices into different 

categories, it seems the government would be protecting not copyrighted work but business models, and that is not our job. Our job 

is to provide protection to material that is protected under copyright. It is not to pick winners and losers among business models. 

So I have a deep concern about that. There was a huge uproar, as 

we know, about the ruling last year on not unlocking cell phones. 

The Committee has even addressed that, although not as successfully I think as we had hoped. I think we are getting potentially 

into a much bigger uproar if we go into distinctions between different kinds of readers and the like. 

Then the second question—and you can answer them both together—the timeline given in yesterday’s notice I think needs review. You mentioned the role of law schools and law clinics, and 

I think it is a good sign, actually, and Stanford is not in my district 

but it is 10 minutes out, and it is a great group of young students. 

The timeline as published in the notice has everything due at 

Christmas, and the law clinics that are heavily supported by students are going to be adversely impacted by that timeframe, and 

I am wondering if we couldn’t revisit that because the students, either they are not going to have a break or they won’t be around 

or it is going to be an insane type of workload that we are putting 

on them. It is 45 days after the notice of rulemaking. I think we 

need to revisit that, and I would welcome your comments on both 

of those questions. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes, sure. Thank you. I would just say on the last 

question, we frequently extend deadlines once we publish them, 

usually when a few stakeholders call and say what you just said. 

The timeline was orchestrated working backwards from when it is 

due. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I understand. But if I could, on that point—— 

Ms. PALLANTE. Sure. 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. From the students’ point of view, 

knowing there is an extension later isn’t going to help them. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. No, I understand. 

Ms. LOFGREN. They need to go to the max doing all-nighters 

while their exams are due, unless they know it is going to be extended. 

Ms. PALLANTE. And we obviously want fresh, young, talented students participating. I hear your point. So I will talk to my General 

Counsel’s Office and we will look at the timeline. 

On the first point, it is interesting. We spent a lot of time talking 

to everybody who has participated in this proceeding over the past 

decade, and consulted with the Administration about how to do it 

better than it has been done before, and a number of changes were 

made with that in mind. 
57 

The subdividing of the different categories was intended to create 

a better record because the lack of a good record was our problem 

in the last round, and we were trying to get people to focus on 

what the evidentiary standards would have to be. So it doesn’t necessarily preclude us from finding that there are multiple devices 

and categories that will have like treatment in the end. But the intent was to do something to improve the situation, not to make it 

harder. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I guess I don’t understand that, and perhaps you 

can fill in later with me. But if you take a look on page 55689, it 

talks about petition proposing a general exemption for all wireless 

devices or all tablets. It is difficult to support, in contrast with tablet computers, e-book readers. It just seems to me that from a Silicon Valley point of view, that doesn’t make any sense at all to me. 

Ms. PALLANTE. I could see how it wouldn’t make sense from a 

technology perspective. We have this factor in the statute that requires us to look at actual markets, not giant markets but particular markets. So to your more general point, the 1201 rulemaking is from 1998, and we are trying to fit it into—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I understand that. I love Bob Kastenmeier when 

he wrote the Act in ’76, he didn’t have to deal with some of these 

issues. But the fact is, in terms of markets, whether I have my 

Kindle, whether I have my iPad with my Kindle app, whether I 

have my Kindle app on my phone or my Galaxy phone, it really 

doesn’t matter. 

Mr. COBLE [presiding]. The gentle lady’s time has expired. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like—I would 

hope that we could follow up with this because we are likely going 

to have the same ugly explosion and public outcry that we had last 

year on phone unlocking. It would be nice to avoid that. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentle lady. 

This concludes today’s hearing. 

I want to thank the Register again for having served as our only 

witness today. We appreciate it very much. 

I want to thank those of you in the audience. Your presence indicates that you have more than a casual interest in this matter, and 

I thank you all for having attended as well. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional 

materials for the record. 

This hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:27 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(59) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 

f 
85 
86 
87 

f 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 

f 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 

f 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 

f 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 

f 
116 
117 
118 
119 

f 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 

Æ