ROLE OF VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS IN THE 

U.S. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SYSTEM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

Serial No. 113–49 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
ROLE OF VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS IN THE U.S. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SYSTEM 
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

82–846 PDF 2014

ROLE OF VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS IN THE 

U.S. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SYSTEM 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

Serial No. 113–49 

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 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

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 

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 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JOE KEELEY, Chief Counsel 

STEPHANIE MOORE, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

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 Melvin L. Watt, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet .......................................................................... 2 

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 .. 3 

WITNESSES 

Jill Lesser, Executive Director, Center for Copyright Information 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 9 

Cary H. Sherman, Chairman and CEO, Recording Industry Association of 

America 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 15 

Randall Rothenberg, President and CEO, Interactive Advertising Bureau 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 27 

Gabriel Levitt, Vice President, PharmacyChecker.com 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 35 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 37 

Robert C. Barchiesi, President, The International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 50 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 52 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of 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 .......................................................................................... 5 

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

from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet ...................................................................... 64 

Material submitted by the Honorable Doug Collins, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, 

Intellectual Property, and the Internet .............................................................. 85 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 121 

(1) 

ROLE OF VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS IN THE 

U.S. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SYSTEM 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Howard Coble 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Coble, Marino, Goodlatte, Smith of 

Texas, Poe, Collins, Watt, Conyers, Johnson, Chu, Jeffries, and 

Lofgren. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Joe Keeley, Chief Counsel; Olivia Lee, 

Clerk; and (Minority) Stephanie Moore, Minority 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 all of the witnesses and others in the audience for today’s very important hearing I will now give my opening statement. 

Good afternoon, and welcome again to today’s Subcommittee 

hearing on the Role of Voluntary of Efforts in the U.S. Intellectual 

Property System. Copyright owners have been dealing with the increasing acts of power sales of their property that is often aided by 

groups and Web sites that glorify theft. This Subcommittee has 

dealt with the issue for some time. 

The Congressional Creative Rights Caucus which I Chair with 

the gentlelady from California, Ms. Chu, has also heard from artists impacted by the outright theft of their works. I am pleased to 

learn today of the voluntary efforts now underway to reduce piracy. 

These good works are the result of several companies and trade associations that have invested their time and effort to cultivate best 

practice principles that help direct consumers to legitimate content 

while making it more difficult for pirates to operate. These agreements are a step in the right direction. They promote intellectual 

property, they improve the Internet marketplace for consumers and 

they have been established through a voluntary process. 

I want to especially highlight the efforts by the Center for Copyright Information as an example of what can be done. By letting 
2 

ISP customers know about piracy that may be occurring using their 

Internet connections, ISP’s consumers may find that the wireless 

network has been hacked, or that their teenager needs to join a 

family meeting about responsible Internet usage. I am also pleased 

that the Center has taken a thoughtful approach to implementing 

an appeals system as well as creating an oversight panel of consumer groups. 

While much work has been done, more work is required from 

other groups. I am interested in hearing how existing voluntary 

agreements can be utilized to foster new agreements in new areas, 

and if there is anything we can do to help promote the best practices. As most of us know, private sector actions are oftentimes 

more efficient and effective than some regulation handed down by 

the Federal Government. 

Thank you, again, for being here, and I look forward to hearing 

the testimony from our witnesses on today’s panel. 

I am now pleased to recognize the Ranking Member from North 

Carolina, Mr. Mel Watt for his opening statement. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Two years ago, this Subcommittee held several hearings to address possible legislative solutions to the epidemic of online piracy 

and sale of counterfeit goods over the Internet. Although the Stop 

Online Piracy Act was itself stopped, the problem of piracy was not, 

as I have noted on a number of occasions. 

We are certainly not here to relitigate SOPA, but I do believe 

that the SOPA debate we had helped motivate an important shift 

in the willingness of some parties to engage more aggressively in 

negotiating to develop some of the best practices we are considering 

here today. 

Indeed, some of the entities that fought vigorously to defeat 

SOPA are now constructive parties to voluntary agreements designed to combat the drain on our economy and the potential harm 

to consumers that online piracy and counterfeiting represent. 

Over the past 2 years, government entities, nonprofit organizations, academic institutions and industry stakeholders have all 

issued studies evaluating the problem. Recent examples include the 

July 2013 Department of Commerce Internet Policy Task Force report on copyright policy, creativity and innovation in the digital 

economy in which the task force noted ‘‘while the extent of the 

losses caused by online infringement is hard to calculate with certainty, the proliferation of unlicensed sites and services making 

content available without restriction or payment impedes the 

growth of legitimate services.’’ 

In February, the Administration also reported on the cyber theft 

of trade secrets, and in May, the Nonprofit Commission on the 

Theft of American Intellectual Property found that the scale and 

complexity of the international theft of American intellectual property is unprecedented, including the rapid growth in online sales 

of counterfeit goods. 

Earlier this year, Carnegie Mellon professor Michael Smith released his findings on the impact of the Department of Justice enforcement against the notorious MegaUpload site. In general, Professor Smith suggested that providing legitimate avenues to obtain 

content online, coupled with effective anti-piracy policies, rep-
3 

resents the best recipe for combating IP theft online. However, yesterday a report entitled ‘‘Sizing the Piracy Universe’’ by NetNames 

painted a bleak picture regarding Internet-based infringement. The 

report, commissioned by NBC Universal, found that piracy of entertainment content has increased dramatically despite the growing 

number of legal options available to consumers. 

Google also released a report last Friday entitled ‘‘How Google 

Fights Piracy,’’ outlining its efforts to curtail piracy and highlighting how its services provide enhanced opportunities for creators. However, this morning the Motion Picture Association of 

America, together with Chairman Coble and our colleague on the 

Committee, Ms. Chu, unveiled a study by Compete, ‘‘Understanding the Role of Search in Online Piracy,’’ which reportedly details how search engines like Google introduce consumers to Web 

sites dedicated to infringement. 

The single common thread throughout each of these reports is 

the recognition that there is an ongoing vulnerability for U.S. intellectual property in the online environment. That threat is not only 

economic and is not limited to specific industries represented here. 

Counterfeit hard goods, especially pharmaceuticals, may pose an 

additional threat to safety risk for American consumers. 

Futile efforts to curtail online infringement and counterfeiting 

does more than deplete the profits of U.S. companies and negatively affect the U.S. economy. It also opens our citizens to a variety of predictable harms like identity theft, fraud, sickness or even 

death. Failure to address the problem may also make our cyber infrastructure less secure and facilitate individual criminal activity 

or encourage criminal enterprises. 

So it is important that these voluntary agreements and best 

practices are meaningful endeavors, not just window dressing. It is 

also important that our values of privacy, free speech, competition 

and due process are honored. But it is also important that those 

values are not fraudulently turned against us to invite or justify 

legislative paralysis. 

I applaud the voluntary efforts of the various industry stakeholders both to confront the challenge and to embrace the opportunities that permeate the digital era. While these cooperative measures may or may not be enough, I believe that our Subcommittee, 

which has jurisdiction over both intellectual property and the 

Internet, should encourage these collaborations, but it is also our 

responsibility to consider whether additional oversight or legislative action is warranted as well. 

I welcome the witnesses and look forward to the testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Watt. 

The Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from 

Michigan, the Ranking Member for the full Judiciary Committee, 

Mr. Conyers, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Coble, and we join in welcoming our distinguished witnesses today. 

Voluntary agreements, intellectual property law, should facilitate 

technological advances, while at the same time, protecting creators, 

I think that is what the hearing is all about, and we must continue 

ways to examine how we can prevent piracy and fight violations of 
4 

copyright law. I think that is a worthwhile issue to examine here 

today in the Judiciary Committee. 

Although these voluntary agreements have been a positive step, 

we must continue to develop solutions to address digital piracy. A 

primary goal is that we should have to continue to inform and 

change the behavior of the majority of users who want to enjoy content legally, and I am hoping that these issues will be examined 

with the care and experience of our distinguished witnesses today. 

I will put the rest of my statement in the record. Thank you very 

much, Chairman Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mr. Conyers follows:] 
5 

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

for the Hearing on the 

Role of Voluntary Agreements in the lJ.S. Intellectual Property System 

before the 

Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet 

Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. 

2141 Rayburn House Office Building 

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the role that voluntary initiatives 

have played in protecting copyright in the digital age. 

Content is available in many more ways than it was in recent years and this 

change is affecting how companies participate in the digital marketplace. 

We must ensure that illegal activity does not undermine new legitimate 

teclmologies. The change in the way that content is available is having an impact 

on the type of innovation that is happening on the Internet and within the content 

community. 

The voluntary agreements we will discuss today are a step in the right 

direction. However, I believe more must be done to ensure that products and 

services are not used in an illegal manner. 

First, voluntary agreements and intellectual property law should facilitate 

technological advances while at the same time protecting creators. 

We must make sllre that the voluntary initiatives are flexible over time to 

adopt to the changing marketplace. 

One of the most high-profile vollmtary agreements that we will discuss 

today is the Copyright Alert System. 

The Copyright Alert System, which was implemented in 2013, provides a 

way to inform users of their activity. The Copyright Alert System allows copyright 

holders to notify consumers when their Internet accounts have alleged illegally 

downloaded and shared copyrighted music, movies or television shows. 

I want to hear the witnesses discuss whether the creation of the Copyright 

Alert System has helped to influence the thinking of consumers about digital 

piracy. And 1 am interested to hear whether the Copyright Alert System has also 

been able to help consumers find content legally. 

Second, we must continue to examine ways that we fight violations of 

copyright law. 
6 

The Internet has regrettably become a cash-cow for the criminals and 

organized crime cartels who profit from piracy. 

Piracy is both a domestic and international issue. And, it is an issue that 

should encourage cooperative efforts between Internet Service Providers (lSPs), 

payment processors, advertisers and advertising intermediaries, and the movie and 

music industries. 

With an estimated 2 billion people accessing the Internet annually: this 

translates to a devastating amOlmt of property theft and job-destruction. 

In addition, a study by the Institute for Policy and Innovation found that 

there are $12.5 billion dollars in loses to the United States economy and more than 

70,000 lost jobs annually by American workers due to piracy of sound recordings. 

Those are not insignificant statistics. 

We need to explore ways to make them even better. 

Third, although these voluntary agreements have been a positive step, we 

must continue to develop solutions to address digital piracy. 

I am happy to see that the Copyright Office as well as the Patent and 

Trademark Office have taken the lead in helping to develop these voluntary 

agreements. 

The IPEC should continue to work with advertisers to establish best 

practices to reduce advertising revenue from online infringement. 

The IPEC should also work internationally with other countries on the 

development of voluntary initiatives that are in line with United States policy. 

I look forward from hearing the witnesses discuss these issues and I 

encourage all parties to continue to pursue more voluntary agreements in the 

future. 
7 

Mr. COBLE. We have a very distinguished panel today, and I will 

begin by swearing in our witnesses before introducing them. If you 

would, please, all rise. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. COBLE. Let the record show that each of the panelists responded in the affirmative. 

As I said before, we have a distinguished panel before us, and 

I am pleased to introduce them now. Our first witness today is Ms. 

Jill Lesser, Executive Director at the Center for Copyright Information. Ms. Lesser is a long-time consumer protection, technology and 

copyright expert, and also serves as a board member for the Center 

For Democracy and Technology. She received her J.D. from the 

Boston University School of Law, and her B.A. in political science 

from the University of Michigan. 

Our second witness is no stranger on Capitol Hill, Mr. Cary 

Sherman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for the Recording 

Industry Association of America, the organization representing the 

Nation’s major music labels. Mr. Sherman received his J.D. from 

Harvard School of Law and his B.S. from Cornell University. 

Our third witness today is Mr. Randall Rothenberg, President 

and Chief Executive Officer of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, 

a trade association representing over 500 leading interactive companies that are responsible for selling more than 86 percent of online advertising in the United States. Mr. Rothenberg received his 

B.S. in classics from Princeton University. 

Our fourth witness today is Mr. Gabriel Levitt, Vice President of 

PharmacyChecker.com. Mr. Levitt helped found the company in 

2002, and is responsible for all business and research operations. 

Mr. Levitt received his Master’s Degree in International Relations 

from the American University, and his bachelor’s degree from 

Roger Williams University. 

Our final witness today, Mr. Robert Barchiesi, is President of the 

International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition. Mr. Barchiesi received 

his M.A. from the University of Alabama and his B.A. from the 

John Jay College of Criminal Justice. It is good to have all of you 

with us today, gentleman and lady. 

There is a timer on the desk that will alert you when your time 

is waning, rapidly vanishing. We try to employ the 5-minute rule. 

When the green light on the panel turns to amber, that is your 

warning that you have 1 minute to wrap up. Now, you won’t be 

keelhauled if you violate that rule, but try to wrap up on or about 

5 minutes if you would do so. 

Ms. Lesser, we will begin with you. I repeat, it is good to have 

all of you with us. 

TESTIMONY OF JILL LESSER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

CENTER FOR COPYRIGHT INFORMATION 

Ms. LESSER. Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Watt, Ranking 

Member Conyers, and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is 

Jill Lesser and I am the Executive Director of the Center For Copyright Information. I am pleased to be testifying on the issue of voluntary initiatives aimed at protecting copyright in a digital age, a 

new area of cooperation and progress in a policy debate that has 

long been characterized by sharp differences of opinion. 
8 

The Center for Copyright Information was established in 2011 as 

part of a groundbreaking initiative among the Nation’s five leading 

Internet service providers and virtually the entire movie and music 

industries. The agreement set out to stem the tide of digital piracy 

by accomplishing two goals: One, establishing the copyright alert 

system or CAS; and, two, creating an organization that could educate users about the importance of protecting digital content while 

offering them a better way to find movies, TV and music online 

safely and legally. 

In the two short years since CCI’s formation, we have successfully implemented the Copyright Alert System and have begun a 

series of educational efforts aimed at helping users make better 

choices about the way they enjoy creative content. Still in its early 

stages, this initiative illustrates the importance of multi-stakeholder, market-driven solutions, and more generally serves as a 

model for addressing challenging technology policy issues through 

collaboration. 

I have addressed the negotiations that led to the creation of CCI 

in my written testimony. Therefore, I will focus here on CCI’s current and future work in bringing our voluntary initiatives to life. 

The Copyright Alert System is an educational program that enables copyright holders to notify consumers when their Internet access accounts are alleged to have been used illegally to download 

and share movies, music or TV shows over peer-to-peer networks. 

CAS notices are designed to be sent in a manner that respects 

users’ privacy, educates them about how to correct behavior, and 

offers them an independent review process to ensure that users accounts are not inadvertently misidentified as having been used to 

engage in digital piracy. 

Each of the participating ISP’s CAS implementation has unique 

elements, but there are several common components. Notices of alleged infringement are generated by copyright owners using a 

methodology that has been reviewed and validated by technology 

experts to capture whole works and avoid false positives. The copyright owners forward notices to participating ISPs who, in turn, 

pass on individual notices to account holders in the form of copyright alerts. Each alert is one way and no information about individual account holders is shared with content owners. 

The program includes up to six alerts with a 7-day grace period 

between each, offering consumers time to identify the source of and 

take steps to correct infringing behavior. If a user reaches the final 

or what we call the mitigation stage, he or she becomes eligible to 

seek an independent review of alerts received. Administered by the 

American Arbitration Association, the process offers users the ability to challenge alerts they believe were sent in error. 

And finally, all of the alerts sent to consumers and CCI’s Web 

site offer information about how users can find content through the 

many legal services now available. 

The CAS began operating early this year after nearly 18 months 

of research and development. Our research helped us understand 

what consumers do and do not know about peer-to-peer technology, 

and their level of understanding about copyright laws. We found 

that most consumers do not understand or appreciate concepts that 

many of us take for granted, and our mandate includes trying to 
9 

enhance consumer understanding and change the conversation 

about digital copyright. 

Our research indicates that one of the most important audiences 

for our educational effort is young people, and we have just completed development of a new copyright curriculum that is being piloted during this academic year in California. The kindergarten 

through sixth grade curriculum is as a result of CCI’s partnership 

with the California School Libraries Association and iKeepSafe, a 

leading digital reading literacy organization. It introduces concepts 

about creative content in innovative and age appropriate ways to 

help children understand they can be both creators and consumers 

of artistic content. 

A critical element of this entire initiative is our Consumer Advisory Board. The associations and companies that created CCI recognize the importance of—that the success of the program, I am 

sorry, would depend in large part on whether it was fair to consumers. 

Our advisory board provides an important oversight role and advises the CCI board on consumer privacy, transparency and due 

process. Now that we have completed the challenging task of initial 

implementation, we are working on a system to evaluate the program’s impact and over the coming months we will look internally 

at the CAS and evaluate user response to the program. We will 

also look more broadly at the impact on peer-to-peer piracy and our 

educational initiatives. 

We hope these self-assessments will allow the CCI to continue to 

enhance the effectiveness of the CAS and our central mission of 

promoting lawful ways to find and consume copyrighted content 

and educating users about the importance of respecting copyrights. 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the 

Subcommittee, and provide information on this unique effort 

among content owners and ISPs in consultation with consumer advocates. The creation of the Copyright Alert System marks the beginning of a new age of cooperation and innovation. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lesser follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Jill Lesser, Executive Director, 

The Center for Copyright Information 

Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Watt, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member 

Conyers, Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

today on the important issue of digital copyright. My name is Jill Lesser and I am 

the Executive Director of the Center for Copyright Information. I am particularly 

pleased to be testifying on the issue of voluntary initiatives aimed at protecting 

copyright in the digital age, a new area of cooperation and progress in a policy debate that has long been characterized by sharp differences of opinion. 

The Center for Copyright Information (CCI) was established in 2011 as part of 

a ground-breaking voluntary initiative among the nation’s five leading internet service providers (ISPs) and virtually the entire movie and music industries. The agreement among the parties set out to stem the tide of digital piracy by accomplishing 

two goals: 1) establishing the Copyright Alert System (CAS); and 2) creating an organization that could educate users about the importance of protecting digital content, while offering them a better way to find movies and music online safely and 

legally. In the two short years since CCI’s formation, we have successfully implemented the CAS and have begun a series of educational efforts aimed at helping 

users make better choices about the way they enjoy digital creative content, while 

enhancing the ability of recording artists, filmmakers and television producers to be 

compensated for the compelling and creative programming they deliver. 
10 

1 In partnership with MPAA and RIAA, the Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA) 

and the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), the representatives of the independent music and film distributors are also participants in the CAS. 2The CAS as an educational program does not require any ISP to terminate any account holder’s internet service. However, the program does not affect any obligations ISPs may have pursuant to the DMCA, nor does it alter existing provisions in ISPs’ terms-of-service relating to 

illegal behavior using their accounts. 

Still in its early stages, this voluntary cooperative initiative illustrates the importance of multi-stakeholder, market-driven solutions to address the problem of digital 

piracy, and more generally, CCI and its members believe it can be a model for addressing challenging technology policy issues through collaboration. 

BACKGROUND

As the Members of the Subcommittee know well, the last 15 years have witnessed 

a sea of change in the creation and delivery of all manner of content to consumers. 

After many decades of distribution through channels easily managed by content 

owners, like records, DVDs and on-air broadcasting, the digital revolution has 

turned distribution models—and the ability to protect content against piracy—on 

their heads. While this wave of innovation in digital delivery wasn’t designed to undermine copyright protection, an unfortunate side effect has been the dramatic rise 

in piracy. Exacerbating the effects of these technological innovations has been the 

perception by a generation of consumers that content distributed over the internet 

is or should be free, and that the rules that apply to the physical world don’t apply 

to the virtual world. 

Against this backdrop, representatives of the movie and music industries and 

major ISPs came together in 2009 to begin discussions that ultimately led to the 

creation of the CAS and the CCI. Those ground-breaking discussions focused on 

what the parties could do to stem the tide of piracy online, particularly through the 

growing use of peer-to-peer file sharing systems. After three years of negotiations, 

the nation’s largest ISPs—AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable and 

Verizon—along with the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and their member companies 1

signed the Memorandum of Understanding (the MOU) that established the framework for the CAS and the structure of CCI. The MOU was the first, and remains 

the only, purely voluntary, industry-led agreement of its kind. 

THE COPYRIGHT ALERT SYSTEM

The CAS, which is overseen by CCI, is an entirely voluntary educational initiative 

that enables copyright holders to notify consumers when their internet access accounts are alleged to have been used illegally to download and share copyrighted 

movies, music or TV shows. Such notices are sent in a manner that respects users’ 

privacy, educates them about how to correct their behavior and offers them an independent review process to ensure that users’ accounts are not inadvertently 

misidentified as having been used to engage in digital piracy. 

Importantly, the CAS is intended to educate consumers and is largely targeted to 

the casual infringer. Indeed, large-scale pirates looking to game the system will undoubtedly be able to find other ways to engage in illegal activity. Our system, instead, seeks to inform and change the behavior of the vast majority of users who 

want nothing more than to enjoy the content they love when and how they desire. 

It is not intended to be punitive in nature but to assist users in finding digital content legally and understanding the consequences of sharing content illegally over 

P2P networks.2

While each participating ISP’s CAS implementation has unique elements, the key 

common components of the CAS present in each program are as follows: 

• Copyright owners use a methodology that has been reviewed and validated 

by technology experts to identify instances of copyright infringement over P2P 

networks and generate notices associated with particular IP addresses; 

• Copyright owners forward those notices to the ISP to which the IP address 

has been assigned; 

• The ISP, in turn, matches the identified IP address to a particular account 

holder and passes on the copyright owner notice to the primary account holder in the form of a Copyright Alert (Alert). Each Alert is a one-way notice 

and no information about the individual account holders is sent back to the 

content owners; 
11 

• Primary account holders may receive up to six Alerts with a seven-day grace 

period in between each Alert to allow the consumer time to correct his or her 

behavior or to identify who in the household (or through an external hack of 

the account) might be intentionally or unintentionally engaging in copyright 

infringement; 

• Within those six Alerts, there are three levels of notice—Educational, Acknowledgement and Mitigation—each designed to offer increasingly clear educational messages about how the user can ensure his or her account is not 

used for illegal purposes and where and how to find legitimate, licensed 

sources of movies, music and TV shows; 

• If a user reaches the Mitigation Stage, (which happens after receiving either 

three or four previous Alerts) he or she becomes eligible to seek an independent review of the Alerts received. Our review process, administered by 

the American Arbitration Association, offers users the ability to challenge the 

Alerts they received if they believe the Alert were sent in error. 

The CAS began operating early in 2013, after 18 months of research and development. Each ISP invested significant resources to design its implementation of the 

CAS, including the creation of consumer interfaces that would not simply identify 

instances of digital piracy, but help users understand how P2P technology works, 

when its use might be illegal and how to find content legally and safely. 

To support the companies’ work, the CCI engaged in consumer research that 

helped us understand what consumers do and do not know about P2P technology 

and their level of understanding about the copyright laws. We found that most consumers do not understand or appreciate concepts that many of us in the policy and 

legal communities take for granted—like the meaning of copyright. This research is 

helping us to better understand the drivers of consumer behavior around piracy 

and, we hope, will help us to improve the CCI’s effectiveness in communicating our 

messages and ultimately reduce the level of online piracy and increase content consumption through legal means. 

CONSUMER ADVISORY BOARD

Another very important aspect of the CAS is our consumer advisory board. The 

member associations and companies that designed the CAS recognized that the success of the program would depend, in large part, on whether the program was fair 

to consumers and was perceived as such by the user community. While, the MOU 

signatories had worked hard to build in strong privacy protections, and to make 

each stage of the program (including the independent review process) fair, accurate 

and impartial, the participants recognized that external review and validation was 

critically important. Thus, the MOU provided for the establishment of a consumer 

advisory board, to be comprised of outside industry experts and consumer advocates, 

who would work with the CCI and its members to ensure that the interests of consumers were adequately considered and protected as the CAS was implemented. 

The consumer advisory board has provided and continues to provide an important 

oversight role and valuable advice to the CCI board on consumer privacy and other 

issues, including the building of a fair independent review mechanism for challenging Alerts. 

CCI’S EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES

CCI’s initial work has focused on implementation of the CAS and the creation of 

online support for the CAS, including helping users find better ways to access movies, music and television programming. However, an equally important part of our 

mandate includes helping to change the conversation about digital copyright—to enhance consumer understanding of and respect for creative content in the digital age. 

Based on our research, we believe one of the most important audiences for our 

educational efforts is young people. As a result, we have developed a new copyright 

curriculum that is being piloted during this academic year in California. The kindergarten through sixth grade curriculum, entitled ‘‘Be A Creator’’TM, is the result of 

CCI’s partnership with the California School Libraries Association and iKeepSafe, 

a leading digital literacy organization. The curriculum introduces concepts about 

creative content in innovative and age-appropriate ways. The curriculum is designed 

to help children understand that they can be both creators and consumers of artistic 

content, and that concepts of copyright protection are important in both cases. We 

hope to use this pilot period to enhance the curriculum and ultimately encourage 

schools across the country to integrate it into their digital literacy programs. 
12 

EVALUATION

Now that we have completed the challenging task of the initial implementation 

of the CAS and begun expanding our educational initiatives, we are working on a 

system to evaluate the impact of this innovative partnership among content owners 

and ISPs. Over the coming months, we will look internally at the CAS in order to 

evaluate user response to the program, including the impact it is having on the behavior of those receiving Alerts. We will also look more broadly at the impact on 

P2P piracy of the CAS and our broader educational activities. We hope these selfassessments will allow the CCI to continue to enhance the effectiveness of the CAS 

and our central mission of promoting lawful ways to find and consume copyrighted 

content and educating users of all ages about the importance of respecting copyrights. 

We are aware that stakeholders around the world are watching the program with 

interest and we have been sharing our lessons-learned so far when asked. We also 

stand ready to expand here in the U.S. to additional members and will continue to 

look for additional opportunities to raise awareness and that our educational messages will expand consumers’ respect for copyrights beyond P2P software to other 

methods of online piracy. 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee and 

provide information on this unique effort among content owners and ISPs, in consultation with consumer advocates. The creation of the Copyright Alert System 

marks the beginning of a new age of cooperation and innovation, as we all work 

to stem the tide of digital piracy and enhance consumers’ ability to find the movies, 

music and TV shows they love in a safe and legal manner. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Ms. Lesser. 

Mr. Sherman. 

TESTIMONY OF CARY H. SHERMAN, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, 

RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. Chairman Coble, Ranking Member 

Watt, Ranking Member Conyers, Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am Cary Sherman, 

Chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America. 

The creative industries are undergoing a complete digital transformation. It was not long ago the consumers had limited choices 

for accessing the music they wanted. Today, the music industry is 

leading the way beyond the physical CD, licensing hundreds of 

services worldwide offering tens of millions of songs with digital 

now making up nearly two-thirds of our revenue. 

For the digital marketplace to truly work, we must ensure that 

these vibrant new services are not undermined by illegal activity. 

Voluntary initiatives with Internet businesses are a key component 

of that objective. 

So what has been done? First, as Jill Lesser just discussed, the 

content community and major Internet service providers collaborated to address infringing activity over peer-to-peer networks, resulting in a new Copyright Alert System administered through the 

Center For Copyright Information. 

Second, as Bob Barchiesi will describe, Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover and PayPal and now others have collaborated with content and product owners to establish a process for 

terminating relationships with Web sites that persist in selling illegitimate products. 

Third, with regard to advertising on the Internet, Randall 

Rothenberg will discuss the IAB’s new quality assurance guidelines 

for ad networks and exchanges. We applaud IAB for this effort, al-
13 

though we are a little disappointed that complaints about IP infringement do not yet affect certification. 

Grand advertisers and their ad agencies and several ad networks 

have also established best practices to deter the advertising of 

products on rogue sites. Information from companies such as Mark 

Monitor, Double Verify and White Bullet can provide useful data 

and metrics to measure the effectiveness of these programs. 

Fourth, as part of the rollout of new generic top-level domain 

names, ICANN recently passed a resolution requiring registrars to 

prohibit domain name holders from engaging in trademark or copyright infringement or other deceptive practices and to impose consequences if they do, including suspension of the domain name. 

Fifth, a series of principles relating to user generated content 

were negotiated by leading commercial copyright owners and UGC 

services. The parties addressed such issues as the use of effective 

content identification technology to eliminate infringing uploads, 

removing or blocking links to sites that are clearly dedicated to infringement, all while accommodating fair use. 

So what is missing? Search engines are the roadmaps, indeed, 

the turn-by-turn directions to rogue sites online. They can be a key 

partner in addressing infringing activity, and yet there is no voluntary agreement regarding search results. There is certainly 

many actions that could be taken. Google has tools in its Chrome 

browser to warn users if they are going to sites that may be malicious. Perhaps that technology could be used to warn users of rogue 

sites. Imagine if search results linking authorized content were labeled with a certification mark or badge indicating that the site is 

licensed and actually pays royalties to creators. That educational 

message could have a profound impact on user behavior. 

Similarly, there are no best practices for storage or locker services. Unfortunately, some storage companies appear to be the goto host for rogue Web sites, and some locker services have an abundance of infringing content available for distribution. 

The notice and take-down process under the DMCA would also 

benefit from collaboration. As interpreted by service providers and 

the courts, the law requires copyright owners to monitor millions 

of Web sites and networks every day and send detailed notices to 

all of them specifically identifying each and every individual infringing file and requesting that each be removed with nothing to 

prevent the same works from being immediately reposted. 

Shouldn’t stakeholders sit down and negotiate practical solutions 

that will make notice and takedown more meaningful and effective? For more stringent repeat infringer policies to takedowns that 

don’t automatically repopulate, many programmatic solutions can 

be devised. Also, voluntary activities today to focus on Web and 

wire line activity. With the rapid adoption of mobile devices, we 

need to focus our efforts on the mobile space and deal with unique 

challenges it presents. 

We are encouraged by the growing support for voluntary initiatives. We are grateful for this hearing which shines light on the 

current efforts underway. We urge the Subcommittee to do even 

more; to further encourage collaborations by using its good auspices 

to monitor data from ad verification companies to see whether the 

programs are working effectively, monitor best practices that may 
14 

develop among registries and registrars to implement the ICANN 

resolution; encourage and facilitate discussions with search engines 

and locker services leading toward voluntary best practices; and 

convene discussions of practical means to improve the notice and 

takedown process under the DMCA. 

Implementing voluntary initiatives will never be a silver bullet, 

but as reports have shown, taking action against infringing services can have a major positive impact on the usage of licensed services. Working together, we can grow legitimate commerce for everyone. 

We look forward to working with this Subcommittee and all our 

partners in the Internet marketplace to make these initiatives a 

success. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sherman follows:] 
15 

Statement of Cary H. Sherman 

Chairman and CEO 

Recording Industry Association of America 

u.S. House of Representatives 

Com m ittee on the Judicia ry 

Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet 

September 18, 2013 

Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Watt, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member 

Conyers, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to submit this 

statement. I serve as Chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America. The 

RIAA is the trade organization that supports and promotes the creative and financial vitality of 

the major music companies. Its members are the music labels that comprise the most vibrant 

record industry in the world. RIAA members create, manufacture and/or distribute 

approximately 85% of all legitimate recorded music produced and sold in the United States. 

There can be no doubt that the creative industries are undergoing a complete digital 

transformation. In the case ofthe music industry, it was not long ago that the CD was the 

dominant format and consumers had a relatively limited set of choices for accessing the music 

they wanted. Today, the music industry is leading the way beyond the physical format with 

digital sales making up nearly two-thirds of our revenue. There are now literally hundreds of 

authorized services worldwide offering tens of millions of songs. 

We, like others in the creative communities, are working very hard to grow this digital 

marketplace, driving new technologies and services, and entering into new licenses and 

partnerships. But in order to make this digital marketplace truly work, we must ensure that 

these vibrant new legitimate and authorized technologies are not undermined by those 

engaged in illegal activity. Voluntary initiatives with Internet intermediaries are a key 

component of that objective. 

We are encouraged by the growing awareness of, and support for, these efforts. The 

Copyright Office in the legislative branch and the Intellectual Property Enforcement 

Coordinator (IPEC) and Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in the executive branch have taken 

active roles in fostering and building these voluntary initiatives, with the IPEC specifically 

highlighting them in her 2013 Joint Strategic Plan. The recent report by the PTO and 

Department of Commerce's Internet Policy Task Force repeatedly refers to the "great promise" 

of voluntary initiatives and best practices. The PTO is currently studying the efficacy of these 

initiatives. We greatly appreciate the ongoing recognition of the importance of best practices 

and voluntary agreements by the Administration and Congress, and this hearing, along with the 

copyright review being conducted by this Subcommittee, helps to shine light on the current 

initiatives underway as well as encouraging agreements where there is still work to do. 
16 

What's been done? 

After several years of discussions, the content community and major Internet service 

providers (iSPs) collaborated to address the serious problem of infringing activity over peer-topeer (P2P) networks. The resulting Copyright Alert System (CAS), administered through the 

Center for Copyright Information (CCI) and officially implemented in early 2013, provides a 

means to inform users of their activity, to educate them on appropriate and legal ways to 

access the content they seek, and to implement reasonable mitigation measures when 

necessary.! 

The system enables content owners, after confirming a work has been illegally shared, 

to inform the relevant ISP so that the ISP can then pass on the notice to the corresponding 

subscriber, without revealing the subscriber's name or information to the copyright owner. 

Multiple notices to a subscriber result in "escalating" alerts by the ISP. The first one or two 

alerts provide the user with an online educational message about their activity and copyright. 

Alerts 3 and 4 provide a mechanism for acknowledging receipt. Alerts Sand 6 implement a 

mitigation measure to deter future content theft. The CAS is intended to provide enforcement 

through a consumer-friendly approach: 

Consumers have a right to know when their Internet accounts are being used for 

content theft and the system provides information on steps consumers can take 

to identify and stop such activity. 

The multiple alerts and grace periods provide consumers with time to change 

their behavior before the next alert is sent and before any mitigation is imposed. 

No personal information about subscribers is exchanged between content 

owners and ISPs without subscriber consent, and then only in connection with 

certain challenges under an independent review. 

ISPs are not required to impose any mitigation measure that could disable a 

subscriber's essential services, such as telephone service, email, or security or 

health service. 

The CAS is still in the initial implementation stages and proper metrics are being 

determined. But feedback so far has been positive and it is worth noting that P2P content 

protection programs in other countries have been found to have an impact on either the 

amount of unauthorized P2P activity or on sales. 

Payment Processors 

In 2011, the IPEC helped finalize a set of best practices among Visa, MasterCard, Amex, 

Discover and PayPal, and content and product owners, in which these payment processors 

1 See www.copyrightinformation,orgfor more information. 
17 

agree to terminate their relationship with a website if the site persists in intentionally selling 

illegitimate products'> Payment processors have implemented the agreement with members of 

the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition (lACe) through a mechanized process for 

submitting secure and valid evidentiary requests for ending affiliation with rogue sites. Some 

data on the impact of this program has already been provided by lACe. 3 Per the IACC, as of 

August 21, 2013, nearly 7,000 websites had been referred via lACe's portal for investigation, 

resulting in termination of over 1,500 individual merchant accounts. Perhaps more 

importantly, as IACC notes, the collaboration resulting from the portal will likely result in 

"systematic long term improvement in addressing the trafficking of counterfeit goods online".4 

Advertisers and Advertising Intermediaries 

There have been three significant developments on voluntary initiatives with regard to 

advertising. First, the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and the American Association 

of Advertising Agencies (4A's) established best practices by brand owners and their agencies to 

deter advertising on rogue sites. 5 These best practices define rogue sites as those dedicated to 

infringement because they have no significant or only limited use or purpose other than 

engaging in, enabling or facilitating infringement. These best practices and their 

implementation would be more effective if they required ANA Members and 4A Members to 

include in their insertion orders to ad networks that such networks comply with lAB's Quality 

Assurance Guidelines (QAG). 

The lAB established these network and exchanges quality assurance guidelines in 2010, 

and recently updated the QAG this year to include other online ad intermediaries. 6 The QAG 

prohibits the sale of any ad space inventory on sites that infringe on copyrights, or are warez 

sites, including illegal streaming sites, torrent sites, illegal music download sites, etc. 

Unfortunately, while complaints regarding QAG non-compliance may affect QAG certification, 

the QAG makes clear that IP infringement complaints do not. 

2 See U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, 2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property 

Enforcement. June 2013, p. 36, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites!default/files/omb/IPEC/2013-us-

~ioint-strategic-p!an,pdf (1lIPEC 2013 Report!!). 

3 See Comments submitted by the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition re: Request of the Patent and 

Trademark Office for Public Comments: Voluntary Best Practices, Study, Docket No. PTO-C-0036-02, dated August 

21, 2013, available at http://www.uspto.gov!ipiofficechiefecon!PTO-C-2013-0036.pdlffpage=33. See also 

International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition. IACC Payment Processor Portal Program: First Year Statistical Review, 

October, 2012, available at 

bUp: 1/w.V:tLK<l.C£. 0 rg/Content/U J2lQ.9_QLMe m bemewill.Q.f2LOctober%2020 12%2Qfu:Ro rt%20to%20 I PE C%~O­

.~OFINAl.pdf~ 

'Id. 

S See ANA press release about Pledge to Deter Advertising on Rogue Sites, May, 2012, with link to pledge, available 

at http://www.ana.neticontent/show/id/23408. 

6 Available at http://www.iab.net!QAGlnitiative!overview!quality assurance guidelines and 

http://i.loJ\Nw,iab.net/about the iab!rece.rrLl2..~ss rele~.Qress release archive/press rel~~pr-072S13. 
18 

Third, several ad networks established a set of best practices to reduce the amount of 

ad revenue that funds, and largely enables, pirate and counterfeit sites. 7 These best practices 

categorize rogue sites as those principally dedicated to selling counterfeit goods or engaging in 

copyright piracy and have no substantial non-infringing uses. They require the establishment of 

policies prohibiting such sites from participating in the ad network's advertising program, that 

the ad network be QAG certified (though as noted above, IP complaints do not affect QAG 

certification), and that the ad network maintain a complaint procedure. 

Reports such as those from the USC Annenberg Innovation Lab, as well as information 

from companies such as MarkMonitor, DoubleVerify, Integral Ad Science and White Bullet, can 

provide useful data and metrics to determine the effectiveness ofthese programs on the 

placement of ads on rogue sites. 

Domain Name Registries/Registrars 

As part ofthe roll-out of new generic Top Level Domains, ICANN recently passed a 

resolution that, among other provisions, provides that a "Registry Operator will include a 

provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement (RRA) that requires Registrars to include in their 

Registration Agreements a provision prohibiting Registered Name Holders from distributing 

malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, 

fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting or otherwise engaging in activity contrary to 

applicable law, and providing (consistent with applicable law and any related procedures) 

consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain name."s 

While the practical impact of this resolution remains to be seen (few if any new gTLDs 

will "go live" before the end of this year), it will be worth monitoring what best practices, if any, 

develop among registries, registrars and right holders to implement this resolution. It would 

also be useful to track how this provision is implemented in the new gTLD space as compared 

with controls chosen from existing gTLDs whose operators are not parties to the updated 

registry-registrar agreement. 

UGC Principles 

Leading commercial copyright owners and services providing user-uploaded and usergenerated audio and video content ("UGC services") collaborated to establish principles to 

foster an online environment that promotes the promises and benefits of UGC Services while 

protecting the rights of copyright owners. 9 Published in 2007, these were one of the first multistakeholder negotiated voluntary initiatives established to address copyright issues in the 

digital environment. 

7 See http://www, wh ;tehou se ,gov IblogI2013i07/15! co mlng-togeth or ·combat -on II ne-p I ra cy-a nd-cou nterfeltin g 

and 

http://lNww,2013ippractices,com/bestpracticesguidellnesforadnetwarkstaaddresspiracyandcaunterfeiting,html. 

8 See http://'''!\Nw,ieann,org/en/groups!board!docliments/resalutlons-new-gtld-25 i u n 13-en, htm. 

9 See www.cgcprinciples.com. 

4 
19 

Copyright owners and UGC services recognized that they share several important 

objectives: (1) the elimination of infringing content on UGC Services; (2) the encouragement of 

uploads of wholly original and authorized user-generated audio and video content; (3) the 

accommodation of the fair use of copyrighted content on UGC Services; and (4) the protection 

of legitimate interests of user privacy. 

To achieve these objectives, the parties agreed to: 

during the upload process on UGC sites and services, prominently inform users 

that they may not upload infringing content according to the services' terms of 

use; 

use effective content identification technology to eliminate infringing useruploaded audio and video content for which Copyright Owners have provided 

detailed reference material; 

to work together to identify sites that are clearly dedicated to, and predominantly 

used for, the dissemination of infringing content or the facilitation of such 

dissemination; 

to remove or block links to such sites; to provide commercially reasonable 

enhanced searching and identitication means to Copyright Owners; 

to accommodate fair use; to use reasonable efforts to track infringing uploads of 

copyrighted content by the same user and to use such infonmation in the 

reasonable implementation of a repeat infringer termination policy; and 

to use reasonable efforts to prevent a tenninated user from uploading audio and/or 

video content. 

The UGC principles serve as a model of intermediaries and content owners working 

together voluntarily to assure that the provisions ofthe Digital Millennium Copyright Act 

(DMCA) have meaning and are adapted to new technological advancements. They should serve 

as a blueprint for new voluntary agreements between content owners and Internet 

intermediaries to carry out the intent of the DMCA to protect both copyright owners and 

intermediaries (see "Notice and Takedown Under the DMCA," below.) 

What's missing? 

Search Engines 

If ISPs can be considered the gateway by users to rogue sites online, search engines may 

be considered the road maps or, more directly, the turn-by-turn directions and door-to-door 

service to these sites. There can be no doubt that search engines playa considerable role in 

leading users to illicit services and can be a key part of addressing infringing activity online. 

Unfortunately, while there has been some action and steps taken by search engines 

under the notice and takedown system ofthe DMCA, there has been little movement toward 

finding tools that have the impact of actually reducing theft and damage. One reason for this 

5 
20 

may be the failure by these intermediaries to measure whether actions taken are, and have 

been, effective. The result is at its best wasted effort on a solution that doesn't work and at 

worst lip service that merely buys time and, often, money from the advertising revenue such 

linking generates. 

There have been occasional instances of progress, but with disappointing outcomes. 

For example, Google announced in August 2012 that: 

"Starting next week, we will begin taking into account a new signal in our rankings: the 

number of valid copyright removal notices we receive for any given site. Sites with high 

numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results. This ranking change should 

help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more eaSily-whether it's a song 

previewed on NPR's music website, a TV show on Hulu or new music streamed fram 

SpotifY.,,1O 

But several months later, our studies, which we have shared with Google and Congress, 

indicate that sites for which Google has received hundreds ofthousands of infringement 

notices are still appearing at the top of search returns. ll Worse still, users are being directed to 

these sites through the use of "autocomplete" features, which purport to predict what users 

are looking for after merely a few keystrokes. 

We believe it would be useful to see voluntary initiatives by search engines that take 

into account whether or not a site is authorized to provide the content at issue in determining 

search result rankings for searches to consume that content. This could take into account not 

only the absolute number of copyright removal requests sent about a site to trigger demotion 

of that site, but also whether the site is authorized to provide the content to trigger a higher 

search rank for that site. 

There are certainly other voluntary actions that could be taken by search engines to 

stop encouraging and directing users to illegitimate sources of copyrighted material, and to 

evaluate whether such measures could have a demonstrable impact, possibly by proxy to 

similar efforts with other content. For example, Google has announced that it intends to 

develop and deploy technology to eradicate links to child pornography images from the web. 

Certainly similar technology can be used to remove links to other illegal content. Also, Google 

has tools in its Chrome browser to warn users if they are going to sites that may be malicious. 

Shouldn't that technology be used to warn users of rogue sites? Or better yet, can Google use 

similar technology to highlight or identify sites that are authorized? Imagine if links to content 

on legitimate sites were labeled - directly in the search result -with a certification mark 

10 See http://insidesearch.blogspotcom/2012(08/an-update-to-our-search-algorithms.html. 

11 See RIAA, "Six Months Later - A Report Card on Google's Demotion of Pirate Sites', Feb. 21, 2013, available at 

http://76.74.24.14213CF95EOl-3836-E6CD-A470-1C2B89DE9723.pdf. Also, on a search conducted August 29,2013 

for mp3s or downloads of the recent top 50 billboard tracks, www.mp3skull.com.asite for which Google has 

received over 1.25 million copyright removal notices, showed up in the top 5 search results 42 times. 

6 
21 

indicating that the site is licensed and actually pays royalties to creators. That educational 

message could have a profound and positive impact on user behavior. 

Storage Services 

Today, there does not seem to be any form of best practices for storage services when it 

comes to protecting works online - whether for technical hosting providers that maintain the 

servers where content is hosted or for locker services that interact directly with the user. 

Unfortunately, some storage services - whether unwittingly or not - appear to be the "go to" 

services for rogue websites, and some locker services have an abundance of infringing content 

available via their service. It would be helpful to engage these services in developing best 

practices for deterring infringement on their services. 

As a first step, it may be useful to measure if any U.S.-based technical hosting storage 

services host a concentration of sites that engage in widespread infringement. To determine 

which sites to include in such a study, one could look at those sites for which Google has 

received multiple notices of infringement, as indicated on the Google Copyright Removal 

Transparency Report, or engage website reputation services, such as WhiteBullet or Veri-Site. 

Of course, it is always beneficial to consult copyright holders directly. 

For lockers services that are known to be used for infringing activity, best practices 

should involve more than notice and take-down. For example, a German Court recently 

ordered RapidShare to scan for incoming infringing links. This and/or other tools should be 

considered to deter infringing activity over locker services. 

Notice and Takedown Under the DMCA 

When Congress passed the DMCA in 1998, it intended to protect copyright owners from 

widespread infringement made possible by the Internet, and to protect Internet intermediaries 

from liability for illegal acts committed by their users. At the time, several cases had already 

detailed the potential ease with which new methods of digital dissemination could facilitate 

massive amounts of content theft. Congress sought to create a partnership between content 

creators and Internet intermediaries to make the Internet a safe place for legitimate commerce, 

providing the public with access to legitimate high-quality works. 

Congress's stated objective was to "preserve strong incentives for service providers and 

copyright owners to cooperate to detect and deal with copyright infringements that take place 

in the digital networked environment.,,12 

Unfortunately, while the liability limitations have, in large part, worked to protect 

intermediaries, copyright owners have not received meaningful protection. Courts have often 

failed to apply the statute in a practical manner, effectively requiring copyright owners to 

12 S. Rep. No .. 105-190, at 40 (1998). 

7 
22 

monitor millions of websites and networks every day and send detailed notices to all of them 

specifically identifying every individual infringing item and requesting that the items be 

removed. Moreover, even if a copyright owner takes on this challenge, the courts have 

eliminated any expectation that any removed infringing items will not be immediately reposted. 

As was done with the UGC Principles, there is an opportunity for intermediaries and 

content owners to sit down and negotiate practical solutions that will make the "notice and 

takedown" system more meaningful and effective. From more stringent repeat infringer 

policies to takedowns that don't automatically repopulate, many practical solutions can be 

adopted that would assure the intent of the DMCA is carried out. We hope the relevant parties 

will join together to start this process and we need Congress to encourage and facilitate such a 

process. 

As noted above, the voluntary initiatives to date have focused on web and wireline 

based activity and services. With the beneficial and rapid adoption of mobile devices, we need 

to focus our efforts on the mobile space as well, and deal with the unique challenges that 

ecosystem presents. 

What works best? 

The established best practices and voluntary agreements outlined above represent a 

considerable positive step in the evolution of the legitimate digital marketplace. The true goal 

should not only be to enable content owners to discover and inform intermediaries of illegal 

use of their works, but also for intermediaries to take active steps themselves to ensure that 

their products and services are not being used to engage in illegal behavior. Intermediaries 

increasingly understand that cooperating in efforts to prevent infringement redounds to their 

benefit as well as to the owners of the content they serve, host, transmit, or otherwise handle. 

But beyond the security and integrity such engagement provides, establishing best practices 

and voluntary agreements provides an opportunity to form lasting and meaningful partnerships 

that will benefit businesses, creators, and consumers alike. 

Of course, these initiatives are very much in their infancy and we will have to give them 

appropriate time to operate and be properly evaluated. But there are some considerations we 

should keep in mind going forward: 

The initiatives must be flexible to adapt over time. 

True goals of the initiatives should be determined. 

Initiatives must go beyond what is already done or expected of intermediaries under 

existing law. 

8 
23 

Baseline measurements should be taken to measure the impact of initiatives and to 

determine whether the private sector can adequately "self-regulate" to deter infringing 

and other abusive behavior. 

Academic and research papers should be considered in determining whether initiatives 

are effective and what can be done differently. 

Qualitative impacts should be considered - raising awareness among consumers, other 

stakeholders, and other governments, and should consider any changing attitudes 

towards infringement. 

Each initiative should be evaluated separately, and direct stakeholders/participants 

should be consulted. 

In addition, it is worth noting that best practices and voluntary agreements negotiated 

and agreed to among all stakeholders are more promising than those that are established 

unilaterally. For example, ICANN's Registry-Registrar Agreement could be very effective 

because it binds anyone who wants to operate a new gTLD or sell registrations in the new 

registries as an ICANN-accredited registrar. CCI's Copyright Alert System and the payment 

processor agreement required both sides to compromise and work together toward a 

solution. While unilateral principles and public commitments such as the ad networks' are 

valuable, they do not offer the same promise of effectiveness since they don't have the same 

buy-in from both sides and may not lead to a common process or solution. 

This point has been made particularly clear by Google's recent report entitled "How 

Google Fights Piracy". As we noted in a blog on the report, we are grateful for the efforts 

Google has taken, and there is much to applaud. However, as much as Google may be doing, as 

Benjamin Franklin cautioned, we must "never confuse motion for action." While we have seen 

some measurable impact in Google's AdSense based initiatives, we cannot say the same for its 

other anti-piracy activities. 

We invite Google and the other major search engines to sit down with us to formulate a 

plan that goes beyond promises of action and actually serves its intended purpose of deterring 

piracy and giving the legitimate marketplace an environment to thrive. 

Certainly, no one has claimed that implementing voluntary initiatives with Internet 

intermediaries is a single silver bullet to stop piracy online. But in fulfilling the promise of a 

healthy and growing legitimate digital marketplace, enforcement in any form is worth 

considering. As reports by the NPD Group have shown, taking legal action against infringing 

services, such as unauthorized activity on p2p networks and digital locker sites, can have a 

major impact on usage of licensed music services. Implementing voluntary initiatives in a 

thoughtful manner compliments prior enforcement initiatives and helps fulfill that promise. 

Again, we thank the Subcommittee for holding this hearing. While unilateral 

enforcement efforts and legislative options have played a large part in our past and may 

necessarily playa role going forward, we truly believe that strengthening our partnerships and 

mutual efforts through voluntary initiatives is preferable and can be much more effective. 

9 
24 

Voluntary initiatives can address new and changing situations and adapt easily to new 

business models. They can set industry standards that form norms in the Internet eco-system. 

And importantly, they help build necessary trust and cooperation among content owners, 

intermediaries, and consumers. 

We appreciate the attention brought to the development of voluntary initiatives, and 

look forward to working with you and all our partners in the Internet marketplace to determine 

how to make them most effective. 

10 
25 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. Rothenberg. 

TESTIMONY OF RANDALL ROTHENBERG, PRESIDENT 

AND CEO, INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING BUREAU 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Watt, Senior Member Conyers, Members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing. 

My name is Randall Rothenberg and as you heard, I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Interactive Advertising Bureau and I am very honored to be here. 

IAB is the trade association for ad-supported digital media in the 

United States. IAD’s more than 500-member companies account for 

86 percent of the interactive advertising sold in the U.S. Our members include many of the recognized names, most of the recognized 

names of the media world, AOL, CBS, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, 

The New York Times, Time, Inc., Walt Disney, Yahoo among them, 

as well as scores of smaller publishers, advertising networks and 

specialists in such areas as digital video advertising and mobile advertising. 

I am also here for a personal reason. Prior to joining the IAB, 

I spent the first two-thirds of my career as an author and writer. 

I have written several books, hundreds of newspapers and magazine articles. I own hundreds of copyrights. I continue to be a contributor to many publications. 

Having spent my career in the creation of intellectual property, 

I firmly believe the meaningful protection of intellectual property 

rights is the foundation on which the U.S. economy depends. As the 

Framers of the U.S. Constitution understood, if we wish to remain 

the world’s leader in innovation and entrepreneurship, we must reward both hard work and risk-taking through the protection of intellectual property. 

On behalf of our member companies, IAB is dedicated to the 

growth of the interactive advertising marketplace. IAB drives toward this end by educating marketers, advertising agencies, media 

companies and the wider business community about the value of 

interactive advertising, and we recommend technical standards and 

best practices for this evolving marketplace. 

In this regard, we are proud of our efforts to bring together the 

most significant representatives of this digital marketing supply 

chain to develop strong protections for intellectual property and 

greater trust in the digital advertising marketplace. 

The vibrant online advertising ecosystem that was created by innovative and legitimate individuals and companies has gained the 

attention of illegitimate actors that wish to undercut the market 

for creative content through the illegal activity of copyright infringement. This is a major reason, a foundation reason, the IAB 

developed the quality assurance guidelines that Mr. Sherman referred to. 

The guidelines were created to help establish trust between the 

buyers and sellers of advertising in a very complex and ever-evolving digital advertising ecosystem. The program helps promote the 

flow of advertising budgets into digital advertising by establishing 
26 

industry principles that offer a framework for increasing brand 

safety. 

We consider the piracy of intellectual property antithetical to the 

concept of brand safety. For that reason, the IAB guidelines provide specific prohibitions against selling certain types of advertising inventory, including ad inventory on sites involved in intellectual property violations such as Web sites hosting and streaming 

infringing copyrighted content, torrent sites and peer-to-peer sites. 

In April of 2013, IAB released an update to the guidelines for 

public comment. This revision focuses on increasing the applicability, visibility and influence of the guidelines program as well as 

the advancement of other vital program elements. I would like to 

identify three important changes we made. 

First, we took a program that was originally designed for ad networks and exchanges solely and expanded it into a true multistakeholder process by including all buyers and sellers of digital 

advertising. The program will now represent the full diversity of 

the industry and reinforce the role all parties play in building a 

more accountable, transparent and safe marketplace. 

Second, the guidelines now explicitly include an option for the 

lodging of intellectual property infringement complaints by rights 

holders to the IAB which will then direct the complaint to the relevant contact at each company participating in the guidelines. The 

IAB is committed to working with all parties to strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights through the guidelines including through a strengthened complaints process. 

Third, the program was also strengthened with the introduction 

of the option of independent third party validation of a company’s 

certification to create a new level of trust in the marketplace. 

Going forward, we will continue to evolve, strengthen and drive 

adoption of the guidelines. The program has received a tremendous 

amount of exposure because of recent acknowledgments by Victoria 

Espinel, the former U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. We would welcome additional public support from you and 

other Members of Congress. 

Thank you for considering the views of the IAB on these issues. 

We greatly appreciate your focus on our work and the work of all 

the others on this panel to strengthen the protection of intellectual 

property and understanding the role of the advertising industry in 

creating additional strengths to those protections. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rothenberg follows:] 
27 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND 

THE INTERNET 

OF THE 

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE 

HEARING ON 

THE ROLE OF VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS IN THE U.S. INTELLECTUAL 

PROPERTY SYSTEM 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 

TESTIMONY OF 

RANDALL ROTHENBERG 

PRESIDENT AND CEO 

INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING BUREAU 
28 

I. Introduction 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing of the House Judiciary 

Committee's Subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet. I would like to 

thank Chainnan Coble and Ranking Member Watt for holding this important hearing. 

My name is Randall Rothenberg and 1 am the President and Chief Executive Officer for 

the Interactive Advertising Bureau (lAB). lAB is the trade association for ad-supported 

interactive media in the United States. TAB's more than 500 member companies account for 86 

percent of the interactive advertising sold in the United States. Our members include the great 

names of the online and omine media world - AOL, CBS, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, The 

New York Times, Time Inc., Walt Disney, and Yahoo I among them - as well as scores of 

smaller publishers, advertising networks, and specialists in such areas as digital video advertising 

and mobile advertising. 

Prior to joining the lAB, I spent many years a journalist at the New York Times and 

Advertising Age, a magazine on marketing and media. I am also an author and a frequent b'llest 

contributor to various publications. Having spent my career promoting the creation of quality, 

original content, I firmly believe that meaningful protection of intellectual property rights is the 

foundation on which the US. economy depends. As the framers of the US Constitution 

understood, if we wish to remain as the world's leader in innovation and entrepreneurship, we 

must reward hard work and risk-taking through the protection of intellectual property. 

On behalf of our member companies, lAB is dedicated to the growth of the interactive 

advertising marketplace. lAB drives toward this end by educating marketers, agencies, media 

companies and the wider business community about the value of interactive advertising, and 

2 
29 

recommending standards and practices for this evolving marketplace. I believe that in order for 

the online advertising industry to continue growing, advertisers and marketers must have 

confidence that their brands will be protected in the digital ecosystem. We are proud of our 

eil'orts to bring together the most signiiicant representatives of this digital marketing supply 

chain to develop strong protections for intellectual property and greater trust in the online 

advertising marketplace. 

Mr. Chairman, my testimony will describe how the lAB, in partnership with both buyers 

and sellers of online advertising, has helped to create safeguards and enforcement mechanisms 

against online copyright piracy and counterfeiting. lAB's enforcement mechanisms are important 

tools in reducing the economic incentive of intellectual property theft, and illustrate the broad 

support and adoption for self-reb'lliation in online advertising. 

II. Interactive Advertising Is Important to the U.S. Economy 

Before explaining the online advertising industry's efforts to combat intellectual property 

theft, let me first explain the role of advertising in today' s digital marketplace. 

In 2012, a study commissioned by the lAB and conducted by researchers at the Harvard 

University Business School found that the ad-supported Internet contributed over $530 billion to 

the U. S. economy, making it one of the most dynamic sectors in the U. S. economy.l Over 5.1 

million, or roughly 3 percent, of American jobs are directly or indirectly created by the Internet. 

These jobs are highly dispersed across the U.S., with more jobs being created in small businesses 

across every state than in large internet companies. 

1 Professors John Deighton and Harold Brierley, Economic Value of the Advertising-Supported Internet Ecosystem 

(October 1, 2012), available at http://www.iab.net/economicvalue. 

3 
30 

210 million people in the United States spend, on average, 38 hours a month on the 

Internet for work and leisure. This is unsurprising, for the Internet offers original creators of 

news, business information, entertainment, maps, and self-help resources, an ability to connect 

directly with consumers around the world. For example, education and infonnation-gathering 

tools, including search engines, have helped to remove geographic and economic barriers and 

democratized the availability and accessibility of educational content. The Web is a 

communications lifeline for an enormous number of people. There are an estimated I billion 

users of free email services worldwide. Over 72 percent of Americans keep in touch with family 

and friends through social networking sites. Tn July, 187 million Americans viewed 48 billion 

videos online that were uploaded by others. 

Nearly all of these services, information, and entertainment are free. Although, as you 

and T know, they are not really free: They are supported by advertising. 

This is not surprising. For centuries, advertising has been at the center of a vital value 

exchange between businesses and consumers. We provide quality news, information, 

entertainment, and other services, in return for which consumers gi ve us their time and attention. 

That time and attention, in turn, allows businesses to communicate the availability of goods and 

services to consumers and customers. Advertising is the heart of the U.s. consumer economy. 

Ill. Self-Regulation is Combatting Intellectual Property Theft 

The vibrant online advertising ecosystem that was created by innovative and legitimate 

individuals and companies has gained the attention of nefarious actors who wish to undercut the 

market for creative content through the illegal activity of copyright infringement. This abuse 

4 
31 

hurts the brand integrity of advertisers and slows legitimate growth and job creation in the 

Internet economy. 

lAB strongly believes in the importance of intellectual property protection for a 

functioning economy and the sustainability of the online advertising industry. This is one reason 

the lAB developed the Quality Assurance Guidelines ("Guidelines,,)2 The Guidelines were 

created to help establish trust between buyers and sellers in a complex and ever-changing digital 

advertising ecosystem. The program helps promote the flow of advertising budgets into digital 

advertising by establishing industry principles that offer a framework for increasing brand safety. 

We consider piracy of intellectual property antithetical to the concept of brand safety: Consumer 

brands depend on the integrity of their own copyrights, trademarks, and patents, as well as on 

their distinctive brand reputations, and would not want to be associated with digital environments 

that persistently pirate others' intellectual property. For that reason, the TAB Guidelines provide 

specific prohibitions against selling certain types of advertising inventory, including ad inventory 

on sites involved in intellectual property violations, such as web sites hosting and streaming 

infringing copyrighted content, torrent sites, and peer-to-peer sites. 

On April 18,2013, lAB released an update to the Guidelines for public comment. This 

revision focuses on increasing the applicability, visibility, and influence of the program, as well 

as the advancement of other vital program elements. Principally, we expanded the program to 

include all buyers and sellers of digital advertising. Original I y, the Guidelines were targeted 

solely to ad networks and exchanges. The program will now represent the full diversity of the 

industry and reinforce the role all parties play in building a more accountable, transparent, and 

safe marketplace. This means that any seller of digital advertising, including premium 

, Interactive Advertising Bureau, Quality Assurance Guideline (July 25, 2013) Available at http://www.iab.net/QAG 

5 
32 

publishers, can now certify to be compliant with the Quality Assurance Guidelines which allows 

them to more formally shape and strengthen the guidelines. Intellectual property protection 

remains a centerpiece of the expanded Guidelines. The updated Guidelines now explicitly 

include an option for the lodging ofIntellectual Property Infringement complaints by rights 

holders to the TAB, who will then direct the complaint to the relevant contact at each company 

participating in the Guidelines. The lAB is committed to working with all parties to strengthen 

the protection of intellectual property rights and improving the Guidelines complaint process. In 

addition, the program was also strengthened with the introduction of the option of independent 

third-party validation of companies' certitlcation to create a new level of trust in the 

marketplace. 

This program is driven by consensus amongst the participating companies. 

Representatives from companies that are in compliance or have committed to becoming 

compliant with the Guidelines shape the process. With the expanded representation across the 

digital advertising supply chain, we recognize there will be challenges to reaching consensus; 

therefore we have incorporated several procedural changes to encourage swifter action on high 

priority issues. For example, TAB is working to expand involvement in the decision making 

bodies of the program to include a much wider array of companies, including rights holders and 

premium publishers as well as representatives of buyers. lAB is also establishing a working 

group to research and analyze technological solutions across the ecosystem. lAB strives to 

provide a fertile environment for the tinding of majority-supported resolutions, and to then act 

promptly and diligently to bring them to market. Opening up the Guidelines program to content 

owners will allow for their direct influence in future iterations of the Guidelines. They will be 

6 
33 

able to help define how the Guidelines protect their intellectual property. The program and their 

interests are now more closely aligned than ever. 

lAB remains committed to further developing and expanding the Guidelines. We 

proactively educate our members and the public about the program through consistent promotion 

and outreach. Members learn about and are encouraged to adopt the Guidelines through email, 

attendance at events such as the lAB Advertising Tech Marketplace, and regularly scheduled 

committee and board meetings. We inform the greater industry and the public about the 

Guidelines through social media and press outreach. T have spoken often at our events, including 

our lAB Annual Leadership Meeting this year, which drew nearly 1,000 senior industry 

executives, about the importance of industry-wide action and individual company commitment to 

combatting intellectual property piracy. 

Going forward, we will continue to drive adoption of the Guidelines through marketing 

efforts, as well as by our expansion of the program to involve more stakeholders. The program 

has received a tremendous amount of exposure because of recent acknowledgments by Victoria 

Espinel, fonner U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. We would welcome 

additional public support from you and other members of Congress. 

IV. lAB Continnes to Explore New Solntions 

TAB continues to explore other avenues to combat online piracy and counterfeiting. Tn 

July, 2417 Media, Adtegrity, AOL, Conde Nast, Google, Microsoft, SpotXchange, and Yahoo!, 

in coordination with lAB and the Office of Management and Budget, agreed to participate in 

voluntary Best Practices and Guidelines for Ad Networks to Address Piracy and Counterfeiting 

7 
34 

("Best Practices,,)3 These eight companies are leaders in the advertising industry. By agreeing to 

the Best Practices, they have committed to "maintain policies prohibiting web sites that are 

principally dedicated to selling counterfeit goods or engaging in copyright piracy and have no 

substantial non-infringing uses from participating in the Ad Network's advertising programs." 

Further, the advertising networks agreed to continue the dialogue with content creators, rights 

holders, consumer organizations, and free speech advocates, regarding the best practices for 

enforcing intellectual property rights. The Obama Administration's Office of the U.S. 

Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator recently offered support for the self-regulatory 

Best Practices, stating that it was "a good example of how the public and private sector can work 

to combat piracy and counterfeiting while protecting and, in fact, further encourag[ing] the 

innovation made possible by an open Internet." lAB is educating other ad networks about the 

Best Practices. We are also exploring the possibility of inclusion of the Best Practices in the next 

version of the Quality Assurance Guidelines. As you can see, Mr. Chairman, TAB continues to 

explore creative solutions to address the problem of intellectual property theft. 

V. Conclusion 

Thank you for considering the view of lAB on these issues. We greatly appreciate your 

focus on our work to protect the value of original content and the advertising industry that 

supports its creation. We welcome your observations as the Guidelines progress, and urge you to 

continue to engage in fruitful dialogue that will lead to truly implementable and successful 

outcomes for the creative industries impacted by online theft. 

3 Best Practices and Guidelines for Ad Networks to Address Piracy and Counterfeiting (July 15, 2013), available at 

http://2013ippractices.comj 

8 
35 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Rothenberg. 

Mr. Levitt. 

TESTIMONY OF GABRIEL LEVITT, VICE PRESIDENT, 

PHARMACYCHECKER.COM 

Mr. LEVITT. Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Congressman 

Watt and Ranking Member Conyers, I am Gabriel Levitt, the Vice 

President of PharmacyChecker.com, which for the past 10 years, 

has been helping Americans find affordable medication from safe 

online pharmacies by checking and verifying the credentials of 

these pharmacies and posting price comparisons. 

We believe that voluntary agreements can be a useful tool in protecting Americans from counterfeit products, but they can also be 

misused in anti-competitive ways which scare and thwart Americans from accessing affordable medications. This leads to poor 

medication compliance with negative health consequences and also 

goes against the Administration’s desire that voluntary agreements 

not be used to impede competition. I will present recommendations 

which can keep this from happening. 

Last year, 50 million Americans, ages 19 to 64, did not fill a prescription due to cost, up from 48 million in 2010, according to the 

Commonwealth Fund. We also know that nearly 5 million Americans have been buying their medication from outside the U.S. in 

order to get affordable prices because the cost to buy brand name 

medicine is often 80 percent lower in other countries than in the 

U.S. 

Independent studies and over a decade of experience have demonstrated the safety of domestic and international online pharmacies approved in rigorous programs such as PharmacyChecker’s. 

A voluntary agreement of particular concern is one established by 

a group of Internet and credit card companies called the Center For 

Safe Internet Pharmacies, or CSIP. While CSIP has been effective 

at taking down some rogue pharmacies, it also acts to discourage 

Americans from accessing safe affordable medications outside the 

United States. 

CSIP uses a company called Legit Scrips to help it identify rogue 

sites for takedown and to power an online tool for consumers to 

look up the status of an online pharmacy. Unfortunately, if you use 

this tool to look up any online pharmacy operating in any country 

other than the U.S., such as Canada, it will tell you that the pharmacy is unapproved, regardless of the fact that it may be licensed, 

require a prescription and safely selling only genuine medication. 

The CSIP Web site has become a clearinghouse for information 

from the pharmaceutical-funded groups such as the Partnership 

For Safe Medicine and the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy with scare campaigns conflating all non-U.S. pharmacies 

with rogue pharmacies. In fact, any pharmacy outside the U.S. 

which sells to Americans is labeled by NABP as a rogue. 

To keep voluntary agreements from misleading Americans, we 

ask that your Committee make sure that CSIP does not discourage 

Americans from accessing safe and affordable medication online. In 

particular, we would urge that the basis for defining a rogue pharmacy include any of the following, but not simply whether or not 

it is licensed in the U.S. It intentionally sells adult rated or coun-
36 

terfeit medication; sells prescription medication without requiring 

a prescription; engages in fraudulent and deceptive business practices; does not follow generally accepted safety standards of pharmacy practice; and sells medication that is not regulated. 

We would also like to see CSIP and other institutions established 

under voluntary agreements be more transparent by providing the 

following information: Clearly state what recourse companies and 

people have if their businesses are shut down by actions taken by 

CSIP; provide information on those sites that were shut down and 

the reasons they were shut down based on applicable intellectual 

property laws and identify the precise public health risk of the Web 

site. 

Last, it is important to recognize that voluntary agreements are 

being afforded considerable market power. To ensure these powers 

are used properly, we recommend the appointment of an independent ombudsman to oversee these agreements. The ombudsman 

would analyze voluntary agreements to make sure private sector 

actions aren’t blocking Internet competition and are consistent with 

the Administration’s other goals of due process, free speech and 

transparency. 

I have provided the Committee with a transcript of this presentation and included our public comments submission to the U.S. 

PTO in Exhibit A. Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levitt follows:] 
37 

T~:stlmonyofGabriel Levllt 

Vlee Pr~~ldcnt. PharmacyChe<:ker.cnm (www pMnnil{~ b,·drer row) 

II nuse !udldary Committee. Suocommitt"" on Ihe Court~, InteUcctual Property and Ihe Ihlemet 

llearingon "The flole of Voluntary AgreemenL~ln the U.S. Intellectual Property System" 

September 18110, 2 pin, 2141 Rayburn House Office "ulldlng 

hainn ~n Gooo-llatte and Ranking Member Contl-ressman W~tt. thank you for Inviting me here today, 

13m Gabriel Levltt,lhe vice president <lfl'h~rm~cyChecker.com, which, for Ihe pa51 10 y.:oars, has 

been helping Americans fi nd affurtlabl,. nledicatiun from safe oniln" phannacies by dleckingand 

verifying Ihe credentials of !he-se Ilh~nnllCies and p()Stlnt price compa risons. 

We bellev~ thai voluntary agreements can be II usef,,1 1001 In protecting Americans frum euunlerfelt 

products. but Ihey C3n alsu be misused In anll-competitive ways which scare and Ihwa rt Americ:m'$ 

frlm' accessing affordable medlcatiolL 'This leadsto poor medica tion compliance with negative 

health consequences and also goes against tlte Administration's desire tlt~ t voluntary 

agreements not be used to impede competition.! I will present rec:onllne"dmions which can 

k0t!11 this from hap pening. 

.a~t year, flrty·million Amer!cans ~ges 19·64 did nol fill ~ I'rt'SCrl ptiOll due lu cost, up from 48 

mill!un In 2010. ac:c:ordlng to Ult' Coml11unwealth Fund.- We also know that nearly five millIon 

Amerl<:ans have been buying their medicatlon froln outside the U.s. in urder III gel affordable 

prices, be<:ause the cost III buy brnnd·name mL'/lJclne Isoften 80% lower In other countries than in 

the U.S ...... lndependenISlUdles and ov et a ~~ e of tlCperie<>ce have dellllmstrnted the ~fety of 

domestic and InternaliuMI unllne pnarmades approved In rlgoruus programs such as 

I'hann3cyCh~cker's" 

A voluntary agreement of par1lcular cc·ncemls one eSlablished hy a groul' of lntemet and credit 

c~rli companies ,a ll d the Center forS;lfe Internet Pharmacle$. or (SIP. While CSIP has been 

effective at takingduwn some rogue I'harmades,ll also aC15 to dlsoourage Amerlcal>S From 

accessing safe, affordable pha rmacies ",utside Ihe United States. CSIP uses a company mlled 

LegitScript to help it IdentllY rogue Sitl$ for "take down" and to power an online tool foreonsumers 

to look up !hestatus uran online pha n~<:y. Unfortu nately, if you us~ thi~ tool to look up any onlrnt> 

pharmacy upetal!ng In ~ny country other than the U.s.. 5uch as Can<lda.lt willte!! you that 

pharmacy Is "unaplllllved: r ... gardle!>!1 ofthl.' fad that It may hI.' licl.'n~l.'d , requ!rl.'a 

prescription. and safely seiling unly genuine medication. The CSIP we bsite has become ~ 

dearing house for Information from pharmaceutical Industry-funded grnups such as The 

! m 10- (;;oM.1 t..."Vln, VI'" I'tdklon'. "".rnlOlCyChcd!tr.<"O)m. LU:. so~cnnu,"u.., Dn CUII!U .t nl~IItmi.1 J'r<Ipt:I1)' .rolll.,. 

In ............ Sefl""ll""r 19", ""It"'" fA VoIlJnIlIrJ' A/,..,..,..,n .. ln II •• U.s. Intoilt-<nlOtl'rtl(><'rty 5y""I11.· 
38 

Partnership for Safe Medicines and the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) 

with scare campaigns conflating all non-U.S. pharmacies with rogue pharmacies. In fact, 

any pharmacy outside the U.S. which sells to Americans is labeled by NABP as a rogue. 

To keep voluntary agreements from misleading Americans, we ask that your committee make 

sure that (SIP does not discourage Americans from accessing safe and affordable medication 

online. In particular, we would urge that the basis for defining a "rogue pharmacy" include any 

of the following, but not simply whether or not it is licensed in the U.S.: 

Intentionally sells adulterated and/or counterfeit medication 

Sells prescription medication without requiring a prescription 

Engages in fraudulent and deceptive business practices 

Does not follow generally accepted safety standards of pharmacy practice 

Sells medication that is not regulated, i.e., not registered by a drug regulatory 

authority 

We would also like to see CSIP and other institutions established under voluntary 

agreements be more transparent by providing the following information: 

clearly state what recourse companies and people have if their businesses are shut 

down by actions taken by CSIP; 

provide information on those sites that were shutdown, and the reasons they were 

shutdown based on applicable intellectual property laws; and 

identify the precise public health risk of a website. 

Last, it is important to recognize that voluntary agreements are being afforded considerable 

market power. To ensure these powers are used properly, we recommend the appointment 

of an independent Ombudsman to oversee these agreements. The Ombudsman would 

analyze voluntary agreements to make sure private sector actions aren't blocking Internet 

competition and are consistent with the Administration's other goals of due process, free 

speech, and transparency.vi 

I have provided the Committee with a transcript of this presentation and included our public 

comments submission to the United States Patent and Trademark Office in Exhibit A. 

Thank you for your time. 

2 of 10- Gabriel Levitt, Vice President, PharmacyChecker.com, LLC, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the 

Internet, September 18th, "Role ofVo!untmy Agreements in the u.s. Intellectual Property System." 
39 

1 See Request of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for Public Comments: Voluntary Best Practices 

Study. 78 FR 37210. https:/ /www.federalregister.gov /artlcles/2013/06/20/2013-14702/request-of-theunited-states-patent-and-trade. mark-office-for-pu blic-comments-vol untary-best [Last accessed online 9-17-

2013]. 

Ii "The Commonwealth Fund 2012 Biennial Health Insurance Survey". The Commonwealth Fund. See 

~lttp:! IWEw.commLJnwea llhfund.or§!(lJJ..b~,qlion~!FLlnd-l{ep.orts 1'1.0131 Apr !Insurinu-the-t'ulure.aspx (Last 

accessed 7/22/2013). 

lil Cohen RA, Kirzinger WK, Gindi RM. Strategies used by adults to reduce their prescription drug costs. NCHS 

data brief. no 119. April 2013. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2013. See 

http: f Iwvvw.ccic.gov Inchs/data Idatahriefs/dbll 9.pdf. (Last accessed 7/22/2013). 

IV See "Savings on Brand Name Drugs Rise to 85% Using Verified Online Pharmacies Outside the U.S., 

According to PharmacyChecker.com - Consumers Told How to Avoid Rogue Pharmacies 

~ttp: 1i\\7V\1w.pharmacychecker.com/news 10n11ne nh.Jrmacv prescription s(}vinps 2012.asp. 

v See Bate, Roger and Ginger Zhe jin, Aparna Mathur. "Unveiling the Mystery of Online Pharmacies: An Audit 

Study. The National Bureau of Economic Research. March 2012. See htt.p:!I\hJ\I\'\-v.nber.oq:;/papers/w179SS. 

[Last accessed 8/10/2012] 

vi Ibid. 

3 of 10- Gabriel Levitt, Vice President, PharmacyChecker.com, LLC, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the 

Internet, September 18th, "Role ofVoluntmy Agreements in the U.S. Intellectual Property System." 
40 

,Pharmacy" Checker .com 

Exhibit A 

1 ........ ' .. ,,!I/n04"""'r- h:~ o.hoo~, 

August 2Otb. 2013 

T~r~S3 Stanek Rea 

' .. -.o---.w; 

~-

_ .. _ ... , ..... p ''''!.WaJ6r 

I "!07 ~_ 

Acting Under Secretary ofCommerC<': r,)r Intcilll'Ctual Property and Acting Diroc)or of th .. UnlU!d 

St:lte5 Palent and Trademark Office 

RE: ~que5t or til .. U.s. Patent and Trademark omc~ for Public Comments: Voluntary Best 

PracticesStudy 

Docket IIPTO-C·l0 13-0036 

Gabrie ll"tovin. fc~ Pruident. Phanna\:yChll'Cker.CDIII. LLC 

Fpullded In 2003. PllannacyChecker.ccom verifies tmllne pllarmacies. provides drug price 

comparisons among wrIHed online pharmacies. ilild advocates for exp.lnd ing access. onlln~ anI! off; 

to safe ami affordable ,"ed IC"~l ion. Our main Inlssion Is 10 help Americans find the lo"'est 

Pf<'scri ptloll dll.lg prices offere.:! by safe online pharmacies or discount cards offered by U.S. 

pharmacy henefit managers. Wearea ,;l3keholder In lhe online 1l1I~lness cqmmunlty seeking an 

open lnt erne~environmenl tllal prllmmes innllva llon and new llu5ine~s model~, cspedally tho:te 

th tt rve the public health. Thus. the main focus ~['('in Is to eKllmine.the effecllvenl!ss of 

cooperative voluntary Initia ti ves (CVls) enWlIrage.:! by the WhH~ 1I0ltse Office urllle nl~lIectual 

pmpeny Enforcelllent Coordlrun or (IPEC) a'i they rela te to onlln .. ph~rmacles. TI,e form~tioll of tit!! 

Cenler fo r Safe Internet Pila rmades (CSIP) Is nllen nOle.:! ~s"ne "fIPEC'~ achievements III 

encou raSlnSand facliHaUng the develf<lpm~nt ofCYls til prot~1 !n teli cctu~ 1 property on tlte 

Internet and Its 0lleraU0t1 wl1l be dlSCl>ssed aCCDrdlngly. 

Reducing lntellll'Ctual property infrillgement (IPI) Is Ihe gnal (If IPEC, ~nd CVls a rea pan ofl15 

stra tegy \ocurtilll lPI Oil Ille Inlernet. (;en .. rally. effe<:t!veoen ucll eff(ln.~ Is define{! by wheillcr 

or nOI CV ~ are actually reducing lPl.llowever. iI's mur~ (Qtnplex when IIl'ome~ 10 online 

prescrlplllllI drug sales- than for Dl her l:ypl!S (lr Inl .. rocI c<) nllllerce. For InstlllC<', c(lunterfeit 

handbags do not Imp.lelthe public hr.allt ~ where.ls CoNnterfeilnr rea l me.:!ltatlon, wllich can kill or 

save lives, res pective ly. LoI" ha ve a great publ!t h .. ahh lmp;t(l. Thpt's why IPEC's 1ll~ III fO(:us when it 

oomes to online phannac!es appears t<l be protectIon of the public health. nOI IPI. The excerpt 

llelow. f!VIII a March 2011 !PEC docul\lellt. ~ettlpllfies hi~ pulJllclleallh fl)(,:us: 

·0[1 December 14. 2010, White lIouse Intellectual Properly f.nforccmcnt Coordlnalor. Vk lnria 

Esilinet. all[lou ncoo that GoOaddy. Coogle. Microsoft. Yah oQ!. NetworkSoluUPtl5. Neustar. cNoll1. 

Pay Pal. MasterCard. Vi5.'l. and America n Exp ress h'lI'e ag~d tQ support 3n lnltlative which will 

start taking volunta ry acdon against ll1 .. gal lnternet pharmacies. 

1 m 10- GtMt l I.<."'tn. VI'" "' .... I<lom. "".MtW<yChcdotr ... ,m. LLC . S\l~ "" nu",~ DK 1Mt1U.l nl Iem .. 1 Pr<tfH::IV ' 1I<lIh" 

1""-"''''''- Se~r IS'", "R"'" d 1'"k"",,'1 A/,........n .. ln ,'''' u.s. Intoi.,..".I I'rtt(><'''Y 5y""I11.· 
41 

"This fall, Espinel challenged the private sector to voluntarily address the health and safety issues 

presented by rogue online pharmacies ... These discussions culminated in a well-attended, crossindustry meeting at the White House on November 9th, 2010. At that meeting, GoDaddy and Google 

took the lead on proposing the formation of a private sector 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization 

dedicated to promoting information sharing, education, and more efficient law enforcement of 

rogue online internet pharmacies".' 

From this excerpt it's clear that the basis for IPEe's "challenge" and the subsequent formation of 

CSIP was predicated on "health and safety issues." We believe that this is the proper focus for 

engaging the private sector to deter and shutdown online pharmacies that intentionally sell 

counterfeit, adulterated, or substandard medications, or sell real medications but without requiring 

a prescription. In addition to protecting the publiC health, violations of intellectual property rights 

will be curtailed by curtailing online sales of counterfeit drugs. 

CVls against online pharmacies should, at a minimum, do no harm, the philosophical foundation of 

medical ethics. Harm can be caused by CVls that curtail or block online access by consumers to safe 

and affordable medication. In fact, any actions that block access to safe and affordable medication 

are harmful ones. The public health importance of incorporating this truism into metrics for 

effectiveness of CVls dedicated to infringing online pharmacies merits a full explanation. 

There is a vast and well documented crisis of prescription drug non-compliance in our country, and, 

according to a CVSjCaremark study the main cause is the cost of medication in the United States." 

Fifty-million Americans ages 19-64 did not fill a prescription due to cost in 2012, up from 48 million 

in 2010, according to the Commonwealth Fundy! An analysis of a 2005 study by Kaiser, USA Today, 

and the Harvard University School of Public Health, found that approximately twenty-five million 

Americans became sicker from not taking their medications due to cost." The FDA estimates $290 

billion in added annual healthcare costs due to prescription non-compliance.v 

Other documented adverse effects from prescription non-compliance include the death of 125,000 

Americans who were not adhering to their prescribed heart medication.~ It's likely that hundreds of 

thousands more die each year from prescription non-compliance for other medications. The 

numbers above suggest that high drug prices are a major factor in these deaths. 

Almost five million Americans personally import medication because of more affordable prices 

abroad.'" Over the past decade, tens of millions of prescriptions have been ordered online and filled 

internationally through which Americans have received safe and effective medication: the same 

medications sold in the United States but at a much lower price. Empirical studies and over a 

decade of experience show the high degree of safety of personally imported medication from 

properly credentialed online pharmacies. This remains an inconvenient truth for those who seek to 

curtail access to such safe online pharmacies. Countless Americans would have gone without 

needed medication if not for these international and online sources. 

A study published in the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2012 called "In Whom We Trust: 

The Role of Certification Agencies in Online Drug Markets" demonstrates the safety of properly 

credentialed online pharmacies. The study tracked 370 prescription orders placed with online 

pharmacies, botb foreign and domestic. The population of online pharmacies included international 

and domestic ones credentialed by PharmacyChecker.com, international ones who are members of 

the Canadian International Pharmacy Association (CIPA), and domestic ones in the National 

2 of 10- Gabriel Levitt, Vice President, PharmacyChecker.com, LLC, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the 

Internet, September 18th, "Role ofVo!untmy Agreements in the u.s. Intellectual Property System." 
42 

Association of Boards of Pharmacy's (NABP) Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Sites and 

LegitScript.com programs. The study concluded that all credentialed online pharmacies, foreign and 

domestic, required a prescription and passed all drug authenticity tests. Of those drugs ordered 

from non-credentialed online pharmacies, 9% of product.' were fake or counterfeit medication, all 

of those for Viagra only.Y';' 

The real health and safety threat stems from domestic and international prescription drug orders 

that are filled by un-credentialed online pharmacies, many of which are not safe. 

Thus, to maximize positive public health outcomes, CVls should endeavor to encourage 

access to all safe online pharmacies for Americans, including international online 

pharmacies, while preventing access to dangerous online pharmacies. 

From here we try to address the USPTO's questions in the "Supplementary Information" 

section: 

1. How should effectiveness of cooperative voluntary initiatives (eVIs) be defined? 

Effectiveness is the degree to which CVls can reduce and stop access to dangerous online 

pharmacies while encouraging access to safe online pharmacies, specifically those 

credentialed by PharmacyChecker.com, Canadian International Pharmacy Association, 

LegitScript.com and the NABP. 

Dangerous and fraudulent online pharmacies are often referred to as "rogue online 

pharmacies." Unfortunately, the NABP, which represents U.S. pharmacy boards and 

pharmacists, defines any online pharmacy that is based outside the United States and sells 

to Americans as "rogue," regardless of its credentials. NABP publishes a "Not 

Recommended" listthat includes fraudulent and dangerous online pharmacies but also 

includes some safe international online pharmacies approved in the PharmacyChecker.com 

Verification Program because they are not based in the U.S.'" We believe this confiates the 

problem of "real" rogue online pharmacies (which hurt consumers) with the practice of 

safe personal drug importation (which helps consumers). As a practical and ethical matter 

we believe IPEC should reject NABP's definition of "rogue online pharmacy." 

LegitScript.com comes closer to the right classification system for "rogue online pharmacy," 

but it suffers from too much ambiguity and potential for overreach. Like the NABP, 

LegitScript.com's program does not allow for the approval of non-US, international, online 

pharmacies that sell to consumers in the United States. However, to its credit, safe 

in ternational online pharmacies are not classified as "rogue" by LegitScript.com. Instead, 

safe international online pharmacies, such as those approved by PharmacyChecker.com are 

generally categorized as "unapproved." The "unapproved" designation is misleading, as it 

scares consumers who are seeking safe and affordable medication away from safe sources, 

but at least it distinguishes safe international online pharmacies from "rogue online 

pharmacies". 

A reasonable definition of "rogue online pharmacy" is any website that: 

3 of 10- Gabriel Levitt, Vice President, PharmacyChecker.com, LLC, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the 

Internet, September 18th, "Role ofVo!untmy Agreements in the u.s. Intellectual Property System." 
43 

1) Sells prescription medication without requiring a prescription; 

2) Engages in fraudulent and deceptive business practices; 

3) Does not follow accepted safety standards of pharmacy practice; 

4) Intentionally sells adulterated and counterfeit medication. 

This definition would certainly describe most online pharmacies that are dangerous but 

not sweep into its ambit ones that are safe. CVIs are effective when they reduce the volume 

of, and access to, dangerous online pharmacies. 

2. What type of data would be particularly useful for measuring effectiveness of 

voluntary initiatives aimed at reducing infringement and what would the data show? 

The answer depends in part on how "infringement" is defined. In the case of online 

pharmacies "infringement" should be defined within the framework ofIPEC's main goal of 

protecting the public health. By defining "infringement" as "the intentional sale of 

counterfeit or adulterated medication, or the sale of genuine and safe medication but 

without a prescription," CVls would target not only the worst offenders, such as criminal 

networks known to sell counterfeit drugs, but the large majority of web sites that the U.S. 

Food and Drug Administration (and the pharmaceutical industry) seek to put out of 

business and, in some cases, prosecute. 

Useing the definition of "infringement" above, the data needed to measure effectiveness 

would show on a year-to-year basis the reduction in the number of infringing online 

pharmacies caused by CVls - private sector actions that led to the shutdown of a website that 

did not entail any corresponding government action. It would also show if any noninfringing sites - safe online pharmacies - were inadvertently shutdown by CVIs. 

Useful data could be obtained by working with companies, organizations and associations 

that currently verilY online pharmacies, including our company, PharmacyChecker.com, as 

well as LegitScript, NABP, and CIPA. More data to determine how to classify an online 

pharmacy could be obtained by conducting mystery purchases from online pharmacies to 

show if they are rogue or not, such as by using the methods of the National Bureau of 

Economic Research study mentioned above. 

A national survey on consumer purchases of prescription medication would also be helpful 

in determining the public safety and health ramifications of online pharmacies (good and 

bad). This would help identify the types of web sites that help and hurt the public health. 

Considering the public health threat that federal authorities see from online pharmacies it 

should engage the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) by asking CDC to 

include questions relating to online pharmacy purchases in their National Health Interview 

Survey. In its last such survey, the following questions were asked of33,014 Americans 

ages 18 and over: 

"DURING THE PAST 12 MONTHS, are any ofthe following true for you? ... You skipped 

4 of 10- Gabriel Levitt, Vice President, PharmacyChecker.com, LLC, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the 

Internet, September 18th, "Role ofVo!untmy Agreements in the u.s. Intellectual Property System." 
44 

medication doses to save money ... You took less medicine to save money ... You delayed 

filling a prescription to save money .. .You asked your doctor for a lower cost medication to 

save money .. .You bought prescription drugs from another country to save money ... You 

used alternative therapies to save money." vii 

A survey to determine public health ramifications of online pharmacies could ask: "are any 

of the following true for you? You ordered medication from another country through an 

online pharmacy to save money. You ordered medication from a U.S. online pharmacy to 

save money. You ordered from an online pharmacy that required a prescription from your 

doctor. You ordered from an online pharmacy that issued you a prescription based on an 

online questionnaire. You ordered from an online pharmacy that did not require a 

prescription at all. You received the medication that you ordered. The medication you 

ordered online worked as you expected. The medication you ordered did not work as 

expected. You experienced negative health effects after taking the medication ordered 

online. 

LegitScript.com's online pharmacy database already contains tens of thousands of web sites 

identified as "rogue" that can be used as a baseline to measure progress. Encouragingly, its 

data shows that the number of "not legitimate" sites has decreased over the past year by 

10,240 or 23.7%. 

June 24,2013 

43,075 Internet pharmacies 

225 are legitimate (0.5%) 

1,210 are potentially legitimate (2.8%) 

41,640 are not legitimate (96.7%) 

Source: LegitScript.com Home Page as 

viewed on June 24th, 2013. 

July 23, 2012 

32,835 are active Internet phannacies 

279 are legitimate (0.8%) 

1,512 are potentially legitimate (4.6%) 

31,204 are not legitimate (94.6%) 

Source: LegitScript.com's home page on July 23"0, 

2012, as crawled by Alexa.com. 

The question is how many ofthese were actually shut down by CVIs, rather than from 

government actions. The answer is simply those cases where a private company's action 

effectively shut down the rogue online pharmacy. Private company actions include refusal 

of service to rogue online pharmacies by payment processors, domain registrars, and 

search engines. A LegitScript press release claims that LegitScript has "dismantled over 

5 of 10- Gabriel Levitt, Vice President, PharmacyChecker.com, LLC, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the 

Internet, September 18th, "Role ofVo!untmy Agreements in the u.s. Intellectual Property System." 
45 

40,000 rogue Internet pharmacies since 2009."x Since LegitScript doesn't have legal 

authority to "dismantle" a company we believe that it has influenced domain registrars to 

end service to rogue online pharmacies: In other instances, LegitScript may identify for 

federal agencies those web sites that ought to be seized by the government. 

To determine what techniques are most effective, Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies, 

LegitScript.com, or both should enumerate the number of rogue online pharmacies shut 

down by the different private actions mentioned above. 

To prevent inadvertently shutting down safe online pharmacies, and to better assist the 

Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies and the public, LegitScript.com should provide a 

breakdown of the number of sites that are classified as not legitimate by "rogue" and 

"unapproved," since the latter designation, as per the discussion above, usually refers to 

safe online pharmacies that require a prescription, follow the laws where they operate, and 

provide affordable medication to Americans. 

Effectiveness should also be measured in line with the Obama Administration's goals that 

CVIs are "consistent with due process, free speech, privacy of users, and competition" while 

being as "transparent" as possible. CSIP should make public its protocols for action against 

infringing online pharmacies and the due process available to those websites targeted for 

takedown. When a website is shutdown through CVls it should be informed of the legal 

basis for the action. CSIP's website, for example, should: 

1) clearly state what recourse companies and people have if their businesses are 

shut down by actions taken by CSIP; 

2) provide information on those sites that were shutdown, and the reasons they 

were shutdown; 

3) identify the precise public health risk of a website; and 

4) provide the legal basis for determining intellectual property infringement 

activities of those websites which are shut down, if there are any. 

One of the Obama Administration's goals for CVIs is that they do not stifle competition. 

There's an inherent risk in "deputizing" private companies for law enforcement-type 

activities when such activities could curtail competition and business innovation. Thus, the 

degree to which CVIs curtail competition and business innovation, especially if such 

curtailment threatens the public health, must be factored in measuring effectiveness. 

Online pharmacies are a relatively new business model for distributing medications and 

offer a good example to show how CVIs could stifle competition. Online pharmacies provide 

significant benefits to consumers in terms of cost and convenience. They make it easier for 

consumers to find companies in different states and countries that operate mail-order 

pharmacies, providing them more choices and lower prices. Their operations, which can 

greatly benefit consumers and the public health, challenge existing pharmacy business 

models. Entrenched business interests often seek to stifle new competition. For example, 

6 of 10- Gabriel Levitt, Vice President, PharmacyChecker.com, LLC, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the 

Internet, September 18th, "Role ofVo!untmy Agreements in the u.s. Intellectual Property System." 
46 

on behalf of U.S. chain pharmacies, the National Association of Chain Drugstores has 

lobbied the government to stop Americans from buying lower cost medication from Canada 

and other countries for over a decadexi. For drug companies it's a commercial imperative to 

segment national markets by preventing them from parallel trade of pharmaceuticals, 

especially in protection ofthe U.S. market from which they derive the greatest profits. 

Furthermore, international drug price transparency serves to advantage consumers vis a 

vis drug companies as it gives rise to the former's advocacy for lower domestic drug prices. 

Like U.S. pharmacies, but for somewhat different reasons, the pharmaceutical industry 

lobbies the U.s. government to prevent Americans from buying lower cost medication from 

licensed Canadian or other international pharmacies for their personal use.xii 

The discussion above is necessary because drug companies and U.S. pharmacies are 

lobbying the government to promote CVIs that stifle the development of international 

online pharmacies. In the case of the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies, some of its 

member companies pay LegitScript.com to assist them in taking actions against online 

pharmacies. However, LegitScript.com is a steering committee member ofthe Alliance for 

Safe Online Pharmacies, a group that is funded by the NACDS and Eli Lilly:xiii both are 

engaged in lobbying Congress and federal agencies to stop Americans from personal drug 

importation. This interplay of private action to bring about CVIs will no doubt disadvantage 

consumers in areas other than online pharmacy. 

To prevent CVIs from anticompetitive policies and actions, we recommend an 

independent ombudsman. For example, the CVI ombudsman would be someone with 

neither a financial interest nor alignment with pharmacy or pharmaceutical companies nor 

a federal or state regulator. The CVI Ombudsman will analyze CVIs to make sure private 

sector actions aren't blocking Internet competition and innovation. As part of his or her 

efforts the CVI Ombudsman would determine the negative effects to the public health of 

CVIs. 

We understand that while the main goal of IPEC in combatting rogue online pharmacies is 

protecting the public health it's also concerned with online IPI. For the sake of effectiveness 

and transparency, IPEC should clearly, and with the greatest specificity, identify what 

practices by rogue or other online pharmacies constitute intellectual property violations. 

Only then can we measure how effectively CVIs are protecting intellectual property rights. 

3. If the data is not readily available, in what ways could it be obtained? 

LegitScript's data is useful for measuring a reduction in the number of active rogue online 

pharmacies. As stated above, it should go one step further and show the number of 

"illegitimate" online pharmacies that are not rogue but classified as "unapproved" since 

many of those are safe and should not be subject to takedown actions by CVIs. 

Please also refer to the recommendation above for the CDC to conduct a national survey of 

Americans who buy medication online. 

7 of 10- Gabriel Levitt, Vice President, PharmacyChecker.com, LLC, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the 

Internet, September 18th, "Role ofVo!untmy Agreements in the u.s. Intellectual Property System." 
47 

4. Are there particular impediments to measuring effectiveness, at this time or in general, and 

if so, what are they? 

There may be a lack of political will to actually determine the public health effects of online 

pharmacies because they are inconveniently positive. Indeed, millions of prescriptions 

have been safely filled internationally by Americans through online pharmacies, despite the 

fact that under most circumstances they may have broken the law or violated intellectual 

property rights. Keeping in mind the tens of millions of Americans who skip filling 

prescriptions due to cost, what are the public health effects if such access is blocked? 

The dangers of rogue online pharmacies - "rogue" as defined by LegitScriptcom - are very 

clear and compelling. Publicizing patient harm from such websites would 1) deter 

Americans from buying from them, and 2) clarify those sites that need to be shutdown to 

protect the public health. 

5. What mechanisms should be employed to assist in measuring the effectiveness of voluntary 

initiatives? 

As stated above, identifying the specific private actions taken under CVIs that led to the 

shutdown or dismantlement of rogue online pharmacies will be helpfuL For example, out of 

the 40,000 rogue online pharmacies dismantled by LegitScript.com, it should be 

determined how many such takedowns occurred via domain registrars refusing service to 

rogue online pharmacies vs. payment processors refusing to service them. 

6. Is there existing data regarding efficacy of particular practices, processes or methodologies 

for voluntary initiatives, and if so, what is it and what does it show? 

The number of rogue online pharmacies has diminished, according to LegitScriptcom, and 

many through CVls. The processes include identifying rogue online pharmacies to domain 

registrars, payment processors and search engines and asking them to refuse service to 

such websites, effectively dismantling them. 

8 of 10- Gabriel Levitt, Vice President, PharmacyChecker.com, LLC, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the 

Internet, September 18th, "Role ofVo!untmy Agreements in the u.s. Intellectual Property System." 
48 

'''Counterfeit Pharmaceutical Inter-Agency Working Group Reportto the Vice President of the United States 

and Congress," Executive Office, Prepared by the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, 

March 2011, page 9, See 

al\.Jl.;Llwww, w'1itchuuse,~ov l,ito;0!efauMile>LQillQ,LIPEC/P:1ar1l13 Ru~orl fuil1pJJi [Last accessed 

8/14/13]. 

,; "CVS Caremark Study Says Cost is Biggest Barrier to Prescription Adherence", 2012, CVS Caremark 

Cooperate: h~t¥~jl'l\~1:V"-,,\~.;: __ v~(rtrexnrl1-"'kfy_kCQ111jbJQf~I~v;>_-j~Llr~1]10rk-~urYt3-y-_~aY5::O;::Q_:it-::ht~~J:-bm~nerprescription-octherence, (Last accessed 7/22/13). 

Iii "The Commonwealth Fund 2012 Biennial Health Insurance Survey". The Commonwealth Fund. See 

b11,iI";'/ l\vww"cOmJllilnWcalthrun£JJIuI~1Jbl icaUili1s IFlln1i:I{~ports 12 013 !Apr I Insurlng-t.he-FulY-re,aspx. (Last 

accessed 7/22/2013), 

,y "USA Today/Kaiser Family Foundation/ Harvard School of Public Health Care Costs Survey, 2005", The 

Kaiser Family Foundation. See http://www,ktT.orglnewsmedia/,,pbad iTl71,pdf (Last accessed 8/10/2012). 

Twenty percent of survey respondents reported not filling a prescription due to cost; and 54% of those said 

their condition got worse as a resull Extrapolated to the 2012 population of adults 18 and older, which is 

234,564,071, the number is 25 million, 

y U,S, Food and Drug Administration, 76 FR 12969, March 2011, Can1l2illg]J]o lnmrove P9_or Medicill1Qll 

Adherence: :lttDS: I /\I\rvvw,Federalregis ter.gov /artides/2 011 /03/09 /2011-5287 !c311-maign-to-improve-poorm.edicatioll-eQherence-u18, (Last accessed 8/10/12) 

" McCarthy, R. "The Price You Pay for the Drug Not Taken",Busiitess Hoolth 1998. See 

ottp:i/fincarticies,com/p/3rt,cles/mi m0903iis ,,10 vl6/oi n27S41886i. (Last accessed 8/10/2012) 

vii Cohen RA, Kirzinger WK, Gindi RM. Strategies used by adults to reduce their prescription drug costs. NCHS 

data brief, no 119, April 2013, Hyattsville, MD: NatlOnal Center for Health Statistics, 2013, See 

http:(lvvww,cdc,gov fnchsldata/dalabriefsfdbl19,pdf. (Last accessed 7/22/2013), 

vill Bate, Roger and Ginger Zhe Jin, Aparna Mathur. "Unveiling the Mystery of Online Pharmacies: An Audit 

Study. The National Bureau of Economic Research March 2012. See http://w'\Nw,nher.on;;;-lj23pe-:-s I\v171):)5. 

(Last accessed 8/10/2012) 

~ National Association of Boards of Pharmacy publishes a list of "Not Recommended Sites" found here: 

http://www.nabp.net/programs/consumer-protection/buying-medlclne-online/not-recommended-sltes 

(Last accessed 8/12/2013). All sites on the list are defined as "rogue", The definition of "rogue" can be found 

here: http: J !w~::'.lliib..1LD.£..tJ.l,lrograms !consumeL:l2I.iIte~_Q.nLilllying-n;.cdicln£:onti.nc Iwhy-n..oJ:: 

r~~mem.kd,L, Online pharmacies that are safe and approved by PharmacyChecker,com appear on this list 

alongside dangerous websites that intentionally sell counterfeit and adulterated medication and/or do not 

require a prescription. 

'''LegitScriptShuts Down 6,700 Rogue Internet Pharmacies," LegitScript Press Release dated June 28'h, 2013, 

See http://online,wsj,com/orticle/PR-CO-2013062B-909470,html (Last accessed 8/12/2013) 

xi Kocot, S. Lawrence, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, National Association of Chain Drug Stores. 

April 5th, 2004. Statement on Importation of Prescription Drugs Prepared for United States Department of 

Health and Human Services Task Force on Drug Importation, 

:1ttp: Ilarchlve,hhs,aov limnortta~iLorcelscssion2 illresentations/NACD,lld[ [Last accessed 8/13/13], 

9 of 10- Gabriel Levitt, Vice President, PharmacyCheckeLcom, LLC, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the 

Internet, September 18th, "Role ofVoluntmy Agreements in the u.S. Intellectual Property System." 
49 

xi! Ismail, M. Asif. "Drug Lobby Second to None: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Gets its Way in 

Washington." July 7th, 2005. The Center for Public Integrity. 

i1ttp:liw.vw.publicmtcgrlty.ora /200S!07 107 15786/drug·1obbv second none [Last accessed 8(13(2013]. 

Also: Peter Baker. "Obama Was Pushed by Drug Industry, E-Mails Suggest." June 6, 2009. New York nmes. 

-llttp: / (vvvvv,,'. mitlmes.com 12 012 106/09 Ius InoLtics f e-mails-rcve3J-extcnt-of-obam3s-deal-.AT:th-mdustrv-on-

'1ea]lh-care.hlmi"'page\.'V:mt.",i=all&. r=1l (Last accessed B(12(2013) 

xiII See Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies "Who We Are" web page: heq):! Isafeonlinerx.com!<1bout-us/whowe-arf!.}. [Last accessed B(14(2013]. 

10 of 10- Gahriel Levitt, Vice President, PharmacyChecker.com, LLC, Suhcommittee on Court'>, Intellectual Property anJ 

the Internet, September 18th, "Role of Voluntary Agreements in the U.S. IntelleChml Property System" 
50 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Levitt. 

Mr. Barchiesi. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT C. BARCHIESI, PRESIDENT, 

THE INTERNATIONAL ANTICOUNTERFEITING COALITION 

Mr. BARCHIESI. Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Watt, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you today. I am proud to be representing the Intellectual 

AntiCounterfeiting Coalition and our partners from the financial 

industry. My testimony today will address our ongoing collaboration regarding the trafficking of counterfeit and pirated goods online. 

With over 230 members that span across industries, the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition is one of the world’s largest 

organizations representing the interests of companies concerned 

with trademark counterfeiting and intellectual property theft. 

While legitimate retailers increasingly leverage the Internet as a 

platform for sales, the same is true of counterfeiters. Once confined 

to brick and mortar shops, the Internet has created new opportunities for the sale of illegal goods as well as an ever-widening pool 

of customers. Additionally, the shift to online distribution has 

raised a variety of practical difficulties for our enforcement against 

criminals who operate with anonymity and beyond the jurisdiction 

of U.S. courts or law enforcement. 

The proliferation of this illicit trade threatens consumer confidence in the legitimacy of the Internet as a commercial platform. 

Consumers expect and deserve the honest cooperation of all of the 

players in the e-commerce ecosystem. That point of view has driven 

our partnership with the financial industry and informed the development of our ongoing collaboration. 

In January 2012, the IACC launched its payment processor program in collaboration with some of the largest multi-national 

brands and leading financial companies. This launch followed the 

establishment of a set of best practices facilitated by the Administration’s Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria 

Espinel. 

The program is, in laymen’s terms, a ‘‘follow the money’’ approach that seeks to diminish the ability of criminal counterfeiters 

to turn a profit. Our program is dependent on the financial partners’ policies which prohibit merchants from using financial services for illegal transactions. Merchants that sell counterfeit goods 

violate those policies and as such, subject themselves to remedial 

action, including termination of their merchant accounts. Because 

those policies apply to merchants regardless of their jurisdiction, 

the program has a global reach. 

At its inception, the IACC and its partners identified several 

goals for the IACC payment processor program. These include increasing the cost of doing business for and decreasing the profits 

to the counterfeiters; shrinking the universe of merchant banks 

willing to do business with those sellers; facilitating an efficient 

use of resources by both rights holders and our financial partners; 

and dismantling counterfeit networks by developing deeper intelligence on those networks’ methods of operating. 
51 

In the context of these goals, the program has been a resounding 

success. We have referred nearly 7,500 Web sites for investigation, 

resulting in the termination of over 2,100 individual counterfeiters’ 

merchant accounts which likely correspond to a much higher number of affected sites. 

The collaboration between the IACC and its partners has resulted in opportunities to provide training to banks and others all 

around the world. While there remain challenges to quantifying the 

impact of this program on the overall availability of counterfeit and 

pirated goods online, there is significant anecdotal evidence that 

online sales of such elicit product are becoming more difficult. 

Further, the program has created a growing pool of data that 

may be leveraged by both public and private sectors. Since the 

launch of our program, we have seen a number of trends, including 

a decline in the use of traditional credit card payments in favor of 

alternate payment methods; the misuse of anti-fraud measures in 

an attempt to thwart legitimate investigations by law enforcement 

and private industry; and the shift from the use of individual merchant accounts to reliance on illegitimate and sophisticated payment service providers who provide full service infrastructure for 

illegal sales and promise bulletproof processing. 

It is our hope that this paves the way for further cross-industry 

collaboration. The success of this program proves that when rights 

holders and others work side-by-side to ensure a safe and trusted 

marketplace, everyone wins. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barchiesi follows:] 
52 

Written Testimony of 

Robert C. Barchiesi 

President 

On Behalf of 

The International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition 

The Role of Voluntary Agreements 

in the U.S. Intellectual Property System 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet 

September 18, 2013 
53 

Chairman Coble, Vice Chairman Marino, Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am proud to be 

representing the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition ("lACC") and our partners 

from the financial industry. My testimony today will address our ongoing collaboration 

regarding the trafficking of counterfeit and pirated goods online. 

With a membership composed of over 230 corporations, trade associations, and 

professional firms, and founded over 30 years ago, the International AntiCounterfeiting 

Coalition is one of the world's oldest and largest organizations representing exclusively 

the interests of companies concerned with trademark counterfeiting and the related 

theft of intellectual property. The members of the lACC represent a broad cross-section 

of industries, and include many of the world's best-known companies in the apparel and 

luxury goods, automotive, software, tobacco, electronics, consumer goods, 

entertainment, pharmaceutical, and other product sectors. The lACC is committed to 

working with government and industry partners in the United States and abroad to 

strengthen IP protection and enforcement, and to raise awareness regarding the range 

of harms caused by counterfeiting and piracy. 

Our current financial industry partners include: MasterCard, Visa International, Visa 

Europe, PayPal, American Express, Discover / PULSE / Diners Club, MoneyGram, and 

Western Union. In addition, there are currently thirty-three rights-holder participants 

from a variety of product sectors, including apparel, footwear, and luxury goods, 

electronics, automotive, tobacco, pharmaceutical, business and entertainment software, 

and consumer products. 
54 

Background 

While legitimate retailers increasingly leverage the Internet as a platform for sale and 

distribution of their goods to consumers, the same is true of counterfeiters. Where such 

illicit activity was once confined to brick-and-mortar shops, the Internet's maturation as 

a commercial platform has created new opportunities for sales and advertising of illegal 

goods, as well as an ever-widening pool of potential customers. According to data 

provided by MarkMonitor, in the past decade, there have been approximately 2 billion 

new Internet users, representing a 425% growth since 2000. In 2010, 1 in 4 consumers 

reported that they had used the Internet for shopping. It is anticipated that the number 

of Internet users, and accordingly, the number of Internet shoppers, will only continue 

to grow in the coming years. 

As the Committee is well aware, the shift to online distribution has raised a variety of 

practical difficulties for those seeking to enforce their rights against individuals who are 

able to operate with relative anonymity, and beyond the jurisdiction of u.s. courts or 

law enforcement. The proliferation of this illicit trade online poses a threat to 

consumers' confidence in the legitimacy of the Internet as a commercial platform. As 

such, addressing these problems is in everyone's interest, and is the responsibility of all 

of the players in the e-commerce ecosystem. Consumers expect, and deserve, the honest 

cooperation of all of the parties involved in the online market. That point of view has 

driven our partnership with the financial industry, and informed the development of our 

ongoing collaboration. 

Voluntary Collaborative Efforts Between the rACC and Financial Industry 

In January 2012, the IACC launched its Payment Processor Program in partnership with 

some of the world's largest multinational brands and leading financial companies. This 

launch followed the establishment of a set of best practices, facilitated by the 

Administration's Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel. The 

program was developed with the recognition that e-commerce involves a number of 

3 
55 

natural choke-points that can be effectively targeted to combat illegal activities. The 

program is, in layman's terms, a "follow-the-money approach" that seeks to diminish 

the ability of criminal counterfeiters to process online payments, thereby decreasing the 

profitability of their illicit businesses. 

The main objective of the Payment Processor Program is to provide a streamlined, 

simplified procedure that allows rights-holders to report online sellers of counterfeit or 

pirated goods directly to financial companies in a more time- and cost-efficient manner, 

thereby facilitating action against the corresponding merchant accounts and 

diminishing the ability of such sellers to profit from their illicit sales. To implement this 

program, the IACC has developed an access-controlled portal system to facilitate the 

flow of information between and among participating rights-holders, the IACC, the 

National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (the "IPR Center"), and 

financial partners, utilizing a master IACC portal as the clearinghouse for such 

information. The portal system contains analytical tools, as well as a reporting 

mechanism that provides disposition results and statistical data to the reporting rightsholders. 

Our program is dependent on the financial partners' policies, which prohibit merchants 

from using financial services for illegal transactions. Merchants that sell counterfeit 

goods violate those policies, and as such, subject themselves to remedial action, 

including termination of their merchant accounts. Because those policies apply to 

merchants regardless of their jurisdiction, the program has global reach. 

Evaluating Effectiveness 

At its inception, the IACC and its partners identified several goals for the IACC Payment 

Processor Program. These include: increasing the cost of doing business for, and 

decreasing the profits to, the counterfeiters; shrinking the universe of third-party 

acquiring banks willing to do business with known, high-risk merchants; facilitating an 

efficient use of resources by both rights-holders and our financial partners - for 

4 
56 

example, by providing a standardized format for reports and de duplicating multiple 

reports by more than one rights-holder; and disrupting and dismantling counterfeit 

networks by developing deeper intelligence on those networks' methods of operating. 

In the context of these goals, the rACC Payment Processor Program has proven to be a 

resounding success since its launch in 2012. To date, participants in the program have 

referred nearly 7,500 websites for investigation, resulting in the identification of over 

26,000 payment channels, and the termination of over 2,100 individual counterfeiters' 

merchant accounts. Because counterfeiters frequently use a single merchant account to 

accept payments for multiple sites, the number of affected sites is likely significantly 

higher. In addition to such data, the collaboration between the IACC and its partners in 

the program has resulted in several opportunities to provide training to banks and 

others around the world on relevant issues. 

While there remain obvious challenges to quantifying the impact of this program on the 

overall availability of counterfeit and pirated goods for sale online, there is significant 

anecdotal evidence that online sales of such illicit products are becoming more difficult. 

Further, the program has created a growing pool of empirical data that may be leveraged 

by both the public and private sectors to more effectively target their efforts in terms of 

traditional enforcement and to develop appropriate policy responses to such trafficking. 

For example, since the launch of our program, we've seen a number of trends including: 

a shift away from the use of traditional credit card payment systems to alternate 

payment methods, and in some cases to the use of virtual currencies; the misuse of antifraud measures in an attempt to thwart legitimate investigations by law enforcement 

and private industry; and a shift from the use of individual merchant accounts to 

reliance on illegitimate and sophisticated payment service providers who provide fullservice infrastructure for illegal sales and promise "bullet-proof processing." 

It is our hope that this paves the way for further cross-industry collaboration. The 

success of the program proves that when rights-holders and others work side-by-side to 

ensure a safe and trusted marketplace, everyone wins. 

5 
57 

For a more in-depth discussion of the lACC Payment Processor Program, including a 

review of the first year statistics and an evaluation of the successes and challenges of the 

program to date, see 

http://www~Qrg!Co_ntenl1lilllond/McmberNewsDo~s!October%202o12%20RWJl!1 

%20tO%20IPEC%20-%20FJNAL.pdf. 

6 
58 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Barchiesi, I know you weren’t advised that you 

were going to be here until rather late in the game, but you 

brought it up to speed. Folks, we try to apply the 5 minute rule 

to ourselves so I will keep my questions in a very terse way. 

Mr. Sherman, are voluntary agreements a better approach to 

solving issues in lieu of legislation for companies that want to do 

the right thing on the one hand in contrast to companies that simply want to take advantage of intellectual property owners? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I am sorry, I heard the first part of the question 

but not the last. 

Mr. COBLE. Are voluntary agreements a better approach in resolving these problems? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I have been a big fan of voluntary agreements. We 

have seen what happens with legislation. We are carving in stone 

certain standards, certain processes, certain expectations, and everybody gets nervous on each side. It becomes very, very difficult 

to agree on that. 

With voluntary agreements, you can be flexible. You can agree 

on things, knowing that they can change without going back to 

Congress. You have the ability to learn from the marketplace what 

is working and what is not and modify the agreement, so there is 

flexibility, there is an ability to change as you go, and there is an 

ability to learn from experience. I think it makes people a lot more 

willing to try things and it begins to build trust. 

So, yes, I think that for a start, voluntary measures are a great 

way to begin basically closing the gap between the business side of 

the Internet and the content side of the Internet. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. 

Ms. Lesser, what role, if any, should the U.S. Government agency exercise with these arrangements are being negotiated while 

they are in effect? 

Ms. LESSER. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, what role are the agencies playing now? 

Mr. COBLE. What role should there be, if any, for U.S. agencies 

while these agreements are playing out or are in effect? 

Ms. LESSER. As several of the witnesses have said, you know, the 

leadership of Victoria Espinel, when she was the Intellectual Property Enforcer at the White House, was very, very important and 

continued to be important not only as the negotiators came up with 

this agreement, but as we moved toward implementation. 

I think as Federal agencies, Congress has a very important oversight role in helping us do what we want to do well. At the same 

time, as we look to evaluating the program and what changes need 

to be made, we are doing that on an ongoing basis, and as Mr. 

Sherman just said, we are very able to be very nimble and respond 

to the needs of the program on really a regular basis. 

So I think oversight should continue. There should be hearings 

like this. I don’t think there should be a rubric where there are 

consistent requirements for voluntary programs to report to the 

government however. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Rothenberg, what say you to this? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. It would be very hard for me to improve on the 

way Mr. Sherman articulated, although I am forced to try a little 

bit. But the voluntary agreement, self-regulation by industry has 
59 

the benefit of being able to be more flexible in the pursuit of its 

objectives. Legislation and regulation have a tendency to fix in 

stone certain methods by which infringements have to be identified 

and punished. And technology, especially the infringers and especially those infringers outside our borders, will find new ways to 

evade them. It can be much, much more effective, certainly in the 

short and medium term, to get widespread adoption of voluntary 

agreements, in turn, industry participants, especially the largest 

and the most legitimate industry participants, into the police of the 

industry itself. We think that could uncover lots of infringements 

and help create a self-reinforcing system of abeyance. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you for that. Mr. Levitt, do you want to 

weigh in on this? 

Mr. LEVITT. Once again, I think that commonsense voluntary 

agreements can be helpful. I come with a perspective that over 

time you could see entrenched interests who come together in carrying out these voluntary agreements could take actions that will 

stifle the emergence of other companies if there is not oversight. So 

I think that all of the people here have given good examples of how 

voluntary agreements can work and have worked, but there is an 

inherent risk when you deputize the private sector to take on a roll 

that I think you guys, I am sorry, you had tried to do through passing other laws, and I think there should be some oversight, there 

should be an independent ombudsman who is reviewing all of these 

voluntary agreements to make sure that they are transparent and 

not stifling competition. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, my red light has illuminated, so I will recognize Mr. Watt from North Carolina. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As has been my practice, 

I am going to defer and go last in the queue and defer to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Conyers disappeared on me. He was there and then he 

disappeared. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, your pause gave me a moment of concern. 

Mr. WATT. You mean, you thought I had forgotten your name? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Or something worse. 

Mr. WATT. I defer to whoever this guy is. I defer to Mr. Johnson 

and I will go last in the queue. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member, and thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Today’s hearing represents another opportunity for this Subcommittee to discuss how innovative market-place solutions are 

protecting copyright holders. Recently the White House Office of 

the IP Enforcement Coordinator joined with Google, Yahoo, AOL, 

Microsoft and the Interactive Advertising Bureau and other ad networks to announce the completion of voluntary best practices 

guidelines for ad networks to address piracy and counterfeiting. 

These industry guidelines are also the product of several years of 

coordinated efforts and represent a follow-the-money approach to 

stopping rogue sites dedicated to intellectual property theft. 

To demonstrate the magnitude of this problem, in 2012, Google 

disabled ads that served 46,000 sites for violating Google’s policies 

on copyright infringing content. Google shut down more than 

82,000 accounts for attempting to advertise counterfeit goods, 
60 

which were almost entirely discovered through Google’s engineering to protect copyrighted works. 

So I want to—and I also commend Victoria Espinel, the former 

U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, on her hard 

work during her tenure. 

Needless to say, copyright theft hurts everyone. Songwriters and 

artists depend on royalties for their livelihood and companies depend on protection so that they can make new content and products, and consumers want to know that when they purchase a good 

that it isn’t counterfeit. 

Alarmingly, a recent study commissioned by NBC Universal indicates that copyright infringement grows proportionally with Internet usage. But this isn’t altogether surprising. There is a strong 

temptation to illegally download a copyrighted work without accessible alternatives to infringement. Regardless, there are serious 

challenges that continue to face movie studios, music companies 

and other industries. 

Mr. Sherman, please describe some of the challenges facing artists, producers and songwriters, and also how does copyright infringement affect the ability for music labels to cultivate new and 

unproven talent? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, the challenge is how you make a living 

when one of the basic forms of revenue for musicians, songwriters, 

publishers, labels is basically going away as people are able to get 

for free what they previously had to pay for. It just means that you 

are going to be doing a lot more live touring. You are going to be 

looking at alternative revenue streams. You are no longer going to 

be relying on CD sales or downloads in order to make a living. And 

because live touring is a hard life and because these alternative 

revenue streams are growing very slowly, it means the opportunities to be able to make a living in music is compromised. 

Hopefully it will get better, and certainly the Internet has provided a level playing field where any musician can find a worldwide audience, so there is great opportunity. There is just a lot of 

difficulty in monetizing that opportunity so that you can actually 

eat and raise a family and send your kids to college. 

So it is tough. And the labels, which are now 40 to 50 percent 

the size that they used to be, and about 40 percent the number of 

employees, have less money to invest in new artists. They have less 

money to promote them, less money to market them and less 

money to keep them on the label hoping that the next album will 

do a little bit better or the third album will do a little bit better. 

It is just a much tougher business. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I see. So becoming a full-time musician, songwriter, performer, is getting much more difficult, and for the labels 

to be able to exploit that talent, it is very difficult to do when all 

of your product is being distributed in a way that you cannot collect any revenue from? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Exactly right. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So how has this access to illegitimate means of 

capturing this content, explain the consumer behavior that is behind that? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Consumers, especially the younger generation, 

have grown up to believe that anything on the Internet is free. It 
61 

is the way it started and it has become an expectation. It is something that has to change over time, not only for music, but for all 

the content industries to be able to flourish, and I think it will 

change over time, but it will take awhile until there is a cultural 

shift on that. 

So at this point the ease with which a music fan can get an illegal copy of music or illegal streams of movies or television shows 

has basically changed the expectation with respect to the value of 

music and entertainment. And that is a devastating thing when 

the value of music and other forms of entertainment are killed off 

because at that point, the pricing that legitimate services can 

charge becomes not enough to support the infrastructure necessary 

for investment and artists, new content, movies, television shows 

and the like. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe, is recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being 

here. 

There is a phrase that brings fear and trepidation into the hearts 

and souls of men and women across the country and that is ‘‘We 

are from the government and we are here to help you.’’ Whether 

it is a business or whether it is an individual, I mean, I have always thought that and I am part of the government and I really 

think that now, that that is a great concern among people. 

We have in your all’s situation a process that is working where 

different entities get together and follow contract law, something 

that is preserved in the Constitution, the right to contract. 

I think it is working fairly well in your situation. 

My question is does the government—should we legislatively now 

jump in the middle and sort things out and make it better? I mean, 

by ‘‘better,’’ I mean that facitiously. Would it make it worse, or 

would it make it better? Or should we continue to encourage the 

ability to contract and work out in the marketplace disagreement 

and compromise, something that we don’t do too well here, Congress, compromise. 

So I just kind of open that question up, and I would like to hear 

all five of your opinions on that role of government, if any. Ladies 

first. 

Ms. LESSER. Well, I will speak from the perspective of my program, which, as I said during my testimony, has only been in operation for 6 months. I think what we found during the implementation process, which took more than 18 months, was that the negotiators who were at the table for 3 years coming up with the framework for our contract, our Memorandum of Understanding, and for 

the copyright alert system, didn’t really know all of the elements 

that should ultimately go into the program. And so the 18 months 

we spent doing research, looking at the implementation, looking at 

the words in the contract, and in some cases changing those words 

so that we could make sense of the implementation, I think shows 

me that that collaborative process really allowed us to respond to 

the needs of the marketplace, to be flexible, and, most importantly, 

to work with our consumer advisory board. 
62 

Many people on that advisory board were really the people sitting across the table from the content industry during the renowned SOPA debate, and here they were at a table with us envisioning and constructing a program that we think is working well. 

Now, we only have 6 months under our belt, so the next part of 

the answer is that we have to wait and see. We are already—I will 

give you an example. We have, as I said, an appeal process. The 

American Arbitration Association is overseeing that process. So if 

a consumer thinks that an alert has been sent in error, and they 

file an appeal, the American Arbitration Association is assigning 

copyright lawyer neutrals to adjudicate that appeal, not in a traditional sense of adjudication, but within the confines of our program. What we found early on is that indications were that our defense explanations were not that clear. And so immediately—— 

Mr. COBLE. Ms. Lesser, if you could wrap it up. 

Ms. LESSER. Within a month we went back in and redid those 

defense explanations. So we are changing the program as we go. 

Mr. POE. I want everybody to answer that question. Now, you all 

are down to a minute, 25 seconds apiece or so. So, Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Do not underestimate the value of government encouragement. I certainly understand the difference between legislation and the imposition of rules. But the role of encouragement can 

be very, very helpful in getting parties together. 

Mr. POE. Get it done, or we are going to do it. And then 

everybody’s going to be—— 

Mr. SHERMAN. That often helps. Hopefully it won’t be necessary, 

but it does help. So encouragement is important. 

Mr. POE. Okay. Mr. Rothenberg. 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. Sir, the ad-supported Internet contributes $530 billion to the U.S. economy. It is responsible for about 5.1 million jobs. Those are based on platforms that have been built on the 

backbone of the Internet, platforms like eBay and Facebook and 

Google. They are responsible for jobs. One of most important things 

this Congress can do is promote our voluntary guidelines in global 

trade agreements to assure that the rest of the world doesn’t shut 

down these platforms irresponsibly. 

Mr. POE. Thank you. 

Mr. Levitt. 

Mr. LEVITT. I would like to answer that how I think a consumer 

will—what they might want you to hear. There is a group called 

RX Rights. That is RxRights.org. It is a coalition that has about 40- 

to 50,000 people, and they buy drugs, often from Canada, online 

from verified and safe sites. They don’t want the government stopping them from being able do that, because they know that it is 

safe because that is what they have been doing. And I think there 

has to be a balance when we are taking actions to shut down sites 

selling counterfeit drugs that we don’t overreach where real people 

end up getting hurt because they can’t afford their medications. 

Mr. POE. Lastly. 

Mr. BARCHIESI. We firmly believe in the efficacy of voluntary 

agreements and this proof of concept. What we do, it works. Our 

partnership with the financial industry works. But the operative 

word is it takes a willingness on the other party’s side to work together, roll your sleeves up and get it done. We were able to go 
63 

over to China and recently put together an agreement with Tow 

Bow and Alibaba Group. 

So I think there is a role with government. I am a bit frustrated 

that I can’t go over to—in California to Google and do the same 

thing. So I agree with Cary Sherman that I think there is a role 

for government to play to help encourage these groups to get together and get it done. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I am pleased to recognize the lady with whom I cochair the Creative Rights Caucus, the distinguished lady from California, Ms. 

Chu for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Before I begin, I would like to submit testimony for the record 

on behalf of the Copyright Alliance on the role of voluntary agreements. The Copyright Alliance has been a great advocate for the 

rights of individual creators. So I am happy that they are weighing 

in on this very, very important hearing. And so that is this. And 

I would also like to submit for the record this study entitled ‘‘Understanding the Role of Search in Online Piracy,’’ commissioned by 

the Motion Picture Association of America. This report indicates 

that search engines play a facilitating role, even if inadvertently. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection, they will be received. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
64 

copyright alliance 

--~--

T~sti!l1ony of Sandrll Ai~tlln. Exetntive Director, Copyright Allillnc~ 

Committtt on tht JudiciMry 

Subcommittet Oil Courts, Intflltc tulIl Proptrty And tht Intfrlltt 

U.S. lIou s~ or Rrl)rrsenllllivt$ 

"The Role or Vohmlury Agrel'!I1fnl$ in the U.S. Inlflll'l:tual PrQI,~rly Syslfrn" 

Septem brr 18,20 13 
65 

Testimony by Sandra Aistars, Executive Director, Copyright Alliance 

The Role of Voluntary Agreements in the U.S. Intellectual Property System 

Before the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the 

Internet 

September 18,2013 

The Copyright Alliance is a non-profit, public interest and educational organization made 

up of artists, creators, and innovators of all types. Our members include artist membership 

organizations and associations, unions, companies and guilds, representing millions of creative 

individuals. We also collaborate with and speak for thousands of independent artists and creators 

and small businesses who are part of our one voi©e activists network. 

The Copyright Alliance welcomes this opportunity to submit testimony for the record of 

this hearing "The Role of Voluntary Agreements in the U.S. Intellectual Property System." 

The Copyright Alliance enthusiastically supports the use of cross-industry collaborative 

efforts to address the problem of online infringement. We are concerned, but not surprised by 

recently released studies such as the NetNames Report "Sizing the Piracy Universe" that reveal 

that the problem of online piracy is tenacious and persistent. 1 The anecdotal experiences of our 

members and grassroots members contlrm this fact. We agree with the Intellectual Property 

Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) that cooperative cross-industry measures are "an effective tool 

in our multi-faceted approach to fight infringement.,,2 And as the American Consumer Institute 

found in a survey of consumer attitudes toward intellectual property released this past July, a 

majority of the public supports the use of voluntary initiatives.' The study found that 69% of 

Internet users supported ISPs voluntarily restricting access to sites involved in online 

infringement, while 76% ofTntemet users preferred to be notitled by ISPs in the event they had 

mistakenly downloaded infringing content. 

When such initiatives work well, they can reduce and equitably apportion the burden that 

would otherwise be placed on all stakeholders. Early signs suggest existing initiatives are having 

a positive effect on reducing infringement and educating users about legal alternatives. However, 

to date, most initiatives have focused mainly on the audiovisual and music sectors. We therefore 

encourage the expansion of such initiatives, or the creation of additional best practices that 

extend to other affected communities of creators and innovators. 

1 David Price, Sizing the Piracy Universe, NetNames (September 2013), 

http:/h-"'''i\''iv.netnames.com/Sizing_the -'piracy _universe. 

2 U.S. Intellectual Propelty Enforcement Coordinator, 2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Propel1y 

Enforcement, p. 37 (June 2013), http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defaultlfiles/ombIIPECl2013-us-ipec-jointstlltll!g1ntpIhIcjrnJd!.Propelty Enforcement Coordinator, 2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Propel1y 

E!if1wiIeJAelBlqn:tlWoI.1huID j\OI2i)IiHftJ>:JhliwA>ll.J:Of'lLi~h~gfJlJftlt""dofua!tftl,d><Bjoml)))lpEfi"1fiWfi>ffi,ipid'j.,;wd 

strategic-plan. pdf 

') Erwin A. Blackstone, et aL Infe11ecfua! Proper(v: Facts on Coul/tl!l:teif and Pirated 

Goods, The American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research 

20 13), btlj};j'!i.'~:",-,-lhf'll11Cni'all':Ql1S1lt1lel~()IJ;!-'-Vr'-i'Ql1ie"i~-'lpl0a_d';;2_()W(!"7;Er"-"l:J[!,::>St1!(jv.::.''CJ:;o~ .. ,q'-(lf 
66 

As it examines voluntary initiatives, the Subcommittee should keep the following 

principles in mind. First, initiatives should strive to be as open as practical to diverse sectors of 

creators and creative works. Initiatives should also strive to reach all needed participants in the 

online ecosystem; some notably important participants, such as search engines, remain 

unaccounted for. When the effectiveness of initiatives are measured, data should always be 

placed in the proper context; for one, copyright provides vital non-economic benefits to creators 

that are just as important as the economic benefits, and second, many of the indicators of a 

successful copyright framework are qualitative and subjective rather than quantitative and 

objective. 

In addition, as ensuring appropriate copyright protections to artists and creators is one of 

the powers of Congress enumerated in the Constitution, it should play an important role in the 

oversight and encouragement of vol untary initiatives. Congress should continue to encourage the 

facilitation of discussions concerning the creation of initiatives through offices like IPEC and 

continue to monitor the effectiveness of existing initiatives. 

The Copyright Alliance reiterates its call to keep the creator front and center during the 

copyright review process 4 As the Subcommittee takes a closer look at this issue, special 

attention should be placed on examining the viability of cooperative mechanisms for individual 

creators and small businesses. Remedies remain ineffective if they are out of the reach of these 

vital constituents. Such creators often lack the resources to seek judicial remedies and have no 

market leverage. Similarly, an initiative cannot be considered effective if the burden of action 

falls primarily on the creator; everyone in the online ecosystem has a role to play in creating a 

fair and sustainable marketplace. 

The recently announced Best Practices for Ad Networks to Address Piracy and 

Counterfeiting illustrate this point well 5 Although the Practices are a welcome step in the right 

direction, we believe they would have benetlted from the inclusion of creators - particularly 

individuals and small businesses - in the drafting process. For example, inclusion of the 

individual artist perspective in the discussion would have made clear that certain aspects of the 

procedure created by the Best Practices, such as the requirement for providing detailed data 

tracing information in order for a notice to be deemed effective, are burdensome for and beyond 

the reach of these creators, who may not have a working knowledge of technology practices that 

would be required by the procedures. More effective solutions for the full range of interested 

parties might be developed with broader participation of affected stakeholders. 

Along with considering what specitlc initiatives do, the Subcommittee should consider 

what they dOli '{ do. Initiatives may contain notable gaps; for example, the Copyright Alert 

System only monitors P2P filesharing but not infringement occurring through cyberlockers or 

streaming piracy6 Similarly, the Best Practices for Ad Networks only addresses display ads, not 

video and mobile ads (the latter of which constitute a growth sector in advertising spending), and 

4 Sandra Aistars, Statement on Today '5 Hearing on "A Case Study for Consensus Building: The Copyright 

Principles Project" (May lG, 2013). 

https:llcopyrightalliance.org/sites/ default/files/aistars _statement _re judiciary _hearing_final. pdf. 

, Available at http://2013ippractices.com. 

6 See Copyright Alert System, Final Memorandlllll of Understanding (July G, 2011). available at 

http://\\'\y""\y. copyrighrinfonnntion. org/wp-content/uploads!20 13/0211vfemorandulll -of-Understanding .pdf 
67 

it only applies to ad networks, not ad exchanges and other major participants in the online 

advertising sphere7 Keeping such factors in mind when examining an initiative should not 

suggest that the initiative is ineffective, but may be an indication that if the fIrst initiative has 

been worthwhile, it is worth examining how it can be adapted and expanded to address additional 

challenges. 

Finally the Subcommittee should consider how closely the duties prescribed by best 

practices statements align with existing legal duties. Initiatives that spell out duties that are no 

more than what online actors should already be doing under existing law are little more than 

window-dressing. The goal of these initiatives should be to provide mechanisms that allow 

stakeholders to streamline their performance of existing legal duties and avoid unnecessary costs 

and inefficiencies that would come from enforcement of such obligations through judicial or 

administrative mechanisms. Effective best practices would be designed to make it as easy as 

possible for creators to file effective notices of infringement, and for other stakeholders to 

efficiently address them. 

The architecture and scope of the Internet demand a multi-pronged approach to building 

an effective copyright framework, one in which voluntary initiatives unquestionably belong. The 

Copyright Alliance is glad to see the LP Subcommittee has recognized their importance and taken 

the time to examine such initiatives in detail. We look forward to participating in the 

Subcommittee's work whenever appropriate. 

Best Practices Guidelines for Ad Networks to Address Piracy and Conlltelteiting, hI!I'Jjl(,!121l~E!-i'l~Jt~~~m{ (last 

visited August, 14, 2013) (stating --rtlhe tenn r-1Ad Nenvorksr-l encompasses only services \vhose prinullT business 

is to broker for compensation the placement of web~ite display adveliisements and does not include sell/ices \vhich 

are ad-serving platforms or ad exchanges"). 
68 
69 

"""H'"''""H''''' '"'' ... '" ,,,""" 'H'" "'.. , ... " .. ,," H'" "" .. ,'H"" 

Introduction 

ll\e MalJ()o P+cl,"e ASSOCiaum cI Am!!<ica (MPM) eotrrolS5i()08(l CompejalQ .. ssass !l16 mill S6a1W plays 

In how us and UI'( emsumers!od COIJl"tgI1llOirillglnQ eOQIeS 01 TV .. nrI ,*" COIllerll Qr111\(1lrl1emel 10 

ac:eompb$ll ~H) gOal QlI/le SIUOy. C~le used itsQrlllne r.on~urne, panellQ InVt1!l"tl<I,e hOw searel\ 1$ 

used" UK! tllscoYery and "iWlgallooa' )OUi'!Jey 10 U_ ~\ln'1(III1U conte<1t hies lQcal&(lllClOSS me \lotiO 

Con'Ip(Ilaaiso ana/yzet! \<ol"!nll.lr (he algordllfll C!'11111/1lImp'EU1!eIl,ec1 Ily GoIlg1e 111 Augu!!l2012. Wille" 

f1eOIl)QIaled copy"gi1t IIOIlCalevels illo "s _ch e"Q'11Il ~"!\,,,g, e!MJsed III1Y chanQe In 11\(1 'ole lila, 

S88lGil plilys III access IOCOllylighl lroI ~~1IIQ cooler. Tha ...... IysLll ~luded~' ~MS ~t Iii Il~a 00 US 

ana Uti coosume' oala 
III' 

uri 

... r 

'P Hf 

.f! H' Ii! 

!ll 

! . "J!

lit 

H' !If 

'II lIt 

til 

n .J. 

'!' P I· 

." 

-

H " * , H 

H 

H .5 " , . . iii"', -, < 0. 

n 

., 

li 

f" 

d 

b 

" a 

.

-

c· 

if 

" 

j " .1 

. - .c 

, 'I g. 

§ 

° ! 

, 

I 

§ 

[ 

• 

" •• - 0 

2 d <'" .o.! p 

. . 

i' !!! '" '0 

§ a 

g?lOi2'i 1 <5 S 

/'; n 3 '5 

, .. 

<in -'!il.,s 

<'I 'i.;;; 

l"'i'U -'! 

!l -S o '. c> <!. :;;;gi o a [: 

• • · I · • -• o • 

, , 

.. l 

3" !:O 

to 

H 

" a ,,:: 

• • 

q 

i 

! 

I 

:g :r 

i ; 

8:" -0, 3' " OF 

i," so! :.; _ B 

1" fIl 

, i 

"f ill 

;: .. is 

'" '" 

" 0> '" j , , 

" • < a •• 

• 

- 'l • ! ! I , 

. " < ... , . f 

, 

=9 . 

§ " 

9 0 

I' 

-l i . 

, . 

_ 0 

,--:I 

! , 

i 

I 

I 

• i 

" , 

.. 

j 

;;: 

a 

!I 

-
71 

........ , ........... ' ... H' .... "" .. ",., .. m 'Hm ,,, .. ,," 'H'" .,," ... " ""'''' "m """ ,,""" 

Analysis 

The Role 01 Serm:h Tho goal II)" ti11S S!udy was 10 undeniland ItIefOla Ihal S8<i,dl an~lOes play lr1 (he d'$COVl"Y of and naVigallOl' 

10 TVand 101m ~o"len! onlll'1e Spec~>CaIIV. lhe study aimed 10 Ilel!er UIl~""d UIU on~1IU palns~onS\Jmers 

ul,rlla wl1tln \/leV hnd ana.jew IIlI...,g.ng contenl As tUgl.WghIGd In Ille MeIl1Oc1Ology seCl ioo allha emj Of 

Itl!! Sludv Coo'mele used a !lyIl,,(I appraadllO define the rOle 01 saerel!. 1ncorpc.alng 00ti1111l1 r<'!levancy 

Of k<'I\WOIfIs used I!O(llhe reeel1C:Y oIlho r;u&ry'" mlal,on 10 'iAlen lhe ~ll'II'lg I"n COOII!l1I WllS.i(,Wt!tI The 

approach eslatl llShed 1IlS1!II'100S of consumers y,sUIIlg onl'f1\llng conlenl 8S 8O(JpoofitS. and I/loo &tlfibuted 

!learc.h QlJer'il1; thill llchldOO II related 1000m and ~ occlIf.ad w,th., B l"'I!my.mno.lle. prior window liS halflll1l 

InllOOrll;ed !I1e pa tti d1Jrng which the Intm~ rrg ,,,,,w,ng behavIOr occurred In,s mell'lOdology highhglll~ ifill 

P<1MI1iln<x! 01 ~ USflQ searCl'l ~ lor CI)(ltent tliseoverv tioWeYIlr. thiS melllOd did 001 !;e(!k to 

indicate Ihe ~ lowl,OCI, Irdtln{/ll'll t:;Orltem appears()tl $eatell eng'le rnsu~s pag!l5 Ihemselves 

USing ~II$ app<c;o.adI, Corr4Iala ob5eMl1l UllII. orl average, apprOl(tmalely2O% of iIIl v.sr1S \0 1Il1'~'IIK'!I cotlleru 

we'" IOftuencBd t}y e,warel, qvery "QJl1 <0'0-<0'" nIB ~I was relatively I"" betW<Jarl 20' I a",,20t .. and 

up IrQ'" aJ1Q (Hi"') Meanwhile. 5'" of ~SSOOllS WijJB dnvll:tl by COIlsumers who IlvecUy flitVlg<ltelJ 10 thl> 

webSde where H ... conten\ 'S hoSled 31;% 01 v>elYlf1gsesslOf1s wem ",le' ''K1 by;! ."'""g""a socI! as Iv~ltlks _ 

00. 9nd 41"" of ~'OS/l "nnglllO v""""'O sessIOns fesliited "'''''' a use, 1!;ked a hn~ On any 0I1\e( type of 

w~tJSlle .... a a SOCial roelWOfl<, 101'''''''. 8,,(1 bll'lg or used a 0\'l0krnar~ 

Share 01 Visits to Inlrln!lin!l Content by Entry Method 

(\ 01 VisllS lO InIl1ll\lHlQ CooterrllJlLs. 2010·2012 MOI1IVy A...-113;le) 

• Direct Entry . SearCh Engine . 'Ltnking'Site _ Other 
72 

, """ '"'" "u '"'' ""U" "m """ """" 

Search Behavio~ How do searchell behave? 

CQllSUfllau.wno usa soorClI as p,m Olllle path 10 ~iewlilllltllll(lgol'9 TV 01 ti~1\ COIlI(lOI afe hOaVl8f Sliil/ell 

'JSef5 c~lerllo 1118 aVtlfage "'It''tIel Uiier These ",dlvldIJ~ls e<;>ndoJcIWl aVe<iJQfI 018 :I se<lrchlls dUring 

",.... ~lOwl(lg saSSlOflll9fSOS 4.3sean:nes lor avarage Il'lIelf191IlSIJrs, equall'll IQ2X mora searGl1es dur"'l1 

"essKYIS when drlnglllg behavIOr OCClJlmd Whde Ih,S analvs,s .Jdic:ales II <al searr:h tJetoaviof ,nloo~~1GS 

.. nOlQ coosUlOO!swho I>I!!w .'('OIT{Jlng COOIer1I H IS also lII<o~ !halll"s segmenl 0/ COOSUllIfKS 80d u.s 

!.pf!r.,11C OOhilEl ;fCt"~'( are nalUllllly prone 10 ~(lIenMiild S<'t8lcl'l b(>I\&VOcY s,,'lCe tne ~ode() COOSumplk'lo IS II 

Il'I()rIi ~IIStoC: lt1eO behavior rGlawe 10 Simpkll w.'Ialt\efor news update seald\es, 

Volume 01 SearCh Quefies per Session 

INumbef cllJueriesPIJ ~ 2010-2012 Mon1hl~ Average) 

For COIlsurnG1S who C()fldu(:ta<! II roarr), OliO' 10 VlllwlO9 IIl1! int.O'\{)Ing COOIcnl IJfIalyl!!d, 82% I\&vlgal&d 

Ill1Q1lg1' 10 lila ea1tEll1I via Googio, COIT'Oilred 10 16'11> I.o:wn ViIhoo/Illng aad 2% IrcomOlher eng'Jlel; 

ApproxlIllillety h;)n 01 COMSlIII'IefS lhat U'Oe(l se81f)1 LO .each 111'lOQlng conl1ll11 rl8V1(Jilled to IllIi COIlIenl 

Wlttl~IIWo losevl!f1lT111lVtl!!i and,...>1 under 10% reac:tMI U'e !11rH1glng c()nl'~m ~I kiss ",an a mtl\i!e after 

C(lf11!(J(;(K19 a !IeNOI 
73 

""" "'" , .. "", "'" ,j ",., , "'" , . ""~ "". """" '"'' "'" '''''''' 

Sea rch Engine Share 

i\t 01 SelIctll/1flua\ce(llflsllS to InkulOlnO CooIent URL~ Drfvm by EiK/l MaiOI Smrth 

Erivll\e. 2010·2012 Mootnl'/ A\'eIage) 

• GOO9le.com • Yahoo com .Otller 

Search Term Analysis: What queries are consumers using to reach infringing content? 

ThDrfl 8(8 roo lliple wavs tonsLJffletS LISe search 9/1(jIOO$ and .eactl 1111' '''9'''9 film and TV cmto,~ onlm TI'l<1 

especidlly dopends on tf'le lev&l at koowI&dgo 11 gilfOIlSElarchcr I'l8S Dllheirllrog£rLg lIGosvstem Th>!! SIUdV 

analVled ttl9 BPOC~1c keVWQrds used by COIlS\lIT'ICO"9 to (881:11 n tno9llg con!O'U arod ciassJlNld them In UI8 

loIIowo'lg categories 

SEARCH TERM CATEGORY OffiNmOH EXAMPLES 

PI RACY DOMAIN 

nILE 

GENERIC 

SIwttotI Itll.COroor!ilO<* _1IritI;n T~ "'»MI!ll. 1>'-1,1I:t I~ 

Io"o'lon III Mil til {h; 10 "*"I/<IlJ oort,~ <JlIOlI 

Sllir<tJg,ttaCOflll,"' I.;aoDlll:lfllll'l..... lldl.llIr'K",-~_liDoat 

... -

S!I_t .... _~r,stllaltllllCl <Al.lIl'r(J'rtI1I,~t!""'l\S.tI( 

Ilir.:!'Jr,I_iIJ'oIl'I_ 

CcInD8ollll/VlWhlO~NI~..,Pa-(!!<lTIIhe."ratII' 'l!<r.' "10".& ~1lj'~trtt_jCuIJ\I\'Wbnllhll~.u!l(l;J 

iiQtl l)~~we"'rII)IO\l~;rJi;lflrl'tgbrO""'~WPW':<Y 
74 

""" "M , .. ",.., .,."'~ '."'" """"M'''''''"'" .. " .... ",., "'" ... '" ,,,"'" 'M'" '"'' """" "m ...... ,.""". 

WIio&n kXlIIog al ~d IVpeS Oil! rr<ajO"ly (58%) of SC8l{:IlIlS tI~ consorn&rs who react, .'lr.'fl"1O URLs 

contall'\ orl~ 'Gellerie" Of "Hie' kavwords n,ese seafcOes do nor IncUde sp4)C~ot Iolr .. g .... g ~IQI11 

webSrles, !nrti<':aIrlg Ihal ~ltise CalSllmars did no! display .... ICllanl'C71 0/ ~feWlllg~anl ~I(!gall'l ~1wf111~ 

4~ of !oearr.t>es cOfllairl a I:lomil.rn' loon. iodicaliog lhllllheS9 users krJOW whOll" dDmaO'lS IllEIY II1ICOd 10 g<I 

10 Siroam Of dcrwfllQad I!lIl O(lOt(lnl UIIIY are .,lefesla<11r1 ~e granular analy$lS st\()'M; lhal 37" o! !ielIIelle5 

atlI "Domain Keyword Only" Imply"g 1M! Ct)"1!1\l100f$ are III_aging searetl asa llaVigauorlal ~ by ~\p\l11lf\9 

the (IOmawl name 11110 ttl(! !leilf'I:h bOll 01 URL bar o:lSleaCi of Sln"()Iy gOIng 10 I/1e !lite dlreOIJ\I_ W/'Iile l' ~Ie 

KI!'fMl'U OnlY" seat(;11eS (8 8%) !If6 l10t II prmary (IIrve/ to lr~r'1g1f19 contet~ by IllOO)!lI!ives consumers WlK) 

IlSl)(lIIll!Se IenTlS (arK! may nOI 1Ia...a orrlll13lJ\1 ~11elrtJed 10 rWld U,I& Iy1:l6 01 content) S.Jt)seQVefllly navtga.l&cJ 

10 a 00malt, where U'ey could "leW "''''''{l"'11 ma\er181 

Seartll Term Keyword Type Dislrillulion 

(" 01 Vl'ilts 10 Ink1llllina Conl",1 Releller:t ~, Searr;tJ by Each Search Term Ji11e_ 3 YIla! A~. 2011)-2012) 

• Coot.1n "Tille' 01 "Generic' Term Only • Contain any "Demain' Term 
75 

,.'" ""',n","" """ ",.""",,, """., """ 'H'" """ ", .. , "'" ""'" """" "'" """ """'" 

Search Term Keyword Breakdown 

(to 01 V~!S 10 Infiirlglll!l COnIer\I. Ae!t!re(l by seorCft by EacI15ea'cl'I Telm BucIieI. 3 Year Altraue. 2()10·2()12) 

Domain Keyword Only 

Generic Keywonl Only 

Genencand nile 

TiUe Keyword Only 

Domain, Geileric and Tille Keyword 

Domain and Title KeYWClfd 

Domain and Generic Keyword 

FII'$t TIme v'S. Repeat Infringing Viewing: DOe$: the Role of Seilrch Change? 

011" 01 tlill boggesl gools 01 ComjleleS 'eoe.vch wes f(,) Ulli,WISIano Ih' (Mlller!1 'Ole \hi!! sea,cl'l pl8ys lor 

!~sHlITIIlvls~ors to .. d'"'ll"'ll OQma!ns Compare(1 10 'ep!><Ii V1Sllo<S Do I'st-llme """""'"5 IeVl!fage searGI'I 

mote hea"'..,. ,n order.o lOcale ... SI\6 wha'e lhey Gan st,,,,,,m or OOwoIOad (;(It)!el1l ;.o,d !heo navogale d~t!dly 

.0 II,~ ~e I1lhe lulure? II lS omporla.nl to Isalllle these tWO seornerus as IOoI<;lOg<ll an avera(jfl rate 01 seard, 

lIlIuence could paleo'""',,, be .. .oe.-stau,>g Ihe real!rljlu.!onc:l'l $IIarc:l1 erlOlOes play if' th'$ 8rea Reper.! Y'SIIO<S 

coutd Mve 00911 ",rlueOc:l!d by ooarch at one poo" bLll nO ~tge, use il Ir1 Our W!w lhe ""'la ' ,Ole 01 ssafCIl 

IlIIfIds 10 be assessed Tn &c:CDrT¥l'I!ih IMis goal. Carmela uS8l1 llS iof1gol!ldlnal cliokW'eam PdfK!l tn 9.lIgmoot 

r.onsumars whose 001,)8 ftCh,,"Y was p<Qsem In tt1(ee cnnr.er.UlfliO rrontMS 1010 1\'<0 groups. Fhl nll\ll 

Viewers ""d Repe;l1 Vi<dwefS 
76 

""" "M , .. ",.., .,."" ",., """"",,,,.,,",,, .. ,,,, .. ,,,., "'" 'H'" ,,,""" 'H'" "'" """" "'" 

First Time Views vs. Repeat Viewers 

(Lift 10 Badl entrv metIIOd 3/ln'lQ FirS! Time Wslts ~s. Reoeal VISitS, LOt(l.LOt 2 MortII\lv ,Avflaoel 

FnJ-llme ,";uor.s 10 II1lrJ1Q'(19 ~onlef1 l weru0Imo~! 2X f1'l[Ife IlI<eiy 10j.lse warth on lna« I~SI V'54 to InIrlngir1g 

contont COInpar!llllo «''PCHI VISOIOIS, Thos CQnIWm~ Hlal 5eal(;ll ~ prvlC!pa1ly >JSe(llor tOlltllnt !llSCQVery ';lr1d 

IS ,e4at""iy rnorD viiluable 10 COO1S\,1IllBrs wrlC,) OQ rlQll<.now WIler!! ~"s cor~Q!!1 can bo loulld onfroe This IS 

nol sUlpns.og and >S COI'SOSlerli Wl\h oUlOr ~alello"BS 01 _ell behilVlorS As consurnills beCOIne !Iwata oj 

conlonl Mas. se~, may Dla~ II liss O.e(:l 'ok.llhan ~ d'll \lUftng lilt'" ""lj~1 'd;1IC(l'Je'Y" session 

In a<Xlil(lr1lollna lyz",g Itlol dk~stmam palterns 01 ",lr"'!ltOlI GOOlenl vlOlwers C<lfI'Ipl!Io also Slft'Oyad 

consumers Kl O/Ilief undefsl,and how It1!!V dt9CO'<<lf and ilav,galB to tl"g cont~nl ano whilltlet &earell 

rnHu9nces 111ll_ path AllitlJ(\onal reSpOOSes muror~d the beI'<IvJO\"aJ Clata, tnltll'!le ",MOl'S tIlI'IoCated thatl1l1lv 

were 1 6X more liiwl)t to use sea<dl on their tW£I vlS~ than on repeat ",SLts 74~ 01 respl'lOCIIiot5 reparted 

lhilt search played a rOIl! the r~S! tilT1llthev V1s~ed an 1r,lnn!lOlg r.onlOflt dc'lmaln e.ther as a 100111)< dlS('.overy 

(41%) or nalligi\1i01'1 (~), cO!T'IJ)<Ired to 47'l1. 01 SU'>'eV rllSpOl1denl5 whO cited lleatetJ as being u5ed diJr.,g 

IAlQI 'I1ewong seSS1Ol'1S Note tMlthOO\1 respo"i\e~ wete not conslranad t)y 1M l""monUl Wlf1dOw ell ffl(l 

obseMldell<:k~Heam datil. ami represent 11111 ,esponcJer~s' ~lecl101 01 Ule. I~st vl$ll 
77 

""" "'" ... "", "'" 

Search Term Keyword Type Distribution 

(" oj ~Isits 10 InhmalfiJ Conienl Re!elIW b1 Seart;h 01 EadI Seartll Telm True. FirS! 

Iime~ Rt'Il/SlI Villi! 3 'lear Aie!a',je, 2011J-2(12) 

• C0I11ain "Tille' or "G!lneric' Term Only • Contai~ any "Domain" Term 

Compele aisoal1li~le<ll! lhe OClllai search terms used bV cOOSllln .. rs diHelall when compa'~IIII~SI IVIlII VS 

,epeat ... SdallOl'l Ie) .drll1gloll cOIIln,,1 URls Anatysos- $Iltlwmllhal 10SI ~me vls.10<s we<O mOrB like", 10 use 

g&nene Of ILtie«'lly keyword l!lIms Ihilf1 rep~8I vOSdOfS (63% vS 54%) Co"ve,s~y lepeill Yls~OIs WIl'e mnr{ 

likely II) U5B dome'" specific se9rcfllernlS suet) as "lttlaMeJ" Of "watet.·I,ee-l'TICNiel tom' on repeal vrsi!S 

al a J<WO o! 46% carr(larod to 37% among hrsl-lrme V>srIOiS TIlii 5um1&SlS that 10000<lt V>!IiIGl'S II) 'f1trlng~ 

tontern allan uHlIle """vrga!oonal" queroes 00 search onglfl9S (0 NfI"a at (I()I1\iI~ wl1QI'e tr19V Ma"ii vleWllll 

1f\1, ... gWlg tOl 't~1lI ., HI(! past 

Google Transparency Report Has it changed anythlng? 

fhe $I\Jdy alOO8l'al1lM ~,e eXle!!! to willet> (118 "sIgnal OOmoll()r" algol'll!!M1 Cl1llr'9!llmpleme'IIW oyGoog\e 

III ta(elQt2 1mP8CIGO the roIa 01 sean;!I In CO!!sumer WSCOYfIf)' Brld rlavlgahOlllO intrW'9"'ll OOI1lel\l dornalllS 

OI".,e lire sl~led goiIl 01 till> algor~trm change w"s 10 demo!!> 01 .elllOll8 ,seatc/, ilsl<l9S III<lI W(!r6 ,eported 

as !Ios111l!;! 01 krr~1I'!Q 10 IIljrlfl9019 COIllanl bllsed orr subnHsslorrs 000110 GoogIa I,om COIlIen! 01'Llll!)f5' 

O!ller IocIuslry resea.ch haS somlariy ooatyLGd Ille Impact II.s aIgCIilhmd'llllge had orr Ihe .,lr"'1t1ll9 

(;01'111101 IICOSl'Stem bul mosUI' lrome 'SUflPiy P/!r!.peCt'v~ l",,!;& ~IOI' SIL,d"'" rneaSOlied Ih/! p'tluoce 

ao(llist"g r_ 01 varOOUS OIIrrflgong H9S00 GOO(Ite !liIatl':h ,e!;rlil pag/lSO¥&r Iifill'! 10 klerr!dy any 1mpacl 

bll>ed m the I'<'liIJlT'e 0/ nO!lces sen! tl) Googl& lor lI1ese SiImII rlomirlns ~e 9r11liyzoo rts r.~CkSl/Qam 

panel 10 meaSlJfe lh9 consumer demilnd !,I\e 01 !I'e Googlecitange. 11115 lIIlal~sis SC\Ig!tt 10 ldenl~v ",hellle, 

Ul/l nurrtJlIf 01 cco,smers rllllCtlrng In!nnQIn{I e(r'llent $~es Itom GoQgIe changed aile< tile a1gornMl was 

releaSOd 
78 

",,,,,.,,, ... 'M'" ""'"M'''''",,''''''' "'" ... '" """"" '"'" """ """" "'" ""'"'1''''''' 

GOOi 1e Transparency Reporl Site Visitation' Google Search Relerred 

(" 01 I,'ls;!S!O GTA Siles Re!elled by a GoovIe 5ealCIl, Pre vs Post, 2010·2012) 

2010 2011 2012 

• Pre Period (May-July) • Post Period (September - November) 

For lne IWQ)"mI'S pr'iOr 10 Ilwstudy. GoogIe d~ectiy 'al(l<16d D\llweett B" an(ll2% I'll 11<1111C10 lI,e £des 

iill3!yle(l" lI>E! GQogIe Iransp8IIl1'CV Report ('G1ft SIteS") .... 'he" conlliUong !tie "\tee. Hl()I,lhS b&l~e 

;lml "'let tho! abgon~"'" w~s Ifr4;tlum.mlOO 1112012, lhe 1O'lll!" 01 (l.OCI ,deH.,ls f,om G:>Ogie 10 ~,.w.a ~H9S 

II1(,;re~!;e\J slighliy I,om 9% loatnoosl 10'lb AlSO, '" COIT"(.IarISOO 10 1110 same perOXls Irom I}tIOt ye<lfS (10 

~ale seasonahly), Ihe rlala indicale \tIe<ol ",as "or II sialisiocaily """,u/rca'" char'(le in Clleel releH/lJs lrom 

Google 10 Ille ern ~es ru,ng Ihe three tl\OI1ll1S 1001Ow.lg 1I\fIl'll1lemenI8hol'l oill.e algOr~ \m 

I~ atKf,hOl'l In _""lll\g reltlrlal VOiIIlTlll, Ill!! Slutly!lisa rne.<I!MIId Ih61mpac1 oIll1oalgo'll/lm on COflS<Jrrte! 

Ilet\ilvior Spee<hcillly. Iha 1Irti1!ysls g.a~a II\e 6K1etU 10 M1ICIl con~"""",~ W\lI'II llIQUi«Id to 1",(llorrnerly 

hl!)i16(-fam.,g 'eiiu l~ IQw4)I (jI'1 $%IC!l6l\Ol1E'S resulls pages ()! m subSllQUenl pageo; 0I,1e' 10 tllaalgomhm 

Ihi~ '_fold! Jldie:ales lI'illl1f'l'()f'oQ CotlSlJIlVlf5 who r\ilv.g<ired lrom a Goo!lla !.e<llCIl ,e>;I,," page d~ecl!y 10 

ilsli61i(;19d 0111118 GTA, tile aVetage hsl~lg pkaeemelll !;Ie(:ma,a(lS I~1y !rom:;>.' 10 2.6 ""len cemparln(j 

tile 1l!r'e6morl!!15 prl()110 an(l tQlIowl!1g"1E! ~,,:J19m~lItaUon 011118 algoriUlm (111 rt~snSlal1C8, a Iowttr f1\IfT'tlel 

!lallStat6S ~llO a hlgr.i;l' r3rokwig 011 seat(,il ftI'9wle tUSUlts p~s. IlOI a k)w6Il1Inking), Th(!I'al(jl'G, UI9 dilla 00 

I1(,jllfldicl'te a $'9,,"111;1'111 change in listKIg p1ace'fIl!l't. lloe ~""ch 16:;U~S C~I""'f1efS accessed WIile ,~ rowe. 

Ifllarokoog ttlan I)fl()110 Ihe OJIIP'"11m d!ange 
79 

" ......... " .. , .. '"'" _ .. ,., '" "".".,.- ,"",." ., .. ~",. ., ..... ", """ .... '" ",." '"'" ".'" """ " ...... 

Google SERP CIi£kthrllllgh Placement 

(Avewoe F~ 01\ I'aQ!WheleSerdw Aclually CiIQ;s. OI~c l~'11O! Ottiyl 

1~11lilI I 

• Average 1"lerne! Searcher • Google Transparency Slls List Sea/thet 
80 

"" ,,,,,, ,,n,,, .. ,,,, .. ,,,,, "'" 'H'" '"'''''' ."". ,,," "". ".~ , '''" """',,, .. ,,' 

Methodology 

ltllSSlutI\I was I:)aS<jCl on tt)9.analy~15 Qt II Cl8t1lUasa QI 12rnilltlltl 101m ~ TV tonl8lll!JRLs 111<1\ _lIlIno",,, 

10 hosll!!It~lg~1Q (;OI,le"l 0\1", the polloCl2QIO-2012 Thll URLs referredla the PI!1(:9 01 cont~ll, nOi Ul9slta 

don\aIn H-eUalatlasawas p'UI'1CleCl oy tW() IOW'\IIlsc~.iny ~l!Odor.s (PTocNIII dnClI!> EClool) whI(:!l on 

a regular oasIs &;<I" webSIl!!5 II,l! a IIS\ 01 MPI\II ma~' con~8rly 1,IIoS, In Q'OO' lol_,d m;llvt! ~'I'~lg."g lit,ks 

afld delemllOl). 10 v.ho:;h hasl siles It>e OokSdlrecl NOlI). thallhe,sa UAts iVa W9bSlla.base<l arlO the,ak .. a IhI! 

analysis b;'iseQ onll1e511 URLsd005 ,"" Ir.cluda PZF' s<11lS or appli<:ahons 

U51119 liS rcOOS! dIcI<~l llam panels .'Ille U S arid U I( (2M arid 200 OOOmembers resper::IJveIy), C~III 

analyzl!Cl how marty USand UK lIIIernEII uSGrs reached U", .~ UlglnQ URLs.1mW oIl""!IIld how long Ihey 

'llSl!6d lor I!fId mosIlITIpOI'l&!llIy. tIOw Ihlly 00t loore In IllI8Sllldy C~le Iocus&d on the role thai search 

plJ:ys lI1iho consume' pall! to inlrongir'D COOI()fl1 Canpele also ,c\er1hhed O!hef waYS 1l"1li1 CM90_ners atTMI 10 

lnI""gWlg COOII!fIt In1llUCllr"lg oy a~oor direclly gDirtg 10 an lofrlng"'g 00mitIrt 01 URL or hy reac:hlf'lglhill ~OOlenl 

via a ' lirlklng- Sl\o lil\t"! Iv-lir>ks.eu COrT"vaIO!' da~ was u~ed 10 IcIer1111y ilgg<egale IrendS al:fGS! dilteretll 

COIlsumet segrnenlS a"ld was rIO! IjSGd I<l MPOI'I fl(jlVlduat .,lron'l"lg paneksls 

Defining the Role or Search 

CDrripele is ab~ Ii:' measure hOw COIlSl"TlC<S- ,.o:;e SEtolirC!l e<1QO'leS ,.. the>' online naOlgahOt' I'lfOnass and Is 

atlle 10 ISOlate t/I(t SPef.~1I: englllll, lerm I'I'lIal was ~:;p aVI;(l 01'1 II !lW'$ ween I!fId wllal ,,",k they dK".kt!ct 

CorlSYl1'I9!$.u!IIIwan::n III lwe ways 1'1',(1"" Uleonll1e p~aey 8COSystem eOfl'lUlT18fS caJ1 use $<'lafell as a 

way to dilcover website.IMt NIII! IctUf ctlreCtly IICISIIM OOOlent U'BY 111'9 lQOk"'g tor. or ,t can t)9 US/ldas a 

nl v'g.tional toot to arrive at a krlQWlI lI"k"g 01 hostlt1g wtibsola r1S\ijact oIlVp.,,;; UIO URL ~IIO u,e IJIQWreI 

C<lmpe!e oovelQp«l a cos\orfl<u'd. hytmd itfJpro;octllor ~"sstudy to measure 1110 Impact 11,<'01 ..aarch plays., 

U"'e P<III1 to .. lfll1\l'''!l oootenl as accura e~ as PQSl; lbie 1t1'$ hoItsl", aPPfoadi contraSiS wlln a fTJQfe f\ElfJOW 

der.l>lio" 1M! counts searcl, OOIv \'111M a v<SIt.s preceded b~ a vlS.1 lOa search ~I(I/) Cornpelll di!I'oect a 

"searcll relerrar 10 ",I,,"gong COOIBrlI by 

Keyword Centric Componenl: A user musl h.1'II conducted I relevant Sl!arcll query. 'OualiIVII'IQ 

sewell QlJer>es Io1:kJllt! aM typeS ot phrBS8!I thill CorTllele has observed \\Olicll or\IinO cOOsumolrs use 

10 lind Illegal tV a"ld t/tt1 r.onlenl on\lr'IlI. lh6y nr.t.Jdedor'nilVllerms ItI(e tCI\1IIVle!' a"ld "$'oorOOI' 

gIIJl!lfOc terms like "walCh JlIQ';~S onll1e' arH! fmVltI lind IV Inle-baSflCllerms ilia "Oilrk Kn;gln R,S<!s' 

Tlm~ Centric Component: In Ihe same sesSlOlll(l(!lOWd asa \XlOIK1U<)US p(jnOCl oIlrltenlet ilctWlly 

w~I"IOtJt a 30mlrlllle lap~&) thatll U&9f v,s.1Id an ~mg"'g COOl€l<lI URL US&<S fIlIJSlll8W COOClUCIII!l a 

"Q"aWyong" ~8Ich on any maiO< S6/\f(;h lingO!! 1'1'.1111" II 20 mroule WO"ltlOw bO!OI'e reach.,,, tllal sa"", 

"Iflngiflg content URL 

In 0100' 10 caplUf8lhe most ret&vant search qo.lP.Oe! yot also mII1l!Ne Ule~nt oj flOI!\e in th6 

di'lia Con'oe!!) capped HIe Ime.,.;!ldOW al :.!O ""J1IJt~s Compete'S analySis shaM:ld 20 fTW1utf'5 

fepres(lJlts 1M IllOSI ~al(;- CIIlotJ lme- as lerrm. were $1 111 relevMIIO IMe content flllI(;hed 

Aller tM 20 J"I1IIlUta mar\(, Compote ide\lblll!(l aSllarp dmp 1II1e\l91 ()I retavallCy the keywo<ds hac 

","II walCl,ing or downloa(llllg contel~ onlrllll_waltl1lr1g Of downIoaClII>;l COlilent OOII!le 
81 

"""" "'< """ '"'" "'" """" "'" "'" ,,""", 

Defining First Time vs, Repeal Infringing Viewers 

Or" U'B"ev compo"en\S allheanalvs.s CDmplelec.1 by ComPBIe was 10 lJOderSlaneJ ,i searcll plays a OoIlBI'e!~ 

,ole lIJT'<JI'lg oonsumern YAIO are ,eachng IOklO!JII1l1 C(l(Il001 on a Sill! tar \lie hrSIIITlIl ~d Ie tHOse 

who llava VlSOIM Ihe S118 bIllore In a!lef lO8Ccompbr.h II\oS laSk, CMllelo SIIgtTICI'lell panttb!!lS ",no wer .. 

In 115 p"""lla 1;W1 COOS9CuI,ve rmnlllS OOlweetl A.uguSl2012&l'Cj Dacerrbet 2012 10 artier 10 perlarm a 

longllud><lal anahosis ""m a sullK:iefl1 ~Ie the I~~ V,SOlle an lol'il)lI"'lI CU1lenz daTl<iIfl Wllhio Ille lome 

perlodW3S denOI/ld as a 'lifsHome' ,"511 aI\ClSll9llb~1 vtMs te thai domiIon., lIlal wlnoow WI!fl! 

eIOl1OIett as being "repeal" vi;~s Orl(e the 5e{jI1'Ie!lWlIOO was detll1eC1, C<lrrQe1& was able 10 a,alyze Ull! rOle 

ttlal $!laCh playlld amollg tile same !IfO\lP 01 oonSUTN1f'S who Vl$llell inlIr191rl!1 conlenl at varIOUs tomes 

Survey Methodology In IlInOOn ""Ill 'IS ciockst'eiiffi ao~IySIS. Compllie condu<;IBO a QUarJlllatMl survey Ie Iltl(:I)WI itdo,honal 

Ie<Irnngs rllQll,dng how COOSUIfillrs use MarCIl N\!he S!eps Ie<Idlng lJI}lO walCl1Orl{l or dOwI1load>f'lg IOlnng,ng 

cootent Addilioo8l1y, Coo'Cl}!e IEIYIlrag.l<l1he surve~ lobelle, unoetslafld ltoe roIelhal s~h pillyslar 

1ir1;1 IIfT\iI inlrlf\lIlflg CMleot consumers vetWS rf?l!lIl V,SllorS Via emilol aooan flOllrlIO surwy {!arcleIe 

InltllVi/I",ed 565 US and 500 UK panelists aged 16.54 who visiled spec~ic int,InQlllSl UF1~s as weM liS ~flOW<> 

Int'"IgWog domilln5", rol2 tha survey was cooduotell bIllWOOll OecI!rrber 1,'>111 201200d JanlIiIO'y 7th 2013 

SVlVey dalll wa~ we;gtlled on age lind gel'ldl!< 10 represenl Iho obsaMld onIfJ16 iI1trilqrtg V1!!wlng PCPIHal10tl 

0'1 each count'Y 

Google Transparency Report Methodology I~ OIrIef 10 (jfIODf'.Mlld ~ GoogIes ' $IQn81 demohon algordhm CI\arl(/9 had allY 1mp&CI 00 loowconSUlTlefs 

wete f"ach.og 0'I1,\r]9'f\(! "Ies, COl1'llllID rlHnelied 11'/1 lOP 2,!XX) ",oosiles IrOm ~\e GoOgIe TrBnsparent:y 

RepOr1 (mR) webs.la ranked tly .u1"ber ell .ljfllOYal reQtJeSIS We lhen ISOIaled Ill/! Shdre oIlralllC 10 Ittm.e 

S,les lhal were d'ecI!jr .oterred \113 a Googte saarClI fosuh page tleillfe!he r.1\IJIlge w<l!11 ...... 0 ek8Cll In Au(l<'~ 

2012 ~i!led lOal1erv<aros on order toasceflam ~ Ihe m!lflgl! hill:lany aMer.1 Ihrl ll'e-pe<iod 01 ""alvsis 

COI1lOlstad alille three monlhs leading I.Jp Ie UJe change, Ma~, J~and July ;/)(1 po$t-(lI!rioO was U1& IIVOe 

month~ rotlowlng the change SePt~t, October and ~t 
82 

""" """ , .. ,,,",, .,."" "'"'' .... """"".""", .. ,,,, .. ,,,., "'" , .. '" , .. """ '"'" "'" """" "'" "'" "",," 

About Compete 

ComPeIe 1r'>C !Sa M~~,,,,d &own o;.!lolal company tlaood ... BOSIOO. MA TlID COlTlpar,y 1$ a msea«::rl a"d 

consullong Ii'm Iilal maonta."san onbne ne!laYioral diilatlasecOOlll'lood al2mllOI us ilXefOOllJ!IIIrs and 

2OO<XXl UI( inl9rlll'tlusers ~11l u90lt liS Mia 10 l!!olp tltands. puDflSllers /IIld a~.esmtl&rsla,\(l11OW 

people llMIlf1l ~ 10 communl!;alll. shop, ~an:fl, a!ld corJSIJ/Tl8 conlenl iII1d media 

AboutMPAA 

'Hoe MOIQ'l Plcl\llll AsSQ(;ial+O!' 01 AmerICa. lile (MPIIJI).lOgOillfj, With 1/111 MQlfOIl Pictlll'8 Assoc~lonjMPA) 

and MPIIJI's OItH~" 5ucsi<"aroes iiIl(l a11011iJ105, setVesaslhe I'OICO and advOcate aI tflR Moe'k;allll'()!lQO 

plC1ure IIQfJI!IIIiQoo and lelevosiQn OndusIrles Ifl 1I11l Ur>\od Simes and aroulld II"" W()IIQ M?IIJI's merl1bers 

al(! ~'" st. map U.S mol"", ptel .... e sludkls W~II Dosooy SludlOl> MoIIOf) ?lCh,lIIIS; Par1lmounl ?",Iures 

COIrKr,I1I00 Sonv ?CliMes Enle<!al/llTl!!Ol Ir(: lWlll1Mlh Cemury rOle r,im COfpOftll lon, un""~rsal C~y SlUtllOS 

LlC, andWarnfM fstos, EnleflaOlmenl lrJ(; Mf'M '$8 proud cflampiol1 OIiolell&clual pfOpeny r\gI'IS tree and 

la11111100 0I1<1Ov81tW1 coosumer choices IleedOn'\Qi'MPfess.an al)(I Ul!! Ilno()flflg power 01 rTI(MOS to IlfYlCi> 

:mcIl!flIlllntll peopIt<'s IMls 
83 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

This morning Mr. Coble and I did indeed participate in a press 

conference with the Motion Picture Association for the release of 

this study that found that search is a major gateway to the initial 

discovery of infringing content online. In fact, 74 percent of consumers surveyed cited using a search engine as the navigational 

tool that they use to find infringing content for the first time. 

And so I would like to ask Mr. Sherman or Ms. Lesser, we know 

that the largest search engine, Google, made an effort last year to 

change the algorithm to take into account the number of copyright 

takedown notices the site has received, which is a positive step, but 

we have a long way to go. Unfortunately, there isn’t anyone here 

today to represent them. But could you give your thoughts on what 

more search engines can do to reduce online infringement? What 

proactive steps do you think they could take? 

Mr. SHERMAN. There are lots of practical steps that they could 

be taking when you think about the various ways in which search 

is leading people to infringing content. They did promise to demote 

sites that received a lot of takedown notices. We were very taken 

with that approach. We commended it. But 6 months, a year later, 

we have seen basically no difference whatsoever. The most rogue 

of rogue sites are still showing up on the first page of search results. We have sent about a million and a quarter notices on one 

site called MP3 Skull, yet it still shows up regularly on the first 

page of search results. Clearly, even though their intention was 

good, it hasn’t been implemented well. 

We also think they could be promoting more effectively, promoting the legitimate sites. I mentioned before the possibility of a 

certification mark or a badge. If we can provide a white list of sites 

that are licensed and actually pay creators, and they could put an 

indication like that in the search result, it could make a huge difference in the way that consumers use the search engine. 

They could provide warnings about rogue sites. Just like they do 

when they encounter malware on a site in their own browser, they 

give a warning notice. Maybe they could do it with respect to rogue 

sites that are identified by third parties as sites they should be 

suspicious about. 

They could also do things about autocomplete. Right now, if you 

enter in the name of an artist and a track, it will suggest to you 

MP3. And if you click on MP3, it will give you basically 6 to 8 illegal sites in the first 10 results. 

And also the fact that we are sending millions of notices, and 

they are just going right back up again without any limitation. We 

send 100 notices about URLs with the same song on the same site, 

but you would think, therefore, that the other 1,000 songs on the 

same site would be taken down. But, no, we have to send each one 

individually. 

We ought to be able to sit down and work out more efficient 

means for us and for them and for the piracy problem generally. 

There is a lot of motion, but what we need is impact. 

Ms. LESSER. The only thing that I would add, since my program 

applies primarily—exclusively really at this point—to peer-to-peer 

is that I think when the negotiators who came up with this Memorandum of Understanding first sat down, there was very little opti-
84 

mism about the ability to get not only to a sense of agreement, but 

also to actually create an existing real program that is changing 

consumer behavior. So I would say to Google and other search engines, it is important to come to the table and not see this as an 

‘‘us versus them.’’ This is a problem that we all need to solve. And 

the 5-year dialogue and agreement among these parties is just evidence that can be done. 

Ms. CHU. Let me follow up and talk about the copyright alert 

system, which is a successful voluntary system where ISPs alert 

Internet subscribers when they have downloaded pirated content 

and point them to legitimate sites. It is successful because, for one 

thing, the largest ISPs committed a significant amount of their own 

resources to this effort and invested significant resources to its design. And, secondly, the voluntary initiative took into account the 

views of all the key stakeholders. 

While it is a great step forward, it does have limited impact unless other players like search engines get involved. How could they 

be integrated into this system? Mr. Sherman, you have ideas on 

that? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, the copyright alert system is really based on 

peer-to-peer piracy, which is not something where search has a big 

role to play. So the ISPs are the appropriate party for that kind 

of operation. But because we have been more successful with peerto-peer, because peer-to-peer has actually declined, other forms of 

piracy are increasing, Web site piracy, and certainly search engines 

would have a huge role to play there, one of the reasons we would 

like to be able to sit down with a multistakeholder process and see 

if we can come up with some improved mechanisms. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. Gentlelady has expired—time is expired. 

The distinguished gentleman from Georgia Mr. Collins is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be back here. And seeing this panel, it reminds me of one 

of my favorite movies of all time, ‘‘Groundhog Day,’’ because we see 

you here again as we go through this. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to enter Google’s 

report on how they fight online piracy into the record. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
85 

HOW GOOGLE FIGHTS PIRACY 

Se-ptember 2013 

Goog[e 
86 
87 

Introduction 

I" December lOll, a 34·Ye3r·oICl Kore-manrst maoe onliJ'l£' vloeo history when his 

Wal video 'Gangnam St~e' smashed re.::ords ana became the first YrluTube video 

to ream a billie" views PSY was dlready popular i" Korea, bU! I'll.' quickly launched 

ilM international career as his mUSlt <;pleao f,om Seoul to Norm America, SOuth 

America, and Europe 

1M the past, mUSK olslnbution had been Iflostly regional, makl"g II drffitult to Mear 

great artists imm arOilnd Ihe world. BUf with a glebill platiorm bk(' Youiube. whl(h 

IS owned and operated by Gllogle. anYOMe IS a~e tc dlscovel ,md snare muSIC frOll' 

anywl1e-re This meal1S new revenue opportUf1ltJes for arnsts.....accorOlJ'1g to outSIde 

esflmiltes 'Gangnam Style' gene-rateo o..e ~8 million III ~dvert' sing oeals In the firSI 

sb months oliont' and has been pUrChilSed I1IgiTdlly millIons 01 times' 

The Internel hilS been a boon to c.realll'lly. Today, more mUSIc. more YiOf.'O. more 

text, and more software k!> helng created by more people In more places th.1n ellef" 

beiore. Every kind of ueilli ~e enowV<l(, both amateur olnel profesSIonal. IS being 

trolnsformed by the new oppOftunlile.s and 10000r costs molde pos'iJble by dlgl!al 

fOols and online oi'>tnbutlon 

Nevenhele'iS, OIl llne piracy remillns iI challenge, and Goog~ takf'S thill dlillienge 

serrous)y, We develop dnd deploy ilntl-plracy SOllJliOns With the support of hundreds 

of Googie emp o~. Tnl5 repart g~'ners and dl'tal ~ those efforts.as well <IS how 

Google prodlJ(;ts dnd serVices create opportunity for ueators. 

GOGGLE'S ANTJ.PIRACY PRINCIPLES 

., Create More and Beller LesUlmate Altern~tlvH. Th~ best way to b.:i!!Ie piracy 

;s with t>e!!~r. mo.~ con ..... ni~nl, I~Si!Jmat~ allernatl ..... s to pir .Ky. By dev~loping 

Ilc~n5@d products with beaullful u""r ~xP<'rlrnc~s, w~ h~p dr;w, revenue for crulive 

Industries, 

., Follow the Money. Rogue Sit~S that 5pO'd~li.ze", online piracy ar~ commercial 

ventures, whicn means t~e mo5t ef ~ctiv(! way to combat tf>l!m is to CUI off tnelr 

money §upply. GooSle is a Icaderln root,ng WI and ~\lng rogues,tu from our 

adv.mising and payment servkes, and is .aislngslandards across tile industry . 

., Be Effieleot, Effective, and Scal"ble. Goog~ SIOves lOimplernentaml·piracy 

solutions th.lt work. For e.arnplc, beginning in 2010, Google has m.:ldcsubstanl,al 

Irrvcslrnenls In streamllnlog tne copyright removal prOCHS lor search resu lts. As a 

result these improved procedurH allow uS 10 proceucopyrlght removal requests 

10' SNrch rewlts allhe rale of Iou. mIllion requeslS per week with an average 

IU,NI.ound t,me Of less than ~x hours, 

--I " ...... '1 ~.~_.I'trt". _ • ..,.;,0'; ."'n'·'Vcffl.:r : .... ..,., ·"""I"~', ........ )1II11"'m .'T,,'··.o!I;b< .... 

, 
88 

~ Guard Ag~lnst Abuse. Unfortunately. f~bricated copyright iro/fll1gement aUeg.ouons 

can be used as a rete t 10rctl"lSorship ~nd to hinder competition. Googleis 

committed to .. nwring th.lI. even as we b~ttle piroKyonline. we detNt and r~ject 

bogus lnlr lngem~nt allegations. wch as removals lor ~Iitlcal Or competitive reaso~s. 

" Provide Transparency. We disclose tM number 01 requests we rrceN~ from copyright 

owners and gOVi!rnments to remove information Irom our services.' We hope th~ 

steps toward greater transparency w~llnform o~golng discussions about contenl 

regulation online. 

These prlrKlpIt's guide Ihe "etJons of Google em~oyees. as well as our tf1~~t{l1ef1t 

of (ens of millions of (lollars 'n new tools and systems \0 Improve.md e~pand OLII 

aml"piracyefforts Some oftrle hlgtlligl"lts, diSCusse(l 10 more oelalllt1 this repcn. 

InclUde: 

YOUTlJ8E PARTNER 5UCCESS 

More !.han onE' mlll,O!1 palmer rnannels are makmg mot11'Y from Ihelr YouTube 

videos. More Ihan four thousand rlghrshoklerp;!nners iJSe VouTub!"'!. Olnlem 

idemifteation tool, Contem lD. 10 manage rheW copyrightS apPearing wltllln US!",· 

generilted coment on the Slte. - hese pannas Irxlude network broaOCasr('fs. m!1llle 

Studios. songwriters. at1d rfford labels. lnd nl£~y al e CCIlKI'vely making hut1d(!!d~ of 

millIOnS of (lolials by u~lng Vou"":ube's Comem 10 tools to mot1ftl~e these lMleos. 

GOOGLE PLAY 

Google Play IS a cl<al storefrom wl'tere pecple (an buy millions of songsanc books, 

lhol.l5ands of Jl"lOV\es ~nd TV ShOWS. ilnd much more COntent- All Access, a r.eW 

monthly subscriptiOn serVice. also give; people ano:herway to "ccess music For a 

monthly fee they can listen 10 mIllions of songs across ttlelf devl{es. 

GOOGLE SEARCH 

We process more lakedown t1o:kes, <Inti :asrer. than any other ~r(h rogme. WI'. 

fe(eJve nOllces (OJ far less mal"! I'll! of E!'Yerythit1g we Inde\(. which amOUl"!tS to four 

milliO!1 copyright removal lequests per week Ihat are processed. on average il"! less 

than SI~ hours 

'" 

Our poliCies l estrlctlt1fnnglng Sl[es from uslrlg our aelvertising servites. In 2012, 

Google disabled adserving to 46.000 5115 forViolallr1g our poliCies thar prohibit th~ 

placement of ads on Sites. wrrtl infringing content, the vast majOrity beIng VIOlations 

Google detected before we were notllled. 

-.-

l~' ,_ ..... ,~,_ """'1."- · ....... ,OI1I'.to:.·',·_ ''''fj-
89 

• 

@ 

D 

Better legitimate Alternatives to Piracy 

PIracy often aflse~whef\ COIlSl..lmer demond goes unme! by legitimate 5Upply. As 

services ranging from Netfl,K to Spollfym ITunes have demonstrated, me best way 

to combat piracy is limn bE'tler and mOle convenient legitimate selVlces, The right 

combination of price. conveniencE', and invemmy will do far more to .!!'duce piracy 

than enforcement can 

The muSIC industry has demonstrated the effectil'efless of thisapproac/l by 

licensmg a variery of musIC services Including free, advertlsing·supported Slre<lmmg 

services (like Spolify and Pandora~ download storE'S (l ike ITul"les1 aod on-demand 

subscription products (l ike All Access). A sulW'J recently released by Ih£' Swedish 

f[lI):;.ic Industry shows thaI SincE' 2009lhe rumba of peoplewho download music 

IliegilUy in Swt'den has deoe<lsed by mOlE' thiln 15 pertent, ~rgely as a fe5ult 01 

greater a~ajlabi ity of Improvt?d legal serlilces such as Sporofy.' Similar trends were 

seen In a 2013 survey from NPD Group.' And a recent study conducted by SpDlify 

found lhill moerall prraq rares rn the Netherlands has dedned dramatiCally thanks 

to the populariry Of legrtimate digital music sel'Vices." 

Film and lel€'liSlon ha~e had suaess cornbalJngprracy wllh legitimate alternatrves, 

as well In a recent H1ter~leo.~ With Stuff magazine. Netflll<"s Chier Content OffICer 

Ted Sarandos said thai when Netmx launches In a new country. plriKy rates In 

that country drop. In his opinIOn. the best way to reduce Piracy IS by "gIVing good 

options'" 

Signs have been positive that tile creatille indu:s.tries ale grOYllng around the-world, 

thanks In large part ro digltllation lFPI reported that the recording Industry grew Its 

revenue in 2012 for the first time in over a decade, to S165 billion." 

" II' 
90 

Nielson and Billboard reporled mat, rn me same year, mU$j( purchases grew by 

3.1% from the previous r~o d high sel in 2011 , whidl was drrven largely by digital 

purchases.- A 2013 study by Booz & Co In Europe also found that drgltal media was 

dr ~ing growth In tile European creative sectO( " 

Google has been at the forefront of creatIng new, autho" zed ways for consumers 

to obtalO digital (ontent We build platforms where our users can legitimately 

purrnase, consume, and sco~er entertaInment and culture. We also pioneer 

innovative new approaches to monetiZing onlme media. 

YouTube Partners 

YouTube's communIty rndudes not only a b< llIon IndivldUill users, but also more 

than a milhon partner channels from overthirty(ountries that earn money from 

thl'ir YouTube VIdeos-from H1dependent mUSICians ,md ~tors to some of the 

world's biggest record lclbels, movie sludios, and news org3n1lallons. YouTube has 

developed a series of tools and programs 10 help content pijrlners thrl\l€, including 

partnerships with every major record label, as well as hundreds of (olll'Ctlng 

SOCieties, mdl'pendent labet ... and mUSK publishers!O license recorded mu5.l( on 

the Site. As a result of pannelships ~e these, vauTube generates hundredS of 

millions of dollars each year for the COr1!l'flt Industry. 

From muSicians to athletes. teachers to comedians, tens of thousandS 01 video 

cre<ltors are now p<irt of the Partner Program established byYouTube In 2007, 

many thousands of them I'ilrning ~x ~gure Incomes from rnetr YouT\.lbe channels. 

To further support thl<> creative community, we ha~e opened fa(lillle') hke the new 

(ollaboriltlve spaces In LA. London, and TokJ'::l <IS places fur partners fO shoot, edit 

and cre(lte theIr content Th6€' faCilities support the <niltlVe ,ndustry developmg 

ilnd monetIZIng thElfwmk through partner mannels on YouTubl'. 

~-'9_._-n.,~ ......... r,~"~;;'11'''' '''' ''' ''>'''''''''· J.''' '''''~'''' ·''' rr il'-~'( ! 

"", ,n .".o.; ... r ~ .... ",r_ ... .,..".. , .... ~ _""-,"'~ ''''.n'''' ''''_ m'''G_· .. ",,., [."'"S'f.' '''~mI f!tn·,"1 g""tr"" , 
91 

To gilit' YouTube creators more flexibility In monetiZing and distributing content, 

in May 2013 we launc~d a pilot proglam for cerralll partners that Will offel d 

channels on YouTube with subsCliptiOll fees starling at $0.99 per month_ OUf 

partners are experimenting with different pricmg models to attraCilliewers. 

indvding offering 14-day free trials, and many offer dISCOUnted yearly rales. 

Rentals are another optIOn for content partners. Thanks to our paltnershlps with 

Content creators. YouTube offers tens of rhousands of mOVIeS ,md TV episodes to 

fent at standard Industry priCing. 
92 

Thanks to the popularity 01 mUSrc Yioeos <lnd YouTube's <lgreeme!lts- With recorQ 

labels ilnd musIC publishers to fe~fufe them, YouTube hils become an lmport<lnt 

des-llniltlon tor muSIC. So mum s.a that, as- 01 February 2013, BIllboard magazine's 

Hot 100 (h~rt now IrlCorporall!S 1'0uTube ViewS when r<lnklng a song's popuklmy_ 

The 1013 Digital MUSIC Report from jrp1." iln inrernatiOnill Clswoatlon represennng 

the recording Inous-try, conduded that 90% of Internet users are .. ware of YouTube, 

<lnd tNt the service attracts a large global audience. 

Each lime a mUSIC fan chooses YouTube over an unaUlhorileO sourCe for mUSiC, 

It'S a Vlc:ory against piracy-unlike previous generations of muSIC fans who were 

raised on unaulhoriZed sources for mUSIc. waay's young fans hall(! YouTube as 

CI lesal. cOfTl~l ng way to eXpe!lence music online. And because of our licensing 

agreements WIth our pal mers In the mU5!C Indu:s.try, nghtsholders are compensated 

when fans viSit 1'0uTube 10 experience mU5!c Videos. 

Google Play 

More than 900 million Android devices h<l\ie been actlv.,ted around the WQfld, 

presenting a trerTrelldous opportunity to erealillt' !nousmes_ Google Play IS CI globill 

serviCe thaI helps rlghtsholder~ and oeator~ sell thell appliCations 01 content 

directly to Google users. It's a dtgltal storewl1ele people can find, purchase, and 

enJO)' emenainment for [hen devices-from computers to ta~e!s to smarlphone<>. 

We'Ve partnered with all of the fTIilJor rewrd labels, PIJ~lshers. and movie :s.tudloS 

toQffef millions ofsongs ilnd books. lhousafiOS of fTlO\IIes ilnd TV shows, and 

hundreds of mag~lines that (;(in be enJOYeo across-devices. In the la:s.! year, Google 

Play digrtal content, lndudlng muSIc and mOVies, has launched in 2' new counUles, 

If1cludlng India. MeXICO and RUSSia 

MUSIC 

Google Play iliso offers iI store where us.ers Gin purdlClSe new music, iI musl( Ioder 

to store eXlstrng coliecllons of songs. and a subscriptIOn set "'ICI"! 10 <leeess millions of 

songs from thl"! Google Play collection. Today there are more than 18 million songs 

<JVa ilable for purchase from Goegle Play. Goegle illsa has "sc;an-.'ln("l-ma!(h" licenses 

fnat E'flable users to access their person<ol music co!lecuons from anYCCNlnecred 

device, WlrnOllt the time-consuming process of uploading those fi les Our rrew musk 

subscriptiOn Sef\llce, All ACcess, lets uws listen to mnllOns 01 songs on-oemand Tor 

a monthlY fee 

These products ilre drIVing reyenue (or the musiC Irmustr y, And tl\al'\kS tcour 

partnerships With rlghtsl1oloers around the world, Gongle Play Music is available to a 

global audience. 

\, ...... II lP"f'I 'II'JH""... ... , . ..,,,,,,1 .. ,,,· ""- 1'1!". ' _ "Ir' ', . , 
93 

MOVIES AND TV SHOWS 

Googl(' Play has partnered with all of thE! ma/Or film studios in the US. ~nd many 

local Studios In countlles overseas to offer thOUS<lnds of mOVies Clnd TV shows thaI 

can be remed or purchiisec!. We 0'1150 offE'r InnOVo'Ill'/e feo'lll.JrES mo'l l take o'IdVilnlage 

oi 0'1 digital formal 10 drive USE'r engagemMI, such as Info Cards thaI appear when 

iI movie or TV show Is paused and that give more Information .. bow the actOfS and 

musk: in a scene 

BOOKS AND MAGAZINES 

Google Play Is l'Klme to the wor ld's largest selecMn of eBooKs - With more man 

5 million litles available. More Ihan 48,000 publisl1ers ha...e joined Ihe Partner 

Program to promote lheir books online, Including nearly every major u.s. publisher 

We have also partnered With n"\aIOi publlshefs to offel hundreds of magazines 

for purchase or SUWI'plion In the Gaogle Play SIOie. creating a new market for 

magaZines and newspapers Users ale able to access Ihelr books and magaZinE'S 00 

any of their deviCes. 

APPS AND GAMES 

Google Play Is an !!nglne of economic opportunity fOI apphcation iind game 

dl!velopers because It gives them a free platform to build on and reach mlilloft!. 

of users More than a million apps ana g<llnes .lre available for sale or for free on 

Google Play, aM mey've been downloaded over 50 billion !lmes. 

Several of the most popular apps are delivering litl'nsed music. movies, and TV 

shows m users. 

oJ' Netm. allowswbscribers to strum popoJlar TV and movies 10At\droid devices. 

lis Android appliulJOn l;ouncllcd In 2011. 

oJ' Pandora C'Utes personalized music stallons and 5lreams son8S di'ecUy 10 users. 

oJ' Spotlfy ls an InleracUve music se'vice allowIng UselS access 10 a calal08 of licensed music. 

Google recently ~und1eo Google Pi<I), Giimes. iln app thi.'lt mi.'lk~ 1\ eilsy 10 dlSl:over 

new games, track achievements ;tnd scores. and play gamE"'S ""un fnends~rollnd 

the worle!. Google Play lSan opportunity tor game oevelopers to showc;ase mell 

creal ~lty and sell thell apps directly to garners. 

, 
94 

YouTube 

More than one bll~OIl unique u~r':iViSH YouTube e.;Kh month and together watch 

mo.'e lhan Sl~ bllliOl1 hours. of "ideo. And more than 100 haUlS of video <Ire uploaaed 

to YouTube every mlnule, s.pannlng Nery conceIVable topic fram politiCS ro comedy, 

from daredevil sports to rej lgioo YouTube has been a transformational forCl"ln the 

world of creanVI' e~llre5Sio1\ a global video platform at a scale never rmagl1led_ 

Content 10: A Win-Win Solution 

Beginning In 2007, YouTube developea and launched the most advanced content 

Klentlfrcation system In the warld, called Conrer1llo. With this system, rlght5holders 

are able 10 Identify user-uploaded Videos that are entirely or parllally Illelr contel1t, 

and choose. In advance, what they want to happen when those VKleos are found. 

ThiS IS how 11 works: Rlghrsholders deliver YouTube reference files (audio-only 

CI Video) of conrenr mE')' OWT\ meladara describing thai COntenl, and policies 

descrrbing what they want YouTube to do wilen it finds a match. YouTube compares 

videos uploaded to the sile agamsi those reference files. OUllechnology 

auromatlcaliy Idenllfles the rontentaM appll5 the rlghtstroloer's prefl:'lred poliCY. 

Rlghlsho ld" .. can chao ... among Ihre" polldn when an upload malCh.,5lhelr cont.,n!: 

1 

MAkemo" ey 

from the upload 

2 

l .. alle II up and Ifack 

III"wlng S1atiules 

3 

sr<><k It from 

Y"lIfUbe altogeltler 

, 
95 

Thanks to the opllon!.thar (ontent!D aHords to copyright own!'ls,lIs nOI just 

an antl ll <JC~ solunon. but 01151) a new business model for copynght: owners and 

VouTubt> allke_ The majority of partners uSIng (ontent [D choose to monetize melr 

dalms and man~ have spen !>IgnlflGant InCIe.lses In melr revenue as a result. 

(onten! 10 IS good for users as well 

When copyright owners choose to 

mooellze or track user·submmed videos, 

It allows users to continue to freely 

remix and upjoad a Wide vallery of new 

cfWtions uSIng e;<lsung works 

The majority of partners using 

Content JD choose to monetlle 

their claims, and many have 

seen Significant Increases In 

their rel/enue as a result. 
96 

YouTube Copyright Policies 

The vast maJOmy of the 100 hours of video uploaded to YouTube f'"Jery minute 

wil l not Infringe anyone's copyright Ne\lertheless, YouTube takes seriously Its role 

in educat,ng YouTube users about copynght and creating strong IncentIVeS to 

dISCourage Infflng,ng actMty. As a result, YouTube i"las a number of polloes In place 

deSIgned to dIScourage copyright rnfr lngement and terminate repeat offenders, 

For example: 

WI\e"VoolOtoe'em 5"'(IeO~ 

''''[100''' '0 d "al'~ <<lVY"gI1' '''"'''~ N" ... WI' ~!l"fy I~" UY" .ana J"Cf./ • 'SIn .. , ' Ill!!'" ,noun! or Ihe ,rs~ 

"~tIll'''''lll'O 

I I'Or r«e-pt 01 or ~ 'lOtr, p. "e \IW:\' I:l"-", d' '''fIbe' 

"' .... """" P''' "1:' ,.jd"'EH"'aI.o~", 10"1'~ v,,""'~ ""'~ Ihdn \5 rr .. ", ~;!<ld ll<A' oo,'~ 

'1IJhQ< ~". "'". 1 rt;>,rn,Tf' 

' ........... I (iifiiiiiiin S1(0'np~oII."",'fot< ,opytrthl ',chOOrprosr~" Jed fee,",,,,, flO h ,no', 

~"~"lJ'ng~'11 ma1' 

tlo<,lIl(j. ,r·~ ~~, "'" tw'j! 

t""CJm40 @<lu<:a·..., ~IXI! 

l,pC'" ',""P,," orl~'I!<' .I"'e" m~ USol'I'5 

... ,OI~ oN Ibt",,,,pe ~'ddlhp,rOO'QS 

'1' 'ljl~'h"¥("'" bt'r...,-.q~o 

" 
97 

The YouTube Copyright Center 

In addition to the Content JO system, copyright owners and their representatM"5 

can sub(Tl(t copynght removal notices through the YouTube C0P'lfight CE'nter, which 

offers an easy· to-use web form, as well as eXleflSNe Information aimed at edUGlnng 

vouTube users about copyrighT. The CopyrIght Center also offers YouTube users a 

web form for "counter-notiCing" copyrlghtlnfnngemE'nt notices that they believe are 

misguided or abuSIve . 

. 

- i' I\'j ' , , 

1

_, , . , 

i~---

YouTube Content Verification Program 

YooTube oners a Content Venfication Program for nghtsholders who hiNE' a regular 

need to submit hlSh lIOiumes of copyright remOVal notices and hdve demonstrated 

high accuracy in their prior subrrusSJons. This program makes It easier for 

rightshojdefs to search YouTube for material that they believe to be Infringing. 

Quickly Identify Infnnging videos, and provide YouTUbe wlth Information SJJlfiueot to 

pefmlt us 10 10Cdlednd l1"rnD\'e that matena!. ali In a Slre<lm~ned manner Intended 

to make the process more efliden! 
98 

Eli 

Google Web Search 

Th!'le are more than fiO Hlillen address.e~ on the web. Only an ,nf,niresimal poruen 

of these rl lllon~ infrmge copyright, and those Infringing pages cannO! be Identified 

by Google Wilhoutrhe cooperation of nght~h(l de s. Nearly every pilragrapll of text. 

photograph, Video. sound recording. or p~e of software IS potemially protected 

by copyrrgtlllaw Moreover. copyright laws generally permit some uses. sum as 

parodies and quotation, even over <l copyr ight owner'!; obJectIOn. So whde we donl 

want to Include links to Infnngmg pages in OUf search results, Google needs the 

oooperanon of copynghl owners 10 sepiHale Ihe <lUlhorile<:l or uJlObjecllonable 

uses frOm Infringing coes 

Google relies on copyright owners to notify us when mey olscover 1M! a search 

result Infringes Ihelr lights and should be removed. These nouces arE' submlHed 

through procedures Ihat arE' consistent With the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 

(DMCA) and simllal laws thar apply to prOlllders of online services! · 

To help copyright owners submillhese notices, Google has developed a stre(lmll"ed 

submiSSion PIOCesS. Theil" IS no sea ~h engine EMt processes as many mp'ln gllt 

removal notices as Google does, ano none that process them more quickly 

Fol examp ~ 

" Copyright owners and theiragent.""bm;lled mOf~ than 57 million web p.1g~s ror removal 

Tn20U 

-

""""l¥'Ii'"<........,.,...., 1/ ~Dt.IC IJ"' ''''' f>O<~''''''''''~_''"''''. ........ ono« t ... ~~"'tt" ......~'''~'''' ..... ~I">Mt>Ot"""'-..~

". ''·._ ".. N- __ ~''"tlCI..,. IGooo!:It" ''~ 

.. tr>o$ ...... _"'_"" .... "' ~ ... __ ... _ ..t.JPOn ...... ""S.""""""""' ,...."., .. , .... ""' .. _, L;M>~"' .... ,"'''''''"'_ ........ l ... OIl''"'H,.......,.....On<' ..... ....... ...-. ""~ _.'~ .... ",..~ 
99 

~ Between December 2011 .lnd November 2012, we removed 110m . earch 97.sqj, of ~II 

URLS 5p!lCifiro In COPYllght removal requests. For tnt remalnlo& sitts. 'Ml eithe. nclt(lcd additOonal iorormat;oo. wele ,,,,able to ~nd the page. 01 concluded thai the material wJS 

not lnfrifllin8 

~ OUr ""erage turnaround time for copyright notices IS less than 6 hours. 

In addition, Goegle inro porat~ the flumbl'f efllalid copyright removal f\Otl«'S we 

receive- for any gl\"efl site as a 'iigna-l 11"1 our rankll1g .. Igorllhm, as described belo\l.t 

Submitting Removal Notices 

Thefast5t .. nd most efficient W<ly 10 SlIbmil a copyrighl remov .. 1 notk:e to Google 

is through our content rernollal web form, whICh accepts many differem kinds of 

removal requests. 111cludlng copyright requests. Our web form is con<;.lstent wlm the 

DMCA and SImilar law.;, and prO\lldes a simple <lnd effICient medl<lnlsm for copyright 

O\I;flers from OOllntrtes .. round the world. DUfll1g 2012, approximately 16,000 dif· 

ferent entities used our web form to submor copyright rerno\lal notices from search 

results. 

In .. dditlon:o the p'Jbl~ cootent relTlO\lal 

W1<b form, for copynghl OWIlers who h;)ve a 

proven track recold of submltung accurate 

notices ,,00 1'1110 have a consistent flee<! 

to submit thousands of URLs e-acl1 day, 

Google (redted me Trustea COpytlglll 

RemOllal Progr.1m for Web Searcn (TCRP) 

This program Slreilmllnes the subrl1 lSS10n 

proces'i, alloV'lIng copyrtghl owners CI theh 

enforcement .agents to submit I'!fge volumes 

of URLs on il consistent basis. At the end 

of ~Ot2, there wele i1pprO~ m~te y 50 TCRP 

p.ll tners, who together submitted 95~ of 

the URLs submotted durrng the yeal. 

At the end of 2012, there were 

approximately 50 Trusted 

Copyright Removal Program 

partners, who together 

submlned 95% or the URls 

submiued during the year. 

" 
100 
101 

Transparency 

When we remove malenal from seilrch result.s, we belIeVe users and me publl' 

Siould be able to set> who maoe the remov,,1 request amI why. Beciluse copyright 

Iflfrmgemef'\! ollegations "rt' tbe ba'>ls rOI ll'1OJ'e than 95% 01 tne ~g~1 reqUe5t!> thai 

we re<:eIYf' t() remove Items flom ~eJ <t1 results, we h.3ve taken ttoe follOV'i!ng ~teps 

to ensure trar'lspa leTlo/ 

~ Maintaining an ongoing Transparency Report. In 2012. we ~dded details regardIng 

(opy"ghl removal nOlT(e510 our Trans.p.aren(y Repo.t 511e_" Updaled dally. hes~e 

shows the aggregate number 01 URls that we I'Io1ve been asked to remove. as well 

aswho submltled IhI1 n<)\lces. on beha lrofwhlCh copyright OWm'n. amI 10. which 

websites, 

~ Nolilyln& webmaners of removals. If a website oper~to. Ulioe5 Google's Webmaster 

Tools. n",J fi c~~o" wil l be provided 10 webfTld"e~ tt>ere when a web page in their 

do"",i" h.ls 'e(eillt'd a tah.edown nolke .... 

~ [nformln& use,. wtlen results have been removed from t heir results. When users perform a Sl'a.c/1 where re .... lts haW' been removed dueto a mpy.jghtcompla,n[, 

Google display. the follow',ng n<)tke: 

I" re5pO<>Se Ie" r;omp/Jfirl .... ",ce/Yed >¥Ide, ''''' !.&.IJJfJ/lJJL M.1Im~00I COIMkUtld """ ha"" removed I nuu/t(s) from 

this pag&. "yoo wish. yo~ may read the DMCA COt1UJIajo/ 

thaI C4US/ld 1116 removal(s} III ChillillgE/lects.Ofg. 

~ Pfovldlng ~c l~s of no!l~ .... to Chilling Eff""". S1n(e 1002. G0081e ~as provided a ""P>' 

of eMh copy.lght r .. moval notice that we e~elv e for .edr~h re .... lts tIIth~ nonprofit 

organilation Chlmn& Ellen •. By galrn.ring togeth .... copy.ignt rem<l\lal notkl"S lrom B 

number of SOU","". Including Googleand TWitter. CMlllIngEf'fects foste .. r~seafCh and 

... aminatkm olremoval not"~S submitll!'d by mpy.1Shtowners." 

Detecting and Preventing Abuse 

Google works hard to detect and prevt!nt ablJ~e!> 01 the WPYflght removiil ptoces.s. 

From time to time. we f\'ldy ((,(!!lYe ifliluurdle or un)ustlfie<l ropyright rerflOVi.ll 

reolJtits lor se~Idl result~ th.l. de"rly do nOllink to Infring,.ng c.ontent. 

c..,,, 

"-.. ..... _ , .. ,,.... ~ .... .., . ,_, ... , ' I. .,.,.4 • ... ..,. ..... ,,,"", .... r-.· .. , H 'I "1 -.4r_ I~ "' ''' ''' ''' ',' ..... " .... ,( ....... ,·u."" .. r"'" ~.I·f~ r}J[ w, ·m·' "1' 

" 
102 

EXAMPL(S OF DMCA ABUSE 

H~'·' "".1 few ",.m,p;~, vr ,epu~'" I~'t "".~ h"~~ ,,,h"',,UH" h,r.,,&" ,,,., (Opy,.gN 

"""0'.''' p,c,{o" '~d\ \.",,~ "Cd' ty '"v.I· ,II <OPY' .g~' '~m"'d' r"qut·"~ I~ ~M" '''''. ,," 

,I"j ~<>, '"~\Pve ll1<.' URl·~ ~u~~'KI~ f'",''' 'N"" ,~,,,I" 

• A. 'n~l')f u.s. ''''AI~~ p'''ure «ud,,' "'Qu~;t':'\l ,-,'"""", "'lh~ IOWI ~~, Mo"" Drl",bJ'" 

IIMOIJ) p~le fa, d ~")yl" '~!Cd'''''' Dy 'J> U'H" ""a,<>. ," well a< ,Me "nrc,a' "d.!er oo".d 

on" f",ll~' .ul"o,,~ .... 1 MII~~ o,~d·a ""We 

• A.c'.5. r"p'''I;ng ~'g~""ill,on ... ,,,k,ng on bendl! D' ~ ,n~;", <'"10",,· stud,,, ,W,,·, 

fe'1,,~,,~a '"<noval 0' a rr'()v,e ""ow "n ~ ~,alo' n""",p."e, we~"·.~ 

.;. d"v'''~ ,><'100' ,r' "", u~. '~qu"'t<'(lln" :t'IlI"".' ,,! ~ <ompCl,I",' ',o·''''P.g~ lro~, 

G""~I~ S",,'ch. ,,,-, ~h" g'(,,,~d; that Ih(- (O"'D~I,t~r ha,' cop,cd.n a.p~<;MII'~~ 1.,1 01 

{,I ,~, "no ,eg,ons Wht'fC rI',," ,([ron .... " ~I'e«·a 

• " (~o(e"t .,' Glc{\,o" ,H g,'~""I"'~, ,J( ,,, Ig ''', Dehd,r 01 'IlmIO~ n-n,,' t· '""'''1. d~<l 

,p~'IS I',,'gr,mm,ng com~"n,,,.,. '~qlJ~"~d '~e '~'n"'cl' 0' '~d"'. 'e",I:,. rn,,~ 1'~.C<1 

O~ly to COl'Y' 'gIl, '~nloval "~OLj(':" on ("',II'~g E rl~(" '\1J< ~"<l "" 'g'c~"y bee" 

",t,,,,,nco ~y on~ of 'IS ,',~nl' 

.,,~ .~d,v"",o' 'n 1M. <is 'C'lue,\(-d :"c ,cm".," of ,~,1r(~ ,~S,,", T"'-'t I,~, '.0 (.-."" 

W,,(~o~,ng' 'O'"'c~"rg h~' "',.l .~r. la" n.,.'0 on me g'o,,~o Te,,, ~e' O,l~1{' ,"",,, 

(Opy<;gh\,)W 

• M";l,rl~ "d,",dl"ll; ,n :h~ <i S "QI,~'t~~ ln~ 'P,,",Q,.l1 ,oi 'N"h '~'''''' I,n"ng t~ O~, 

pow. "n~ ""'D '''".-m, '''~, ,)~"""wn IhN r.,,'lO'. w,1n ,~, ',,,n ."I~gpMn" '0'.""",", d.l\~', .-" "~!I.JI ;V~ «)""n~r~' 

• A. c~mOuny .~ ,he U. ~;. '~q~"<:~o 1~" re,"lO"" of ><,a,,~ ''''~ul" 'h.lT l, o~ to ,'" 

l'1"D'OYt"'" Dlog PO,\' ,"'OU' W'jl,q .1I1C un' •• " !teJ'mC1H 

In 2012, we lerrf),na[ed tWO par [nl<'l'S from th!' TIUSIe<:l Copynghl Removal PfOgr~m 

for W!'b Search for r!'pealedly send,ng rnaccurate notrees thfough our high·l/olume 

submission med1aniStns. Because the TCRP is reserved for partners with a uack 

record of subrrul!lng accurate nO!lCE's. access to the progfam can be revoked wilen! 

a parmer faUs shOJI of these high standards. 

As the ~olume of removal notices continues to rise. detecting Inaccurate or abusrve 

notices continues to pose a challenge, Google ,fl';E'SIS continuously Irl engineering. 

and machine learn,ng solutIOns to address this rrsl<.. The Transparency Reporl has 

also prOl/en useiulln detectJf1g abusi~e noliCes. as jowniJlists, webmasters. and 

other Interested members of the public ha1le examined Ihe data m.3de iIl/aili'lbie 

there 

" 
103 

Webmasters may also submit a COIJnteHlol1Ct' Iflhey d€lefmine lilal a page on Ihell 

site has been removed from Googh:.' SeiJrch reSlJI\S due 10 al1 erroneouscopyngm 

reJT'tO\lal nOllce. Google affords webrnosters twa ways \0 be nOlified If any pi.lges 

on their Sites are t~rgeted by removal notices. If me site operator uses Google's 

Webmaster Tools. notification wi ll be provided \0 webm~Slers mere. Alternatively, 

the 5I.'~rth feature on Ihe Tr(ln~rency Report Will show copy'lght remev(ll nQlKeS 

received for it domain. 

Using Copyright Removal Notices in Ranking 

In addition to remOVIng p;rges from $.earch results when notified t:J.j copyrrght 

owners, Google 31>0 factors In the number of v31k\ copyright removal notrees we 

receive for ~nygfl/efl site as 0111.' SlgIlal among the huodreds th~t we tohe In(o 

account When r~nking:search results. As a reSUlt, siles with high numbers 01 removal 

nmicl.'5 may appear lower In search results. We believe Ihat th.s ranking change 

shOUld help users find legl(lm(lte, Qual.tY sources of wnrenl more e<lsily 

While we use 11'11.' number of valid 

copyright removal noucesasa signal for 

ranking purposes, we do not remove 

pages from results unless we receiVE a 

specirre removal request for the page. 

As shown on Ihe Transparency Reporr, 

we generally receive removal flOUCes 

for a very small portion of the pages 

on a SIIe. Even far Ihe wehslll."S that 

have receIved 11'11' hlghesr numbers 01 

nOllces, Ihe number of norlced pages fS 

tYpically only a tiny fraction of rhe loral 

i"lumber of pages on rhe site. It would 

be inapproprlale to remove el"ltire sires. 

under lhese CIiCUIl'ISlances. 

Sites With high numbers of 

removal notices may appear 

lower In s@archresults. 

" 
104 

SEARCH ANO PIRACY; THE REALITY 

I~ ",n~(ti"8 m lh~ reI<> .eafCM engille~ Ca" ploy in alldr~,s ~g lh~ p'ob ~rn of p,rm)', 

mm,",,"\ators cflf''' ove.loo~ ""m~ imPOrianl ,ealil ~', 

1. Search Is not a major driver of traffic to pirate sites. 

Googl~ Sea,d) i. MIllow mu,ic, mov.e, anll TV fa", iment on p,r~tong med .. fmll pi'd(<' 

silas, AJiEr_mc ffom fIldjOr I<'~'ct, enginoS(Vahoo. Bing. _nd Googl\' c.ombiMdl accounlS 

Ic. lesslilao IMIII 01 tf~m< toM"s li ' Q Th~ P"a!. Bay." In fau, 5 .... efa l nO(O, 'Ou5!i110'S havt' 

!HI,,;! publi<~ h~t Illey don't "~~<I s~~rCIl ~ng'~~s, iH Illei, u.ers f,no th~m lh'''''gll seCial 

MIWOf~S ..... "'d of meuth. a~d olner mKhan<Sms." Rcsea,<h thaI Google (o·spoo.o,,,d 

",'In PRS 10. ~UI" in lh~ U~ funIlU(oM,rm!l11 IMllralfic fremse,l<cl\ enginH is 1'101 wh~1 

~"eps (hl!Se Sill>S on b"",n~s.'· The, e fondi"gs were 'O/'If"m~d in 0 re<cnl r(!<;earch p~pI!r 

publi~l'Ied by tn~ Computer 8< CommuniCations IMuSHy "'SSOClat,on." 

2. Search can't eradicate pirate sites. 

ScJ.en@nglne!'lcklno\ control wn~1 conlenl is On tne We!), TMte at! mOre Illan 60 lhll.on 

web addrcssnOfl the Inlcmet. and 'I!cr~will a lwdl'!i be n~w ~llcsdeoKJted 10 m~k'ng 

copytlghled work~ a.allablc, as long "s Ih~tC 's money 10 be m<>dedo;og so. Acco.dlMgto 

rl!'Cenl researCh. replicating Ihe~e s,te< IS ea~y arK! tne.penslve, alld atlempts 10 ma,e Ihem 

disapp~ar SMOuld focuS on e,adiaung Ihe business maoel tha t suppo,ts Ihem.~ 

3. Volume of .'lilegedly 'p;ra<:y.related· qUf!rles 15 dW.'lrff!d by broadf!r queries. 

Wh~n it com .... to bu ild lngdnl'-p".xy mUSlIrcs. W~ pMonllle "llorn wn~re !.hey <an M,;)\e 

Ihe ""'SI difference. Google ScaKI! r..ce,,,,,, morf! Ihan Ihree billion QU.'",s each day, We 

W8nl to locus OUr efforls whN! the uScrs re 

Th p good news is th<l' tne ,no" popula, queri"" ,elating to ""''''O'S. music, boe~s. ""'PI] 

g.>mes, and other ro~r<ghted wo.ks return ",,,,,Its Ihaldo not In,Tude Iink$lO in(nng·,ng 

ma!e,lals. This i, '''anto. to both ourCOnS'MI Improvements te the algcrilnmslt>a. power 

Google Sea.ch, and 1m- e(fo!l~ of 'igh\lioolders to Pfronlil<' ~"d ta'g~! Ihe" mpyrlght 

'em",,~1 n<llil:ps. 

Sa when Someu,t,Cs f<Kuson lnfring,ng male.I~ls~ppeanng in wa'ch resU1ts (0' pJrticular 

queries, IlJs impO.t.lnt to consider how many u ... ,sa<lUalfy m.l~e !~o,..,querip!.. During 

the r"st s;, monttls o( 2011, GO"8I~ users searched (o r "; 

,,' 
105 

Removing Terms Associated with Piracy from 

Autocomplete and Related Search 

AlItocomplete is ol corweoience feMure In Google Search mat attempts to 

"complete" a Quer'! as It'S typed based on similar Queries t/1at other users M .. ., 

typed. Related Search ~ Queries that other users have ryped thai miJ'f bf> 

similar loyours. Google has t(lken steps to prt"<ent terms closely associated 1'1,,11 

p,r(lcy' from appearing in AUtocomplete and Rel(lted Searcl'1 Th~ '5 s'mllar to 

It'll.' (lpproarn we have taken for a narrow dass of terms related to pornograrh'!. 

VIolence. and hilte speech 

The Next Step: Making Legitimate Alternatives More Visible 

In addition to refT'ov1ng infringing pilges from 5eilrch results(lnd using val id 

removal nmlCes as<i ranking SIgnal. Google has an ol'1goln& Cllalogue with 

content owners about w¥ to increar.e the vl5.lb11lry of aurhorite<l serl/ices in 

seilrch results. 

For ~amp1e. In 2011. we laundled a new open standard for me mar~up of 

webSltes which I.'lIilble-; aUlhOfited mlJ5l( sites to more prom,nently te~ture 

slfeamll,g ·prevlE'w· mu'iic contem In 001 sean::h results ("flchsrllppets")." 

With thIS standard, al'1yone searching for popular musIC c.<i1'1 Immediately 

stream authorized prE'l/I!m right In the search rt>SUlts, A number of musIc 

SiteS (Including AmilIon and L~t_rM) haVe implemented the new standilrd. 

distingUishing their offerings from resul~ from unauthOrized Sites. 

L.tcty Glgi I Free Muslc Tour Palas f>bam YkIeos --".~~ l*'I'~'._"",,"~c.d1Od IN __ ,.,; __ . ___ _ 

-

.., .. " ... ,. '."."',"T W.-... · .. ·. "",".,."~~ •• "",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ....... n<"'_""'~ .... _ Ui" 

b'"'(n~v''''''' ;! ~~:;; !':"t..s:;~:::;::::;;.\~::~ C,'.';.:!:;-:':';; ;;:;::,::·:Jp'!'!~;t c g'l' i' ,\I'-

,0 m... ~"''''''{br .... "",,w....- ~h_,"'.""'~C<nmo:: WI' .,,'0' . "'I·-I .... 'f> 

~ ~,y"."""" ,-,"-,"'" ·r .... .,...... ... '-""""'G'''' r-.. 1 " •• ",.", '"" ..... ~ .... ~. CitoN ... , • ,W. >II '.1011 , 

,lito lUQ..'It¢" 1\ ~q..,. ... _.'_'\·~I~"V<l_"'--"-"'_'~_C"""", 

1J """"" ._""",_ .... ""PI ... , M·'" • ..... 2'm· .. ,t'C"d,ZlJtjff" 
106 

There is mOIl" Ihal authorrzed music, lV, and mollie Sitl'S can do 10 help thell 

SitE's be more effeclivPly indexed by search engines. The film .. nd tl:'levlsjon 

IndUSlry has launched wtJetJ1QY(iltdJ 0UI and the mUSK Industry hils launcl\ed 

'r'ill¥musicmatlers com 10 nelp ron ...... r"ers find leglllrn.lle chilnnPls for buying 

films, TV shows, and songs And NARM has recently offered adVice to onlwle music: 

relallers on optimiZing their sites for bener performance in sealch engine Il'sults!' 

But these Industries could do even more to build pages o;pecifK IC albums. fllCVles, 

and TV shows that coold then appear In search engine results (fol example, a 

specifIC page on "Where to Walch Medern Family onhne"), 

lnde>cing subscription mUSIC and \!ideo services Is also a chaHengefor search 

engines. It Is difficult for a search engine to return results from licenst'd serVices 

like Spotlfy or NetHlx If It doesn't knowl'ltlat sor,gs and programs ilre available 

from those services. With more In/orrn.;Jtion, search engines could rewrn be!te~ 

more relevant legitimate resull;s to users seeklrlg the content Google looks forward 

to continUing collaborative efforts with content owners and authonzed services, 

intended 10 make the offerlngs of authorized '>erVices more VISible In search r~ltS. 

~"",!'!' 

~~ .... ..,.. "I'lOC-liOl'l ~"""'<fIlr~t'I!"_,","'''''M __ '''''M>yl{lll''''' ,"'>, ·~·'IH"'" 

" 
107 

Advertising 

Following the Money 

The most eifeetl\le WiJoj fO combat rogue Sites that specialize In onlille piracy is to (ut 

offthei! money supply These sites are alm05t £')(cluSively for-P<'ofir enterprises, and 

so lorg as ther£' is money to be made by their operators, other antq)lrar::y striltegles 

will be far less effeqrve As iI global leader 11'1 online advernsll'1g. Google rs tommlned 

to looting out and ejecting rogue sites from ow aOlle! tlsing services, We are also 

working wIth other leaders in the IIld,Jstry to u aft best pr<Ictices aimed ~t Iilislng 

stanoards aaoss the entire online advertising Inoustry, 

Best Practices 

In April lOll, Google was amol1g the Ilrst rompaniesto certify compliance in the 

InteractIVe AdvertiSll1g Bureau's (lAB's) Quality Assulance CertillcatlOl1 program, 

through which participating advertising companies 1'1111 take steps to el1hance buyer 

control over the placement and context of advertiSlI1g and build brand safety" ThiS 

program 1'1111 help ensure that advertisers ano their agents ilre able to ronttol where 

their ads appear ilUOSS the web 

In July 2013, Goegle worked With the White House'sOffiee of the U.S. Intellectual 

Property Enforcement Coordinator ([PEe) and Olm leaOlng ad networks to 

partiCipate in Best Practices and Guidelines for Ad NetWOl((s to Address pij acy and 

Countedetting" Under these best praclices, ild netWOI ks 1'1111 maintain and post 

poll(ies prohibiting websl!es that are pnnclpally dedic(lted to engaging in copynght 

plr(l~ from parttppatlng in the (ld network's ildvertiSlng progr(lms. By workrng 

across the IIldustry, these beSt pra(!lces should help reduce the financial inceml\le.S 

for pirate 511es by cutling off thell revenue supply while molntall'1ing a he<lllhy 

Internet and promoting IrmOllanon, 

,-

"1AIl~/ __ '~"M_lIm<!x", .. gn)-m"'" ~""'_"""""'-c.:-.·""""",,,,(_a.-,,,,,,,""~''''Ir>I;.·I''''''''''''."n~ ., ,·,11<010, " 
108 

AdSense 

More than two million web publishers use fldSense to make money rrom their 

content on 1hE' web, making It the chret Google ~dvertl5lng proCllJa used by online 

pub ll sh~s_ The ovf'lwhelming maJOrity 01 {hose pwbffshers iire nO! t'rlgaged In any 

~Ind of wpyrigh! In'rlngement. Ad5ense h<lS always prol1lb1ted publIShers from 

u~ngAdSe :;e to place ads on pages thai contain pirated lOment, Clnd Google 

proaCtively mOnitors the Ad!>ense networ~ to 1001 our bad publishers, 

" In 2012, Google disabled ad serving 104&.000 s,les fOf vooi.:ltingour pollci~ 

prohibiting lhe placeml!f1! of adS on ~ites with infringing cOOlen!. lhe vast majority 

being violations Google dCleCled before we were notilred. 

" Almost ilil "-dSenSl' Jd formals inciu<1e ~ ijnk thai permits a copyright Owner to repo" 

s.te~!h31i1'e violating Google's pollclt's. Copyright owners may also notify uS of 

viotatlons through a web form. In 2012 we too .. action on several thousand URls ln 

'e~pon~e to th~e complaints. 

"",,-URl.: ° ___ ._u~'" ~.SUVRL."""""-,,,,,," 

__ .... '-ormecb""_)<IU_ ... -'oIoIon · 

-----

Ileoaipdan or _ '"' URI.: • 

" heh time we receive a ~afid copyright removal notice lor Search. We also blacklist that page 

Irom rffelving anyAdSense adveni!;iflllin the future. 

Google do~ nOI want [0 be In b!lslneSSW1{h rogue sites specialiZing III pnacy 

Thdnks!O our ongolllgefl'Oris. Wf!Clre su(cel'Oing In detecting and electing these 

Sites flOm AdSt'rlse, WI'lle.a rogue !e might 0{(as10nally sI.p mrough Il'Ie CraJ<s, 

11'11' data sugges!s Ih(lt these Sites (Ire a vanishingly ~all part Of tl1e AdSense 

network. Fer e)(olrnpl€. we fond thaI Ad5ense ads appear on far fewer than 1% oftl'!' 

pages IMI copynght owllei'> Ic\'!mlly In r.opyngllt removal r<otKeS for Search_ 
109 

Ooubtectick 

DoubleChck offers a sUite of online advertISIng platform solurtons. for both 

advertisers and web publ<~hers , The pmKlpal customers for DoubleC!ick serVICes 

all.' largeod'ver flsers, ad agencies, large publishers, and ~d networ~~, it ,s Wwallj 

unheord offor these sorts of "blue chlp·commerdal entities to be operi3trng rogLW 

sites spE'Cii3liz\r1g in copyrlgl'1t inf(lngement 

DoubieClick i3lso offers a freE'servtce to smaller web publishers on a sell-semI.' 

bi!5!s through the DoubleC1lck for Publi~ers(DFPl Smal18U5lness progrilm. 

Although Ihe program has polipes in place to prOhibit !Is use 11'1 cOl'lneclion With 

infrWlgrngilcrMty, rogue publlsh€fs have tned to snei3k in through this door. 

Publi~ers do not pay Google to use this pli3tform, nOl does Google pay them for 

using II. NeV£'rthetess, Google has receruly revtsed its polldes and Stepped up 

enforcemem efforts for DoubleClick fat Publi~ers Small8uslness In an effort to 

deny rogue sites access [0 the service as a platform for serving ads sourced from 

other network ... 

AdWords 

AdWords is Google's premier advertising produ<[. resporrsible forth!.' 

advcrtJsements ,hilt Clppear next 10 Google search results, as weillhe lext 

advertisements Of] SiteS across the web. Advertisers pay GoogJe for these 

placements, generally on a cost·per·lmpressron or COSl-per·clkk basis 

Rogue Sites specializing ,n online piracy generally do nOI use AdWords, Goegle 

receives very ffm complaints regarding AdWords berng used by rogue pirate "11.'5. 

Nevertheless, we maintain strict poliCies forbidding the use of AdWords 10 promote 

copyright infringement. We rake a vanely 01 proactive and reactive steps, through 

bolh manual and aulomated review, to rolarce our poliCies. 

BLOGGER 

B,,,&,g"' """.>og'e·' "'f~ I"og D"O",~".g 0'.'1 'or'~, wh,'" "",1O'<'s ."e" u> (( .a'e ",," ,,'>'l~tC D'OI:' 

W,' ,·~"",.r ",~dJ~' J&",fi" ,"" "r,t •• BI.,>!.!p ,.1",10' '" Uy ("'0'''' Ic,,)~..,,! '0 ,e, 'Jil d r,~~ ,,~~,.,~ 

(o~",,~m .. ,'" ("~H Googl" Pt(otJu<I' .h~t 11.,,, """ ·"P'o.l{){'(! ({''';C~', we "".J. ,c,~",,~ ."1,,,,& .. '8 

~10£ DO'!' .... r,~" D'0~"ly c.o!.i •• tI oy ~ WPr,,&h, ~ww" ,,~d ",,II ',,(nl'~,"e tile e,,'''~ b'<>g wh.,,,, 

",,,,, .plc (O'"'P'J,r.t, ""aD','/) .1 '" d • nx-ao ."1,,, ~e' 

B:oggel has a'''' "eal,'d JI' d' .to'n.:Il<:<I n,,", '~D""."")(1 100' 10' (~py' .£O! ow~~" ""0 tuve " 

"~<L 'HC,,~ oj ","anle ,,,r,·.,,,,,,O"' ~"a" '<'f:"'''' ~.'0<l10 ,,,I.m,, I"'g~ , ..... "rr,<, ~f ,,,1""0,"', '1(I1'(~' T>", h>ol .II~\'" ~,,~',f.e~ wpyr,&'" own"" IO .... ','J'n f<1D.<l'~mM.", Q' ,~r""f."" 1>0'" ,,~p"J',ng c~ Blo&.',~' 
2 - 0 "'11 

= 

., 3. '! c: .. 

'l'l"' .... i!:a o: -. , 

:: 

, 1- , !l3 

.0 

;' 2 5' ... )I; 

, , - 3 _ . .; 

. , . .n' 

.. -

'F "I I" 

:;; .:0: 

1<0 -'1 " ;." tJ.s -0-

Il '" '" 

'" '" :T C'I 

-53. )0 

.. .. 

t!l!!" a ',' . ;: g i 

:'fj{ ;;<::; 0_ 

i ?' 

J 

•• 

!; iI!'< ".t :: g '0. 

1-0 o 0 

§,2Z- m 

'=I" i';:' ". .J:"il ... a "",-_2 ;.. 

c'i!,"'l !!l 

- ;t - o!i '" PI' "" '" " .. ·..-a .. ,i o; :!'::i - - ". 

"._0 ..::t::Po 

Foi;::,,::i 

"- 0' ... i 3,. .. "';:"',-

... - I; _ 

. ., 

& 

>,,"':0; "" 

.. " 

4-ti.11 

... -?;" ;:oi 

5 

.... :0;-

g 

alii t r' 

:;" 

il=,,'> ,>:J: _ '" 

a;:l1 

,; g --

. ,', !;l 

.. ' 

::1. ':;' -0- : 

" i ;; 

, ::: ;: 

!It 

: 

, -• . 0 

§ ;: {; ;; .' -

of ii "i :c.. 3 

::-

..J: to . :: 

J ;;; 3 .' ; .. 1!!: "'-

"j- ! , . la. 

} 

;'" If ,." « 

"i O . , . 

-

"';1 

-

.-

f; .. 

... 

o 

o o 

o 

:;; 

"' 

• ; 

< 

• • Z 

n 

• 
111 

Mr. COLLINS. And would have also entered the Motion Picture of 

America’s filing as well, but my distinguished colleague, Ms. Chu, 

beat me to it. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

Mr. COLLINS. As we look on this. 

To the witnesses, I would like to thank, you know, all for being 

here. I have listened a great deal. I have been listening even out 

of here in a meeting for—and holding this hearing. I believe we 

have got to continue to examine the volunteering issue before the 

industry, because I believe they are a step forward. In considering 

any legislative remedies, we need to see what is already being 

done, because the last thing I would like to see is just come again. 

What I think we do too many times in all forms of government, 

from local to Federal, is we rush in with the, quote, ‘‘legislative 

fix,’’ and then all of a sudden that fixes it for all of 6 months. And 

then somebody is not happy, let us fix it again. We have got to 

have some common sense here. 

And also, I think, a little bit of marketplace issue as well. Government will not, cannot, and should not solve all of your problems. 

You need to get this right, and you need to get it together voluntarily, and then, as is spoken of just a few minutes ago, then government can step in where need be and help the process along. 

In looking at this, I am encouraged by what I am hearing and 

have been encouraged by some meetings that I have had even this 

week. But I believe there is still a lot of work that needs to be 

done. In fact, even this morning, did a quick Google search for 

‘‘Parks and Recreation’’ episodes online, and at the bottom of the 

search results on the first page, I read this: ‘‘In response to a complaint we have received from the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed one results from this page. If you wish, 

you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removals or removal at chillingeffects.org.’’ 

Okay. There is a little bit of a political comment right there. 

That is fine. I get it. And, look, I would like to have Google here 

to discuss this. 

Now, in full disclosure, I have talked to Google this week in one 

of their offices, and we have brought up some of this as we went 

along, because I think they have an already important role that 

search engines play in this and the possibility that they can really 

dramatically alter the online piracy landscape for the better. 

However, I am concerned that maybe we are not addressing this 

or investing in this as much as we should. In fact, I want to go to 

you, Mr. Sherman, because out of your written testimony, you seem 

to indicate that they are not invested at all and, in fact, do not 

seem to be making any effort to promote legitimate options for 

streaming content. I just want to ask you, is that an accurate representation of your testimony? 

Mr. SHERMAN. No, I don’t think so. I think Google has done 

things. My problem is that they are measuring their actions by how 

much stuff they are doing rather than the impact that it is having. 

When they run their own business, I doubt that if they keep a lot 

of people busy, they would regard that as sufficient. They probably 

want to make sure that it results in a meaningful revenue impact. 

We need the same thing. 
112 

Mr. COLLINS. So you are saying quantity doesn’t always recommend to quality. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Right. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. Would others like to address this? I will 

open it up to the rest of the panel, from Ms. Lesser all the way 

down. Anybody want to take a bite? 

It is okay, guys. It is afternoon, you can laugh. 

Mr. COBLE. It is afternoon provided they beat the red light. 

Mr. COLLINS. Exactly. As we do that. They are saying, we are 

going to get in under his minutes as we can. 

Here is the question. Look, I am going to actually give back a little bit of my time today, because this is something that our office 

has been heavily involved with and will continue to be involved 

with. 

I want to go back to my statement just a few minutes ago. This 

applies not only in this environment here. There is definitely a 

need for this Committee, and we will be heavily in jurisdiction with 

the fine folks from both sides of the aisle here looking at this. I 

think there are going to be ways that we can work to protect the 

owners and protect the rights and then still provide content, because I believe by protecting those rights, you actually expand innovation, you expand productivity, and we are going to be a part 

of that. 

But I think what we also got to come to the conclusion here is 

that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, it needs all parties 

to the table, and to do so in a long-lasting way. So, again, to come 

here is voluntary agreements are fine. Those are what needs to be 

happening. We need to continue this discussion. But I am also not 

convinced this is going to be where it ends. So it will continue this 

process as we go further. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

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

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And let me thank the witnesses for your testimony today. 

It is clear to me that reasonable people should be able to agree 

that online piracy is a significant problem, deserves to be addressed. The people who create content, it seems to me, should 

have the opportunity to benefit from the fruits of their labor and 

encourages creativity moving forward. It is fair, and it is just as 

consistent with Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution designed to 

promote the progress of science and useful arts. 

But it is also the case, I think, I believe, that the Internet has 

been a wonderful field of opportunity for entrepreneurship, for innovation, for growth beyond which many could have even contemplated 15 or 20 years ago. And so we don’t want to do anything 

in the Congress certainly, or even in the business context, that limits the ability for that innovation and that growth and that entrepreneurship to continue to flourish on this field of opportunity 

called the Internet. 

And you have got a lot of different players in the Internet ecosystem, I gather. You know, you have the search engines, the ISPs, 

content creators, payment processors, ad companies. 
113 

And so I guess I will start by asking Ms. Lesser, and then maybe 

Mr. Sherman and Mr. Rothenberg can weigh in, from your perspective, what is the best way to get all of the individuals in this ecosystem to work together in a manner that deals with the online piracy, that clearly should be a problem that we take seriously and 

confront, but also respects the Internet in a manner not designed 

to limit the opportunities that have been available through the innovation and the entrepreneurship and the growth in this medium? 

Ms. LESSER. What I would say from the experience that we have 

had thus far in our small group involving ISPs and the content industry is that if you look at this in your silo, you are not going to 

find a solution. If we start from where you started with the Constitution, that there is a value in protecting creative content, something that if you ask people on the street they agree with, something that we are trying to teach to kids, I think if you start with 

that premise and you move down, what you find is that innovation 

and the development and the distribution of content cannot only coexist, but can help each other. And I think what we are learning 

in our group, that there are benefits to both. 

So our program is an educational program, is focused on the attitude toward creative content generally and then helping people 

find the legal ways that they can access content. 

So I don’t think that it should be as hard as it is. And it is based 

on, you know, 15 years of back-and-forth in the policy arena, in the 

business arena. But everything is really moving toward the same 

place, and I think once this group came to the table, it was very 

clear that their interests were aligned, which is why you see companies like the five leading ISPs investing their own resources in 

this agreement and bringing this agreement to fruition. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thanks. 

Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I think there is no substitute for dialogue, and I 

mean nonthreatening dialogue where it isn’t over liability, it isn’t 

over responsibility; it is how you can work together. 

When we engaged in conversations with the ISPs, we started in 

very different places, but we learned a lot from each other by just 

talking it through. And we brought in additional stakeholders who 

looked at consumer viewpoints, and privacy viewpoints, and so on. 

And the end of that stew was a process that everybody could buy 

into and support. 

That is the kind of process I think we need to replicate with respect to multiple industry sectors to get lots of people involved in 

solving this. And as soon as you have two groups and three groups 

and four groups, more and more people will be willing to do it. 

On the advertising side, because of the best practices that the ad 

networks and the IAB did, we have been contacted just in the last 

couple of weeks by a number of additional ad networks asking for 

our help and for information so that they could do a better job 

themselves. You get buy-in because you have had buy-in, and that 

is the process we need to get going. 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. Again, thank you for the question, Mr. 

Jeffries. And, again, I can’t really improve on what Mr. Sherman 

and Ms. Lesser have said, but I will try. 
114 

You can’t get them all in a room. There are hundreds of millions 

of people around the world that are part of the Internet ecosystem. 

The beauty of the Internet supply chain is also the great vulnerability of the digital supply chain. It is basically open source. It allows for enormous innovation from the smallest players, but it also 

creates great vulnerabilities. 

You can get the biggest and most significant players in the room 

to reach voluntary agreement. And as Mr. Sherman has said, that 

process, with encouragement from the Congress and from other 

bodies, can actually yield great results. 

Importantly, one of the big changes over the past several years 

is that many of the biggest players in the digital technology industry have also become content creators. Google, Microsoft, AOL all 

are presenting slates of original digital video programming, and 

they are basing a very substantial part of their evolving business 

on being content creators. So they have stakes in this game on all 

sides. 

I think working together among major stakeholder groups to create a coherent program in which all have skin in the game is the 

best way to go about it. Now, I would tell you that my ideal, and 

I am not necessarily speaking for all my members, but certainly 

what I would like to see happen is the development of some kind 

of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval program for participation 

in the digital supply chain, so that buyers of digital advertising, for 

example, can look and see who is a legitimate player and who is 

not. I would like to see us push in that direction. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Levitt, if you and Mr. Barchiesi wish to respond very briefly. 

Mr. BARCHIESI. From our perspective, I hear a lot about content, 

but the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition, we represent 

cross industries, there is health and safety issues, there is content 

issues. Ultimately again I will emphasize voluntary agreements 

work when there is willing partners. There is proof of concept. We 

have had this program for 2 years. And could I tell you 3 years ago, 

if I said I want to work with MasterCard, Visa, or American Express, PayPal, MoneyGram, Western Union, they wanted to run me 

out of town. Now we host events together. We work together on 

public service messaging. I think it is a model that could be used 

and established in other arenas to move forward. 

Mr. COBLE. Very briefly, Mr. Levitt. We are running out of time. 

Mr. LEVITT. Okay. Well, you know, Pharmacy Checker’s area is 

not copyright content. It has to do with the purchase of medication 

online. And I just think it is important when we look at these voluntary agreements that different areas should be treated differently. 

Former Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Espinel, I 

quote, ‘‘challenged the private sector to voluntarily address the 

health and safety issues presented by rogue online pharmacies.’’ 

And I just want to reiterate that this is the only way we should 

engage in this area for shutting down those sites that endangers 

a person’s health. 

Mr. COBLE. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

I am trying to keep this train rolling. You know, of course, your 

complete statements are in part of the record. So even though I 
115 

may have been accelerating my pace at one time, your information 

will be read by all. 

I am now pleased to recognize the gentlelady from California Ms. 

Lofgren for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thanks to the panel for your testimony. 

And I remember just a short time ago, when we were having a 

rather raucous discussion of SOPA, that the discussion was maybe 

we should follow the money, and it looks like actually some of that 

has occurred here, to good effect. So I want to congratulate those 

who have worked to try and find solutions. And I am sure there 

is lots more to do, but sometimes it is worthwhile to celebrate what 

has been achieved, not just complain about what yet remains to be 

done. 

Just a couple of questions, and I don’t want these to be taken as 

opposition to making progress, because they are not. But one of the 

things that these voluntary agreements raise is the issue of due 

process for people who are legitimate, but maybe aren’t found to be 

legitimate. For example, and you said, Ms. Lesser, we start with 

the Constitution. Yes, we have a protection for intellectual property, copyright, and patent. But in the copyright arena we also 

have the First Amendment and the fair use doctrine. So how do we 

make sure that, I mean, people who are making fair use, that their 

rights are protected? How do you address that in your system? 

Ms. LESSER. Well, that is one of the very important aspects of the 

system. As I said in my testimony, we developed a system that on 

the front end is very much focused on notifying consumers about 

copyright violations of whole works. So there is a methodology that 

has been put in place and streamlined so that we are very assiduously trying to avoid capturing works that are not covered by copyright or that would fall into this fair use category. So on the front 

end, there has been a lot of work put into making sure there are 

not false positives. 

At the end of the process, however—and our process does not end 

with really a punitive consequence; it ends with a heightened 

measure we call mitigation—but just before a user would have that 

mitigation measure imposed, they are offered the right to an appeal. And I put ‘‘appeal’’ in quotes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. If I can interrupt. It is not that I don’t want to 

hear the whole thing, but we have limited time. 

The user has interests, but the speaker also has interests, and 

the two are not always perfectly aligned. So if you are the speaker, 

and let us say you have a belief, maybe correctly or incorrectly, I 

don’t know, that what you are doing is a parity, or it is a political 

speech, or that it is protected, how do you protect your rights without relying on the Internet user to establish your rights? 

Ms. LESSER. I am not sure that the protection of that right actually falls within the program. The program itself assumes that an 

alert has been sent to an account holder, and that account holder 

has the ability to go during that appeal process and say, this file 

was a fair use. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. Right. But what about the person who created the content that is being dinged? Are they being notified? 
116 

Ms. LESSER. They are not. But I actually think the best way to 

protect people engaging in fair use is on the front end, which is to 

enforce copyrights against—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Right. 

Ms. LESSER [continuing]. Protected files. 

Ms. LOFGREN. In terms of payment processing, I remember during the SOPA discussion we had a substantial discussion about cutting off credit card payments for infringing sites. And I remember 

Visa, which is right outside my district, said that they would be 

happy to do that, but they were rarely ever asked to do so. And 

it sounds like that has changed considerably in the time that has 

processed. And I think that makes sense. But, again, for example, 

a notice and takedown, the person who has an opportunity to dispute that if they feel that it is incorrect. 

You know, cutting off payments is a death sentence for a Web 

site. Do they have any opportunity to contest that if they think 

that there is an incorrect decision that has been made? What is the 

process for that? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. In our program, which is about cutting off or 

helping to choke off advertising revenues, it is basically an information system between the buyers and the sellers. They are the 

ones who are the trading partners; they are the ones in contract. 

We don’t have a consumer-facing side to it. And I agree with you 

that there needs to be some form of due process in there. 

But by the same token, I think what we ought to be most concerned about are the largest and most persistent violators. I am 

less worried, although I, as you do, I worry about smaller players 

falling through the cracks deeply. But I think if we keep our focus 

on the worst violators and the most persistent violators, those problems will not—the problem of the—the small fry being shut off will 

not be so—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. I just have one final question. I know from the 

study that was released this morning that about 30 percent—what 

was the number—37 percent of the searches for infringing content 

were searches for a domain name or a specific service, like Mega 

Upload or something like that. So at least, you know, a big chunk 

of the people that are looking for infringing content know what 

they are looking for, they are looking for infringing content, and 

not being confused. 

So I guess that leads to the question, and MPAA isn’t here. What 

further efforts are being made to have digital content more freely 

available for a fee? And I will just give you an example. 

You know, there was a movie. It is out on DVD now. I wanted 

to watch it streaming. I Googled it. The only place it was available 

were infringing sites. I won’t do that, but I imagine other people 

do. So the more that you could actually pay for stuff, the more that 

is out there, I think the less than honest people will infringe. So 

I am just wondering what further efforts are being made. And I 

think it is probably more for the movie industry than for the music 

industry. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Certainly the music industry, we are almost twothirds now of our revenues being digital. And all the music is out 

there, all the music is up there in every possible way. We think 
117 

that movies and TV are getting there quickly. I can’t speak for 

that. 

But that same survey that you mentioned also had a figure that 

58 percent of the people were using search where they weren’t entering anything indicating they were looking for an illegal copy, but 

they were led to an illegal copy anyway, because search engines 

can be used for discovery. How did they find out about Mega 

Upload the first time? Now they know to go—no longer, fortunately—but how do they know to go to the Pirate Bay or MP3 

Skull? Search takes them there. That is why we would like to work 

with them to try and find ways to address that. 

Ms. LOFGREN. My time is up, Mr. Chairman. I don’t want to 

abuse the clock. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentlelady from California. 

The distinguished gentleman from North Carolina Mr. Watt is 

recognized. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the 

Chairman for having another hearing about this. I want to make 

sure that nothing I say gets misconstrued to imply that I don’t believe in these agreements. I think they are great. 

I am not sure I agree with Mr. Poe that all of this can be done 

without some government involvement. I suppose if private agreements worked to solve all criminal activity, it would be—we 

wouldn’t need any enforcement in the non-Internet world. I think 

we still need some help in this area. 

And the magnitude of the problem, I hope, is going down, but I 

assume there is nobody on this panel who believes that this can all 

be done by private agreements. If there is, I certainly want to hear 

from them and give you the opportunity to express that opinion, 

because we need it on the record. 

But you were getting ready to press your button? 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. I would just say, Mr. Watt, I think we would 

all, or at least most of us, agree that we should start with the voluntary agreements, and then where there are gaps that cannot be 

filled by the voluntary self-regulation, then and only then would we 

seek to fill them with legislation and regulation. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. We started our SOPA discussions dealing with 

foreign sites. Has any of these private agreements dealt with that 

problem effectively? Can somebody address that for me? 

Mr. BARCHIESI. The ICC’s program does deal with foreign sites 

because it doesn’t matter where in the world the site is hosted. 

These are contractual agreements between credit card companies 

and banks and merchants, and it has global terms to it, and they 

could terminate merchant accounts regardless of where they are, 

anyplace in the world. 

Mr. WATT. And it is a voluntary agreement. 

Mr. BARCHIESI. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I think it is important to remember that the voluntary agreements are built on contractual relationships that already exist. So Visa has contractual relationships with the people 

it serves that they will not process payments for illegal activities. 

So if illegal activities are called to their attention, and then they 

do their own investigation and confirm that, they have a contrac-
118 

tual right to terminate whether it is domestic or foreign, but it is 

under their own contractual relationship. 

The voluntary agreement is simply providing a mechanism for 

routing all of these complaints through one portal to make it efficient, to not have duplication of efforts, to have a standardized system. That is the benefit of these agreements. It creates a mechanism for everybody to go forward in the same direction to address 

the issue in a similar way. 

Mr. ROTHENBERG. And to your specific point about foreign infringement, again, we would be very much in favor of this Congress 

pushing in the direction of incorporating the frameworks that we 

are talking about into global trade agreements. Whether you call 

that public solutions, or private solutions, or a quasi public-private, 

there is definitely a role for the public sector there. 

Mr. WATT. Another major problem that we were trying to solve 

with SOPA was the problem of repeat offenders. Sites that went up 

one day, got the DNCA notice, they got taken down, they were back 

up the next day, how the voluntary agreement is solving that problem. 

Mr. SHERMAN. That is one of the core elements that we would 

like to see in all of these agreements, like with locker services or 

search engines who—for example, there are mobile apps. We asked 

Google to take it down because it is clearly infringing. Google takes 

it down. They go up again a week later using a slightly different 

name, but it is the same app. 

Repeat infringement policies there would make a difference 

where developers could be banned from the app store if they are 

going to continue to infringe. 

Mr. WATT. But I guess my question is can that be done through 

a voluntary agreement? 

Mr. SHERMAN. I don’t see why not. 

Mr. WATT. Who would be the parties to that agreement? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Well, the policy would be basically articulated by 

whoever the platform is. It could be Google, it could be Visa, it 

could be a locker service. Basically saying that if you are—— 

Mr. WATT. Encourage them to come to the table and enter into 

that agreement, I guess. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Exactly. Just that we are going to adopt as a best 

practice a repeat infringement police. For one company, it might be 

two; for another company, it might be five. But they are going to 

have a policy so that they don’t basically have the up, down, up, 

down, up, down process. But after a while they are saying—— 

Mr. WATT. So you would have a ‘‘three strikes and you are out’’ 

policy—— 

Mr. SHERMAN. Whatever number of strikes. 

Mr. WATT [continuing]. Or ‘‘five strikes and you are out’’ policy 

that sometimes we apply criminal law. 

Mr. SHERMAN. After all, we are talking about people who are in 

business, and they don’t want to be in the business of basically harboring illegal content or dealing with the same problem over and 

over again, just like an ISP doesn’t want to have to deal with somebody who keeps violating their terms of service. They have an absolute right to decide who they are going to serve if they continue to 

engage in illegal conduct. 
119 

Mr. WATT. Okay. Well, I do want to applaud everybody who has 

been parties to these agreements. I think it is great that the private sector and all of the parties are trying to solve a problem. I 

am not sure I believe you are going to be able to solve all of the 

problem that way, but I guess if we keep having hearing after 

hearing after hearing about whether something is necessary, 

maybe it at least keeps the focus on the issue. 

At some point I think we are actually going to have to do something other than have a hearing about it. So that is kind of where 

I come down on this. 

But I applaud it. I applaud your efforts. I heard Mr. Levitt’s concerns about—and especially in the pharmaceutical area. But I encourage all parties to continue to try to work toward these voluntary agreements so that we don’t have to keep having the hearing after hearing after hearing, and ultimately so that possibly we 

don’t have to do anything that would involve the government being 

involved. Surely that would be the worst thing that could happen. 

We could disband the police if we had enough voluntary agreements. 

So anyway, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. Gentleman’s time is expired. 

I want to thank the very fine panel of witnesses. I also want to 

thank those in the audience who have remained for this entire 

hearing. This indicates to me that you have more than a casual interest in this subject matter. And I thank all of you. 

This concludes today’s hearing. Thanks to all of you 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. 

This hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(121) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
122 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

This document hos been developed by the lAB Quolity Assuronce Guideline 

Initiotive Committee 

The lAB Quality Assurance Guideline (QAG) was updated to version 2.0 by a working group of 

volunteers from 26 lAB member companies. 

The Working Group was led by Choirs: 

Tim Avila, Vice President, Product Marketing, BrightRolI, Inc. 

Jed Nohum, Senior Director, Globed Channels & Exchange, Microsoft 

Alanna Gombert. Strategic Partnerships Manager, Google 

The following lAB member companies contributed to this document: 

Accuen (Omnicom) 

Adapt.TV 

AppNexus 

BrightRol1 

CBS Interactive 

Cadreon (IPG) 

DataXu 

DGB I Digital Broadcasting Group 

Google 

1m Services 

Mediacom (WPP) 

M6D I media6degrees 

Microsoft 

Millennial Media 

Mojiva 

NBC Universal 

Ogilvy (WPP) 

OpenX 

PubMatic 

Rocket Fuel 

SpotXchange 

TubeMogul 

Telemetry 

Tremor Video 

ValueClick 

The Weather Company 

The lead "n this initiative was Rob R.<l5ko of The 614 Group on behalf of the lAB 

Contact ",,,,,,,,,.:llii,l.!S'lto comment on this document. Please be sure to include the version number of this 

document on the bottom right corner on this page). 

ASOUT THE lAB'S QUAliTY ASSURANCE GUIDELINE INITIATIVE Srml.lNG COMMITTEE 

The QAG Initiative has been formed to oversee the guidelines and oversee any future iteration. The 

614 Group has been engaged to manage the process of updating and the promotion of the guidelines 

in the marketplace. The lAB's Ad Technology group has been tasked with operational management of 

the Initiative. Before QAG was expanded beyond only Networks and Exchanges, the QAG initiative 

was overseen by the Networks and Exchanges Committee. 

The mission of the QAG Initiative Steering Committee is to reduce friction and foster on environment of 

trust in the digital advertising marketplace by defining gUidelines that promote in digital 

advertising transactions. For more information about the QAG, please email 

This document is on the IAI! website at: 

© 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 2 
123 

lAB Q"I:JI;ty A.~uron~8 Guideline' 2.0 

Table of Contents 

Exflcutive Summory 

Avdien" "" ...•. , 

.....•....... S 

" .. " .......... 6 

1 Overview: Digital Advertising Transactions ............... 6 

1. 1 Thfl Partie. to 0 QAG Tran,action Agreement , 

1 1. 1 Sellers .. 

1. 1.2 

U.J 

Buyer, . 

Non.lron,octionol Porties, .. 

1.2 f h. QAG Tronsoction 

13 

1.2.1 

1.2 .1 

1.2.3 

IMentory Acqu],itlon .. 

Invenlory EvoIVOlion .. 

T roma eli"" Execution ..... 

Adverti,ing formOIl of a GAG Transaction 

1,3. 1 Di,ploy ond lexl .. 

1.3.1 In·Stream Video". 

.... 6 

.6 

.. 7 

............ 8 

............ 8 

. ........ ,,9 

.. ...... 9 

. ........ ,, 9 

.............. 10 

.. ........................................ _ ... " ... 10 

.. 10 

1 3.3 Mobile ...... . .................................. .................... ..... 11 

1.3 .4 Programmotic Buying/AuctiM Mechanic!.. ........ 11 

2 QAG Certification Process ...•.............•....................... ll 

2. 1 Application ... . ............. "",, ............ 12 

2 , 1.1 

2. 1.2 

2 .1.3 

2. 1.4 

Qooli~calion , ........ 12 

Key comacrs.. .. ......... 1:1 

Certi/iCOl lon F8e .................................................................................................... 13 

Trok.ing Avollability .. . .. 13 

2.2 Six·Manth Gating Period .......... 13 

2.3 Cflrti/icalian ......... . 

2.' 

2.3.1 

2.3.2 

2.3.3 

~11-C8rti c'l i'ln .. 

Irnlep8nd8nt V'llidalion .. 

Publicalion of Certlficati"" Statu ... 

Cflrtificotion Renewal ....................................................................... . 

2.4.1 Sel/-Certi/icotian .. 

2"':.2 Ind8p8ndent Validalion ... ". 

... 14 

... 14 

... 14 

... 15 

. ............ IS 

. ... ... 15 

" 

3 QAG Certification Program •.•••.....•....••••.....•.•••..•.•••... 15 

3.1 

3.2 

lAB QAG Iniliolive Siuring Commitlee 

DilClosure " ...................... .... . 

3.2.1 Inventory A"lu;silion .. 

3.2 .2 IllVentary Eva1votian ... 

3.2.3 Tron-actlon h ecvlion ..... 

3.3 Compliance Officer .. 

3 

.. IS 

...... 16 

.. ...... 16 

. 16 

.. 16 

. 17 
124 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

3.3.1 Qualificatians ............................................................................................................. 17 

3.3.2 Respansibilities ........................................................................................................... 17 

3.3.3 The QAG Compliance Team .................................................................................... 17 

3.4 Quarterly Reviews ....................................................................................................... 18 

3.5 Description of Methodology (DOM) ........................................................................... 18 

3.6 Enforcement & Appeal ................................................................................................ 18 

3.6.1 QAG Non-Compliance ............................................................................................ 19 

3.6.2 Validating Complaints ..................... .......................... . ..... 19 

3.6.3 Loss of Certification .......................... .......................... . ..... 19 

3.6.4 Appeal and Recertification .............. .......................... . ..... 19 

3.7 Intellectual Property (IP) Infringement Complaints ....................................................... 19 

4 Disclosure Details ••••••••.••..••.••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.••..•..••• 20 

4.1 Inventory Acquisition ................................................................................................... 20 

4.1.1 Transaction Party Source Identification and Relationships.................. . ..... 20 

4.1.2 Source Level Transparency ........................................................................................ 21 

4.1.3 Technical Context ....................................................................................................... 22 

4.2 Inventory Evaluation .................................................................................................... 23 

4.2.1 Content Type ............................................................................................................. 23 

4.2.2 Content Classification ................................................................................................ 23 

4.2.2.1 The QAG Taxonomy ............................................................................... 24 

4.2.2.2 Custom Taxonomies for QAG ................................................................ 25 

4.2.2.3 Labeling Contextual Content .................................................................. 25 

4.2.2.4 Adding categories to the QAG Taxonomy ........................................... 25 

4.2.3 Content Rating ........................................................................................................... 26 

4.2.4 Non-Standard Classification ..................................................................................... 27 

4.2.5 Illegal Content Prohibited from Sale ........................................................................ 28 

4.2.6 Level of Confidence ................................................................................................... 28 

4.2.7 Targeting Depth ......................................................................................................... 29 

4.2.8 Placement Details ...................................................................................................... 30 

4.2.9 Creative Specifications .............................................................................................. 31 

4.3 Transaction Execution ............................................................................................... 32 

4.3.1 Data .............................................................. .......................... . ..... 32 

4.3.2 Programmatic Buying/Auction Mechanics .............................................................. 32 

5 Glossary of terms ..................................................... 34 

6 Appe ndix •••••••••••••••••••••••..••.••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.••..•..••• 43 

Exhibit A: Compliance Officer Attestation .................... . 

Exhibit B: Executive Attestation ..................................... . 

Exhibit C: Sample Independent Validation Attestation .. 

2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 4 

..44 

..45 

..46 
125 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Executive Summary 

With mare than a million sites that carry advertising and the hundreds of technology vendors, the 

transaction of ads in the digital advertising ecosystem is complex. Without some framework for 

common graund, buyers aren't sure which sellers to trust and sellers have a difficult time trying to prave 

their integrity. 

The lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines (QAG) promotes the flow of advertising budgets into digital 

advertising with industry regulation that offers a framework for brand safety. 

The mission of the Quality Assurance Guidelines (QAG) Program is to reduce friction and foster an 

environment of trust in the marketplace by providing clear, common language that describes 

characteristics of advertising inventory and transactions across the advertising value chain. 

The goals of the QAG program are to: 

Support the information needs of advertising buyers 

Define a common framework of disclosures that sellers can use across the industry 

Offer clear language in the QAG disclosure framework that enables buyers to make 

informed decisions 

Review compliance among QAG-certified companies and facilitate the resolution of 

disputes and complaints. 

QAG offers value to both buyers and sellers: 

Benefits for the Buyer 

QAG provides transparency for buyers, enabling them to buy advertising inventory with 

confidence. QAG was created in jOint efforts by buyers and sellers and represents the buyers' 

voice to sellers in defining terms for seller disclosure. 

Benefits for the Seller 

QAG creates a simple, common, and standard language to describe and claSSify advertising 

opportunities. Doing so makes buying inventory easier for the buyer, which increases overall 

demand for QAG-certified sellers. Increased inventory value for certified companies enables 

increased revenue because QAG certification classifies these companies as industry leaders, 

which clearly distinguishes them from any bad actors. 

Version 2.0 of the lAB Quality Assuronce Guideline (QAG) includes updates that improve the quality 

of the QAG Program. 

All Sellers: Initially limited to only network and exchange members of the lAB, QAG 2.0 is 

opened up to any advertising inventory seller in the digital supply chain-lAB member or not. 

Additional Certification Option: Companies can choose to self-certify as traditionally 

offered, or add a layer of certification that involves on independent party who validates the 

self-certification. 

Certification Process Defined: While defined in the previous version of QAG, version 

2.0 offers a more streamlined process for application, certification, and renewal. 

Video, Mobile, Programmatic Considerations: Disclosures for technical context, 

content type, creative specifications, programmatic exchange, and improved placement detail 

options incorporate information needs for buys that include video, mobile, and programmatic 

buying campaigns. 

© 2013 Interactive AdvertiSing Bureau 5 
126 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Improved Reodobility: A document overhaul offers structure and guidance that is more 

clearly defined for both buyer and seller audiences. 

Though QAG 2.0 offers improvements that are sure to increase adoption across the industry, the lAB 

QAG Initiative is a living process that is improved only by industry participation and adoption. 

Audience 

Any party interested in the requirements or certification process for the QAG Certification Program can 

benefit from being familiar with the guidelines in this document. Specifically, any company interested in 

achieving QAG Certification status can use these guidelines as a resource for taking the steps 

necessary to achieve and maintain QAG Certification. 

1 Overview: Digital Advertising Transactions 

A transaction in digital advertising is an agreement between a buyer and a seller in which the seller 

provides inventory that the buyer values and purchases at agreed upon terms and conditions. This 

agreement is typically defined by a contract such as on Insertion Order (10), Terms and Conditions 

(T&C), or equivalent. This contract becomes the key vessel for a buy or campaign. 

The lAB Quality Assurance Guideline (QAG) Initiative aims to ensure quality in such transactions; more 

specifically QAG describes a framework within which sellers represent inventory to buyers, and in this 

representation aim to deliver safety, transparency, and trust in digital advertising transactions. 

The following sections describe the parties to a QAG transaction in more detail, the structural 

breakdown of a QAG transaction, and the different advertising formats that may be included in a 

QAG transaction. 

1.1 The Parties to a QAG Transaction Agreement 

A QAG Transaction is between a buyer and a seller, but in digital advertising a buyer may merely 

represent the party who owns the advertisements and ultimately pays for the transaction. A buyer may 

also purchase inventory without any initial representation of the advertisement owner. The seller may 

likewise represent the original owner of inventory, or may resell inventory that it has purchased from the 

inventory owner. 

In addition, while a QAG transaction only directly involves the buyer and the seller, any number of 

indirect parties, such as technology and service providers, may playa role in providing the resulting 

digital advertising experience. 

1.1.1 Sellers 

A seller in a QAG transaction offers ad placement inventory to advertisers. Direct sellers either own the 

inventory for sale or represent the inventory owner. Indirect sellers don't have a direct relationship with 

the inventory owner, but may be qualified to resell a direct seller's inventory. 

Direct Sellers ond APAs 

The most direct seller is a publisher company that provides content to an audience. The seller's 

inventory is ad space that offers value to advertisers depending on the size and demographics 

of the audience. While a publisher may sell this inventory directly, larger publishers may 

appoint an agent to manage and sell this inventory. 

(c) 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 6 
127 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

In the QAG Program, this agent is an Autharized publisher Agent (APA). An APA is alsa a 

direct seller. publishers formerly appoint APAs and the relationship is established with a 

contractual, and often financial, agreement. 

A publisher may choose to have one exclusive APA to provide more control over its inventory 

or may have more than one authorized agent per site (domain). In either case, only the 

inventory owner may designate a representative APA. An APA is prohibited from appointing 

another APA or transferring its designation as an APA to another non-APA agent. 

Indirect Sellers 

An indirect seller sells publisher inventory but does not have a direct, contractual relationship 

with the publisher. For example, an indirect seller, such as a network or exchange, may have 

an agreement with a publisher-appointed APA to resell remnant inventory but does not have a 

direct relationship with the publisher. 

As an example to distinguish a direct seller from an indirect seller, a publisher may partner with a 

company that is acting as an APA to manage its non-reserved inventory. The APA offers the publisher's 

inventory to various networks on a site-specific basis. When those networks contract with the APA to 

purchase inventory from the publisher, then the APA is a direct seller to the networks. If one of those 

networks resells the inventory purchased form the APA, the network is an indirect seller of the 

publisher's inventory. 

The value of QAG for Sellers 

Sellers work hard to offer value to buyers. Publishers, in particular, focus on developing quality content 

for their audiences and driving quality traffic to their sites, creating value for advertisers. However, the 

value to advertisers can be difficult to define and match to an advertiser's needs without some way to 

qualify claims made in a digital advertising transaction. 

With QAG certification, sellers have a way to distinguish themselves among those companies that offer 

quality, transparently defined transactions in the digital advertising market. 

1.1.2 Buyers 

A buyer in a QAG transaction buys a seller's inventory that it uses to advertise products or services to 

the seller's audience. Direct buyers either own the advertisements for placement on the seller's site or 

directly represent the advertisements owner. Indirect buyers don't have a direct relationship with the 

advertisement owner, but may be qualified to assign the direct buyer's advertisements to a seller's 

inventory. 

Direct Buyers and Authorized Advertiser Agent (AAA) 

The most direct buyer is a brand company represented in the advertisements it wonts to place 

on seller inventory; however, most prominent brands hire on agency to manage their 

advertisement campaigns. 

In QAG, a brand-appointed agency is an Authorized Advertiser Agent (AAA). An AAA 

represents on advertisement owner under a contractual, often financial agreement, between 

the advertisement owner and the AAA. An AAA is also a direct buyer. 

The advertisements owner may appoint more than one AM, but only the advertisement owner 

may designate a representative AM. An AM may not appoint another MA or transfer its 

designation as an AM to another agent. 

@2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 7 
128 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Indirect Buyers 

An indirect buyer purchases seller inventory without formerly representing an advertisements 

owner. For example a technology company may purchase inventory in anticipation of placing 

a direct buyer's advertisements in the purchased inventory. 

Also, an indirect buyer may purchase remnant inventory without any initial representation of 

the advertisements it will place in the purchased inventory. In many cases, an indirect buyer 

may purchase inventory and then become an indirect seller of the inventory purchased. 

The Value of QAG for Buyers 

With all the technology, proprietary practices, service vendors, and ather digital advertising products, 

details for a purchase can be difficult to decipher. Agency buyers have a responsibility to their clients to 

ensure client brands are associated with a quality experience. 

Buyers that buy from QAG-certified companies can be assured that transactional claims are in line with 

practices that are self-regulated and reviewed quarterly. 

1.1.3 Non-Transactional Parties 

Though a digital advertising transaction is an agreement between the buyer and the seller, several 

organizations may be party to enabling the transaction or offering additional products and services 

based an transactional data. Same examples of nan-transactional parties are the technology platforms 

such as ad servers, privacy vendors, and tag management. 

Additionally, services such as media attribution, creative optimization, and ather analytic offerings may 

use data from a transaction they're nat party to in order to add value either to the transaction or to 

future transactions with ather, possibly unrelated, buyer-seller agreements. 

A graphical view of the digital advertising arena might help illustrate all the parties that might be 

involved in delivering a successful media experience. please for an 

illustrative view of the lAB Digital AdvertiSing Arena. 

The Value of QAG for Non-Transactional Parties 

For parties that are neither a buyer nor a seller in a transaction, supporting QAG-certified transactions 

can help an organization encourage mare quality transactions in the marketplace. Commitment to 

working with QAG-certified companies helps a supporting organization ensure that it operates within 

quality market transactions and therefore provides better quality products and services. 

For information an becoming a QAG Supporting Member, please visit 

apply as a Supporting Sponsor. 

1.2 The QAG Transaction 

The QAG Transaction is an agreement between a buyer and a seller in which the seller discloses the 

expected context where ads display and the buyer agrees to the terms and conditions in which the 

transaction is disclosed. In a QAG transaction, a seller is as transparent as possible about how the 

transaction will be executed. 

The lAB acknowledges that sellers can't always disclose everything in a transaction; sellers may not 

know or have access to such details, depending on the nature of the transaction. In such situations, the 

seller must disclose its lack of knowledge where applicable. This transparency enables the buyer to 

ossess volue and risk assacioted with the tronsactian. 

© 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 8 
129 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Transaction details and level of transparency are disclosed at the time of transaction before the buy is 

executed. In the case of a programmatic transaction, certain details may be disclosed 

programmatically during real-time transactions as they occur, but details an the expected execution of 

programmatic transactions are disclosed at the time the buyer-seller agreement is made. 

Disclosures in a transaction are categarized under: 

Inventory Acquisition 

Inventory Evaluation 

Transaction Execution 

Each of these transaction categories is described in sections 1.2.1-1.2.3 as follows. 

1.2.1 Inventory Acquisition 

Acquiring inventory involves disclosing details such as the buyer and seller relationships to 

advertisement and inventory ownership, respectively, the level of transparency over the source URls to 

where ads are expected to display, and the expected technical context in which ads display. 

Inventory acquisition disclosures are described in the sections listed as follows: 

4.1.1 Transaction Party Source Relationships 

4.1.2 Source level Transparency 

4.1.3 Technical Context 

1.2.2 Inventory Evaluation 

Evaluating inventory involves determining how "safe" the inventory is for the buyer's ads. For example, 

for what audiences are contextual sites rated2 What type of content is provided an inventoried sites2 Is 

the inventory being offered at a site or page level, or a deeper level 2 What are the placement details 

and what creative specifications are accepted2 

Inventory evaluation disclosures are described in the sections listed as fallows: 

4.2.1 Content Type 

4.2.2 Content Classification 

4.2.3 Content Rating 

4.2.4 Non-Standard Classification 

4.2.5 Illegal Content Prohibited from Sale 

4.2.6 level of Confidence 

4.2.7 Targeting Depth 

4.2.8 Placement Details 

4.2.9 Creative Specifications 

1.2.3 Transaction Execution 

Two important details are disclosed regarding the execution of the transaction: how data is used and 

what is disclosed in real-time for programmatic transactions. While programmatic buying details are 

disclosed in real-time, the expectation for real-time disclosures is stated at the time of establishing the 

buyer-seller agreement. 

(t) 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 9 
130 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Transaction execution disclosures are described in the sections listed as follows: 

4.3.1 Data 

4.3.2 Programmatic Buying/Auction Mechanics 

1.3 Advertising Formats of a QAG Transaction 

A QAG transaction may include various types of advertising formats that can range from general 

display and text to video or mobile options. In addition, programmatic buys that may exchange a 

combination of these formats in a transaction may be defined as port 01 a campaign or as the primary 

execution of the campaign. 

QAG 2.0 supports disclosures for advertising formats described in the following sections from 1.3.1 to 

1.3.4. 

1.3.1 Display and text 

In general, traditional display and text advertising are the most common forms of advertising. Display 

and text advertising can provide rich, interactive experiences to audiences for which they are 

displayed. 

QAG-certified transactions oIfer transparency into the context where ads are being served. This 

transparency enables advertisements to be paired with the right inventory, increasing the value 01 the 

inventory by offering some level 01 brand protection depending on the level of transparency disclosed 

in the transaction. 

QAG was designed with traditional display and text formats in mind, but disclosures regarding details 

such as the technical context, content type, and placement and creative details help distinguish 

traditional display from formats such as that for video and mobile. 

1.3.2 In-Stream Video 

In-stream video inventory is ad space offered in the context of streaming video. Ads may be a linear 

video that plays before, after, or during a break in the streaming video, or ads may be in the format 01 

an image or interactive media that overlays the streaming content. 

QAG supparts disclosures specific to transactions that include in-stream video ads. Disclosure options 

described in the following list help define in-stream video inventory in a QAG transaction. 

4.1.3 Technical Cantext: a seller can disclose the technical context for its inventory, which 

includes digital in-stream video as an option. 

4.2.1 Content Type: a seller can disclose the content type of its inventory. Video is on option 

for this disclosure, but may define any type of video content, including both streaming 

and progressive download formats as well as connected tv. 

4.2.8 Placement Details: a seller can disclose accepted media formats for its inventory, 

including specific in-stream video ad formats that align with the lAB Video Ad Serving 

Template (VAST) 3.0. 

@ 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 10 
131 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

1.3.3 Mobile 

With the rapid adoption of mobile devices aver the last few years and the increased sophistication of 

each new mobile device brought ta market, advertisers can't help but loak for inventory that is offered 

in a mobile context. 

Mobile advertising is specific to applicotians installed on consumer devices (native appsi, browserbased applications designed for mobile (Web oppsi, or mobile-optimized and responsive design 

websites. Browser-bosed advertising designed for desktop computers and merely viewed on a mobile 

device is excluded from the generally accepted definition of mobile advertising. 

As with in-stream video, certain QAG disclosures help to define 0 tronsoction thot includes mobile 

advertising: 

4.1.3 Technical Cantext: a seller can disclose the technical context for its inventory, which 

includes mabile as an aption. 

4.2.1 Content Type: a seller can disclose the content type of its inventory. Games and 

applications are offered as an option ond are generolly associated with mobile devices, 

but these content types may also be designed for desktops or game systems. Paired with 

disclosures for technical context and placement details, other content type disclosure 

options such as music, video, and text can help better define a transaction that includes 

mabile advertising. 

4.2.8 Placement Details: a seller can disclose accepted media formats for its inventory, 

such as whether the inventory is specific to native apps, web apps, or mobile-optimized 

or respansive design webpages. 

1.3.4 Programmatic Buying/Auction Mechanics 

Programmatic transactions are handled by automated systems that exchange ads and inventory in realtime. These exchanges are often executed based on various real-time bidding (RTB) auction types 

defined by parameters set up in user interfaces. 

For buyer-seller agreements that include programmatic buying components, QAG offers guidance on 

disclosures that con be made in real-time programmatic transactions. While the nature and 

expectations of the progrommatic buy are disclosed upon establishing the buyer-seller agreement, 

specific details are disclosed upan executian of real-time exchanges. 

In addition to the option for "full real-time" disclosure of the source URL (section 4.1.2), section 4.3.2 

offers guidance on disclosing the auction type and other optional details for a reo I-time exchange. 

2 QAG Certification Process 

Certification can be abtained at twa different tiers: self-certification and independent validation 

certification. A company has the option to choose one tier or the other. The selected method is 

recorded and displayed on the lAB website. Since the internal processes for both certification tiers are 

the same, a company that certifies under self-certification can add independent validation certification 

at any time to achieve the higher level of certification. 

© 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 11 
132 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Self-certification is obtained with a self-attestation that the company is adhering to the lAB Quality 

Assurance Guidelines. Independent validation certification is obtained by inviting an independent 

vendar to validate that a company is adhering to these guidelines. The process is parallel far bath 

except that in an independent validation, the validating company submits additional required 

attestation paperwork and reports. 

Transition from QAG 1.5 to QAG 2.0 

Companies previously certified under QAG 1.5 can renew certification under those guidelines in 

2013. However, all companies certified under QAG 1.5 are afforded six month from the release of 

QAG 2.0 to certify under the new 2.0 guidelines. QAG 1.5 certification will expire and no longer be 

supported six months after the release of QAG 2.0 (the publication date of this document is the QAG 

2.0 release data and is indicated an the title page). 

All new applicants will be certified under QAG 2.0 as of the release of this document. 

The QAG certification process involves: application, a six-month gating period, and finalization of 

certification. These steps are outlined in the fallowing sections from 2.1 to 2.3. Further details of 

compliance expectations ore described in section 3. 

2.1 Application 

QAG certification begins by applying online at lAB's website. Details about application ore defined 

below. More information can be found at lJl"'0L"_":_'..!.:Ll'-'-""'-"'::!.._:"".':'-'. __ J-4'.'.I.' 

2.1.1 Qualification 

Any company that sells inventory in the digital advertising supply chain can qualify for QAG 

certification. Previously, certification was only open to lAB member companies; however, in QAG 2.0, 

certification is open to nan-member companies. Additional fees may be required for nan-member 

company certification. 

Certification may not make sense for same companies. For example a brand company doesn't 

explicitly exchange any data or ads directly, but may choose to only work with QAG certified 

companies to serve and manage their campaigns. Companies that don't qualify for QAG certification 

can choose to be a supporting member of the QAG Certification Program. For a fee a QAG 

supporting member company receives a Supporting Member seal and the option of participating in 

future discussions oround guideline evolution. 

To apply as a QAG Supporting Member, please visit 

Supporting Member. 

2.1.2 Key contacts 

and apply as a 

Key contacts described in the fallowing list are needed on file and available for QAG certification 

related communication. A single person may be listed for multiple contacts, and specific titles or roles 

ore nat required for any of the contacts. The lAB simply needs these contacts on file and available for 

QAG certification related communication. 

© 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 12 
133 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

The following contacts help facilitate lAB communications with QAG-certified companies: 

Compliance OHicer: The compliance officer is an appointed person at the applicant 

company who will attend training and lead the effort to ensure that the company is QAGcompliant. 

Billing: A contact must be identified for billing QAG Certification and renewal fees. 

Marketing: Upon certification, the marketing contact on file is given the QAG Certification 

seal and any other materials and information that the company can use to promote itself as a 

certified company. 

Business Lead: Someone with decision-making authority must be identified to ensure QAG 

Certificotion is supported at the executive level. 

Rights and IP Contact: After certification, the lAB needs to make a contact available for 

the market should any claims of infringements on intellectual property, copyrights, or other 

proprietary work or process be brought to light while in the QAG Certification Program. 

2.1.3 Certification Fee 

The fee for certification depends on lAB membership and application details. lAB members pay a 

reduced fee while non-lAB members are charged a higher fee. A small fee is required for companies 

who wont to be QAG Certification Program Supporting Members. And Start-ups receive a special 

introductory low rate for certification. The certification fee covers training for up to two people and 

supports the lAB infrastructure for processing and publishing certification. 

Detailed fee information can be found on lAB's website at 

2.1.4 Training Availability 

The application processes includes scheduling training. Training is required for the company's 

appointed QAG Compliance Officer, and is scheduled during the application process. The compliance 

officer completes training during the six-month gating period described in the next section. 

2.2 Six-Month Gating Period 

To accommodate for training needs to be QAG certified, companies who apply to be QAG certified 

enter a 6-month gating period. The gating period starts with the date that the lAB QAG training 

program is scheduled to start. 

During this time: 

The appointed compliance officer completes training 

Quality assurance compliance team is assembled 

Quality Assurance Description of methodology (DOM) is developed 

Compliance team is trained on quality assurance methodologies documented in the company's 

DOM 

Conduct at least one internal audit (self-certification) or coordinate with validation vendor to 

conduct independent review (independent validation) 

© 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 13 
134 

lAB Quolity Assuronce Guidelines 2.0 

2.3 Certification 

With training and consistent quality assurance methodologies in practice, the company is certified when 

required documentation is submitted and certification status is posted to lAB's website. Upon 

certification, the lAB sends materials to the marketing contact on file for promoting the company's QAG 

certificotion stotus. 

Document requirements for certification ore dependent on the certification option selected: selfcertification or independent validation. 

2.3.1 Self-Certification 

A company wishing to self-certify must submit the following documents: 

Application fee 

Internal audit report 

Signed Attestation documents: 

o Compliance Officer Attestation (see Exhibit A in the Appendix) 

o Executive Attestation, signed by the CEO, CFO, or Business Head (see Exhibit B in the 

Appendix) 

2.3.2 Independent Validation 

To achieve certification by independent validation, a company can invite an independent vendor to 

validate that the company is QAG-Compliant. A validating company may be any accredited auditing 

company such as a licensed law firm or licensed CPA. In addition, any company that submits for and is 

approved by the lAB may conduct independent validations. 

While independent validation was designed to provide limited assurance, ensuring that all QAG 

requirements are being met within the company's operations, technology and supporting 

documentation may take some time to review. Review time depends on several factors such as 

company operations maturity level, organization size and complexity, and technology. Additionally, the 

initial review will take longer than subsequent reviews as is common in most ongoing engagements. 

Companies should solicit multiple proposals from qualified vendors to ensure that they are getting the 

appropriate level of service at the most competitive price. 

Independent validation will include review of, but is not limited to, the following: 

Job description of the compliance officer 

Training policy and procedures 

Internal audit policies and procedures 

Established policies & procedures related to internal control 

Policies and procedures for adding new advertisers 

Policies & procedures related to adding new Publishers, including how new Publishers are 

vetted (and "re-vetted") 

Policies & procedures related to complaint handling/resolution to ensure compliance with the 

lAB Guidelines 

Established policies & procedures related to internal control that have been established by the 

organization. To achieve independent validation, the certifying company submits documentation listed 

in section 2.3.1, and the validating company submits the folloWing: 

Independent Validation Attestation (see sample attestation, Exhibit C in the Appendix) 

© 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 14 
135 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

2.3.3 Publication of Certification Status 

The lAB publishes QAG certification announcements for companies that have successfully implemented 

these guidelines at the end of the 6-manth gating period. Publication includes identification of the 

certification method chosen: self-certification or independent validation. The list on the lAB QAG 

Certified Companies page is updated as needed to reflect all current QAG certified companies. 

To see a list of currently certified companies, please visit 

2.4 Certification Renewal 

QAG Certification is an ongoing process and must be renewed each year. The QAG Certification year 

begins an April 1 ". The lAB sends renewal natificotians to all QAG-Certified companies prior to this 

date. Renewal requirements depend an whether the company is self-certified or independently 

validated. 

2.4.1 Self-Certification 

A company renewing self-certification must submit the following documents: 

Renewal fee 

Internal audit report 

Signed Attestation documents 

o Compliance Officer Attestation (see Exhibit A in the Appendix) 

o Executive Attestation, signed by the CEO, CFO, or Business Head (see Exhibit B in the 

Appendix) 

2.4.2 Independent Validation 

To renew an independent validation certification, a company invites an independent vendor to validate 

that the company is QAG-Compliant. This independent vendor must also submit an attestation 

validating the QAG certification applicant's quality assurance claims in addition to the campanysubmitted documents listed in section 2.4.1. 

Independent Validation Attestation (see Exhibit C in the Appendix) 

3 QAG Certification Program 

The lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines (QAG) Certification Program is voluntary and represents the 

ongoing process of defining and maintaining guidelines for transparency in the buying and selling of 

media inventory online. 

QAG-certified companies enter into an agreement with the lAB in which the company is responsible for 

moking inquiries, obtaining relevont ond necessory reports, ond otherwise regulorly reviewing its 

activities so that it can represent and confirm at all times that it is in compliance with the Pragram. 

The components of the QAG Certification Progrom are described in the following sections 3.1 to 3.6. 

Inventory transoctian disclosure requirements ore described in section 4. 

3.1 lAB QAG Initiative Steering Committee 

The lAB QAG Initiative Steering Committee (the Committee) is the governing body for the QAG 

Pragrom. In generol, the committee is seated with QAG company representatives. 

@20l3 Interactive Advertising Bureau 15 
136 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

The QAG Steering Committee mandate is: 

Evaluate any QAG related complaints and determine the responsibly and penalty 

Provide gUidance and vision for current and future QAG efforts 

Oversee and ensure progress of QAG efforts 

Evangelize the program in the marketplace 

Report progress or issues to lAB Executive Committee and Board of Directors upon invitation 

Ensure any policy issues within the QAG effort is properly shared with lAB Policy leadership 

Details about the structure, duties, and ather relevant information about the lAB QAG Initiative Steering 

Committee can be found an the lAB website at: 

3.2 Disclosure 

The fallowing list summarizes disclosures that are expected at each of the three phases of digital 

advertising transactions outlined in this document: inventory acquisition, inventory evaluation, and 

transaction execution. 

Please review section 4 for specific details an disclosures. 

3.2.1 Inventory Acquisition 

Upon inventory acquisition, QAG certified companies should accurately label inventory in accordance 

with the established content framework defined in section 4.1. This framework includes inventory 

disclosures in the fallowing four categories: 

Source Identification 

Source Relationship 

Source Level 

Technical Context 

3.2.2 Inventory Evaluation 

Once inventory is identified, QAG certified companies should accurately label surrounding content and 

ather inventory details in accordance with established guidelines as explained in section 4.2. Inventory 

evaluation disclosures fall within the fallowing four categories: 

Contextual Content 

Targeting Depth 

Placement Details 

Creative Details 

3.2.3 Transaction Execution 

Upon final transaction, QAG-certified companies must accurately identify intent for data collection and 

usage and follow programmatic buying disclosures, if applicable, in accordance with established 

guidelines as explained in section 4.3. Execution disclosures are outlined as fallows: 

Data 

Programmatic Buying/Auction Mechanics 

© 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 16 
137 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

3.3 Compliance Officer 

To ensure that QAG-certified companies continue to maintain compliance with these gUidelines, the 

compliant company appoints a QAG Compliance Officer. If a company is self-certified, this compliance 

officer oversees a quarterly review to ensure QAG compliance. Upon certification and each year 

during certification renewal, the QAG Compliance Officer submits a report of the mast recent internal 

audit. For companies that are independently validated, the QAG Compliance Officer facilitates an 

independent vendor review for initial certification and each year for renewal. The independent vendor 

submits a letter of attestation validating the company's compliance with QAG. 

Whether self-certified or independently validated, all QAG-certified companies are required to have a 

trained QAG Compliance Officer on staff. No requirements are made for the jab description or specific 

title ar role requirement of the QAG compliance officer. 

3.3.1 Qualifications 

The QAG compliance officer should meet the following minimum qualifications: 

Have reporting relationships whereby compliance assessments are not influenced or biased by 

operations personnel being tested for compliance 

Have adequate technical training and proficiency in testing and assessing compliance 

Have adequate knowledge of the subject matter covered within these guidelines 

Have an independence in mental attitude with regard to compliance assessments: 

o Maintaining intellectual honesty and impartiality 

o Objectively considering facts using unbiased judgment 

o Exercise due professional care in performing self-certification tasks described as 

follows in section 3.3.2. 

3.3.2 Responsibilities 

The Compliance Officer is responsible for the following: 

Attending lAB compliance training (in person or online*) 

Educating internal teams on lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines and notifying them of any 

changes 

Providing internal review documentation for QAG Attestation 

Maintaining the company's Description of Methodology 

*While attending online training is acceptable, online training mayor may not be available. Check 

with your QAG representative for availability. 

3.3.3 The QAG Compliance Team 

Recognizing that companies both large and small apply for QAG certification, no requirements are 

made for the resources needed to support QAG compliance. 

The QAG compliance team is responsible for the following: 

Reviewing the publisher intake process 

Reviewing content 

Applying the standard rating system to content 

Implementing quarterly reviews for quality control 

!f~' 2013 Intemctive Advertising Bureau 17 
138 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

3.4 Quarterly Reviews 

lAB training far compliance focuses an outlining the principles far internal reviews and is developed 

with the guidance of the lAB QAG Initiative Steering Committee. Quarterly reviews create consistency 

across the industry. 

The QAG Compliance Officer is responsible for overseeing quarterly reviews, which should insure that: 

Guidelines are consistently and completely followed 

Error situations are detected in a timely fashion 

Appropriate corrective measures are taken in a timely fashion 

Internal reviews should also include a risk analysis of certain control functions to assess how much 

testing is needed to validate adherence. Also, actual testing of data (i.e. sites, pages, ads, logs, etc.), 

both statistically and judgmentally based, should be used to validate that the existing control structure is 

designed correctly and operating effectively. 

3.5 Description of Methodology (DOM) 

The QAG Description of Methodology, or DOM, describes the company's technical methods for how 

inventory details are disclosed to parties with whom the QAG-certified company does business and the 

processes far ensuring that stated practices are maintained. 

The DOM is central to QAG Certification. Quarterly and independent reviews are based on the 

methodologies documented in the DOM. The better the DOM and the technology and practices that 

support it, the more efficient the process for quarterly and independent validation reviews. The level of 

detail plays a role in a goad DOM. A DOM too detailed might be overly complex and difficult to 

maintain, but a DOM tao simplified may be too vogue to appropriately meet minimum certification 

gUidelines. 

The lAB does nat define how this document should be structured or the content required, but at a 

minimum, a well-defined description of methodology might incorporate the following: 

Clearly stated guiding principles for the company and its QAG Certification Program 

Regular practices involved in disclosing inventory details 

Description of how company technology discloses inventory details 

Defined plan for ensuring all quality assurance technology and regular practices are 

maintained 

Method for detecting and correcting errors 

Process for making updates to the QAG Certification Program and the corresponding 

documentation in the DOM 

While the DOM is nat submitted for certification or renewal, the internal audit is based on the DOM 

and the most recent version of the DOM should always be available should it be requested for review. 

3.6 Enforcement & Appeal 

QAG compliance is peer-enforced. In order to ensure that the value of QAG certification is maintained, 

a formal process is in place for companies to make complaints about non-compliance. 

@ 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 18 
139 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

3.6.1 QAG Non-Compliance 

Complaints made against a QAG-certified company may be one of twa complaint types: 

QAG nan-compliance 

Intellectual Property (IP) infringement 

Complaints regarding QAG nan-compliance may affect certification while IP infringement complaints 

do not. Please see section 3.7 for details on IP infringement complaints. 

A company that is party to a QAG-certified transaction may submit a complaint against the other party 

of the transaction regarding any nan-compliance experienced. The complaint must include specific 

evidence of nan-compliance and must be signed by someone of at least manager level at the company 

making the complaint. 

To submit a complaint, please visit 

3.6.2 Validating Complaints 

Upon receiving a complaint, the lAB QAG Steering Committee votes an whether the complaint is valid. 

If deemed valid, the accused QAG-certified company is notified of the complaint before the Committee 

makes a judgment regarding the complaint. 

Before judgment an a complaint is made, the accused company may repudiate the allegation of noncompliance or remediate any alleged incidents of nan-compliance. 

If the Committee makes a judgment against the accused company, the company must work in a goad 

faith effort to resolve the complaint as qUickly as possible. 

3.6.3 Loss of Certification 

If three or mare complaints against a single company are deemed valid within a six-month period and 

valid complaints are nat resolved within that six-month period, certification for the company is removed. 

The company must cease to market itself as a certified company and the company name is removed 

from the published list of QAG-certified companies. Complaints are nat made public. 

3.6.4Appeal and Recertification 

Within 10 days of the Committee decision to remove certification, the company may appeal before the 

full Committee. 

In order to became recertified, the company must provide documentation an how and when the 

complaint was addressed and the steps it has taken to ensure that similar problems will nat occur in the 

future. Documentation of complaint resolution must be presented before the full Committee. 

If the majority of the Committee is satisfied with the explanations and evidence of resolution, the 

company may pay a recertification fee to the lAB and resume marketing itself as QAG certified. The 

company is also republished to the list of QAG-certilied companies. 

3.7 Intellectual Property (lP) Infringement Complaints 

To facilitate a rights holder complaint about copyright infringement, the lAB provides an inbax for such 

complaints that it forwards to the alleged infringing companies. To file a complaint, please send details 

about your complaint and the offending company to The lAB will direct this 

complaint to the relevant contact at each QAG participating company. 

~'2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 19 
140 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

4 Disclosure Details 

Transparency is vital ta establishing trust and enabling the flow of advertising budgets throughout the 

marketplace. QAG 2.0 requires transparency at each phase of a media transaction and provides a 

framework for labeling inventory so that buyers can accurately assign value and/or assess risk. All 

disclosures defined throughout section 4 should be disclosed in the buyer-seller agreement prior to 

running the buyers ads on the sellers' sites. 

Inventory Fromework 

The QAG Inventory Framework is a series of defined disclosures that clearly labels the seller's inventory 

for the buyer. This framework simplifies transparency and adds value to reported impressions 

regardless of the level of transparency. 

QAG-certified sellers must use the QAG Inventory Framework to label all inventory sold so that 

advertisers can accurately assign value and/or assess risk. Recognizing that some transactions can't be 

as transparent as others, the QAG inventory framework allows for non-transparent transactions as long 

as they are labeled as such. 

For each buyer-seller agreement (i.e. insertion order (10), campaign, or buy), the buyer can reasonably 

expect that every impression run under the agreement meet the criteria represented. 

If any seller within a single agreement sells an array of inventory with multiple levels of transparency, 

the agreement must structure the inventory so that each level of transparency is represented in a 

different line item. If the inventory is not or cannot be separated into different line items, then all 

inventory must be assigned a level of transparency equal to the least transparent item sold in the 

agreement. 

The QAG Inventory Framework is broken down into phases of inventory transaction as it happens 

either in real time or processed prior to running impressions. The three phases of transaction defined in 

the inventory framework are: inventory acquisition, inventory evaluation, and transaction execution. 

Required disclosures for each phose are described in sections 4.1 to 4.3. 

4.1 Inventory Acquisition 

The details disclosed as part of acquiring the inventory include identifying the parties involved in the 

agreement, the level of transparency in disclosing source page URls, and the technical context 

describing the environment in which ads are served. 

4.1.1 Transaction Party Source Identification and Relationships 

QAG-certified companies must disclose their relationship with the awner of the source of media. This 

relationship may be either direct or indirect on either the sell side or the buy side. 

© 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 20 
141 

T",,,,ac!ia~ pcrty 1aurCI! relmion,hip. lire defined in the lollow ~g table: 

Oirect 

Own. /".enlO,y 10 be. loki 01 

f<,ImMf( reporeun" ttoe O'Wr>er in 

a <'1l\tro<...,1 a9",,, ... ent 

I'I.JbI"I. .... a' ""Ihori~ed 

Publl .... '" "1Ien" (A,PA) a,," d1<et. 

.aUe" 

Tke pony thol own, Of repr",.,,, 

ad' erl;semenls ID be. pI<>eed 011 

t~~ ",lla" o""ilablor media 

In'<'entoty Advll<!i!.OfI '" 

Autho'''en Ad""rtbg. I\go",,;", 

II\AAI afe direr:) bu~e". 

Indirect 

Sell. 'nl'(!"!O..,..that~ ~,"'t 0_ 

01 directly ff!II"'s.e~' A networl: 

Ot ","<11009" WJIh tIC ditflCt 

,elclliorah,p 10 in.enl<l<y ownor" 

on e)(omple of on Ind~ "'II .... 

Pu«hru", 'n .... nJ'1ry'1n bMa~ '1f 

a d~6d bu)'lll bul ,,"el, cn 

cumD¢l>d dirM/ "'''''ian,kip 

w~h the od\oe""eJ 

Programmatrc 

Mlmb a leller, either 

direct or indlrlKJ. bUll> 

,epl~.IIInted by a" 

oUlCmoted technology 

platlc"" In r",,!.Iime 

""n,o,:ticn, 

Mimics a blf)''''' ell.her 

dire" ", .. dirM~ b.ll. 

"'Pf""'nted by Q~ 

o(r""""ted (f>C~nclogy 

pla,j""" in uoaf"", .. 

''''~O<J{ i"" •. 

See "'dien 1.1 for more detailed de.criptlon, af the p(lJ1ie. Ta a QAG Tron'Odian. 

Pubh.hM' 

Proto(t;on 

61/Y8r ""Iy nco! ...... 11r ..... Iory con an exchange w"rthout hovlng d""k"ecI to l!,e .. lie. in 

ad""nce thot an e,J..Oge-ba.ed ,.....,Iot is amar.g"'~ man""wlk>n Opllon.lht. buY'" 

may I'<'('~&. 

4.1.2 Source Level Transparency 

amI, buy"" a~d \ell~ l ~eed to know how mu(h wiU be di\cfo\ed regcrding the .ource URL for Ihe 

invelllC'Y to be 'old. Source level tron'parency may be di.do,ed in ful l ,n reol time, 0' II complete liM 

of litel To be Uled lfuli d,.clo.vrel. a. a li,T of potential .Itel to be vIed Iportl<;ll dlldo,vfel. or a~ a 

general I'll of panible conte~lval' le, or Yn~oow~ lilel 100 di,da,ure) where 00'. may 'uo. 

Exeept for full reaHime di,dm"re, .ouree URl di,do,ure level i. di.do,ed in lin agreement prior 10 

running impre'>1io("l" The buyer·!-t\lIer IIgreem~ot .hould 'pe,lfy the TMm' b~ wh ich the ,eller mlly 

updote the in.ft(ltary lource U~L li'l. 

S'1urce Ie.el ltanlporency mduo'e. the follaw1ng: 

full real-lime disclolure 

The ,eller po"e. the buyer the complele URl for the Inventory whare The ad dl.ploy. 'n feal 

"me lar each oulomoted 1",",CClion lI~d i, pOOled oT Ihe mament ol lmp!e'lion. FuU reaHime 

dhdo'Ufe enllble, thO! buyer'.lIo'-,erving workHow to decide on a number of fudor, for 

... I\Iing the ad .uch o. valuation and creative selection. 

full real~ime dildolufe require. Ihol the c'1mplete URl '1f the original pubNlhef page where the 

ad di.pl'1Y' among publilher COl\le~t rI Pfovlded to I~e boyer', .yllem. Di,dO$Ong only the 

mame URL Ihot i. leparate ftam toe page Thai contains content il NOT con.idered lull rea~ 

I.me di,do.ure. 

" 
142 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

For native mobile applications, a source URL is not available. In these cases, full real-time 

disclosure requires providing the complete URL for the app store page where the application is 

listed. 

In all cases for full real-time disclosure, sellers must pass the content source URL or app store 

U RL without modification. 

Full disclosure 

In full disclosure, the seller discloses to the buyer, prior to running impressions, a list of all the 

website domains and/or native mobile applications where ads may run. Ads may not run on 

all sites or applications listed, but ads will not run on any sites or applications other than those 

listed. 

Portiol disclosure 

In partial disclosure, the seller discloses to the buyer, prior to running impressions, a list of 

representative sites and/or native mobile applications where ads will run. Ads may run on sites 

and applications other than those listed, but will not necessarily run on all sites and 

applications listed. 

No disclosure (blind/no site list): 

With no disclosure, the seller discloses to the buyer, prior to running impressions, that the seller 

is blind to the sites or native mobile opplicotions on which ads will run, or that ads may run on 

certain contextual sites, such as lIautomotive" sites. 

4.1.3 Technical Context 

The technical context of the inventory includes whether the inventory is intended for display in a 

browser, digital in-stream video, mobile specific, ar unknown. 

Browser: inventory displays in a browser, typically for desktop viewing. 

Digitol in-streom video: inventory displays in the context of streaming video within a 

video player. Video companion ad inventory is considered contextual to digital in-stream video 

even though it is displayed in a browser near the digital video player. 

Mobile: inventory is intended to play within content optimized for mobile viewing, either 

within a native mobile application, in a browser-based application intended for mobile 

viewing, or a mobile-optimized web page. 

Connected TV: inventory displays in the context of a web-connected television device. 

Unknown: inventory may display in any of the contextual technology platforms. 

© 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 22 
143 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

4.2 Inventory Evaluation 

Evaluating the seller's inventory means establishing the context in which ads are displayed. Disclosing 

contextual details far content includes identifying the fallowing: 

5.2.1 Content Type 

5.2.2 Content Classification 

5.2.3 Content Rating 

5.2.4 Nan-Standard Classification 

5.2.5 Illegal Content Prohibited From Sale 

5.2.6 Level of Confidence 

5.2.7 Targeting Depth 

5.2.8 Placement Details 

5.2.9 Creative Acceptance Details 

4.2.1 Content Type 

While sections 4.2.2 - 4.2.5 address classification of content, disclosing the content type helps QAGcertified companies determine the medium of the content. 

The content type describes the type of content that is displayed either near the ad, or immediately 

before or alter the ad is displayed. It provides the advertiser with infarmation about the viewing 

context, or the activity that the user is engaged in when they are shown the ad. 

Content type may be classified as one of the following: 

Video: a videa file that is streaming or loading, including (Internet) television broadcasts 

Game: an interactive software game that is running 

Music: an audio file or stream that that is playing, including (Internet) radio broadcasts 

Application: an interactive software application that is running 

Text: a document that is primarily textual in nature, including web page, ebook, or news 

article 

Other: the user is consuming content of known type but which does not fit into one of the 

categories above 

Unknown: content type is unknown 

4.2.2 Content Classification 

The content in which an ad is placed is important to both parties, but especially for the buyer who is 

concerned about brand safety. The contextual content can be disclosed in all media types, whether 

browser-based, video, or mobile. If the contextual content for where ads are displayed can't be 

identified, then the content classification can be disclosed as "unknown." 

© 2013 Interactive AdvertiSing Bureau 23 
144 

A contell/ual lo~o~omy heipi dOl$ify coment In a fomdiorway ocrou the indUllry, GAG<etlilied 

,omponiel mull, il applicable to tf>e buy. develop 0 cootel<lool toxonomy relevont to the inventory they 

offer ond cO~ ll l1en l with t~e tiered s"lIc)<.;Ie outlined in t~issect on , Conte~"'ol content inlofmot;on il 

not to be poned In reol-time IInlell the 1000rce le"el transporency il "!ull reo~time dll<:lOlurtt.· 

4 •. 2.2.1 The QAG Taxonomy 

The GAG Cert~ cat an Progro(/! offers a conteJ<l1l<l1 toxonomy developed in COnlultation wi ~ klIo:.onomy 

expetl. from ocodemia, ad meawrement companie" and members 01 lhe lAB Nelwo,. ... 8. hcMnge. 

COmmi"ee. Thil taxonomy dellnes contextuol content cotego.ies on ot leosl three different tietl. 

The first tier is 0 brood level category defined 01 a rorgeti'\g deplh 01 eithe.: coregeny/pOltol, sfte 

letlion, at page. He< 2 ,olegorial Md greole. o'e odditionol colego.ie. nelted under lier I 

cOlegories. 80!h tie. 1 ond tie. 2 001e90,les Ore 10,mei1y ellobr.,hed lor the GAG Certillcotlon Progrom 

$0 conlent dossilicolion con be consistent OctOIS the jndlillry. 

GAG<ertilied campaniel de~na their own content cJon ~,otion toxonomy based on the GAG 

CO"'6)(tuol Content T(ef StruCture. Sue ... c'ion 4.2.2.2 for d"'oi!> on dehnfTlg 0 cu>lom 'OXO"omy .hot" 

complkmt w~h the GAG prog.om. 

The follow'ng table (table 4-11 demibe, the !ier ... d !oxonomy for con!eldual content da"il'cation, lobi .. 

.\·2 pta.,de, a sample 01 GAG eltoblished cotegorieo. 

O .. hnil,on 

Prlmo'Y content del1nil'on fa, the torge!loglevels (If cot'lgory, .,te, o. letlkrn, 

ThiS I_I d'llines the generol category ol tke COMenl 

Cat.oorie. 01 thi.l.v.1 or. form •• ly •• tabli .... d fa. GAG. 

Secondory-conten! level cOlegories nelfed und\!. 'HI' I, 

COI.oories at thi. l.vel are forme.1y estoblidt. d fa. QAG. 

Sub.COlilgonef nalted "ndar ner 2. 

Coteoo.i •• at this leval and g.e a,e. a •• defined and 

maintained by individual campanie •• 
145 

, 

The following I<.lble is 0 lomple ol !W(I of !he lie. 1 ""ego"e' in t~e fo.molfy.el.lObJished GAG 

Toxonomy olong wifh !heir tier '2 nested cotegorin Updote! ore moinloined on lAB's website 01 

b!.!JU~Q.b.n6 ~o(l.m:~""e~lQ~. 

1<lbl.~.J:~Q..<.G C ..... "'.,gjC_C"'''9''<'"4 

t,er 1 Category 

Arh& 

Eotertotnment 

rliH 2 (olegoriel 

B<l<lks ond lllerotUre 

CelebOly FQn(Gollip 

fine ,0.<1 

Hu,,"or 

4.2.2.2 Custom TOJlonomies for QAG 

lu:o;~ry 

MinrVan 

MOlOrcyde. 

olf·~ood Ven,del 

p,ckup 

Rood.Side Alll5tance 

Sedon 

T ruckl o~d Acamof(el 

Vinlage Carl W" '-__ 

QAG-certilied componiel ore not .eq~ired 10 u,e all categories deyeloped for Ihe toxonomy ond 

s~ould develop rllelr own WSlOfllized toxonomy; however, Ihe custom lo><onomy should clearly mop 

bod to the QAG Contexluol Taxonomy. for example, if a comp.ony ho, 0 Recreation colegof)', Ihe 

Com pony m~SI be oble 10 Ihow ~ow i! mopl bad to the tier 1 Sporn category in the QAG To~onomy. 

A b~yer Ihould be able to underslond 0 .elle,', c",lom loxonomy in sufficient detail, If a '1Iller doe. nol 

adhere to the QAG Taxonomy, Ihe company's Description of Methodology should dlsdose Inll opd 

iocl~de Ihe oppropriote mopping, 

4.2.2.3 Lgbe liog (goleJllugl (ontent 

Contextual contentlobeling may be done internally Of by on independ""t or9anlzation. No 

req",rement il mode for des;g~ot;ng who should label contextual content, 

4.2.2.4 Adding folegorie s 10 the QAG TgJlanomy 

The GAG Contextual ToxollOlTly II d~namir;. Clnd deYeloping cale90ries ll on ongoing proceu. This 

taxonomy illntern:led to capture tire breodth 01 ovoiloble onlill8 conient ond prftlenl a cll!<l' ond 

comillen! framework to b~~eJ1;. 

The lAB QAG Initiotive Steering CommiMee ayer~ a .ub-<ommittee on toxonomy for moilers 

pt!1'toining to the ellobli'lred toxonomy ,lruOme. GAG·ce~t.ed (Ompon:es I1Ioy petition IhB COfTImiitee 

to include new conlent cotegorie. Inla Ihe e:o;l.ling GAG Taxonomy, The Committee .eviews pe-tltoan 

>ubmi .. ioru quorterly, ond publi,he. re,ullslo IhelAS webl;re I"rthe QAG loxonomy or 

~ l/wwwrobHe!/QAGI!lI)ogl,ye/oYf""ew/tQxoromy, 

" 
146 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

4.2.3 Content Rating 

Content ratings are already standardized across all certified networks & exchanges with the site roting 

determined at the time the site first joins the network or exchange. However, for companies that are nat 

a network or exchange, any sites that offers inventory in the QAG Progrom must be rated in 

compliance with QAG. 

QAG-certified companies should rate site content according to the following roting system *. 

All Audiences 

Appropriate for all segments of the generol public. For this roting, all of the following must 

apply: 

No profanity 

No sexual content 

No violence 

No depictions of alcohol, tobacco, weapons, gambling, or drug use 

Everyone over 12 

May contain material considered inappropriate for young children. Any of the fallowing may 

be present: 

Implicit references to vulgar language 

Kissing 

Violence to animated characters 

Journalistic references to alcohol, tobacco, weapons, gambling, or drug use 

Mature Audiences 

May contain material suitable only for mature audiences. Any of the following may be present: 

Profanity 

Provocative images 

Nudity 

Violence to human beings or animals 

Depictions of alcohol, tobacco, weapons, gambling or drug use, etc. 

Unknown 

Content cannot be determined or is unknown. 

*Rating site content according to the above rating system is compliant with QAG; however, a company 

can choose to use a different rating system as long as the rating system used is described in the 

company's DOM and ratings map back to the rating system described above. 

@2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 26 
147 

lAB Q"Illily AlwfQn~e Guideline' 2.0 

4.2.4 Non-Standard Classification 

NO!>-Ilondo.d dOI,;~I<:.O!ion me)' be d;,do,ed 01 0 pege, Ie<;lloM or lile level bUllhould belobeled CIt 

me ~ell commOn denom,nolor for .hol pege, !(Klion Of ,1Ie. The following chorOClertsltcl mUll be 

dlsclo\f!d for eoch IrtlnlOClion ond mu,1 be oCCU,ale fur Ihe level of lo.g8"nll: 

Profone Conlonl 

Hote Contont 

Under Con.'.ud;gn 

In(enl,\/,zed 

The deplC/lon 01 elpl!CKlliy ViVId, brutal ond realilt.c actl of 

violence II moy be [eol, "mulgted live oelion, or onimoled. 

G.opn,cand/or ExpliCIt Vlolence-goe. beyond IMle. fomu 

of viol,,"ce dtJf! 10 II. cklor and unobo.hed nolure ollhe 

violence. pc.rroyt!d, 

SeXUQlly ""pltc~ 01010001 whme primary purpo,e" 

delillned 10 proJvc.e. .elllK!1 oroulol, Type, of COntl!!1t con 

Indude, but j, nOllim'led 10, fepre ... nIOlion. of ..,KUol CGl' 

ond e.!<poled body porll, lexuol coercion/ond lHegel 

sexuolod. 

Speech or hale graphic <:.Onten! 

Sponsor "inGeflhv'''ed did • .' Or · poy·!Q.w,f" pfogrDms 

UGC lilellhQt do nol ho\ftO. Q deo •• et of pOlled gu,delinel 

on what type of conient i, acceplable and do not lake on 

adil'tl pOliTron In re'<iewlng <;OI1tenlror compliance with 

pa'te~~~1':;,,~~;jfj~~~~::~rj~~ guldelill8', 

01 foryml 01 well 

phOlI>g"'p~,c 

or ~reo ed b.y a llmd-porty, 
148 

4.2.5 Illegal Content Prohibited from Sale 

QAG p'o/llbih the $ole 01 001' iMemory Wilhln Ihe lollowing categories 01 iIIegol conTenl. The calegory 

des.:tipTion> below include oofHIxd~'''e example. 0111, .. type. 01 .;Te! 1001 Fil in Iho.e WlegOJie., 

Illegal Content Prohibited f",m Sill" 

Copyrtghtlnf.ingement 

4.2.6 Level of Confidence 

ConlanT f1Iloted 10 eogog'll9 In, promOliI'g or foclliTOTill9 

,lIegol or legolly q<il!IHonoble odl.,Tie • .lbth a. drug!, 

bomb" theft, ond onlilla p,rating, hacking, lp<lmm,ng, ond 

infecling 01 goveroed by Uniled Slolel Federollaw. 

np, I<,lffenl "lei, ,I~gal mu.ic downlood., pi,aloo 

.oftwore 

Dl,l~bule or promoTe 'p)""o,e 0' molwor. 

Inf<f"9tl, an copyrighl~ If or example by hooting and 

,I""'ming inlr,nglOg eopY~ghled wnlent) 

Tne QAG ,eview invaM,,' vetling Ihe "Te ogoimllhe li.1 of non·,iondord ecnleni ond r.horoo .. ri,iic 

de,criplionl provided in ~c!ion 4.2,4, To en'Yrr. thol ,ile roling' Iloy wrrenl, 0 .101l.licoily'V(]lld 

,ompla ,izto of publl,herl II reviewad 01 port of me quo rwly 'eviaw daK'ibed In !teOion 3.4-. 

By loking 0 '1OliSlicolly volid .omple. .i:e, odverti,,,., ore onu'oo with 0 rOOlonobty hign level of 

con~ddnce Incline roling ond clo"i~collon 'ylleml 0'8 baing ~pheld. Certified componies mol' 

employ on ,ndependenl rel,ng lervlte 01 long 01 The s.e(Vice vendo, compllel will, lhe gUldellnel 

ellOblllhed in Ihe mOil recenl ~e(lian 01 QAG. Ullimclely. Ihe QAG<er1i~ed compony is ~p<lnlible 

Fo' moinloining ond Cllrlilying compliance 

" 
149 

T~e table below Ihowl tile diffe'ent wrtlple , <lei 'equill!d at tm-ee diffe 'ent conFIdence Ie-<els w~h a 

margin of &I,ar of 5%. 

Sample 5i:le with a S% margin of error 

5Q.n1ple SIU$ @ Coof;de~ce Level 

It of Sif ~ 

100 ". 

'00 

1,000 

2,500 

5,000 

10,000 

25000 

50,000 

100.000 

90% 

" "I 176 

2" 

2" 

257 ". 

268 

270 

9S% 99% 

80 87 

152 182 

'" 286 

27B '00 

J33 526 

3S7 'SB 37. m 

378 

381 '" 657 

An e~omple 01 how 10 Inlflrprfll the lob~ Is 01 fol o~ ~ :, you cond~d a peilio dfllflrminfllhe 

p&lcenlage al · ·unsalfllites " wilh a pool 01250 lites, and you wo nt 'A be 95% conllden' In lhe lu~l, 

thM you mUll check 152 liles. If oher checking Ihis sample, you didn'l hnd any unlole sael. tl\erl you 

may claim Ihol you a'e 95% conlidenll~ol he actual percenlage 01 unsol~ siles in you. ne~o k II nu ll 

- w~h a margIn 01 error of 5%. 

Nale: The above lable WO I developed u,ing IlalislOcal probabililies of a normal di,lribulian. For further 

info'",alion, plea~ lee .h!trdL~~'9/'t" 'lNonnol HOb~!o\l!l. 

The requi,ed confidence level 10' GAG il at leost 90%. In the COlf! thol Ihe 90% umlidence level II not 

achieved, the process below musl be followed : 

Re-<;ew and re-categanzation of publ;,llIm [n accordance wilh e,tobli,hed guide line, 

Complete ,8-/e,' of Inventory 01 or abave pre.<f.elefmined con~dence I""el 

Record each 'e,t 'e,ult a~ proof af th .. internal ,ev,_ 

4.2.7 Targe ting De pth 

fIVe levels af tQrgeting ore defined for dl!closlJre ln the GAG program. Depth 0/ ta,geting storts ot th e 

broodesl tier in which 0 group oIs~ .. , moy be ~d uded i~ a buy a~d funnel. down IhfOUgh Ihe ,ilt!, .He 

~di"", ~pecjlic oge, o~d jod .... ;duol uM sud! 01 0 lpecifjcYldeo. 

" 
150 

In oddirion to conrent cotegory, the content leval bei'l!;! twgerttd mu~t be der.ned The lollowing robla 

uploin~ the to'98tin9 hi8'orchy, ronging flom the multi'lite level to Ihe individual un~l on the pqge. 

The.e gu,delinel do not 'equire ~"ilied QAG<arlif1ed companies 10 ollar olilargeting ~vel •. 

CQlegory/PorlQllevcl 

SIIe Sect,an le ... el 

Page Level 

U"'t La ... ,,1 (w,dget, 

"ideo, image, lext, 

othed 

None 

4.2.8 Plocement Detoils 

Targeting Depth 

Torge' 0 grouping of lite> with'n a 'pet,li' buy 

T9rgefirg ro endemic ',11!.5 Wlie!8 the mojonty of Ihe content 

is on 0 spec,fic topic thol con be targeted 0 1 lite level 

S~bleClians of sites a01! daulfied into .ubordinale 

ootegorrel 

Poge~ wllhin a _b s,le (determinad u.mg a samontic 01 

t:9~lJmgiOj!) 

n:;'IJype ortQ'getlng dOI.ifl\H every elemenl o.n cr "poge" 

,ruo one 01 ihe defined CO\l!gOfOe' _ leX! oonl"", ,dem,fied by 

lemonllc Of COl1te>dUOt leord! engine, Video clnd rmClge 

coolenl i<knli~ed b),!"elodolo Iog~_ 

NOl largellng content bUl to'9et1n9 Ulers, 

The leller di"lo"'. plocemanl deloiis in the buyer·'allm ogreement !Dgording where on the pog~ or '" 

on ppplicolkm the od will be pk>ced ond whol medic; ~horocle'lltk! pre ocU!~ed fo' the Invento,,!, 

b~ng 'old. Plocemeni deroil, Oft) npt 10 be pcued in reol~;me unle"lhe 'o~rte leve1 lrpn.pmeno:y i, 

"full leaHlme disdosure.· 

Display Ad, 

Sell ell should ",dicote whot type pf pd. they pccept 10, g>ven fnVllnlory ond the feoturel they 

.uppo" lorcrcr;ePled o,1i: 

Expond.Jble creolive (ye" ~nown, unknown) 

Suppmted rich medip prop ertle, (Ii'l pf RM propertie, or un~""wn) 

Suppprted """lOve behov;or II"t pf behovior~!If unkn!IWn) 

hbonoer vidap·lye., no, uo~nown) 

hie", videp (ye~, "", unk""wn) 

Pmitioning (obove-th&fold, balmv .. lhe--lpld, or unknown) 

, in-bonner .. cleo mUll ,"dude pudlo contrp!! ond defouillo oudio off 

Digilall,..SI.eam Video Ads 

Dfliitolll'>-sifeom video adl pre ads Ihat di'plpy In Ihe conte"t of strNlmi"9 video content 

plpyed in a video plpyer and not IP be conlu,ed with in-bonner od. Ihot moy ,,1'0 ploy in p 

video player but within the cpnle.><t of 0 btlnoer tlnd NOT within ihe conte.>;1 pf .Ireommg videa 

content. Seller. shpuld disclpse whot digilPI i ...... I'eom videp pd formals Illey accept. 
151 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Sellers should disclose each of the fallowing parameters (if known) far digital videa ads: 

Mobile Ads 

Ad Type (linear, nonlinear, unknown) 

linear ad type position (pre-roll, mid-roll, post-roll, unknown) 

Ad Duration (in seconds) 

Default width and height (in pixels) 

Auto Play (yes, known, unknown) 

Ad Pod length and position 

Skippoble (yes, no, unknown) 

Audible (yes, no, unknown) 

Incentivized: (yes, no, unknown) 

Mobile inventory includes inventory that displays in native mobile applications (App), browserbased Web applications (wApp), or mobile-optimized websites. Sellers should disclose the 

following details about mobile inventory: 

App (yes, no, unknown) 

Web App (yes, no, unknown) 

Mobile Web' (yes, no, unknown) 

Responsive Design" (yes, no, unknown) 

Positioning (header, footer, side bar, full screen, or unknown) 

Targeted Platform (iOS, Android, Blackberry, Windows Phone, webOS, Symbion, or 

other) 

'Mobile-optimized websites are distinguished by some variation in the site URl such as 

mobile.example.com, or example.com/mobile. 

"Responsive design websites are programmed to scale in response to the size of the browser 

so that content can be viewed as intended whether on a large-screen device or a small-screen 

device. 

In general, browser-based display inventory designed for viewing on a desktop-sized computer 

or laptop screen is NOT considered mobile despite visitors' ability to view the content in a 

mobile device. 

4.2.9 Creative Specifications 

Publishers have a fundamental interest in promoting on experience for their visitors that sustains or 

increases their loyalty, session time, and engagement. Ads can enhance that experience if the ads are 

appropriately matched to the space, content, and audience. 

Publishers have varying degrees of tolerance for the aggressiveness of advertisement implementation, 

content and features. Creative specifications are to be disclosed in the buyer-seller agreement prior to 

running impressions unless the source level transparency is "full real-time disclosure," in which case 

creative specifications can be disclosed in real-time. 

2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 31 
152 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

The seller should disclose any applicable creative specifications for accepting creative using attributes 

from the following list: 

Creative width and height (in pixels) 

Creative file weight 

Auto sound 

Auto play animation 

Video 

Video duration 

Video controls required 

Expanding 

Expansion direction 

Expanded size 

Specific lAB formats 

4.3 Transaction Execution 

Once inventory has been identified for acquisition and evaluated for contextual content classification 

and placement, how data is to be collected and used should be disclosed in the buyer-seller 

agreement. In addition, programmatic exchange details should be disclosed, but these details 

(described in section 4.3.2) may be disclosed in real-time at the time of transaction. 

4.3.1 Data 

While lAB membership is nat required for certification, any company interested in becoming QAG 

certified should also agree to abide by the lAB Member Code of Conduct. Details about the lAB 

Member Code of Conduct can be found an lAB's website at 

4.3.2 Programmatic Buying/Auction Mechanics 

Disclosures under programmatic buying are yet to be finalized but may include items such as the 

auction type, inventory type, and whether the CPM floor is soft or dynamic. 

Types of Auction 

First Price Auction: A first-price auction is a farm of auction where platform partners submit 

bids and the highest bid sets the market price, winning the auction. Platform partners pay the 

amount of the bid to the ad exchange with no price reduction. 

Second Price Auction: A second-price auction is a farm of auction where platform partners 

submit bids and the second highest bid sets the market price, but the highest bid wins the 

auction. Platform partners pay the amount of the second highest bid to the ad exchange. In 

same cases it is one cent aver the second highest bid depending an the marketplace. 

Modified Second Price Auction: A modified second-price auction is a farm of auction 

where platform partners submit bids and the market price is set between the bid submitted and 

the second highest bid. Platform partner pays the market price to the ad exchange. The ad 

exchange determines the market price. 

© 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 32 
153 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Optional Disclosures 

Data: How data from a bid request will be used. 

Flaar: The presence of either a manual or dynamic mechanism within a platform for an 

inventory holder or marketplace steword to set their awn clearance price. The disclosure may 

be one of: dynamic, manual, soft, or hard. 

Inventory Categorization: The characteristics of the inventory being offered. The 

disclosure may be one of: toolbar, desktop, rotating creative, or other categorization that is 

described in the DOM or buyer-seller agreement. 

© 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 33 
154 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

5 Glossary of terms 

A list of technical, administrative, and procedural terms used in this document 

To demystify and prevent confusion, the following definitions provide a standard list of commonly used 

terms. Consistent standards ensure that all industry players are on the some page and working 

towards the same goals. Universal industry definitions are also a vital ingredient to moving online 

marketing forward and increasing its allocation in the marketing mix. 

The behavioral definitions were developed in conjunction with the Behavioral Targeting Standards 

Consortium Advisory Boord (www.BTStandards.org). The data definitions were developed in 

conjunction with the lAB's Data Usage and Control Taskforce. 

Ad Click: The user activity of pressing a navigation button ar hitting the enter key on the keyboard on 

an advertisement unit on a Web site (bonner, button or text link). (See Click-through) 

Ad Creative Pixel (See Pixel) 

Ad Duration (Video): the maximum allowable duration of the video ad creative. Ad duration does 

not include user interaction with the ad. Any user interaction with the ad may increase its effective 

duration. Ad duration should be expressed as an integer value in seconds ar, if undefined, as 

"undefined." 

Ad Exchange: Ad exchanges provide a sales channel to publishers and ad networks, as well as 

aggregated inventory to advertisers. They bring a technology platform that facilitates automated 

auction based pricing and buying in real-time. Ad exchanges' business models and practices may 

include features that are similar to those offered by ad networks. For the purposes of the lAB Netwarks 

& Exchanges Quality Assurance Guidelines, the definition of on ad exchange excludes technology 

platforms that only provide tools to enable direct media buying and selling between exchange 

participants. 

Ad Network: Ad networks provide on outsourced sales capability for publishers and a means to 

aggregate inventory and audiences from numerous sources in a single buying opportunity for media 

buyers. Ad networks may provide specific technologies to enhance value to both publishers and 

advertisers, including unique targeting capabilities, creative generation, and optimization. Ad 

networks' business models and practices may include features that are similar to those offered by ad 

exchanges. 

Ad Pod: a sequential grouping of one or mare linear ads in digital in-stream video shown back-toback. 

Ad Pod Length: the number of distinct video ads (of any ad duration) that are shawn back-to-back in 

an ad pod. 

Ad Pod Position: the specific sequential designation of an ad within the pod (i.e. 1,2, 3, etc.) 

Ad Server: A computer application that enables the delivery, tracking and management of 

advertising content on publisher inventory. 

© 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 34 
155 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Add to Cort: The user activity of staring merchandise in a virtual shopping cart that the user intends to 

later purchase from an online e-commerce website. This enables users to continue browsing and 

"check-out" later or alternately delete these items from the cart. 

Advertiser Ad Tag: Software code that an advertiser provides to a publisher or ad netwark that 

calls the advertisers ad server for the purposes of displaying an advertisement. 

Advertising Banner (also called Ad Banner or Banner): A static graphical image (GIF or JPEG 

files) or interactive content (Flash files) used to display on advertising unit on a web site. Most banners 

enable users to click on ad to be redirected to another website. 

Adware: Computer software provided to the user free of charge or at a discounted price that 

downloads and displays advertising to support its continued development and maintenance. This 

software often tracks what Internet sites the user visits. 

Affiliate Conversion Data: Data that is collected by an affiliate marketing system when a user 

completes a transaction or manifests certain behaviors an a web page. The system typically collects 

this data by means of a conversion pixel that is placed on the merchant's site. 

Affiliate Marketing: Affiliate Marketing is a method of generating leads or sales, whereby on 

online publisher is paid for referring users to an online e-commerce merchant. Referrals are measured 

by clicks, registrations or sales. 

Aggregate Campaign Data: Data combined from several advertising campaigns to create a 

segment where campaign level data is not identifiable. 

Agency: An organization that, on behalf of clients, plans marketing and advertising campaigns, drafts 

and produces advertisements, places advertisements in the media. In interactive advertising, agencies 

often use third party technology (ad servers) and may place advertisements with publishers, ad 

networks and other industry participants. 

Attribute: A single piece of information known about a user and stored in a behavioral profile which 

may be used to match ad content to users. Attributes consist of demographic information (e.g., age, 

gender, geographical location), segment or cluster information (e.g., auto enthusiast), and retargeting 

information (e.g., visited Site X two days ago). Segment or cluster information is derived from the user's 

prior online activities (e.g., pages visited, content viewed, searches made and clicking and purchaSing 

behaviors). Generally, this is anonymous data (non-PII). 

Auction: An opportunity far an ad exchange to compete for and win an ad impression. 

Audience Measurement: The counting of unique users (i.e. audience) and their interaction with 

online content. At a campaign level, this service is conducted by a third party to validate that a 

publisher delivered what on advertiser had requested. At the industry level, this service enables media 

buyers to understand which brokers of online content to negotiate with to reach a specific audience. 

Audible Sound: Describes whether the video ad impression default volume is audible when the ad is 

being played. The minimum volume level for audible sound is 26%. 

Authorized Advertiser Agent {AAA}: Porty that holds a direct legal relationship with a 

marketer or agency with the intent of buying inventary an their behalf or providing them a platform with 

which to do so. AAAs ore considered indirect parties in the context of transaction types. 

~) 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 35 
156 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Authorized Publisher Agent (APA): Party that holds a direct legal relationship with a publisher 

or party who owns inventory with the intent of selling inventory on their behalf or providing them a 

platform with which to do so. 

Auto Play: A video ad or animation that initiates "play" without explicit user interaction or without a 

user actively starting the video. If a user has a reasonable expectation that a video will ploy when 

clicking a link (for example, a small video icon appears next to the link), clicking the link is considered 

explicit user interaction and is not considered auto-play. 

Bid: The maximum value a platform portner wishes to pay for an auction. 

Bid request: A call to a platform portner's bid URL for an opportunity to compete in a auction. 

Bid URL: The mechanism by which on ad exchange initiates bid requests to platform partners. 

Beacan (See Pixel) 

Behavioral Event: A user-initiated action which may include, but not limited to: searches, content 

views, clicks, purchases, form-based information and other interactions. Behavioral events are 

anonymous and do not include personally identifiable information (PII). 

Business Visitor: A user that accesses online content in furtherance of their employment. 

Buyer: the party that owns or represents advertisement to be placed on the seller's available media 

inventory 

Click-through: The measurement of a user clicking on a link that re-directs the user's web-enabled 

device to another Web destination. 

Clickstream Data: A Clickstream is the recording of what a computer user clicks on while web 

browsing. As the user clicks anywhere in the webpoge or application, the action is logged on a client 

or inside the web server, as well as possibly the web browser and ad servers. Clickstreom data 

analysis can be used to create a user profile that aids in understanding the types of people that visit a 

company's website, or predict whether a customer is likely to purchase from an e-commerce website. 

Client-side call: An HTIP request made directly from a brawser. A platform partner can read and set 

cookies for a client side call. 

Content (Site/Page): Site content is the textual, visual or aural content is encountered as port of the 

user experience on a website. It may include, among other things: text, images, sounds, animations and 

videos. Web content is dominated by the "page" concept, with multiple pages of related content 

typically forming a site. 

Content Delivery Network (alternately Content Distribution Network) (CDN): A service that hosts 

online assets and provides content management via servers located around the globe to reduce the 

latency of downloads to users. 

Communication: The activity of conveying information by or to people or groups. Examples of 

online communication include email, instant messaging, text-messaging, group-messaging. 

Cannection Type (Mobile): The type of connection a mobile device is using to access the World 

Wide Web. Mobile connection types may include: 3G, 4G, wi-fi, or unconnected. Connection type 

@2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 36 
157 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

distinctions are important becouse some ads may require the highest connectivity rate (wi-fi) far large 

creative files or the ability to download files such as games or other apps. Knowing the connection type 

enables buyers to restrict ad delivery dependent on the connection type. 

Conversion Pixel (See Pixel) 

Conversion rate: The percentage of users who complete a desired action (e.g., purchase or 

registration) compared to all users who were exposed to on online ad. 

Cookie: A small text file sent by a website's server to be stored on the user's web-enabled device that 

is returned unchanged by the user's device to the server on subsequent interactions. The cookie 

enables the website domain to associate data with that device and distinguish requests from different 

devices. Cookies often store behavioral information. 

Cookie Matching: A method of enabling data appending by linking one company's user identifier 

to another company's user identifier. 

Creative Retargeting: A method that enables advertisers to display information (typically on ad) 

specifically to visitors that previously were exposed to or interacted with the advertisers' creative. 

Cross-site Publisher Analytics: Services that provide normative metrics about and estimates of 

multiple publishers' inventory. 

Cross-site Advertiser Analytics: Software or services that allow an advertiser to optimize and 

audit the delivery of creative content on pre-bought publisher inventory. Data can range from numbers 

of pages visited, to content visited, to purchases mode by a particular user. Such data is used to 

surmise future habits of user or best placement for a particular advertiser based on success. 

Data: Any information collected. 

Data Aggregator: An organization that collects and compiles data from individual sites to sell to 

others. 

Data Append: User data from one source is linked to a user's profile from another source. 

Data Segment: (See Segment) 

Default Width & Height (Videa Ads): The default height and width (expressed in pixels) of the 

video ad impression being rendered. The width and height measurement disclosures are subject to the 

following guidelines: 

Width and height measurements may include persistent player controls (i.e. play/pause, mute 

and full screen buttons as well as countdown timers) and privacy compliance controls (i.e. Ad 

Choices icon). Persistent controls should make up no more than 10% of the ad viewing space. 

Default width and height should be reported as the width and height the ad will be rendered 

prior to any user interactions. In general, with the exceptions noted above, the video ad 

viewing space should be free from viewobility obstructions. 

Demand Side Platform (also called DSP, buy side optimizers, and buy side platforms): Demand 

Side Platforms provide centralized (aggregated) media buying from multiple sources including ad 

exchanges, ad networks and sell side platforms, often leveraging real time bidding capabilities of said 

sources. While there is some similarity between a DSP and an ad network, DSP's are differentiated 

@2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 37 
158 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

from ad networks in that they do not provide standard campaign management services, publisher 

services nor direct publisher relationships. 

Desktop Application: Software that is installed on a computer. 

Deep Packet Inspection: A form of computer network packet filtering that examines the data 

and/or header part of a packet as it passes an inspection point. In the context of online advertising, it is 

used to collect data, typically through on Internet Service Provider, which can be used to display 

targeted advertising to users based on previous web activity. 

Dynamic bidding: Platform partner assigns a unique bid to each auction opportunity and 

populates that bid in every bid response. 

First price auction: A form of Auction where Platform Partners submit bids and the highest bid sets 

the Market Price, winning the Auction. Platform Partner pays the amount of his bid to the Ad Exchange 

with no price reduction. 

Floors: In programmatic ad buying and selling, either a manual or dynamic mechanism within a 

bidding platform for an inventory holder or marketplace steward to set their own clearance price. 

Frequency Capping: The limit of how many times a given ad will be shown to a unique cookie 

during a session or within a specified time period. 

Hit: The record of a single online transaction event stored in a log file. One page view may contain 

multiple hits, one for each image on a web page. 

Home Visitor: A user that access online content from their residence. 

Impression (also called a View): A Single display of online content to a user's web-enabled device. 

Many websites sell advertising space by the number of impressions displayed to users. An online 

advertisement impression is a single appearance of on advertisement on a web page. Each time an 

advertisement loads onto a users screen, the ad server may count that loading as one impression. 

However, the ad server may be programmed to exclude from the count certain non-qualifying activity 

such as a reload, internal user actions, and other events that the advertiser and ad serving company 

agreed to nat count. 

In-application (in-app) advertising: Advertisement served within a native application 

environment on a mobile device, either Smartphone or tablet. Typically, these apps are downloaded 

from an app stare such as iTunes, Gaagle Play, Amazon Market, Windows Apps Store, Blackberry's 

App World, Facebook apps stare, and ather distribution paints. (Examples: Angry Birds iPhone app; 

Pandora Android opp). 

Incentivized View: An ad impression that offers the user some incentive other than content in 

exchange for watching the ad. Examples of incentives may include, loyalty points, coupons, 

sweepstakes entries, e-currency and gaming status. 

Intended Transaction: a transaction between buyer and seller for an ad placement or impression 

in accordance with agreed upon specifications and representations. Any transaction that happens 

outside of the agreed upon specifications and representations are transactions that are unintended. For 

example, if a Buyer specifies that it only wishes to purchase inventory from a QAG-compliant Seller, 

and the Seller represents that its inventory is QAG-compliant, any transactions between them that 

involve inventory that is noncompliant with QAG is an unintended transaction. 

@2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 38 
159 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Internet Service Provider (ISP) (also called Online Service Provider): A company that enables its 

customers to access the Internet. 

Inventory: The aggregate number of opportunities near publisher content to display advertisement to 

visitors. 

Linear In-Stream Video Ads: video ads shown before, during, or after streaming content. linear 

in-stream ods toke over the user experience for a period of time and are played within the context of 

video content. linear ods can include both VAST and VPAID creative types. The following descriptors 

should be used for linear in-stream ad types: 

Pre-roll - plays appears before the video content plays. 

Mid-roll - ploys during a break somewhere in the middle of the video content. 

Post-roll - plays after the video content completes. 

Link (short for Hyperlink): A text of graphical portion of a webpage that, when selected, 

redirects the user's web-enabled device to another webpage. 

Market Price: The value of the placement after the auction. 

Metadata: Data that provides information about other data. This includes descriptions of the 

characteristics of information, such as quality, origin, context, content and structure. 

Mobile web: Advertisement served within a site optimized for the mobile experience, either from an 

internet-enabled smartphone or tablet. Mobile sites are frequently referred to as "m-dot" sites, mobilespecific URLs that users typically access from a mobile browser. (Examples: 

http://mobile.example.com, http://m.example.com, http://example.com/mobile.) Mobile web 

advertising also includes advertising on a browser-based site that is adaptive or responsively designed 

when viewed on mobile devices. Mobile web advertising also includes advertising served within a 

desktop web site that is visited via a mobile browser. This is a use-case that is generally undesirable 

from advertising perspective, detail on this below. 

Modified second price auction: A form of Auction where Platform Partners submit bids and the 

Market Price is set between the bid submitted and the second highest bid. Platform Portner pays the 

Market Price to the Ad Exchange. The Ad Exchange determines the Market Price. 

Multi-site company: A single entity that owns and operates multiple web sites, each under a 

separate domain. 

Nonlinear In-Stream Ads: an image ad that displays concurrently with video content, most 

commonly as an "overlay," overlaying the video content, but may also play within the video player but 

in a manner that does not obstruct the video content (non-overlay). Sellers should disclose, if known, 

whether accepted nonlinear ads allow for rich media expanding and interaction. 

Non-Session data (also called out-of-session data): information that cannot be gleaned from 

the current, Single event of a visitor. 

Online Publisher: A creator and/or aggregator of online content, which often monetizes user visits 

by displaying advertisements. 

Out-of-session data: (See Non-Session data) 

2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 39 
160 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Pass Back: an impression offered to a media buyer with the right of first refusal, such that when this 

right is exercised the impression is offered to another media buyer. 

Personalization: Aggregating previous online activity to match nan-ad related information to users. 

Personalization Service: Software or service that enables websites to match non-ad related 

information to user. 

Personally Identifiable Information (PII): User data that could be used to uniquely identify the 

consumer. Examples include name, social security number, postal address, and email address. 

Piggyback Pixel (See Pixel) 

Pixel (also called Beacon or Web Beacon): An HTMl abject or code that transmits information 

to a third-party server, where the user is the first party and the site they are interacting with is the second 

party. Pixels are used to track online user activity, such as viewing a particular web page or 

completing a conversion process. See Ad Creative Pixel, Conversion Pixel, Publisher Pixel. 

Ad Creative Pixel: A pixel request embedded in an ad tag which calls a web server for the 

purpose of tracking that a user has viewed a particular ad. 

Conversion Pixel: An image tag or code that transmits to a third-party server that a user 

has successfully completed a process (such as purchase or registration). 

Piggyback Pixel: An image tag or code that redirects a user browser to another pixel nat 

directly placed an the publisher page. 

Platform Partner: A technology stack capable of integrating with an ad exchange using an API 

real-time bidder (RTB). 

Profile: Profile is the collection of attributes describing segments, clusters or aggregated data, 

including prior online activity of a user. 

Profile Aggregator: A profile aggregatar collects data from various third-party sources to generate 

behavioral profiles. 

Profile Database: Profile Database a server-side stare of behavioral profiles. 

Publisher Pixel: An abject embedded in a web page (typically a 1 x 1 image pixel) that calls a web 

server for purposes of tracking some kind of user activity. 

Publisher Ad Tag: Code that is placed on a publisher's web page that calls an ad server for the 

purposes of displaying an advertisement. 

Purchase: The user activity of completing an e-commerce transaction. 

QPS: Queries per second. Number of times ad exchange or platform partner will be initiating 

requests to the other. Knowing the QPS is important for infrastructure planning. 

Query String: Meta data appended to an HTTP "GET" request urI. 

Referring URL: The address of the webpage that a user previously visited prior to folloWing a link. 

@2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 40 
161 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Registration: The user activity of subscribing to a website or requesting additional information by 

filling in personally-identifying contact details. 

Retargeting (or re-targeting): The use of a pixel tog or other code to enable a third-party to 

recognize particular users outside of the domain from which the activity was collected. See Creative 

Retargeting, Site Retargeting. 

Really Simple Syndication (RSS): Metodoto about content that enables a website to distribute 

new content with identical metodoto to a subscriber 01 this feed. 

RSS Reader: Software or website that aggregates syndicated content (e.g., news headlines, blogs, 

and podcosts) into a single location for easy viewing. 

Run of Exchange (ROE): No targeting overlays. All traffic on the exchange is exposed. 

Screen Scraping: A way of collecting information from a web page, whereby a remote computer 

program copies information from a website that is designed to display information to a user. 

Search: The act of entering a query at a search engine by entering in a series 01 keywords describing 

their desired content. 

Search Click: A click originating from a list of links returned by a query to a search engine. 

Search Engine: A website that provides a searchable index of online content, whereby users enter 

keywords describing what they are seeking and the website returns links related to this search query. 

Second price auction: A form of Auction where Platform Partners submit bids and the second 

highest bid sets the Market Price, but the highest Bid wins the Auction. Platform Partner pays the amount 

01 the second highest bid to the Ad Exchange. In some cases it is one cent over the second bid 

depending on the marketplace. 

Segment: Also called "data segment" or "audience," a segment is a set of users who share one ar 

more similar attributes. 

Seller: the party that makes media available to another party for purchase. 

Sell Side Platform (also called sell side aptimizers, inventory aggregatars, and yield optimizers) -

Sell Side Platforms provide outsaurced media selling and ad network management services for 

publishers. Sell-side platform and ad networks business models and practices are similar. Sell-side 

platforms are typically differentiated from ad networks in nat providing services for advertisers. Demand 

Side Platforms and Ad Networks often buy from Sell Side Platforms. 

Server Side Call: An HTTP request made from a server. A platform partner cannot read or set 

cookies in a server-side call. 

Single-site Publisher Ad Server: Single-site Publisher Ad Servers focus on maximizing the yield to 

the publisher. 

Single-site Publisher Analytics: Software or services that analyze information about users, 

including metrics such as unique visitors and site usage. The collected data is used only an behalf of the 

site from which the data is collected. 

© 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 41 
162 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Site/Page/Position Transparency: Ability for the buyer of media (typicolly an advertisement) to 

understand the location and context within which the media will be displayed. Transparency can be at 

the level of web property (site), page content (page) or position (specific location within page). Site 

transparency, in the context of a network or an exchange, refers to the ability of a buyer of inventory to 

know the exact identity of the website domain or page on which they have shown advertisements. 

Skippable: Skippable creatives are linear in-stream creatives that users can choose to skip, typically 

after a prescribed number of seconds have passed. 

Spyware: Computer software that is installed surreptitiously to intercept or take partial control over 

the user's interaction with a computer, without the user's informed consent. Spyware programs can 

collect various types of information, such as Internet surfing habits, but can also interfere with user 

control of the computer in other ways, such as installing additional software, and redirecting web 

browser activity. The software usually does not contain generally accepted standards of notice 

describing what the purpose and/or behavior of the software is nor does is usually contain visible or 

functioning choice mechanisms for complete uninstall. The programs are typically characterized by 

behaviors thot can be considered deceptive if not harmful to the user and/or his computer. 

Static bidding (Flat CPM): Platform partner pre-negotiates bids via offline process for segments of 

inventory. Buyer bids for inventory at a flat CPM rate. 

Targeted Advertisement: an advertisement that is shown only to users exhibiting specific attributes 

or in a specific context or at a particular time of day. 

Transaction: Transaction is defined as the execution of any form of trade (cash, barter, etc.) between 

a buyer and seller that results in the exposure of advertising on media 

User Syncing: The process of exchanging cookie data between an ad exchange and platform 

partner so that platform partner' s cookie data is available for decision-making during the RTB 

process. 

Video context: Context of video content with which the video ad will be shown or "unknown" if not 

known. The contextual taxonomy defined by the network and exchanges quality assurance guidelines 

shall be used for this parameter. 

Viewobility Obstructions: Any item within the video ad viewing space other than persistent player 

controls (e.g. play/pause, mute, skip ad) or privacy compliance notifications (e.g. AdChoices icon) 

which masks or obstructs the video viewing experience. For example, a 30x50 pixel publisher logo 

box overlay that obstructs the content viewing space of an ad during playback is a Viewability 

Obstruction. 

Web App Advertising: Advertising served into an application that is browser-based but may be 

wrapped within native mobile device code. Web apps are typically accessed using an online or mobile 

site and then reside as a 'Widget' on phone or tablet-top. 

Mobile Video Advertising: Video advertising in which ads are served within an application, or mobile 

web environment. Despite the platform, mabile video has unique characteristics including 

"skippabitility," overlays that are clickable or not, force view (). 

!f;;, 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 42 
163 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

6 Appendix 

The following exhibits offer sample letters of attestation to be delivered to the lAB for QAG 2.0 

certification and renewal. 

Exhibit A: Compliance Officer Attestation 

Exhibit B: Executive Attestation 

Exhibit c: Independent Validation Attestation 

© 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 43 
164 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Exhibit A: Compliance Officer Attestation 

lAB Quality Assurance Guideline 2.0 

_____ (name of Compliance Officer), attest that: 

1. I have conducted quarterly internal audits for (name of Company) for 

__ quarter(s) and year ___ ; 

2. The executive named in the Executive Attestation and I are responsible for 

following the procedures outlined in the lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0: 

a. Acquiring Inventory: accurately label inventory in accordance with 

established content framework along 3 criteria: 

Transaction Party Source Identification and Relationships (section 

4.1.1) 

ii. Source Level Transparency (section 4.1.2) 

iii. Technical Context (section 4.1.3) 

b. Contextual Taxonomy (section 4.2.2) & Targeting (section 4.2.7): 

accurately categorize content in accordance with Tiers 1 & 2 of lAB 

Contextual Taxonomy, and specify the depth (e.g. site level vs. page 

level) of categorization 

If we have chosen to use a different taxonomy, we can clearly 

map our taxonomy back to the lAB taxonomy and explain to a 

buyer with sufficient detail 

c. Inventory Vetting: accurately label content in accordance with established 

guidelines in accordance with sections 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, and 4.2.6; and 

d. Data Disclosure: accurately disclosed to publisher partners who are 

contributing data and to advertisers when using third party data (section 

4.31) 

3. Based on my knowledge and best efforts, (name of 

Company) is in compliance with the lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0; and 

1. I agree to allow the lAB to publically disclose ___ (name of Company) 

compliance with the lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 at the following 

certification status, providing all required materials are submitted in accordance 

with section 2.3 (or 2.4 for renewal): 

D QAG 2.0 Self-Certification 

D QAG 2.0 Independent Validation 

And in the case of loss of certification, I agree to allow the lAB to remove 

-,-_--:-::----, ___ -:- (name of Company) certification status from published list 

of certified companies. 

Signature: Date: 

Name: 

Title: 

@2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 44 
165 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Exhibit B: Executive Attestation 

lAB Quality Assurance Guideline 2.0 

_______ (name of CEO, CFO, or business unit head), attest that: 

2. I have reviewed quarterly internal audits (name of Cornpany) for 

__ quarter(s) and year ___ ; 

3. The Cornpliance Officer and I are responsible for following the procedures 

outlined in the lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0: 

a. Acquiring Inventory: accurately label inventory in accordance with 

established content frarnework along 3 criteria: 

Transaction Party Source Identification and Relationships (section 

4.1.1) 

ii. Source Level Transparency (section 4.1.2) 

iii. Technical Context (section 4.1.3) 

b. Contextual Taxonomy (section 4.2.2) & Targeting (section 4.2.7): 

accurately categorize content in accordance with Tiers 1 & 2 of lAB 

Contextual Taxonomy, and specify the depth (e.g. site level vs. page 

level) of categorization 

If we have chosen to use a different taxonomy, we can clearly 

rnap our taxonomy back to the lAB taxonomy and explain to a 

buyer with sufficient detail 

c. Inventory Vetting: accurately label content in accordance with established 

guidelines in accordance with sections 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, and 4.2.6; and 

d. Data Disclosure: accurately disclosed to publisher partners who are 

contributing data and to advertisers when using third party data (section 

4.31) 

4. Based on my knowledge and best efforts, (name of 

Cornpany) is in cornpliance with the lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0; and 

5. I agree to allow the lAB to publically disclose ___ (narne of Company) 

cornpliance with the lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 at the following 

certification status, providing all required rnaterials are subrnitted in accordance 

with section 2.3 (or 2.4 for renewal): 

D QAG 2.0 Self-Certification 

D QAG 2.0 Independent Validation 

And in the case of loss of certification, I agree to allow the lAB to remove 

---:-_-=----, ___ -:- (narne of Cornpany) certification status from published list 

of certified cornpanies. 

Signature: Date: 

Name: 

Title: 

@2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 45 
166 

f 

lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 

Exhibit C: Sample Independent Validation Attestation 

lAB Quality Assurance Guideline 2.0 

_______ (name of representative from independent validation company), 

_______ (representative title) at ________ (name of independent 

validation company) attest that: 

1. I have reviewed quarterly internal audits (name of Company) for 

__ quarter(s) and year ___ ; 

2. The named Compliance Officer and Executive named in the Compliance Officer 

Attestation and Executive attestation, respectively, have facilitated my efforts to 

validate that the following the procedures outlined in the lAB Quality Assurance 

Guidelines 2.0: 

a. Acquiring Inventory: accurately label inventory in accordance with 

established content framework along 3 criteria: 

Transaction Party Source Identification and Relationships (section 

4.1.1) 

ii. Source Level Transparency (section 4.1.2) 

iii. Technical Context (section 4.1.3) 

b. Contextual Taxonomy (section 4.2.2) & Targeting (section 4.2.7): 

accurately categorize content in accordance with Tiers 1 & 2 of lAB 

Contextual Taxonomy, and specify the depth (e.g. site level vs. page 

level) of categorization 

If we have chosen to use a different taxonomy, we can clearly 

map our taxonomy back to the lAB taxonomy and explain to a 

buyer with sufficient detail 

c. Inventory Vetting: accurately label content in accordance with established 

guidelines in accordance with sections 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, and 4.2.6; and 

d. Data Disclosure: accurately disclosed to publisher partners who are 

contributing data and to advertisers when using third party data (section 

4.31) 

3. Based on my knowledge and best efforts, (name of 

Date: 

Company) is in compliance with the lAB Quality Assurance Guidelines 2.0 and 

qualifies for QAG 2.0 Independent Validation, providing all required materials are 

submitted in accordance with section 2.3 (or 2.4 for renewal). 

Signature: 

Name: 

Company: 

Title: 

lr) 2013 Interactive Advertising Bureau 46 
167 

Sl'ATEM E/lrrOf 8EST PRACTICES 

TO ,\DDRESS ONLINE PI RACY AND COUNTERFEITING 

The '\ssociatiun I.)r Naliullal Advl'Tlisers (ANA) and the American A~ucialion of Adv .. 'I1i~ing 

Agencies (4A 's) ~lrongly helieve thaI U.S ad,'crtiscrs must have ClInfidence lhal their nd$ Bre 1101 

unintentionally providing fmandal $uppon 10, or otherwi,;e It),~timiring. "Togue" Internet sites 

whuse primary and apparent purpose is tl.) !ileal or facilitate theft of the intellectual property of 

Americs's innovators and crealors. U.S Rd,'eniscr.; must aiM! h8~ e confidence Ihal !.heir 

corporale brands and images are not being hanned by 8ssociatiun wiLli such unlawful activity 111 

urder LO help address this cOlnple~ problem, our ,\ ssoeinrions believe Lhat our members should 

each commit 10 lake a!Tirmalive steps LO avoid placement of Ihcir aM on such sites 

AI Ihe OUlset, we emphasi~e thaI ihis cornmitmcnt is n01 intended 10 foredose ~dvenising on 

Icgitimale social media or user-generuted con ~nt sik"S, even if infringing content occasionally 

appears on such sites. Rather, tillS commitment addresses "rogue" sites that are dedicBtoo to 

infringement of tile intellectual property rights of olhers. in that they hal'l! no significant, or only 

limited, U5e ~ purpose olher Ih~n "'n~:agin g in, enabling or facili tBtingsuch infringement It is 

undersuxxi that in IIIOSI ins1nnces suclit sites will initially - but not conclusively -- be identified 

by imellC(:tual property owners Witll respecl \Q such sit<:S. marketers and their agencies should 

seek to inelude condition~ along the following lines in media placemc1l1 ContntCl5 und inser1ion 

orders with ad lle",,'orks And otht'f inN,'rmediarics involved in their U_S -originetC{) digiml 

advcnising campaigns on both domes.tic Hnd rorcign Intcrnet s; te ~ 

{i) AlJ slIch IIllennediaries shall UK: commercially reasonable measures \Q prevent ads from 

bcing placw on stich sites; 

(ii) All such intemlediarics shan Ilave and implement commm:ially reasonable processes fOf 

rcmovinll or excl tlding ~uch sites from thciT services, and for ~ptditi0lJ5I y lenninating 

non_compliant ad placemellts.. in response to reasonablc and suflicient! y detailed 

~'Omplajnts or nOliel'!; from rights holdel'!> and IIdvenisl'1'S; 

(iii) All such intermediaries shall refund or credit the Hdvertiser for the fees. COSts andlor value 

associated with non-compliant Id placements. or provide alternative remediation 

The above languag~ is provided for illustralive purposes, and individual mem~ers may adopt 

policies, guidelines and proVisions that result in similar obligations, including Ihe rclevant 

provisions of lhe lAB Slandard Teml!; and Conditions fot Internet Adver1ising. 

We uckmwdedge that our members arc asked to make tllis commitment in the CotlleXI of a highly 

dynamic and comp e.~ digital advertising l'COs},SLCm, and that midl'enent non-e011lp!iant ad 

placements will occasionally occur. While we encourage our membt..'rs to lake appropriate t~ps 

to safeguard their brands. this commillment is not intendl'<l to impose a duly on marketers or the 

advenising interml'<liaries with which they transact 10 monitor their advenising to identify 
168 

f 

"rogue" sites. Similarly, it is understood that knowledge gained in the course of implementing 

this voluntary commitment should not be used as the basis for any legal liability or loss of any 

applicable "safe harbor" from such liability. 

At bottom, the critical point for ANA, the 4A's and our members is this we should not 

knowingly allow our businesses and brands to supply financial life-blood or lend a veneer of 

legitimacy to fundamentally illicit business models that threaten the jobs of millions of 

Americans in the creative industries and, ultimately, our national economic welfare. 
169 

Internet Business Voluntary Best Practices and AKfeements 2013 

M3'~ttpla~ IglutiooS ~'e o important 1il<'CI I" p,ol Cljl\8.lh ~ CQUOt"'l vllallP ind ull,les' th~1 drive 

lnl\O\l,Uon. The dev~ opm~M ar><! adop\JOl! of voluntary be<t p,.ctic,", a r><! . g .... ~m~n" bv I~gilimal. 

Inltfnel bu. I".. ...... 10Ulu"" I""Y art nol Denmn' nll from o'l.ellll.ll .... Hleial '<induct "!ft/OIM" 

on l ..... i . .. ultk;;r l com""""nl 01 d.""loP<"II a ,abu" and ""dble re.I><>""" ,a I"" p,oblem of "",,'enl 

lh",. The pa' i ft w vea,.. havo witr>e"ed Ihe ~!opmenl of a "uml\#,of r:<>O!'<er:IlIYeinilial~. 

including wil" '''. lallo"'I"II Inlermediil'''''; Inle,,,.., ad n.tv,'''''', ad .... ""." and ad "IIencie; lSI'" 

pa\'lT\.nt P'OCt"o .. ; tJ"",GtneJl,ed Conte nt (UGq.~",oce,; and domain name ... gima ... foehof 

Ihe.e group. ho. p."icip.'cd In • p'IlCtill0 a\'tlld pret11i "ll lrem iII",11 ,,,,,duct. Slmil., but p,.ctke.s 

I\(:soli"ed b~ "".roh eng,nel sto'alle """"res, afld ,110,. In lhe mobile >Pilee, w11h the IP community. 

afe """ ...... ry. 6e.,w], a ,urn mary oIl "" tlell ,,"'Clice , d""".,ped so la" 

UGC"lndolnmX)7! 

The,e p",ctice, we't e ... bl"ko!d am""g multiple ".kel>oide .. to malee the OMCA mo,. 

eflecwe lo, UGClile. I" Pla,Uce, 1o promol.,"" premi .... and tlenefi1lol UGC ... ",lce., aM 

!o I"otec! llot 'ights 01 <0lIY'i8h1 owne,s. 

lAB Ne!W1!rk rod f~<Io.a"Be' Quality "' .. ur,nee GuideUn,lZOlO, 20U) 

TM 1"'e(3(l;"'" Ad""rt,'i"_ Bu,eau IIAB) feleaW'<! re<om",eflded ;>d netwo,k and torha n", 

UI~lines (a""ii1v A" "'ine. Guidt linft - QAG) In 2010 lh~' provide polioeslo add" $! the 

funding oll clt onlhe!n!"""I. Th .... ewe ... updalcd inJuly. 201.3. Amoniolher thingl. ,'''' 

gUIdeline, pfooibit tho .. 1e of;>d i"",,",oryon .ites Ina! e ngalle in<OPVflgl1l ,nm"8"",enl. 

ISP CoPY'I,hl Alert Pl'9g'am (WII) 

The fI've m;ijo. IS!'> (AT&T, Comcall, TlmeW."""c..ble, V.rIIO". and c.abl<!v"lon,J lhe m.jo, 

movie "udiol~nd fPCOf"d latlel<, and Inti, tr.de " """'110m, ,.oehN! a8, ... ",enl on I '101em 

for mulH leP <oPvllflln le 1! 10 be lent 10 ISP u ... " in 't,pon,e to notoce. of p2p inlMHement 

by rignlS "",ide.s. The p,."ices include' 

Copyfij!nl flIocalkm 10 CP<I,umt .. !nre"," a nt'w COn'umer Informolion cenle,; 

T .ehn>Cal ... 11d.>liQ" ; lind 

An I"""~ndent ,ev",w proteSI"' ........ to cloalle""e e'" .dminiSte red by ,ne 

American Arb,I"'I"" AssocIation ( ......... 1 U!;r.,in8 a ludifljl cPPVfillollawvec., i !""hnieal 

eXpe't. 

0..... "'" cequl ... ,,,,,,,,nalion ln e"~tac<e«. "'" th",~n 15P 1mflO<'! I Mitigation me"''' .... 

that would Impair . u"" .... e"emlal .e ... ice. [\IQIP, etc.l 

P,o~kle, ror muillple nolke, ~nd 8,aee period' to give !/"Ie u,., i"formall"" and timt 10 eh;)JIg<! 

bfo llavio,. 

P'OlKI. u,e',' pr"aO'/. 

Admlnl'lle,ed by the Ce~tfrlor (o~h.l nlo"". lon ICO). 

W""t I""';n QI·20ll. 

''''' ......... ,.,,,_ ... '"''' ....... ~_" ..... '~ _''''' .r __ ''"'"''.'''WII ....... 1,!I .-.. _ ....... " ... ""'"""' ... II_'". __ .. IMIIt ........... ~)""' oIl .. ~~'* 
170 

f 

Payment Processors !lOlll 

Vi$a, Ma,,~rCa"'. "melC, 01",,,,,,,, and P3yP.1 a"nou",,~ a _.01 be..<t ~ractk~' .... got'''~d 

under Ih~ au.p""" of the Intellectual P'op<!rt'/ Enlo><emen! Coordin.tor ('PEC). 

Pa<ticlp;onU aS''''' 10 le'mi .... le tile" r~IaHon'hrp With. "..~b'l . W the ,ite pe<,,'" In 

in ~nlio .... lly Ielli"8 ~l rfngi g/'o erfeTI product •. 

P~VmeOl PflXeuo" .... vt worlled w<th lACe 10 develop m..chan"ed Ie ... " .nd ""ltd rtque.l. 

fo' '<!dIng .fI~iatiol> wil~ ,O&ue ,;le •• 

Cenle, for COPY,IBM Info,matlon (20lll 

P.rtol \tie ISPCOPYriltl1 AIM Pro~r. m,._ 

Ellabblhed 10 ed"c.ole Ine public, .dvlle on lmplemtOldllon, . rId ana lYle Ine lmpacl 0( In. 

pros,·m. 

Advioory bo.,d members ;ndude .-.pe'u 1<01'1 the ton.","", adllOCilto, copyficht, ISP .• 1\1'1 

Inle,nel ed"COliOf) COmmUnili ••. 

Qnll .... Advert!" ... (Mn 20U! 

The ......,C .. "oo 01 ~.! ioo.1 Ad""rt .. ers (ANA).rId lhe .... r.ooa!ooo. o( Adve.rti'lJl!! AgeJlOe.. of 

"""'riel (4A.) released best p';Klo<e .... PllCIrted by lhe Inle,act) ... Adve"j.lne Bur,,",u (lA6), 

Ad ..... , m'f~ e'" 10 indude la"gu.ge In llIeic ",edi. pla,."","' ""'''XI' and in""rtiM O/<le ... 

wlth. <I netwo'k'IO pr.venllhei •• d. from aPl>".ri"ll<>" "08"" oil'" dedk.1 t~d to 

Infringem"'l 01 ln le<tUal P'OP""V r1g~ts of OtM"', in Ih.tl~ey h ..... no ,i.nlfic.>nt, 0' only 

IimTt~d, u,~ or PU'P<>«! OIM' Ihan en8"slnglo, enab4ins 0' facllll3tl"8 ,ucn j"frl" ~ml'l'l 

Ad lwpr~ Besl Pr.tlce, (20U) 

The Ofnoo of I~ e Inl~lI..chl.1 P.opertv EnforoomeMI (00,<11"010' Ill'fe) f." lilaIM ,,,,,enilv 

annouOt<!<I Ad Nelworlt ~It p .... ctice. 10 d, ~ liles thaI are priJ1d"",Uy dedicated to leW", 

counle,feH gOodloreng.1Bi"ll in<opy,,&hI pf,,,,yand ~ "" . ubst.ntial non-Infringing uses_ 

Aegl<t!'il/,(B!glsWU(ICANN (20Ul 

After Input fro'" 113 eholder ., lCA"-lN pa,st.oe<l •• esolul,O<1lhlOl m.lende., Itr. l ,.glsl,iols.r.<! 

'egistra" >hcu ld e .<Ilot> 10 p,ohibll ........ ITLO web,ite "!>I'mo .. (rom eOK3g1nK In pl'a<v, 

traM man: 0' CCpyrlShlinl"",ement, 0' ot"'" ,,,, .. d .. ,,"nl 0' d~{eptiv~ prKlic •• , afld 10 provide 

10' «>nseq ~r>Ces 10. slOCh a"il'ity. including ,uSPf<\llOn ol lhe dom"n n'mO!..-

Need 10 "'~ whal b"", pfllct k~. m.Vd~ •• !cp f,om li'Ii.obligotio11. 

What's Mlnlnl] 

Search E"8 I",'" 

Sl""'i~ SeJVi~ ... 

Mobile SeJVi<e, 
171 

,.' 

Principles for User Generated Content Services 

Foster Innovation. Encourage Creativity. Thwart Infringemant. 

._ .... -......... _ .... 

~-

-.. . 

--..--... - ----- ---

--

. --

--- "' ... - -.--.-'- -

---,...- ..... - ---- -<-

-... ~ .. - ---- BS 

-. 

. ~ 

_ 0 

~ ___ t~~ ..... _ """""""'.-_____ .... -. ___ t"JGC 

~ 

___ ..... __ ............. ...... ...-.. _ ....... ...... _IO_"'_ .-.0100:: __ 

_ ""'_'*'-' __ '" ..... _ .. "IoGC_ ... _...., .. ,.,..-"' __ .. ....-.00.<_ .... _0><" ......... """'t_"'I, .. ....,"-.._~_ .......... __ , _ .......... _"' __ ""'.,_ .... '"""wo .. __ .. _ · ....... __ .. ...... __ ... __ 10 ...... 

_""'''_'''_''''''' ___ OO"'rl_''' --_ .... _ .... _--"'-_ ... -"'"''''''''''''''''"'-_ ......... _ ..... ~-_.--""" ................... .. -"' _" ...... ...... --"--

_ ... ""'-"""' .. ---... _, 

_ .... _-.......... _ ........ -.... ....... -... .. _ ...... , 

... """"9' .. __ , __ ~~_OOC-.. 

___ 

_, ................. _ .. _ .... _:(1) .... _'" ""UCOCs.r._Il) ............ _ .. _ .. _, 

_ ................ _...,.,., .... ..-.... _-.(l) .... ..",.,..,......, _01_ .... _OI-.-""" ......... "' 

__ ........ w. I>CiC_ ___ ..... .... (., ,. .... "*"_ .... _ ooc __ COO,.,gN ~..-•• ___ 

--I. oJIlC...-- ....... _.,_."' __ ..-..... _, 

----II ... .......-.-=-< ... ,_ ,,-'>_ 

..., .. --....... -~Wro"Igq-, 1. """"",,,. __ "'"' ___ ... _ 

_<I'"I' .......... , .......... • ...."INt_--'O ,-------. __ .... LI6C_ ... --. ......... _. __ .. _ ... ....,---- J. --

~ ___ .......... _--.~ ... _~ 

" 

_ .. _...,r~ .. _--......... .-"""'Of_"'9....., .... __ .......... __ ~O"-" ... , . ____ (o' __ 

_ r. __ ""'''' ..... __ ...... __ '''''''..,,'"' 

.... ...... """ . ...., ........... _ ... ,........,..,..t---a. _,_,~II>K .. _oIh« ...... ,..._ .. ---_ .. _ "'" 000'0< .. 

...... -... .. Ll6Cs... _-_ _ ..-.:.o."_ .... , ___ •• _~ 

........... ..... ;0000_ -•• _ ............. ~ .... """' .. - 0, U.COI»'"o/<o..n... .... _:l11 .... _ ....... -,-"' {>J, __ .... -.... ..... __ 

"'''''''--~ .......... _rsl 

......... 

_ __ .... UGC --....,..,"""" ___ ""'_(_''''--'''''~''1, _. ... """'._""'-"" .... , __ 'o . 
11 1 1 III >'1 ) 

ii! I!lhli!!! !I!! dlil!.lh!ll l!Hlll!,U U!IHhW 

III !lli:!l!!1 ill I: !!!!li!lj:j'ij i'11tjiiili! iil';'!!!!1 

iiiil !ill li!iliil!1 filiI !!!IIJlfl!lit! !!!ifiillili lililjllilfi • 

_ 

• • - e 

I 

il 

I 

, 

, 

I 

! 
173 

User Generated Content Principles 

30f..j. 

http://\\W\\·.ugcprinciplcs.com/ 

cooperate with Copyright Owners to ensure that such Reference 

Material IS utilized by the Identification Technology as soon as 

possible during such overload periods. 

h. Promptly after Implementation of Identification Technology, and at 

Intervals that are reasonably timed throughout each year to achieve 

the goal of eliminating infringing content, UGC Services should use 

Identification Technology throughout their services to remove 

Infringing content that was uploaded before Reference Material 

pertaining to such content was provided. 

i. Copyright Owners and UGC Services should cooperate in developing 

reasonable procedures for promptly addressing conflicting claims 

with respect to Reference Material and user claims that content that 

was blocked by the Filtering Process was not Infringing or was 

blocked in error. 

4. UGC Services and COPYright Owners should work together to Identify 

sites that are clearly dedicated to, and predominantly used for, the 

dissemination of infringing content or the facilitation of such 

dissemination. Upon determination by a UGC Service that a site IS so 

dedicated and used, the UGC Service should remove or block the links to 

such sites. If the UGC Service IS able to Identify specific links that solely 

direct users to particular non-infringing content on such sites, the UGC 

Service may allow those links while blocking all other links. 

5. UGC Services should provide commercially reasonable enhanced 

searching and Identification means to COPYright Owners registered with a 

service in order: (a) to facilitate the ability of such COPYright Owners to 

locate infringing content in all areas of the UGC Service where 

user-uploaded audio or video content IS accessible, except those areas 

where content IS made accessible to only a small number of users (not 

relative to the total number of users of the UGC Service), and (b) to 

send notices of Infringement regarding such content. 

6. When sending notices and making claims of infringement, COPYright 

Owners should accommodate fair use. 

7. Copyright Owners should provide to UGC Services URLs Identifying online 

locatIOns where content that IS the subject of notices of infringement IS 

found - but only to the extent the UGC Service exposes such URLs. 

8. When UGC Services remove content pursuant to a notice of 

Infringement, the UGC Service should (a) do so expeditiously, (b) take 

reasonable steps to notify the person who uploaded the content, and (c) 

promptly after receipt of an effective counter-notification provide a 

of the counter-notification to the person who provided the original 

and, at ItS option, replace the content if authorized by applicable law or 

agreement with the COPYright Owner. 

9. When infringing content IS removed by UGC Services In response to a 

notice from a Copyright Owner, the UGC Service should use reasonable 

efforts to notify the COPYright Owner of the removal, and should permit 

the Copyright Owner to provide, or request the UGC Service to provide 

on its behalf, reference data for such content to be used by the 

Identification Technology. 

10. Consistent with applicable laws, including those directed to user privacy, 

UGC Services should retain for at least 60 days: (a) Information related 

to user uploads of audio and video content to their services, including 

Internet Protocol addresses and time and date Information for uploaded 

content; and (b) user-uploaded content that has been on their services 

but has been subsequently removed following a notice of Infringement. 

UGC Services should provide that information and content to Copyright 

Owners as required by any valid process and consistent with applicable 

law. 

9/1612013 \0:35 AM 
174 

f 

User Generated Content Principles http://\\W\\·.ugcprinciplcs.com/ 

11. UGC Services should use reasonable efforts to track Infnnglng uploads of 

copyrighted content by the same user and should use such information in 

the reasonable implementation of a repeat infnnger termination policy. 

UGC Services should use reasonable efforts to prevent a terminated user 

from uploading audio and/or video content follOWing termination, such as 

blocking re-use of venfled email addresses. 

12. In engaging In the activities set forth In these Pnnclples outside the 

United States, UGC Services and Copyright Owners should follow these 

Pnnciples to the extent that doing so would not contravene the law of the 

applicable foreign Jurisdiction. 

13. Copynght Owners should not assert that adherence to these Pnnclples, 

Including efforts by UGC Services to locate or remove infringing content 

as provided by these Principles, or to replace content follOWing receipt of 

an effective counter notification as provided In the Copynght Act, support 

disqualification from any limitation on direct or indirect liability relating to 

matenal online under the Copyright Act or substantively Similar statutes 

of any applicable Junsdlctlon outside the United States. 

14. If a UGC Service adheres to all of these PrinCiples In good faith, the 

Copynght Owner should not assert a claim of copynght infringement 

against such UGC Service With respect to Infnnglng user-uploaded 

content that might remain on the UGC Service despite such adherence to 

these Principles. 

15. Copynght Owners and UGC Services should continue to cooperate With 

each other's reasonable efforts to create content-nch, Infnngement-free 

services. To that end, Copynght Owners and UGC Services should 

cooperate in the testing of new content Identification technologies and 

should update these PrinCiples as commercially reasonable, informed by 

advances In technology, the incorporation of new features, variations In 

patterns of infringing conduct, changes In users' online activities and 

other appropriate circumstances. 

i Top 

9/16120]] 10:35 AM 
175 

9/16/13 BEST PRACTICES GUIDELINES FOR AD NETV'vORKS TO ADDRESS PIRACY AND COUNTERFEITING 

u.s. companies that offer "Ad Networks" in the U.S., as further defined below, are 

committed to maintaining high quality standards for advertisers and publishers 

and at the same time respecting intellectual property rights. 

Ad Networks do not control the content on third-party websites and are not able 

to remove websites from the Intemet. Nor can Ad Networks engage in extensive 

or definitive fact finding to determine a particular party's intellectual property 

rights. Nevertheless, we believe it is useful for Ad Networks to maintain policies 

intended to discourage or prevent, to the extent possible, websites that are 

principally dedicated to selling counterfeit goods or engaging in copyright piracy 

and have no substantial non-infringing uses from participating in the Ad Network. 

The signatories to this Statement have individually decided to adopt these 

voluntary best practices in furtherance of that goal. 

Each signatory will independently maintain internal procedures designed to 

implement these practices. This is an important step toward maintaining a 

healthy Internet and promoting innovation and protecting intellectual property. 

These efforts should be undertaken in a manner that is consistent with all 

applicable laws and the balance of copyright interests, including fair use, and that 

respects privacy, free speech, and fair process. 

The sale of counterfeit goods and copyright piracy are issues Ad Networks take 

seriously, and Ad Networks have policies and practices in place to address this 

problem. Rights holders are in the best position to identify and evaluate 

infringement of their intellectual property. Therefore, the Ad Networks agree that 

without specific, reliable notices from rights holders, Ad Networks lack the 

knowledge and capability to identify and address infringement. Accordingly, 

intellectual property holders are expected to be accurate in demonstrating 

infringement of their copyrights and trademark rights and to target only infringing 

conduct. We believe that policies for Ad Networks should reflect best practices 

that encourage and supplement, not replace, responsible and direct independent 

actions taken by intellectual property owners to enforce their intellectual property 

rights. 

To reflect these important principles, Ad Networks will voluntarily seek to observe 

the following best practices: 

General Commitment: 

Ca) Maintain policies prohibiting websites that are principally dedicated to selling 

counterfeit goods or engaging in copyright piracy and have no substantial noninfringing uses from participating in the Ad Network's advertising programs and 

post such policies on the Ad Network's website; 

vw.w.2013ippractices comlbestpracticesg uidel i nesforadnelwor Iostoad:lresspiracyandcourterfeitl ng . html 114 
176 

9/16/13 BEST PRACTICES GUIDELINES FOR AD NETV'vORKS TO ADDRESS PIRACY AND COUNTERFEITING 

(b) Maintain and post these best practices guidelines on the Ad Network's 

website; 

(c) Ad Network policies will include language indicating that websites should not 

engage in violations of law; 

(d) Participate in an ongoing dialogue with content creators, rights holders, 

consumer organizations, and free speech advocates. 

Identification and Verification Process: 

(e) Agree to (i) be certified against the Interactive Advertising Bureau (lAB) 

Networks and Exchanges Quality Assurance Guidelines, or (ii) maintain an 

independent quality assurance vetting and auditing process; and work to support 

such measures across industry; 

Complaint Process: 

(f) Accept and process valid, reasonable, and sufficiently detailed notices from 

rights holders or their designated agents regarding websites participating in the 

Ad Network alleged to be principally dedicated to selling counterfeit goods or 

engaging in copyright piracy and to have no substantial non-infringing uses. To 

enable Ad Networks to respond most effectively, such notices should provide 

information outlined in Exhibit A attached; 

(g) Publicly post on the Ad Network's website the contact information for its 

designated agent for receiving such notices from rights holders or their designated 

agents; 

(h) Upon receipt of a valid notice, perform an appropriate investigation into the 

complaint, including a detenmination of whether the website has a direct 

contractual relationship with the Ad Network. An Ad Network may take steps 

including but not limited to requesting that the website no longer sell counterfeit 

goods or engage in copyright piracy, ceasing to place advertisements on that 

website (or pages within that website) until it is verified that the website (or 

pages within the website) is no longer selling counterfeit goods or engaging in 

copyright piracy, or removing the website from the Ad Network; and 

(i) Upon receipt of a valid notice, Ad Networks may consider any credible 

evidence provided by the accused website that it is not principally dedicated to 

selling counterfeit goods or engaging in copyright piracy or has substantial noninfringing uses. Such credible evidence may take the form of a counter-notice 

containing the elements set forth in 17 U.s.c. § 512(g)(3). In addition, Ad 

Networks may also consider any response by the rights holder to credible evidence 

provided by the accused website in defense of its conduct. 

vw.w.2013ippractices comlbestpracticesg uidel i nesforadnelwor Iostoad:lresspiracyandcourterfeitl ng . html 214 
177 

9/16/13 BEST PRACTICES GUIDELINES FOR AD NETV'vORKS TO ADDRESS PIRACY AND COUNTERFEITING 

The policies and procedures of any individual Ad Network will be independently 

designed to achieve reasonable mechanisms to help prevent the participation of 

websites that are principally dedicated to selling counterfeit goods or engaging in 

copyright piracy and have no substantial non-infringing uses in each Ad Network's 

advertising programs based on the unique aspects and experience of each Ad 

Network. This Statement is not intended to impose a duty on any Ad Network to 

monitor its network to identify such websites. Similarly, it is understood that the 

voluntary best practices reflected in this Statement should not, and cannot, be 

used in any way as the basis for any legal liability or the loss of any applicable 

immunity or "safe harbor" from such liability. 

The term "Ad Networks" encompasses only services whose primary business is to 

broker for compensation the placement of website display advertisements and 

does not include services which are ad-serving platfonms or ad exchanges. 

Exhibit A - Notice 

The exact fonm and structure of Notice may vary somewhat by Ad Network; 

however, generally, a notice must include, at minimum, the information listed 

below, and should be sent to the Ad Network's Designated Agent for such notices. 

(a) A description of the alleged sale of counterfeit goods and/or copyright piracy 

(the "Illegitimate Activity") that includes (i) the specific URLs where the alleged 

Illegitimate Activity occurs; (ii) the identity, location and contact information for 

the participating website allegedly engaged in Illegitimate Activity. If only certain 

items or materials on a website are alleged to be illegitimate, the Notice must 

clearly identify those specific products or materials and their location on the 

website. 

(b) Evidence (i) of the Illegitimate Activity, by providing, for example, a recent 

time-and-date-stamped screenshot of the page containing both the Illegitimate 

Activity and advertising from the Ad Network and (ii) that the advertising 

appearing on the participating website containing the Illegitimate Activity is 

provided by the Ad Network. This can be done by providing, for example, a Tamper 

Data trace and relevant screens hots showing that the participating website is 

making ad calls to the Ad Network for the advertising reflected in the screenshots. 

(c) A copy of the rights holder's notice provided to the website under 17 U.s.c. § 

vw.w.2013ippractices comlbestpracticesg uidel i nesforadnelwor Iostoad:lresspiracyandcourterfeitl ng . html 3/4 
178 

f 

9/16/13 BEST PRACTICES GUIDELINES FOR AD NETV'vORKS TO ADDRESS PIRACY AND COUNTERFEITING 

512 or the cease & desist letter related to the Illegitimate Activity provided to the 

website, along with responsive communications or a description of action 

undertaken by the website; 

Cd) A statement under penalty of perjury that the person submitting the notice 

has a good faith belief that the Illegitimate Activity is not authorized by the 

rights holder, its agent, or the law; that the information and materials provided to 

the Ad Network are accurate; that the person submitting the notice owns the 

copyright or trademark for the products or materials that are the subject of the 

notice (in the case of trademark, including evidence of a federal trademark 

registration from the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the product or 

materials that are the subject of the notice) and, if not the owner, that the 

person is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is 

allegedly infringed; 

Ce) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the Ad Network to contact the 

rights holder, such as an address, telephone number, and an e-mail address. 

(f) Physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the 

rights holder. 

\i\.1?b:Jle powered by NelworkSolutionsID 

vw.w.2013ippractices com/bestpracticesg uidel i nesforadnelwor Iostoad:lresspiracyandcourterfeitl ng . html 414 
179 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (this 

"Amendment"), dated as of August 25,2011, is entered into by and among the parties listed as 

signatories hereto (the "Parties"). 

WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend that certain Memorandum of Dnderstanding dated 

July 6, 2011, by and among the Parties hereto (the "MOll'), to (i) extend the deadline for 

establishing the Center for Copyright Information ("CCT') from sixty (60) days after the 

effective date of the MOD to September 23,2011 and (ii) delete the first sentence of Attachment 

D to the MOU; 

WHEREAS, Section 10(C) of the MOD provides that the Parties may amend the MOD 

by a written agreement signed by all parties thereto; and 

WHEREAS, in accordance with such Section I O(C) of the MOU, the Parties have 

executed and delivered this Amendment; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises 

hereinafter set forth, the Parties agree as follows: 

I. The beginning of the first sentence of Section 2(A) of the MOD is hereby 

amended to delete the phrase, "Not later than sixty (60) days after the EtJective Date (as defined 

in Section 8(A) below)," and insert the phrase, "Not later than September 23,2011," in place 

thereof. 

2. The first sentence of Attachment D to the MOU (i.e., "The MPAA member 

companies' affiliates are entities under the control of an MPAA member company.") is hereby 

deleted in its entirety 

~. This Amendment, when signed and delivered by each of the Parties, shall be 

effective as to all of the Parties as of the date first above written. This Amendment may be 

amended only in accordance with the provisions of the MOD, as amended by this Amendment 

and as further amended from time to time. 

4. As amended by this Amendment, the MOD shall continue in full force and effect 

in accordance with its terms. 

5. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which 

shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same 

instrument. Any of the Parties hereto may execute this Amendment by signing any such 

counterpart. 

6 This Amendment shall be governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance 

with, the substantive laws of the State of New York, without regard to its principles of conflicts 

oflaws. 

[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 
180 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding has 

been executed and delivered as of the date first above written. 

SIGNATORIES: 

The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. 

~~-e-:----<t§:"". '-0""'" ~'---':;i2-;;::'-;-I,,'l-0--<;:-- Title:_"'S'--"v--'p'---"l"----'A.Ls"'sc""<~ . .,;&::..' -"C",-_ 

The Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. 

fu: __________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title:, __________ _ 

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 

fu: _________ _ 

Name: 

Title: ----------

Paramount Pictures Corporation 

fu: _________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title:. __________ _ 

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. 

fu: __________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation 

fu: _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Universal City Studios LLC 

fu: __________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 
181 

IN VilTNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding has 

been executed and delivered as ofthe date first above written. 

SIGNATORIES: 

The Motion Picture Association of Americ.a\ Inc. 

~.:------------------- Name:' ____________________ __ 

Title: __________ _ 

The Recording Tnduslry Asooci1rtion of America, Tne 

~: ~ /hf. /ft~ Name: 5·/( V{V1 >~i - t+ttL ..... t'f 

Title: t.'vl' It be,,,,,,;<-I (~H'f'/ 

Walt Disney St\ldios Molion Pictures 

~:'------------------ Nam~:. __________________ __ 

Title: ___________ _ 

Paramount Pictures Corporation 

~:'-------------------- Name:. __________ __ 

Titlc: ________________ _ 

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. 

~: 

Name:' ____________________ __ 

Title:. ___________ _ 

Twentielh Century Fox Film Corporation 

fiy.:-----------

Narne:. __________ __ 

Title: __________ _ 

Universal Cily Studio, LLC 

~:-------------------

Namc: _____________ ~ ..... _____ _ 

Titlc: __________ _ 
182 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding has 

been executed and delivered as of the date lirsl above written. 

SIGNATORIES; 

The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. 

!2y: Nam-e-:------------------

Titie;, ____________ _ 

The Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. 

!b:: ________ _ Name: ____________ _ 

Title: _________ _ 

Paramount Pictures Corporation 

!2y:---------- Name: ______________ _ 

Title: _________ _ 

Sony Pictures Enteltainment Inc. 

!2y:--------- Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ ___ 

Twentieth Century fox Film Corporation 

!2y~: ----------- Name: ___________ _ 

Title: ____________ _ 

Universal City Studios LLC 

!h: 

Name: __________ _ 

Title: ____________ _ 
183 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding has 

been executed and delivered as ofthe date first above written. 

SIGNATORIES: 

The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. 

fu: _________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

The Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. 

fu: _________ _ 

Name: Title: -----------

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 

fu: __________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title:. __________ _ 

Paramount Pictures Corporation 

fu: ;M::k,QQ~ Name:~. _________ _ 

Title:. __________ _ 

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. 

fu: Nam-e-:-----------

Title:. __________ _ 

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation 

fu: _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title:. __________ _ 

Universal City Studios LLC 

Nam-e-:---------- fu: 

Title: __________ _ 
184 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding has 

been executed and (lelivered as of the date first above written. 

SIGNA TORIES: 

The Motion Picture Association of America, Tnc. 

fu: _________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title: ___________ _ 

The Recurding Industry Association of America, Inc. 

fu: _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Walt Disney Studios Motiun Pictures 

Bv: ___________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title:. __________ _ 

Paramonnt Pictures Corporation 

fu: _________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Titlc:. ___________ _ 

Twentieth Century Fox Film Cmporation 

Bv: ___________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Universal City Studios LLC 

fu:: __________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 
185 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding has 

been executed and delivered as of the date first above written, 

SIGNATORIES: 

The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. 

fu:: __________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

The Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. 

fu:: _________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 

fu: _________ _ 

Namc: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Paramount Pictures Corporation 

fu:: __________ _ Namc: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. 

fu:: __________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation 

Universal City Studios LLC 

fu:: _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title:. __________ _ 
186 

I'l \\1TNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding has 

been executed and dclivcrl'd as u[the date first above written. 

SIGNATORIES: 

The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. 

fu: _________ _ 

'lame:. ___________ _ 

Titlc: _________ _ 

The Recording Industry Association of America. Inc. 

111' _________ _ 'la111":. ___________ _ 

Tille: __________ _ 

Walt Disney Srodio, Motion Pierorc, 

fu:: _________ _ 'lame: _________ _ 

Title: _________ _ 

Paramount Pictures Corporation 

fu: _________ _ 

Name: ______ _ 

Tille: __________ _ 

SOllY Pictures Entertainment Inc. 

fiy:----------

Name: _________ _ 

Tilk: __________ _ 

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corpomtion 

fu:: _________ _ 

Name: _________ _ 

Title:. ___________ _ 
187 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Jnc. 

fu: Name:j ~a~ Title: . EIIP&"""mI(iot""'" 

UMG Recordings, Inc. 

fu: _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Warner Music Group 

fu: _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: _________ _ 

Sony Music Entertainment 

~:.----------- Nwne:, ____________ _ 

Title:, __________ _ 

EMI Music North America 

fu:, _________ _ 

Name:, ___________________ _ 

Title:, __________ __ 

SBC Internet Services, Inc., BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone 

Company, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell 

Telephone Company, Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Nevada Bell Telephone 

Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, Wisconsin Bell, Inc., The Southern New 

England Telephone Company, and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (the AT&T Inc. 

companies) 

fu: _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: ___________ __ 
188 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. 

fu: _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

:G~t::: ~ _____ ~ 

Titlfi.iiCiai 

Name: 

eoUllSCl; 

J~ ihu:iiIi>e 'Vice Ptesbfen. N ........ rfca 

Warner Music Group 

fu: _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Sony Music Entertainment 

fu: _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

EMI Music North America 

fu: _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title:, __________ _ 

SBC Internet Services, Inc., BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone 

Company, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, lllinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell 

Telephone Company, Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Nevada Bell Telephone 

Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, Wisconsin Bell, Inc., The Southern New 

England Telephone Company, and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (the AT&T Inc. 

companies) 

fu: _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 
189 

Warner BTo~. Entenainment Inc. 

liY:. ______________ __ 

Name:. ___________ _ 

Tillc: _____ ~. _____________ _ 

UMG Recordings, lnc. 

liY: _____________ __ Name:. ____________ _ 

Title: 

C L 

Sony Music Entertainment 

liY: _______________ __ 

Name: 

Title: ---

EMI Music North America 

liY: ________________ ~ 

Name: _________________ _ 

Ii.ilil: 

SBC Internet Services, Inc_, BeUSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone 

Company, Pacific Ben Telephone Company, Illinois BeU Telephonc Company, Indiana Bell 

Telephone Company, Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Nevada Bell Tclephone 

Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, Wisconsin BelL lnc., The Southern New 

England Telephone Company, and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc_ (the AT&T Inc. 

companies) 

liY: ________________ ~ 

IW£;: ~:;------------- ________________ _ 
190 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. 

UMG Recordings, Inc. 

Warner Music Group 

EM! Music North America 

fu:~~ ___ _ Natll&: _________ _ 

Title:. _________ _ 

SBC Internet Services, Inc., BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Scuthwestern Bell Telephone 

Cornpaoy, Pacific Ben Telephone Compaoy, minois Bell Telephone Cornpaoy, Indiana Ben 

Telephone Compaoy, Incorporated, Michigao Bell Telephone Company, Nevada Bell Telephone 

Cornpaoy, The Ohio Bell Telephone Cornpaoy, Wisconsin Bell, Inc., The Southern New 

Englaod Telephone Compaoy, and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (the AT&T Inc. 

compaoies) 
191 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. 

fu': _________ _ Narne: __________ _ 

Title:. __________ _ 

UMG Recordings, Inc. 

fu': _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Warner Music Group 

fu':-------__ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Sony Music Entertainment 

fu': _________ _ Name: _________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Title:_~'_'"'~ ______ _ 

SBC Internet SelVices, Inc., BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Southwestern Bell Telephone 

Company, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, lIlinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell 

Telephone Company, Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Nevada Bell Telephone 

Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, Wisconsin Bell, Inc., The Southern New 

England Telephone Company, and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (the AT&T Inc. 

companies) 

fu':, _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 
192 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. 

!2y:----------

Namc: __________ _ 

Title:. __________ _ 

UMG Recordings, Inc. 

~:------------ Name: __________ _ 

Title:. __________ _ 

Warn~r Music Group 

fu: ________________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Tit!e:. __________ _ 

Sony Music Entertainment 

!2y:---------- Name: __________ _ 

Titlc:. __________ _ 

Elvn Music North America 

!2y:------------

Name: __________ _ 

Title:. __________ _ 

SBC Internet Services, Inc., BeliSoulb Telecommunications, Inc., Southwestern13ell Telephone 

Company, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell 

Telephonc Company, Incorporated, Michigan nell Telephone Company, Nevada nell Telephone 

Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, Wisconsin Bell, Inc., The Southern New 

England Telephone Company, and BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (the AT&T Inc. 

companies) 

fu.~ -==== Nam~J. Epstein 

Title: Assoc. General Counsel 
193 

Verizon Online LLC, Verizon Online LLC - Maryland, and Vcrizon Online Pennsylvania 

partner~h. ip (the v~rizon .mpanies) 

fur: ~A (".--p ;4 

Name: 7h~#"U hi - 2l ;;:;f ~ 

Title: !n;J'I])t;,rt'/F-'-M "2&t....,~' 

Comeast Cable Communications Management, LLC 

fur: _________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Iillc _________ _ 

CSC Holdings, LLC 

fur: __________ _ 

Name: ____________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Time Warner Cable Inc. 
194 

Verizon Online LLC, Verizon Online LLC - Maryland, and Verizon Online Pennsylvania 

Partnership (the Verizon companies) 

fu': _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

com. cas; Cable CO"2mU~nicatiO~s ~anagement, LLC 

fu':..1L~2';;~~~'C__h'flciT=- Name: . . '.5 . 

Title:~!lWm~JU__~)UCSC Holdings, LLC 

fu': _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Time Warner Cable Inc. 

fu': _________ _ 

Name: ___________ _ Title: __________ _ 
195 

f 

Verizon Online LLC, Verizon Online LLC - Maryland, and Vcrizon Online Pennsylvania 

Partnership (the Verizon companies) 

!!Y: _________ _ Narne:. __________ _ 

Title:. __________ _ 

Comeast Cable Communications Management, LLC 

!!Y: _________ _ 

Narnc: _________ _ 

Title:. ___________ _ 

CSC Holdings, LLC 

l!y:----------

Narne: __________ __ 

Title: __________ _ 

Time Warner Cable Inc. 
196 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (this 

"Amendment"), dated as of October 29, 2012, is entered into by and among the parties listed 

as signatories hereto (the "Parties"). 

WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend that certain Memorandum of Understanding dated 

July 6, 2011, as amended, by and among the Parties hereto (the "MOU'), to (i) extend the 

deadline for establishing the Center for Copyright Information ("CCr') from sixty (60) days 

after the effective date of the MOU to September 16,2011 and (ii) delete the first sentence of 

Attachment D to the MOU: 

WHEREAS, Section 1 O(C) of the MOU provides that the Parties may amend the MOUby a 

written agreement signed by all parties thereto; and 

WHEREAS, in accordance with such Section 10(C) ofthe MOU, the Parties have executed 

and delivered this Amendment; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises 

hereinafter set forth, the Parties agree as follows: 

1. Attachment C is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the Attachment C set forth 

as Exhibit A to this Amendment. 

2. This Amendment, when signed and delivered by each of the Parties, shall be effective as to 

all of the Parties as of the date first above written. This Amendment may be amended only in 

accordance with the provisions of the MOU, as amended by this Amendment and as further 

amended from time to time. As amended by this Amendment, the MOU shall continue in full 

force and effect in accordance with its terms. This Amendment may be executed in any 

number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken 

together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Any of the Parties hereto may execute 

this Amendment by signing any such counterpart. This Amendment shall be governed by, 

and construed and enforced in accordance with, the substantive laws of the State of New 

York, without regard to its principles of conflicts oflaws. 

[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 
197 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Second Amendment to Memorandum of Understanding has 

been executed and delivered as of the date first above written. 

SIGNATORIES: 

The Motion Picture Association of America, luc. 

By ________________________ ___ 

Name: ____________________________ __ 

Title: __________________________ __ 

The Recording Industry Association of America, luc. 

By ________________________ ___ 

Name: ____________________________ __ 

Title: __________________________ __ 

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 

By: ________________________ ___ 

Name: ____________________________ __ 

Title: __________________________ __ 

Paramount Pictures Corporation 

By: ________________________ ___ 

Name: ____________________________ __ 

Title: __________________________ _ 

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. 

By: _____________ ___ 

Name: ____________________________ _ 

Title: __________________________ _ 

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation 

By: _____________ ___ 

Name: __________________________ ___ 

Title: __________________________ _ 

Universal City Studios LLC 

By: _____________ ___ 

Name: ____________________________ _ 

Title: ____________________________ __ 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. 

By: _____________ ___ 

Name: __________________________ ___ 

Title __________________________ _ 

UMG Recordings, Inc. 

By: _____________ ___ 

Name: __________________________ ___ 

Title: ____________________________ __ 

2 
198 

Warner Music Group 

By: ________________________ ___ 

Nilllle: __________________________ ___ 

Title: ____________________________ _ 

Sony Music Entertainment 

By ________________________ ___ 

Nilllle: __________________________ ___ 

Title: ______________ __ 

EM! Music North America 

By ________________________ ___ 

Nilllle: __________________________ ___ 

Title: ______________ __ 

SBC Internet Services, Inc., BeliSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Southwestern Bell 

Telephone Company, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Illinois Bell Telephone Company, 

Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Nevada 

Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, Wisconsin Bell, Inc., The 

Southern New England Telephone Company, and BeliSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (the 

AT&T Inc. companies) 

By: ________________________ ___ 

Name: __________________________ ___ 

Title: ______________ _ 

Verizon Online LLC, Verizon Online LLC - Maryland, and Verizon Online Pennsylvania 

Partnership (the Verizon companies) 

By: _____________ ___ 

Name: __________________________ ___ 

Title __________________________ __ 

Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC 

By: _____________ ___ 

Nilllle: ______________ _ 

Title: ____________________________ _ 

CSC Holdings, LLC 

By: _____________ ___ 

Nilllle: __________________________ ___ 

Title: ______________ _ 

Time Warner 

By: _____________ ___ 

Nilllle: __________________________ ___ 

Title: ____________________________ _ 

3 
199 

Exhibit A 

Attachment C - Independent Review Program 

The Independent Review Program described below is intended to provide an alternative, 

fast, eHicient and low-cost means for Subscribers and Copyright Owners to obtain 

independent resolution of genuine disputes that may occur in connection with the 

Copyright Alert program outlined in the Agreement. Its purpose is to provide a 

Subscriber with a non-exclusive procedure to seek review of Copyright Alerts associated 

with the Subscriber's account in the event a Mitigation Measure is about to be applied on 

the Subscriber's account. All days referred to herein are calendar days. 

The Independent Review process shall be just one avenue of appeal for Subscribers 

challenging such measure. This Independent Review process does not prevent 

Subscribers or Copyright Owners from addressing disputes through the courts, and that is 

the proper forum for addressing issues that are beyond the scope of this Independent 

Review process. 

1. Overview 

1.1 Grounds for Independent Review. Once a Subscriber has received a Copyright 

Alert stating that a Mitigation Measure is about to be applied, the Subscriber may request 

an Independent Review of the Copyright Alerts associated with the Subscriber's account 

(as described in paragraph 4.14) on the following grounds: 

(i) Misidentification of Account - that the ISP account has been incorrectly 

identified as one through which acts of alleged copyright infringement 

have occurred. 

(ii) Unauthorized Use of Account - that the alleged activity was the result of 

the unauthorized use of the Subscriber's account of which the Subscriber 

was unaware and that the Subscriber could not reasonably have prevented. 

(iii) Authorization - that the use of the work made by the Subscriber was 

authorized by its Copyright Owner. 

(iv) Fair Use - that the Subscriber's reproducing the copyrighted work(s) and 

distributing it/them over a P2P network is defensible as a fair use. 

(vi) Misidentification of File - that the file in question does not consist 

primarily of the alleged copyrighted work at issue. 

(vii) Work Published Before 1923 - that the alleged copyrighted work was 

pub I i shed pri or to 1923. 

4 
200 

1.2 Process and Determination. As further described below, if the Subscriber invokes 

Independent Review of the First Mitigation Measure Copyright Alert, the Subscriber 

shall have the opportunity to challenge some or all of the previously issued Copyright 

Alerts. In order to have the First Mitigation Measure avoided, the Reviewer must find in 

favor of the Subscriber for at least half of the previously issued Copyright Alerts (i.e. 2 of 

4 or 3 of 5). If the Subscriber invokes Independent Review of the Second Mitigation 

Measure Copyright Alert, the Subscriber shall have the opportunity to challenge only the 

Second Mitigation Measure Copyright Alert. In order to have the Second Mitigation 

Measure avoided, the Reviewer must find in favor of the Subscriber for the Second 

Mitigation Measure Copyright Alert. All determinations shall be made by an 

independent "Reviewer" as described below, and the determinations shall have the effect 

set forth herein. 

2. Standard of Review. 

2.1. Misidentification of Account. A Subscriber shall prevail on this defense if 

the Participating ISP's and/or Copyright Owner's records indicate, upon Independent 

Review, that a factual error was made in (1) identifying the IP address at which the 

alleged copyright infringement occurred and/or (2) correlating the identified IP address to 

the Subscriber's account. In reviewing the Participating ISP's or Copyright Owner's 

records, automated systems for capturing IP addresses or other information in accordance 

with Methodologies have a rebuttable presumption that they work in accordance with 

their specifications, unless the lndependent Expert's review of any such Content Owner 

Representative Methodology resulted in a Finding ofTnadequacy in which event such 

rebuttable presumption shall not apply to such Content Owner Representative 

Methodology. 

2.2. Unauthorized Use of Account. A Subscriber shall prevail on this defense if 

the Subscriber adequately and credibly demonstrates that the alleged activity was the 

result of unauthorized use of the Subscriber's account by someone who is not a member 

or invitee of the household (e.g., via an unsecured wireless router or a hacked Internet 

connection) of which the Subscriber was unaware and that the Subscriber could not 

reasonably have prevented. The foregoing sentence notwithstanding, the Reviewer may 

in his or her discretion conclude that a Subscriber is entitled to prevail under this defense 

despite the Subscriber's failure to secure a wireless router if the Reviewer otherwise 

concludes that the Subscriber adequately and credibly demonstrates that the alleged 

activity was the result of unauthorized use of the Subscriber's account by someone who is 

not a member or invitee of the household of which the Subscriber was unaware. In 

determining whether this standard has been satisfied, the Reviewer shall consider the 

evidence in light of the educational messages previously provided by the Participating 

ISP. Except as set forth herein, this defense may be asserted by a Subscriber only one (1) 

time to give the Subscriber the opportunity to take steps to prevent future unauthorized 

use of the Subscriber's account. Any subsequent assertion of this defense by a 

Subscriber shall be denied as barred, unless the Subscriber can show by clear and 

convincing evidence that the unauthorized use occurred despite reasonable steps to secure 

5 
201 

the Internet account and that the breach of such security could not reasonably have been 

avoided. 

2.3. Authorization. A Subscriber shall prevail on this defense if the Subscriber 

adequately and credibly demonstrates with written or other documented evidence that the 

Subscriber's alleged activity was actually specifically authorized by the Copyright Owner 

or its authorized representative. Such written or other documented evidence typically 

must include a true and unaltered copy of the agreement or communication asserted to 

grant the claimed authorization. Such evidence shall not be deemed adequate and 

credible if~ among other things, (i) the evidence on its face does not support a claim of 

authorization, (ii) the evidence does not appear authentic, or (iii) a reasonable person in 

the Subscriber's position would not have concluded that the communication was in fact 

authorizing the specific use made of the work and that such authorization came from the 

actual Copyright Owner or by someone authorized to act on hislher behalf. The defense 

shall fail if the Copyright Owner has demonstrated: (x) that the specific use of the work 

made by the Subscriber was not in fact authorized by the Copyright Owner; (y) if the 

alleged authorization did not come directly from the Copyright Owner, that the person 

purporting to grant authorization was not authorized to act on behalf of the Copyright 

Owner for purposes of authorizing the specific use made of the work by the Subscriber; 

or (z) that the documentary evidence submitted by the Subscriber likely is not authentic 

or has been altered in a material manner. 

2.4. Fair Use. A Subscriber shall prevail on this defense if the Subscriber 

adequately and credibly demonstrates fair use of the copyrighted work under prevailing 

principles of copyright law (which shall be identified as described in section 6). 

2.5. Misidentification of File. A Subscriber shall prevail on this defense if the 

Subscriber adequately and credibly demonstrates that a factual error was made in 

identifying the file at issue as consisting primarily of the alleged copyrighted work. In 

making this determination, the Content Owner Representative Methodology used to 

identify the file shall have a rebuttable presumption that it works in accordance with its 

specifications, unless the Independent Expert's review of any such Content Owner 

Representative Methodology resulted in a Finding ofTnadequacy in which event such 

rebuttable presumption shall not apply to such Content Owner Representative 

Methodology. 

2.6. Work Published Before 1923. A Subscriber shall prevail on this defense if 

the Subscriber adequately and credibly demonstrates that the alleged copyrighted work in 

question was actually published prior to 1923. 

3. Effect of Decision. If the Reviewer's decision is in favor of the Subscriber for at least 

half of the Copyright Alerts associated with the Subscriber's account, the filing fee 

described in paragraph 4.1.6 shall be promptly refunded to the Subscriber, the 

Participating ISP shall remove all of the previously issued Copyright Alerts from the 

Subscriber's account records and, except as set forth in paragraph 4.1.7 below, the 

Participating TSP shall refrain from applying any Mitigation Measure based on the 

6 
202 

previously issued Copyright Alert(s). If the Reviewer's decision is not in favor of the 

Subscriber for a at least half of the Copyright Alerts associated with the Subscriber's 

account, the Mitigation Measure shall be applied promptly. The Reviewer's decision will 

be binding solely for the purposes of the Copyright Alert program. By participating in 

the Independent Review, the Subscriber, the Participating ISP, and the Copyright Owner 

agree to waive all rights to challenge the Reviewer's decision for purposes of the 

Copyright Alert program. The Reviewer's decision shall have no effect outside of the 

Copyright Alert program, shall not act as res judicata or collateral estoppel or any similar 

bar, and shall not have any precedential impact for other Independent Reviews with 

respect to other Subscribers within the Copyright Alert program. In any judicial 

proceeding between a Subscriber and a Copyright Owner concerning subject matter that 

is or has been the subject of Independent Review, neither the Subscriber nor the 

Copyright Owner shall seek to enter into evidence, or otherwise refer to or cite, either the 

fact of the Independent Review or any outcome of the Independent Review. 

4. Independent Review Procedure. 

4.1. How to Initiate an Independent Review. 

4.1.1. ACTR Form. When the Participating ISP sends a Copyright Alert 

stating that the Subscriber's account is subject to a Mitigation Measure, the 

Participating ISP will also make available to the Subscriber access to an online 

Application to Commence Independent Review fonn/s ("AClR form") and related 

materials. The ACTR form and related materials will pennit the Subscriber to 

review all of the Copyright Alerts applicable to the Subscriber's account that have 

not previously been subject to review, as further described in paragraph 4.1.4. 

The ACIR fonn will identify all of the infonnation necessary for the Subscriber to 

invoke an Independent Review, including each defense asserted as to the work 

identified in a Copyright Alert under review, and also include space for provision 

of the Subscriber's contact information. 

4.1.2. Authorization. The ACIR form will contain an authorization by the 

Subscriber to disclose relevant personal information to the Administering 

Organization and the Reviewer only to the extent necessary. Except as explained 

in the next sentence or as required by judicial order or other legal process, all 

Subscriber personal information will be held in confidence and not disclosed to 

the Copyright Owner. If the Subscriber's defense is based on authorization, then 

the Reviewer may, in his or her discretion, disclose to the Copyright Owner only 

such personal infonnation concerning the Subscriber as is reasonably necessary to 

permit the Copyright Owner to rebut a claim of authorization if that information is 

required for such purposes. The ACIR form will contain an authorization by the 

Subscriber to disclose relevant personal information to the Copyright Owner in 

the circumstances described in the immediately preceding sentence. 

4.1.3. Il!formation Reqllired. The Subscriber must (I) identify the 

defense(s) asserted as to the work identified in each Copyright Alert at issue by 

7 
203 

checking the proper boxes on the ACIR fonn, (2) explain the specific basis for 

each defense, and (3) provide the corresponding back-up material to support such 

grounds. In the case of a defense of authorization, the ACIR form must be 

accompanied by the applicable written or other documented evidence that the 

Subscriber's alleged activity was specifically authorized by the Copyright Owner 

or its authorized representative, as described in paragraph 2.3. In the case of a 

defense of fair use, the ACTR fonn must (1) be accompanied by a true and 

unaltered copy of each content file that the Subscriber asserts to be a fair use 

under prevailing principles of copyright law; and (2) an explanation of each use 

the Subscriber made of the tile, including any distribution or downloading 

identified in the Copyright Alert(s), and the basis for claiming each such use as a 

fair use. 

4.14. Copyright Alerts Subject to Review. The Subscriber shall have the 

right to invoke Independent Review for the last Copyright Alert sent as well as 

prior Copyright Alerts, provided that the right to have a particular Copyright Alert 

reviewed shall be waived if that right is not invoked the first time the Copyright 

Alert becomes eligible to be reviewed. Accordingly, when a Subscriber first 

receives a Mitigation Measure Copyright Alert, the Subscriber may invoke the 

Independent Review process as to any prior Copyright Alert and must, as noted 

above in section 1.2, prevail on at least half of the alerts previously received, but 

if any of those Copyright Alerts is not reviewed at that time it will thereafter be 

unreviewable. 

4.1.5. Multiple Works Identified ill a Copyright Alert. In cases in which a 

single Copyright Alert alleges or refers to allegations of infringing activity with 

respect to multiple works, the Subscriber need only offer a defense to the work 

that triggered the Copyright Alert, and the Independent Review process shall only 

apply with respect to that work for that particular Copyright Alert. For clarity, 

works in ISP Notices sent during the Grace Period would not trigger the 

Copyright Alert and thus not require a defense. 

4.1.6. Filiffg Fee. The Subscriber shall be required to pay a filing fee of 

thirty-tive dollars ($35) in order to invoke the Independent Review, unless the 

Subscriber qualifies for a waiver or reduction in the filing fee in accordance with 

the procedures of the Administering Organization (as defined in paragraph 5.1 

below). This fee will be refunded to the Subscriber in the event that the Reviewer 

decides in favor of the Subscriber as to any Copyright Alert eligible for review. 

4.1.7. Deadlille. The AClR fonn, related materials and filing fee ("AClR 

Package") must be submitted by the Subscriber electronically within fourteen (14) 

days after issuance (i.e., the date the alert is sent to the Subscriber) of the relevant 

Mitigation Measure Copyright Alert. Except as contemplated in paragraph 5.6 

below, failure to properly submit an ACIR form by the due date shall be deemed a 

waiver of the right to seek Independent Review regarding the applicable 

Mitigation Measure. 

8 
204 

4.1.8. Submission ofACIR Package. The Subscriber must submit the 

ACIR Package to the Administering Organization. The Administering 

Organization shall immediately send to the applicable Participating ISP notice 

that the ACTR Package has been filed, along with the anonymous account 

identifier associated with that ACIR. 

4.1.9. lc,jfect oj Filingjor independent Review. A Subscriber's filing of 

the ACIR form with the Independent Reviewer will serve as a stay of the 

implementation of any Mitigation Measure if the ACIR form is submitted within 

fourteen (14) days of issuance of the relevant Mitigation Measure Copyright 

Alert. A Subscriber's failure to file an ACIR or othenvise challenge an allegation 

of copyright infringement shall not be construed as an admission or waiver in any 

other forum or context. 

4.2 Process for Independent Review. 

4.2.1. Sefec{ion oj Reviewer. All Independent Reviews shall be resolved 

by one (1) individual serving as an independent Reviewer. The Reviewer will be 

selected by the Administering Organization from a panel ofneutrals, as further 

described in paragraph 5.2. 

4.2.2. Initial RevieH' (if ACIR Package. A Reviewer will review the AClR 

package within seven (7) days of receipt to detennine whether it is substantially 

complete. To be considered substantially complete, (l) the AClR Package must 

include a substantially completed ACIR form; (2) the ACIR form must assert a 

defense as the work identified in the relevant Copyright Alert subject to 

Independent Review; (3) for each defense asserted as to each work, the ACIR 

Package must include sufficient information as described in paragraph 4.1.3 to 

permit the Independent Review to proceed meaningfully and to potentially result 

in a decision in favor of the Subscriber; and (4) the ACTR Package must include 

the required payment as provided in paragraph 4.1.6. If the ACIR Package is not 

substantially complete, the case will be denied. The first time an ACTR Package 

is denied, such a denial shall be without prejudice to afford the Subscriber one 

additional opportunity to correct any mistakes or omissions in the ACIR Package. 

In such a case, the Reviewer shall notify the Subscriber of the relevant defects and 

afford the Subscriber seven (7) days to remedy the defects by submitting a 

substantially complete ACIR Package. Othenvise (except as provided in 

paragraph 5.6 below), such a denial shall be with prejudice. Either a denial 

without prejudice that is not remedied within seven (7) days or a denial with 

prejudice shall have the same effects as a denial on the merits (see section 3). 

4.2.3. Verification that De/ense of Unauthorized Use o/Account is not 

Harred. In the case of any defense of unauthorized use of account, the 

Reviewer's initial review will also consider whether that defense is barred 

because the Administering Organization's records indicate that the Subscriber 

9 
205 

previously asserted that defense in another Independent Review. If so, the 

defense shall be denied, unless the Subscriber can show by clear and convincing 

evidence that the unauthorized use occurred despite reasonable steps to secure the 

Internet account and that the breach of such security could not reasonably have 

been avoided. Tffor any reason the Administering Organization's records are 

inconclusive as to this question, the Reviewer will request claritlcation trom the 

Participating TSP pursuant to paragraph 4.2.4. 

4.2.4. Collection o/Standard In/ormationji'om Participating LVP and 

Copyright Owner. If the ACTR Package is substantially complete, the Reviewer 

will, if needed, request standard relevant information from the Participating ISP 

and/or Copyright Owner to assess the grounds for review. Details of the standard 

information to be provided by the Participating ISP and/or Copyright Owner for 

different types of defenses shall be determined by mutual agreement of 

representatives of the Administering Organization, Participating ISPs and 

Copyright Owners as implementation proceeds, with the goal of having provision 

of this standard information be a straightforward and largely automated process. 

In the case of a defense of misidentification of account, information to be 

provided by the Participating ISP is anticipated to consist of information in the 

Participating ISP's possession, custody, or control relating to (I) those ISP 

Notices received by the Participating ISP that triggered Copyright Alerts and 

matched to the Subscriber's account, (2) Copyright Alerts sent to the Subscriber 

by the Participating lSP, and (3) the Participating lSP's matching of lP addresses 

on TSP Notices received by the Participating TSP to the Subscriber's account. 

lnfonnation to be provided by the Copyright Owner is anticipated to consist of all 

or part of the evidence package(s) (i.e., information relating to the alleged access 

to copyrighted material) for one (1) or more Copyright Alerts that are the subject 

of the Independent Review. The Participating ISP and Copyright Owner, as 

applicable, will provide the relevant infonnation to the Reviewer within fourteen 

(14) days after receipt of the request. 

4.2.5. First Substantive Review. Within seven (7) days trom receipt of the 

relevant standard information from the Participating TSP and/or the Copyright 

Owner, the Reviewer will review the case record substantively to determine if 

additional information from the Participating ISP and/or Copyright Owner is 

required, or whether it is apparent without soliciting further information that the 

Subscriber will not prevail as to at least half of the Copyright Alerts received by 

the Subscriber. 

4.2.6. Supplemental b!/ormation. The Reviewer shall have the discretion 

to request supplemental information from the Participating ISP, Copyright Owner 

or Subscriber within the seven (7) day period referred to in paragraph 4.2.5, if 

such information would likely be material to ajust resolution of the Independent 

Review and is consistent with the standards established in section 4.2.4. If the 

Reviewer makes such a request, the applicable party(ies) shall have fourteen (14) 

days to respond. Tfthe Subscriber asserts a defense of authorization or fair use 

10 
206 

and the Reviewer detennines that the defense may have merit, then the Copyright 

Owner shall receive all relevant infonnation about the defense from the Reviewer 

and be afforded an opportunity to provide evidence to rebut the defense within 

fourteen (14) days from receipt of such information Such infonnation shall 

include (1) in the case of a defense of authorization, all substantiating evidence 

and explanation submitted by the Subscriber as to each relevant work and the 

Subscriber's identifying infonnation, unless the Reviewer concludes that the 

Copyright Owner does not need to know the identity of the Subscriber to evaluate 

the Subscriber's claim that his or her activity was authorized; and (2) in the case 

of a defense of fair use, the content tile submitted by the Subscriber as to each 

relevant work and an explanation of why the Subscriber believes each use of that 

content tile to be a fair use. 

4.2.7. Final Assessment and Issllance oj Decision. Within fourteen (14) 

days of receipt of all requested information, including any supplemental 

infonnation provided pursuant to paragraph 4.2.6, or passage of the relevant time 

to provide supplemental information in the event no supplemental information is 

received, the Reviewer shall assess the complete case record and enter a final 

decision. In doing so, the Reviewer shall determine the relevance, materiality and 

weight of all evidence based on the available record. The proceedings will take 

place exclusively on the written record, and there shall be no live hearings. Upon 

reaching a final decision, the Reviewer will notify the Subscriber, Participating 

ISP and Copyright Owner of the outcome, and if the decision is a denial of the 

Subscriber's defense, the Reviewer will also include a short description of the 

rationale for the decision. 

4.2.8. nection not to Defend a Notice hy Copyright Owner. A Copyright 

Owner may elect not to defend a Copyright Alert at any time during the 7 day 

period following its receipt of notice that a case has been filed concerning that 

Copyright Alert, which shall have the same effect as a finding for the Subscriber 

with respect to such work (see section 3). 

4.2.9. Commullications Among Parties. Except as specifically described 

in these rules (e.g., in the case of requests for information as described in 

paragraphs 4.2.4 and 4.2.6), there will be no communication between the 

Reviewer and the Participating ISP, Copyright Owner or Subscriber concerning 

the Independent Review. There is to be absolutely no discovery between the 

parties to the dispute, and no party shall have any obligation to respond to any 

request for information or to provide any particular infonnation, except as 

described herein. 

5. Administration of independent Review Process. 

5.1. In General. The Independent Review process shall be coordinated by the 

administering organization selected by the CCI Executive Committee ("Administering 

11 
207 

Organization"). The Independent Review process shall be governed exclusively by these 

rules. 

5.2. Selection of Reviewers. The Administering Organization shall have 

mechanisms for establishing a panel of neutrals and for ensuring their continuing 

neutrality, their compliance with these rules, and their adherence to the governing 

principles of copyright law as provided in section 6. Reviewers must be lawyers, but 

need not necessarily have the legal or case management expertise that would qualify 

them to act as arbitrators of more complex disputes in a broader-ranging alternative 

dispute resolution process. The Administering Organization shall provide Reviewers 

training in this Independent Review process and governing principles of copyright law 

determined as described in section 6. Reviewers may be staff employees of the 

Administering Organization if the volume of disputes subj ect to the Independent Review 

process so warrants. 

5.3. Automation. The Administering Organization shall implement automated 

processes for managing the workflow of cases proceeding through the Independent 

Review process, including means for seeking and obtaining information from 

Participating ISPs and Copyright Owners in a manner that minimizes the associated 

workload on Participating ISPs and Copyright Owners and is automated to the maximum 

extent practicable. 

5A. Records of Subscriber History of Invoking Independent Review. The 

Administering Organization will maintain a secure database of Subscribers' history of 

invoking the Independent Review process, which will be available to Reviewers when 

evaluating future disputes involving the relevant Subscribers. Thus, it should be possible 

for a Reviewer to determine from this database whether a Subscriber has previously 

asserted a defense of unauthorized use of account, and a Reviewer may consider a 

Subscriber's Independent Review history in evaluating the credibility of claims under 

review. 

5.5. Recordkeeping and Review. The CCI Executive Committee and 

Administering Organization will establish processes for (I) maintaining records 

concerning proceedings, (2) periodically reviewing anonymous, aggregated information 

about issues and outcomes so that trends can be identified and addressed if warranted, 

and (3) confidentially auditing decisions for purposes of evaluating the performance of 

Reviewers and the Administering Organization. Except to the extent necessary to 

maintain records of outcomes of proceedings for purposes of operation and review of the 

Independent Review process or as otherwise expressly set forth herein, Reviewers shall 

not prepare written decisions in the cases they decide, and all decisions shall be treated in 

accordance with Section 4(H) of the MOD The Parties to the Agreement agree to 

negotiate in good faith as to adjustments in the Independent Review process if such 

adjustments are warranted by actual experience in operating the Independent Review 

process. 

12 
208 

5.6. Provision of Information. Fair and efficient administration of the 

Independent Review process depends upon timely provision of information requested by 

the Reviewer at various steps of the process, as described in paragraph 4.2. Whenever 

these rules set forth a timeframe for provision of information requested by the Reviewer, 

the Reviewer may grant reasonable extensions of such period (not to exceed fourteen (14) 

days) for substantial good cause shown. In the absence of the requested information at 

the deadline for providing the same, the following provisions will apply 

5.6.1. Delays in Providing Standard In/ormatio1/. If the Reviewer 

properly requests a standard package of information from a Participating ISP or 

Copyright Owner, as described in paragraph 4.2.4, and the Participating ISP or 

Copyright Owner does not provide the requested information as to some or all 

claims or works on a timely basis, (I) the Reviewer shall promptly notify the 

Participating lSP or Copyright Owner and the Participating lSP or Copyright 

Owner shall have a further seven (7) days to provide the requested information; 

and (2) the Administering Organization shall reflect such deficiency in reports to 

be provided periodically to the CCI Executive Committee. Recurring failure of a 

Participating ISP or Copyright Owner to provide requested standard information 

during the initial period identified in paragraph 4.2.4, in other than isolated 

instances, will be considered a breach of its obligations under the Agreement. If a 

Participating ISP or Copyright Owner does not provide available requested 

information within a further seven (7) days, (a) the dispute will proceed to the 

next step of decision making based on the available record without such 

information, giving the Subscriber the benefit of any doubt concerning the 

missing requested information; (b) the Administering Organization shall reflect 

such deficiency in reports to be provided periodically to the CCI Executive 

Committee; and (c) the Participating ISP or Copyright Owner will be considered 

in breach of its obligations under the Agreement. 

5.6.2. Delays in Providing Supplemental Information. If the Reviewer 

properly requests supplemental information from a Participating TSP, Copyright 

Owner or Subscriber pursuant to paragraph 4.2.6, and the Participating ISP, 

Copyright Owner or Subscriber does not provide the requested information as to 

some or all claims or works on a timely basis, the dispute will proceed to the next 

step of decision making based on the available record without such infonnation. 

If the Reviewer believes that the position of a party to the proceeding other than 

the one that has failed to provide the requested information is otherwise 

meritorious, the Reviewer shall give such party the benefit of any doubt 

concerning the missing requested information. 

6. Legal Pnnciples to Be Annlied in Independent Review The Independent Review 

process will, to the extent relevant, apply prevailing legal principles as determined by 

United States federal courts. The Administering Organization will commission an 

accepted, independent expert on copyright law, who is approved by the CCI Executive 

Committee, to outline prevailing legal principles of fair use for purposes of deciding 

defenses of fair use, and any other legal principles necessary for resolution ofissues 

13 
209 

f 

within the scope of this Independent Review process. Such outline will be updated from 

time to time as necessary. If additional material questions of law arise as the Independent 

Review process is implemented, they may be referred to an accepted, independent expert 

approved by the CCI Executive Committee as needed. The Administering Organization 

will advise the Parties to the Agreement of issues referred to, and principles determined 

by, such an expert, and provide a process for the Parties to the Agreement to provide 

input concerning the issues, so as to ensure that the expert's determinations are fullyinformed and reflect prevailing law as determined by United States federal courts. 

14 
210 

MEMORANDlJM OF lJNDERSTANDlNG 

Whereas: 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

Copyright infringement (under Title 17 of the United States Code) on the Internet 

("Online Infringement") - including the illegal distribution of copyrighted works 

such as music, movies, computer software, gaming software, e-books and the like 

via Peer-to-Peer ("P2P") tile exchanges and other illegal distribution via Internet 

file hosting, streaming or other technologies - imposes substantial costs on 

copyright holders and the economy each year. Online Infringement also may 

contribute to network congestion, negatively affecting users' Internet experiences. 

The availability of copyrighted content, including live and recorded 

programming, from pirated sources harms legitimate content creation and 

distribution. Content creators are taking steps to make lawful content more 

available online. The lawful online distribution businesses are vibrant and 

growing and they are hanned by infringement. In addition, law enforcement is 

pursuing opportunities to enhance its ability to investigate, prosecute, and 

ultimately punish and deter those who violate copyright law. 

While the government maintains a critical role in enforcing copyright law, it 

should be readily apparent that, in an age of viral, digital online distribution, 

prosecution of individual acts of infringement may serve a purpose, but standing 

alone this may not be the only or best solution to addressing Online Infringement. 

If Online Infringement is to be effectively combated, law enforcement must work 

with all interested parties, including copyright holders, their licensees, artists (and 

the guilds, unions and other organizations that represent them), recording 

companies, movie studios, software developers, electronic publishers, Internet 

Service Providers ("ISPs"), public interest groups, other intennediaries and 

consumers on reasonable methods to prevent, detect and deter Online 

Infringement. Such efforts must respect the legitimate interests of Internet users 

and subscribers in protecting their privacy and freedom of speech, in accessing 

legitimate content, and in being able to challenge the accuracy of allegations of 

Online Infringement. This work should include an educational component 

because evidence suggests that most informed consumers will choose lawful 

services and not engage in Online Infringement. This work also should include 

the development of solutions that are reasonably necessary to effectuate the rights 

that are granted by copyright without unduly hampering the legitimate 

distribution of copyrighted works online or impairing the legitimate rights and 

interests of consumers and ISPs. Such efforts serve not only the shared interests 

of creators and distributors of creative works, but also the interests of Internet 

users who benefit from constructive measures aimed at education and deterrence 

in lieu of litigation with its attendant costs and legal risk. 

A reasonable, alert-based approach may help to protect legal rights granted by 

copyright and stem the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, while 

CONFIDENTIAL 
211 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

providing education, privacy protection, fair warning and an opportunity for 

review that protects the lawful interests of consumers. The efficiencies gained 

from such a cooperative model may benefit all interested parties, including 

consumers. 

Enforcement and consumer education programs alone may not be able to fully 

address the issue of Online Infringement. In addition, it is important for content 

and copyright owners to continue to make available an array of lawful alternatives 

for consuming movies, music, and other content online, including new 

distribution models that make it easy and attractive for consumers to lawfully 

obtain online the content they want. ISPs can assist in these efforts by 

encouraging subscribers to seek legal alternatives for obtaining content. The 

widespread availability oflawful content will benefit consumers, content owners 

and ISPs. 

Whereas, the Content Owner Representatives, the Participating ISPs, and the 

members of the Participating Content Owners Group (all, as defined in Section 1 below) 

and independent record labels and film production companies (Independent Content 

Owners, as defined in Section SC below) represented by the American Association of 

Independent Music ("A2IM') and the Independent Film and Television Alliance 

("lFTA"), respectively, seek to establish a consumer-focused process for identifying and 

notifying residential wired Internet access service customers of the Participating ISPs 

("Subscribers") (other than dial-up Subscribers) who receive multiple notifications of 

allegations of Online Infringement made via P2P networks and applications ("P2P Online 

lnfringement"), in an effort to educate consumers, deter Online Infringement, and direct 

consumers to lawful online legitimate sources of content. 

Whereas, having considered the desirability of implementing such a process as a 

means to encourage lawful and legitimate use of copyrighted content, the Parties (as 

defined in Section I below) hereby voluntarily enter into this Memorandum of 

Understanding (the "Agreement"). 

IT IS HEREBY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED AMONG THE PARTIES THAT: 

1. Parties to the Agreement 

The parties to this Agreement (the "Parties") are The Recording Industry 

Association of America, Inc. ("RIAA"), The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. 

("MPAA" and together with RIAA, the "Content Owner Representatives"); the entities 

set forth in Attachment A (as may be amended from time to time) (collectively, the 

"Participating ISPs"); and solely for the purposes of Sections 2(E) 4(C) 4(0) 4m) 4(1) 

SeA) S(C) 6 7 8 geE) geF) and 1 0 of this Agreement, MP AA members Walt Disney 

Studios Motion Pictures, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Sony Pictures Entertainment 

Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios LLC, and Warner 

Bros. Entertainment Inc. (such MPAA members, together with MPAA, the "MPAA 

Group"), RIAA members UMG Recordings, Inc., Warner Music Group, Sony Music 

CONFIDENTIAL 2 
212 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

Entertainment, and EMI Music North America (such RIAA members, together with 

RIAA, the "RIA A Group" and together with the MPAA Group, and any other entities set 

forth in Attachment B (as may be amended from time to time), the "Participating Content 

Owners Group"). 

2. Establishment of CCI 

A. Not later than sixty (60) days after the Effective Date (as defined in 

Section 8(A) below), the Content Owner Representatives and the Participating ISPs will 

establish the Center for Copyright Information ("CCf') to assist in the effort to combat 

Online Infringement by, among other things, (i) taking an active role in educating the 

public about the laws governing the online distribution of works protected by copyright, 

including educating the public regarding civil and criminal penalties for Online 

Infringement; (ii) interfacing with third party stakeholders on issues and questions of 

common interest to the Content Owner Representatives and the Participating ISPs 

pertaining to Online Infringement and related matters; (iii) assisting in the design and 

implementation of a process that provides for consumer and Subscriber education 

through the forwarding of Copyright Alerts to, and application of Mi tigati on Measures 

(as defined in Section 4(G)(jii) below) on, Subscribers engaged in persistent P2P Online 

Infringement, including reviewing the accuracy and etTtcacy of Content Owner 

Representative processes for identifying instances of P2P Online Infringement and ISP 

processes for identifying the Subscriber accounts associated with such P2P Online 

Infringement; (iv) periodically reviewi ng the effectiveness and impact of such processes 

as further described in Section 9 below; (v) collecting and disseminating to interested 

parties and the public data regarding Online Infringement and the lawful means available 

to obtain non-infringing copyrighted works; and (vi) facilitating the involvement of nonparticipating ISPs in the work ofCCI and in the Copyright Alert program (as defined in 

Section 4(G) below). 

B. CCI will be governed by a six (6) member executive committee (the 

"Executive Committee") that will be selected as follows: three (3) members to be 

designated collectively by the Content Owner Representatives, and three (3) members to 

be designated collectively by the Participating ISPs. Each member shall serve without 

compensation for a term of two (2) years, which may be renewed. 

C. The members of the Executive Committee shall be selected within fortyfive (45) days of the Effective Date (as defined in Section 8(A) below) The Executive 

Committee shall hold an initial meeting and designate an individual to serve as its 

Executive Director. The Executive Director shall not be one (1) of the six (6) members 

of the Executive Committee. 

D. The Executive Committee shall also establish a three (3) member advisory 

board to the Executive Committee (the "Advisory Board"). The Content Owner 

Representatives shall select one (1) member of the Advisory Board, the Participating 

ISPs shall select one (\) member of the Advisory Board, and the two (2) selected 

Advisory Board members shall select the third member. Each of the members of the 

CONFIDENTIAL 3 
213 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

Advisory Board shall be drawn from relevant subject matter expert and consumer interest 

communities and, unless otherwise agreed in writing, shall not be employees or agents of 

the Content Owner Representatives nor of the Participating ISPs. The Advisory Board 

shall be consulted on any significant issues the Executive Committee is considering 

relating to the design and implementation of the Notice Process and the Copyright Alert 

program (as defined in Section 4(C) and Section 4(G), respectively), and shall provide 

recommendations to the Executive Committee as appropriate. The Advisory Board may 

also provide recommendations regarding the CCl educational program described in 

Section 3 below, upon the Executive Committee's request. 

E. Funding for CCl will be provided fifty percent (50%) by the Participating 

Content Owners Group and fifty percent (50%) by the Participating lSPs. The initial CCl 

budget shall be presented to and approved by the Executive Committee within ninety (90) 

days of the Effective Date (as defined in Section SeA) below) and shall be funded by the 

Participating Content Owners Group and the Participating lSPs promptly thereafter 

according to the apportionment set forth in this Section 2(E). The Executive Committee 

shall also oversee and approve by maj ority all matters regarding the corporate formation 

of CCI and the further development of its internal structure. CCI shall be governed by its 

articles of incorporation and bylaws to be filed in connection with its corporate formation 

in the State of Delaware. The bylaws shall, inter alia, include a mechanism for adding 

parties to this Agreement. 

J. CCI Educational Program 

In conformance with its budget, CCT shall develop an educational program to 

infonn the public about laws prohibiting Online Infringement and lawful means available 

to obtain digital works online and through other legitimate means. CCl will also 

establish, host and maintain an online information center where educational material will 

be available to the general public. The Content Owner Representatives and the 

Participating ISPs shall contribute to CCI any applicable educational materials already 

developed by the respective Content Owner Representatives and Participating ISPs, and 

CCI shall facilitate the dissemination of such educational materials through online or 

other media. Such educational materials shall include, among other things, information 

about the technical means Subscribers can use to secure their computers and networks to 

avoid unwittingly assisting others in Online Infringement. Any Content Owner 

Representative or Participating ISP may add additional educational materials to the 

online information center subject to the prior permission of the Executive Committee. 

4. System for Reducing Instances ofP2P Online Infringement 

A. The Content Owner Representatives will develop and maintain written 

methodologies, which shall be adopted by the applicable Content Owner Representative, 

for identifying instances ofP2P Online Infringement that are designed to detect and 

provide evidence that the identified content was uploaded or downloaded or copied and 

offered on a P2P network to be downloaded through a bit torrent or other P2P 

technology. Each Participating ISP will develop and maintain methodologies, which 

CONFIDENTIAL 4 
214 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

shall be adopted by the applicable Participating ISP, to match Internet Protocol C'J..P.") 

addresses identified by the Content Owner Representatives to the Participating ISP 

Subscribers' accounts, to keep a record of repeat alleged infringers, and to apply 

Mitigation Measures (as detined in Section 4(G)(iii) below). Such Content Owner 

Representative and Participating ISP methodologies are collectively referred to herein as 

the "Methodologies". The goal of these Methodologies shall be to ensure that allegations 

ofP2P Online Infringement, related records, and the application of any Mitigation 

Measures are based on reliable, accurate, and verifiable processes and infonnation. 

B. In confonnance with its budget, CCI shall retain an independent and 

impartial technical expert or experts (the "Independent Expert") to review on a periodic 

and ongoing basis the Methodologies and any modifications thereto, and recommend 

enhancements as appropriate, with the goal of ensuring and maintaining confidence on 

the part of the Content Owner Representatives, the Participating ISPs, and the public in 

the accuracy and security of the Methodologies. If a Content Owner Representative 

Methodology is found by the Independent Expert to be fundamentally unreliable, the 

Independent Expert shall issue a confidential finding of inadequacy ("Finding of 

Inadequacy") to the affected Content Owner Representative to pennit the atfected 

Content Owner Representative to modify or change the Methodology for review. The 

selection of the Independent Expert shall require approval by a majority of the members 

of the Executive Committee. The Content Owner Representatives and the Participating 

ISPs agree to provide reasonable cooperation to the Independent Expert and provide to 

the Independent Expert a copy of their respective Methodologies, and any technical or 

other information reasonably related to their respective Methodologies needed to 

undertake this review process. As a condition of retention, the Independent Expert shall 

agree in writing to keep confidential any proprietary or other confidential infonnation 

provided by the Content Owner Representatives and the Participating ISPs as part of the 

Independent Expert's review. The Content Owner Representatives and each Participating 

ISP shall exchange general descriptions of their respective Methodologies upon request. 

At the direction of CCI, the Independent Expert may consult with each Content Owner 

Representative or Participating ISP concerning the implementation and ongoing 

operation of that Representative's or ISP's Methodology. In addition, the Independent 

Expert will (i) review the Methodologies with recognized privacy experts agreed to by a 

majority of the Executive Committee and (ii) recommend enhancements to the 

Methodologies as appropriate to address privacy issues, if any, identified by the privacy 

experts. Failure to adopt a recommendation of the Independent Expert shall not amount 

to a breach under this Agreement. The Independent Expert's recommendations must be 

shared with each of the Content Owner Representatives and the affected Participating 

ISP, but may not be disclosed to other parties, including Participating ISPs other than the 

affected Participating ISP, without the express written pennission of each Content Owner 

Representative and the affected Participating ISP and any disclosure to such other third 

parties shall not include any proprietary or otherwise confidential information of the 

Content Owner Representative(s) or Participating ISP affected. 

C. The Content Owner Representatives may send notices pursuant to this 

Agreement and the implementation agreements described in Section SeA) of this 

CONFIDENTIAL S 
215 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

Agreement (the "Implementation Agreements") to the Participating ISPs of instances of 

alleged P2P Online Infringement (each an "ISP Notice"), and the Participating ISPs shall 

accept and process such notices involving the Participating ISPs' Subscribers (such 

Content Owner Representative and Participating ISP actions being, together, a "Notice 

Process"). The Content Owner Representatives agree to generate ISP Notices only for 

instances of P2P Online Infringement identified through the use of the Content Owner 

Representative Methodologies that have been reviewed and evaluated by the Independent 

Expert, and that have not been issued a Finding ofInadequacy. For purposes of 

generating ISP Notices, the Content Owner Representatives further agree to focus on 

instances ofP2P Online Infringement involving files or data consisting primarily of 

infringing material or containing unauthorized copyrighted works in complete or 

substantially complete fonn and to avoid instances ofP2P activity in which de minimis 

amounts of allegedly infringing material are incorporated into files or data consisting 

primarily of non-infringing material. The Content Owner Representatives will also 

endeavor to generally send the ISP Notices within twenty-four (24) hours of confinned 

identification of the alleged activity described in the ISP Notice. ISP Notices shall be 

generated and sent solely by the Content Owner Representatives or their service 

providers (including on behalf of the Participating Content Owners Group, the 

Independent Content Owners (as defined in Section S(C) below), the RlAA Group's 

members' distributed labels and those entities set forth in Attachment D hereto). The 

individual members of the Participating Content Owners Group; IFTA and A2IM; the 

Independent Content Owners (as defined in Section S(C) below); the RIAA Group's 

members' distributed labels; and those entities set forth in Attachment D hereto shall not 

generate or send ISP Notices. 

D. The Content Owner Representatives agree that each ISP Notice provided 

to a Participating ISP as part of the Notice Process shall clearly identify (i) the 

copyrighted work that allegedly has been infringed and the owner of such work; (ii) a 

description of the basis upon which the notifying Content Owner Representative or its 

agent asserts the right to enforce the particular affected copyright on behalf of the person 

or entity who owns or controls the copyright and/or exclusive distribution rights in the 

copyright (a "Copyright Owner"); (iii) a statement that the notifying Content Owner 

Representative or its agent has a good faith belief that use of the material is not 

authorized by the Copyright Owner, its agent, or the law; (iv) a statement that the 

information in the ISP Notice is accurate and that, under penalty of peIjury, the Content 

Owner Representative is authorized to act on behalf of the Copyright Owner whose rights 

were allegedly infringed; and (v) technical information necessary for the Participating 

ISP to identify the Subscriber (e.g., IP address, date, time and time zone of the alleged 

P2P Online Infringement, and such additional information as may be necessary as the 

Participating ISPs transition to IPv6). The Content Owner Representatives and the 

Participating Content Owners Group agree that all notices ofP2P Online Infringement 

generated by them or on their behalf and delivered to the Participating ISPs shall meet the 

requirements for ISP Notices hereunder, shall comply with the terms hereof and shall be 

governed exclusively by this Agreement and the Implementation Agreements. 

E. Reserved. 

CONFIDENTIAL 6 
216 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

F. Each Participating TSP agrees to communicate the following principles in 

its Acceptable Use Policies ("AUP") or Terms of Service ("TOS"): (i) copyright 

infringement is conduct that violates the Participating TSP's AUP or TOS and for which a 

Subscriber may be legally liable; (ii) continuing and subsequent receipt of Copyright 

Alerts (as defined in Section 4(G) below) may result in the Participating ISP taking action 

by the application of Mitigation Measures (as detlned in Section 4(G)(iii) below); and 

(iii) in addition to these Mitigation Measures, the Participating ISP may also adopt, in 

appropriate circumstances, those measures specitlcally authorized by section 512 of the 

Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") and/or actions specifically provided for in 

the Participating ISP' s AUP and/or TOS including temporary suspension or termination, 

except that nothing in this Agreement alters, expands, or otherwise affects any 

Participating ISP's rights or obligations under the DMCA. 

G. Each Participating ISP will develop, implement and independently enforce 

a Copyright Alert program as described in this Section 4(G) (each such program a 

"Copyright Alert Program"), provided that each Participating ISP shall not be required to 

exceed the notice volumes pertaining to its Copyright Alert Program as established in 

Section 5 of this Agreement. Each Participating ISP' s Copyright Alert Program will be 

triggered by the Participating TSP' s receipt of an TSP Notice that can be associated with a 

Subscriber's account and will result in the Participating ISP sending one (1) or more alert 

notices to the applicable Subscriber concerning the ISP Notice, as further described 

below (each such alert notice a "Copyright Alert"). 

Each Participating TSP's Copyright Alert Program shall be comprised of six (6) 

Copyright Alerts, except that a Participating ISP may elect to send a single Educational 

Step Copyright Alert (as defined in Section 4(G)(i) below) However, to give an affected 

Subscriber time to review each Copyright Alert pertaining to such Subscriber's account 

and to take appropriate steps to avoid receipt offurther Copyright Alerts, a Participating 

ISP and its Subscriber will be afforded a grace period of seven (7) calendar days after the 

transmission of any Copyright Alert before any additional Copyright Alerts will be 

directed to the account holder (the "Grace Period") The same Grace Period shall apply 

following the sending of a Mitigation Measure Copyright Alert (as described in Section 

4(G)(iij) and (iv) below) and during the pendency of any review requested by a 

Subscriber following the receipt of either such Copyright Alert. During such Grace 

Period, any further ISP Notices received by the Participating ISP that the Participating 

ISP determines to be associated with the applicable Subscriber's account will be handled 

as described in sub-paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) below. 

Each Participating ISP shall use commercially reasonable efforts to develop a 

Copyright Alert Program in accordance with this Section 4(G), and shall work in good 

faith to complete all technical development work necessary for implementation of its 

Copyright Alert Program by a target launch date set forth in the applicable 

Implementation Agreement (each Participating ISP's target launch date referred to herein 

as its "Copyright Alert Program Launch Date"). 

CONFIDENTIAL 7 
217 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

Each Participating ISP's Copyright Alert Program shall be substantially similar to 

the following four (4) step sequential framework, which shall include an educational step 

(the "Initial Educational Step"), an acknowledgement step (the "Acknowledgement 

~"), a mitigation measures step (the "Mitigation Measures Step"), and a post 

mitigation measures step (the "Post Mitigation Measures Step") as further described 

below. Under this framework, each Participating ISP will send Copyright Alerts with 

escalating warning language to Subscribers who are the subject of continuing ISP 

Notices. Specifically, each Participating ISP (1) shall send the Subscriber up to two (2) 

Copyright Alerts during the Initial Educational Step; (2) shall send two (2) more 

Copyright Alerts during the Acknowledgement Step; (3) shall send one (1) Mitigation 

Measure Copyright Alert (as defined in Section 4(G)(iii) below) during the Mitigation 

Measures Step and shall apply the specified Mitigation Measure (as defined in Section 

4(G)(iii) below), subject to the Subscriber's right to challenge (or the Participating ISP's 

discretion to waive) the Copyright Alert(s) at this step; and (4) during the Post Mitigation 

Measures Step, shall send one (1) Mitigation Measure Copyright Alert and shall apply the 

specified Mitigation Measure, and may, at the Participating ISP's sole discretion, send 

additional Mitigation Measure Copyright Alerts and apply additional Mitigation 

Measures, subject to the Subscriber's right to challenge Copyright Alerts at this step. 

Each Participating ISP's Copyright Alert Program shall follow the following 

format: 

(i) 

CONFIDENTIAL 

Initial Educational Step: Upon receipt of an ISP Notice associated 

with a Subscriber's account and taking into account the parameters 

of the Grace Period (if applicable), the Participating ISP shall 

direct a Copyright Alert to the account holder (an "Educational 

Step Copyright Alert"). The Educational Step Copyright Alert 

shall notify the Subscriber of receipt of an ISP Notice alleging P2P 

Online Infringement and shall include, at a minimum, the 

information contained in the ISP Notice regarding the alleged 

infringement and shall infonn the Subscriber that: (a) copyright 

infringement is illegal as well as a violation of the Participating 

ISP's AtJP or TOS, (b) users of the Subscriber's account must not 

infringe copyrighted works, (c) there are lawful methods of 

obtaining copyrighted works, (d) continuing and subsequent 

receipt of Copyright Alerts may result in the Participating ISP 

taking action by the application of Mitigation Measures, (e) in 

addition to these Mitigation Measures, the Participating ISP may 

also adopt, in appropriate circumstances, those measures 

specifically authorized by section 512 of the DMCA and/or actions 

specifically provided for in the Participating ISP's AUP andlor 

8 
218 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

TOS including temporary suspension or tennination, 1 (f) the 

Subscriber will have an opportunity to challenge any Copyright 

Alerts associated with the Subscriber's account before a Mitigation 

Measure is applied and may therefore wish to preserve records or 

infonnation that could be used to show that the Subscriber's 

conduct was non-infringing, and (g) additional information 

regarding the Copyright Alert program may be found at CCT's web 

site. The number of Educational Step Copyright Alerts shall be at 

the discretion of the Participating TSP, not to exceed two (2) 

Copyright Alerts per Subscriber account, taking into account the 

parameters of the Grace Period. The second Educational Step 

Copyright Alert shall note specifically that it is in fact the 

Subscriber's second Educational Step Copyright Alert. 

If the Participating TSP receives one (1) or more additional TSP 

Notices attributable to such Subscriber's account during the Grace 

Period associated with one of the Educational Step Copyright 

Alerts, the Participating TSP may at its discretion emphasize the 

educational and warning nature of its Copyright Alert Program by 

directing to the account holder additional Copyright Alerts that are 

similar in style to the Educational Step Copyright Alert. Such 

supplemental Copyright Alerts sent during the Grace Period shall 

not count toward the limit of two (2) Educational Step Copyright 

Alerts. 

(ii) Acknowledgement Step: At the Acknowledgement Step, upon 

receipt of further TSP Notices determined to be associated with a 

Subscriber's account and taking into account the parameters of the 

Grace Period, the Participating ISP shall direct two (2) Copyright 

TIle Parties acknowledge and agree that the limitations on ISP liability under the DMCA 

are conditioned on an ISP's adoption and reasonable implementation of a policy that provides for 

the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders who are repeat 

infringers C'DMCA Termination Policv"). Notwithstanding the foregoing, (I) this Agreement 

does not and is not intended to create any obligation on a Participating ISP to adopt implement, 

enforce, or otherwise take any action in furtherance of a DMCA Termination Policy; (2) the 

adoption, implemcntation, cnforccmcnt, or othcr action in furthcrancc of a DMCA Tcmlination 

Policy is not part of any step of the Copyright Alert program or enforceable under this 

Agrecmcnt; and (3) entering into this Agrecmcnt is not by itsclf, intended to addrcss whether a 

Participating ISP has adopted and reasonably implemented a DMCA Tennination Policy. TIlis 

Agreement does not and is not intended to establish any legal inference regarding any ISP that 

does not participate in the Copyright Alert program or to address whether or not any ISP has 

adopted and reasonably implemented a DMCA Termination Policy. All references in this 

Agreement to the possibility of termination of a subscriber account are intended solely as an 

infol1national element of the Copyright Alerts required by the Copyright Alert program. 

CONFIDENTIAL 9 
219 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

Alerts to the account holder that, as further described below, will 

require acknowledgement of receipt (but not require the user to 

acknowledge participation in any allegedly infringing activity) 

(each such Copyright Alert an "Acknowledgement Step Copyright 

Alert"). Each such Acknowledgement Step Copyright Alert shall 

state that the Subscriber, by acknowledging the notice, agrees 

immediately to cease, and/or agrees to instruct other users of the 

Subscriber's account to cease infringing conduct, if any exists. 

Each such Copyright Alert shall also state that, upon receipt of 

lawful process requiring production of records or pursuant to a 

qualifying claim that the Subscriber has made via the Independent 

Review Program (as defined in Section 4CH) below and 

Attachment C hereto), the Participating ISP may provide relevant 

identifying information about the Subscriber and the Subscriber's 

infringing conduct to third parties, including Content Owner 

Representatives or their agents and law enforcement agencies. 

The mechanism provided for the Subscriber to acknowledge an 

Acknowledgement Step Copyright Alert may be in the form of (a) 

a temporary landing page to which the Subscriber's browser is 

directed prior to permitting general access to the Internet 

("Landing Page") that shall state that the Subscriber has received 

prior warnings regarding P2P Online Infringement, and shall 

require the user of the Subscriber's account to acknowledge receipt 

by clicking through the page prior to accessing additional web 

pages, (b) a "pop-up" notice which shall be designed to persist 

until the user of the Subscriber's account acknowledges receipt by 

clicking through the pop-up notice, or (c) such other format as 

determined in the Participating ISP's reasonable judgment which 

shall require acknowledgement of receipt of the Acknowledgement 

Step Copyright Alert. 

If the Participating ISP receives one (1) or more additional ISP 

Notices attributable to such Subscriber's account during the Grace 

Period associated with one of the Acknowledgement Step 

Copyright Alerts, the Participating ISP may at its discretion 

emphasize the educational and warning nature of its Copyright 

Alert Program by directing to the account holder additional 

Copyright Alerts that are similar in style to the Educational Step 

Copyright Alert or the Acknowledgement Step Copyright Alert. 

Such supplemental Copyright Alerts sent during the Grace Period 

shall not count toward the limit of two (2) Acknowledgement Step 

Copyright Alerts. 

(iii) Mitigation Measures Step At the Mitigation Measures Step, upon 

receipt of further ISP Notices determined to be associated with a 

CONFIDENTIAL 10 
220 

CONFIDENTIAL 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

Subscriber's account and taking into account the parameters of the 

Grace Period, the Participating ISP shall direct a Copyright Alert 

(a "Mitigation Measure Copyright Alert") to the account holder 

that (a) requires acknowledgement of receipt of the Copyright 

Alert as described in the Acknowledgement Step, (b) shall state 

that the Subscriber has received prior warnings regarding alleged 

P2P Online Infringement, and (c) informs the Subscriber that, per 

the Participating ISP's AUP andlor TOS and as set forth in prior 

Copyright Alerts, additional consequences shall be applied upon 

the Subscriber's account as described more fully in this 

subparagraph (iii) (each such measure a "Mitigation Measure"). 

The Mitigation Measure Copyright Alert shall set forth the specific 

Mitigation Measure to be applied and shall inform the Subscriber 

that, unless the Subscriber has requested review under one of the 

dispute resolution mechanisms specified in Section 4(H) below, 

the Participating ISP shall apply the selected Mitigation Measure 

after the expiration of a notice period of ten (10) business days or 

fourteen (14) calendar days from the time the Mitigation Measure 

Copyright Alert is delivered. The term of the notice period (i.e., 

ten (10) business days or fourteen (14) calendar days) shall be at 

the Participating ISP's discretion. If no review is requested by the 

Subscriber, the Participating ISP shall apply the specified 

Mitigation Measure on the applicable Subscriber's Internet access 

service account after such ten (10) business day or fourteen (14) 

calendar day period has expired. 

The Mitigation Measure applied at the Mitigation Measures Step 

shall be one of the following, determined by the Participating ISP 

and applied in a manner reasonably calculated, in the Participating 

ISP's reasonable discretion, to help deter P2P Online Infringement: 

(a) temporal)' reduction in uploading and/or downloading 

transmission speeds; (b) temporal)' step-down in the Subscriber's 

service tier to (I) the lowest tier of Internet access service above 

dial-up service that the Participating ISP makes widely available to 

residential customers in the Subscriber's community, or (2) an 

alternative bandwidth throughput rate low enough to significantly 

impact a Subscriber's broadband Internet access service (e.g., 256 -

640 kbps); (c) temporal)' redirection to a Landing Page until the 

Subscriber contacts the Participating ISP to discuss with it the 

Copyright Alerts; (d) temporal)' restriction of the Subscriber's 

Internet access for some reasonable period of time as detennined in 

the Participating ISP's discretion; (e) temporal)' redirection to a 

Landing Page for completion of a meaningful educational 

instruction on copyright; or (f) such other temporal)' Mitigation 

Measure as may be applied by the Participating ISP in its 

II 
221 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

discretion that is designed to be comparable to those Mitigation 

Measures described above. Participating ISPs shall not be 

obligated to apply a Mitigation Measure that knowingly disables or 

is reasonably likely to disable a Subscriber's access to any IP voice 

service (including over-the-top lP voice service), e-mail account, 

or any security service, multichannel video programming 

distribution service or guide, or health service (such as home 

security or medical monitoring) while a Mitigation Measure is in 

effect. 

The foregoing provisions notwithstanding, the Participating ISP 

will retain the discretion, on a per Subscriber account basis, (a) to 

decide whether appropriate circumstances exist to waive such 

Mitigation Measure (a "Waiver"), provided that the Participating 

ISP will only issue one (1) such Waiver per Subscriber account, or 

(b) instead of applying the Mitigation Measure specified in the 

Mitigation Measure Copyright Alert, to apply an alternate 

Mitigation Measure on the Subscriber's Internet access service 

account and to so inform the Subscriber. 

If the Participating ISP elects to use a Waiver, the Participating ISP 

will direct to the account holder a final warning (a "Fifth Warning 

Copyright Alert") that will contain each of the elements contained 

in the Mitigation Measure Copyright Alert as described in this 

Section 4(G)(iii) and will inform the Subscriber that, in the event 

that the Participating ISP receives one (1) or more further ISP 

Notices from a Content Owner Representative, the Subscriber's 

Internet access service account will be subject to a Mitigation 

Measure per the Participating ISP's AUP and/or TOS and as set 

forth in prior Copyright Alerts, unless the Subscriber requests 

review under one of the dispute resolution mechanisms specified in 

Section 4(H) If, after the expiration of the Grace Period 

following issuance of a Fifth Warning Copyright Alert, a 

Participating ISP receives one (1) or more further ISP Notices 

determined to be related to a Subscriber's account for which a 

Waiver has been granted, the Participating ISP will proceed with 

the transmission of a Mitigation Measure Copyright Alert and the 

associated activities described above. 

(iv) Post Mitigation Measures Step In the event that a Participating 

ISP receives a further ISP Notice determined to be associated with 

a Subscriber's account after a Mitigation Measure has been applied 

on that Subscriber's account, the Participating ISP shall direct a 

further Mitigation Measure Copyright Alert to the account holder 

and after ten (10) business days or fourteen (14) calendar days, as 

applicable, either re-apply the previous Mitigation Measure or 

CONFIDENTIAL 12 
222 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

apply a different Mitigation Measure, unless the Subscriber 

requests review under one of the dispute resolution mechanisms 

specified in Section 4(H). The Mitigation Measure Copyright 

Alert at this step shall also inform the Subscriber that the 

Subscriber may be subject to a lawsuit for copyright infringement 

by the Copyright Owners and that continued infringement may, in 

appropriate circumstances, result in the imposition of action 

consistent with section 512 of the DMCA and/or actions 

specifically provided for in the Participating TSP's AUP and/or 

TOS including temporary suspension or tennination. Upon 

completion of the Post Mitigation Measures Step, a Participating 

ISP may elect voluntarily to continue forwarding ISP Notices 

received for that Subscriber account, but is not obligated to do so. 

The Participating lSP will, however, continue to track and report 

the number ofISP Notices the Participating ISP receives for that 

Subscriber's account, so that information is available to a Content 

Owner Representative if it elects to initiate a copyright 

infringement action against that Subscriber. 

(v) Reset Tf a Participating TSP does not receive an ISP Notice 

relating to a Subscriber's account within twelve (12) months from 

the date the Participating ISP last received an ISP Notice relating 

to that same Subscriber's account, (a) the next TSP Notice 

associated with that Subscriber's account shall be treated as the 

first such TSP Notice under the provisions of this Copyright Alert 

Program and the Subscriber may be afforded an additional Waiver 

as set forth in Section 4(G)(iii) above; and (b) the Participating ISP 

may expunge all prior lSP Notices and Copyright Alerts from the 

Subscriber's account. 

(vi) Transmission of Copyright Alerts to Subscribers: Copyright Alerts 

should be directed by the Participating ISP to the account holder 

by means that are designed to ensure prompt receipt (e.g., via 

email, physical mail, auto-dialer notification, TSP account 

management tool pop-ups requiring user click through, electronic 

or voice communications with Subscribers or such other means of 

delivery as the Participating ISP deems commercially practicable), 

and the Participating ISP shall design such Copyright Alerts in a 

manner reasonably calculated, in the Participating TSP's discretion, 

to be received by the Subscriber. Each Copyright Alert after the 

initial Educational Step Copyright Alert will include the 

educational and general infonnation required in the Educational 

Step Copyright Alert and in any other Copyright Alerts that were 

forwarded to the Subscriber after the Educational Step, together 

with a summary of the pertinent infonnation regarding the alleged 

P2P Online Infringement related to prior lSP Notices or a link or 

CONFIDENTIAL 13 
223 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

other mechanism by which the Subscriber can access or obtain 

such information. Each Participating ISP will provide the form of 

its Copyright Alerts to the Independent Expert as part of the 

Independent Expert's review of each Participating ISP's 

Methodology, and will in good faith consider any suggestions from 

the Independent Expert. 

(vii) Notification of Ability to Request Review: Copyright Alerts 

directed to account holders at the Mitigation Measures Step and the 

Post Mitigation Measures Step shall infonn the Subscriber of the 

Subscriber's ability to request review within ten (10) business days 

or fourteen (14) calendar days, as applicable, under one of the 

dispute resolution mechanisms described in Section 4CHl. If the 

Subscriber requests such review, the Participating ISP shall, upon 

receiving notice of the request for such review and pending a final 

decision via the chosen dispute resolution mechanism, defer taking 

any further action under its Copyright Alert Program 

H. Independent Review Program 

(i) A Subscriber may seek review of a Mitigation Measure Copyright 

Alert via the dispute resolution program set forth in Attachment C (the "Independent 

Review Program") or as otherwise permitted in the Participating ISP's AUP or TOS or as 

pennitted by law, at the election of the Subscriber. The Independent Review Program 

shall allow for the Subscriber to remain anonymous to the Content Owner 

Representatives and the members of the Participating Content Owners Group, except in 

cases where the Subscriber elects a defense in which the Subscriber's identity will be 

disclosed. The decision from the Independent Review Program shall be binding on the 

Parties solely for purposes of the Notice Process and the affected Copyright Alert 

Program but shall have no force or effect beyond the Notice Process and the affected 

Copyright Alert Program, and shall not be deemed to adjudicate any rights outside of this 

limited context. In any judicial proceeding between a Subscriber and a Copyright Owner 

concerning subject matter that is or has been the subject of the Independent Review 

Program, as provided in the procedures governing the Independent Review Program, 

neither the Subscriber nor the Copyright Owner shall seek to enter into evidence, or 

otherwise refer to or cite, either the fact of the Independent Review or any outcome of the 

Independent Review. 

(ii) The costs of establishing and administering the Independent 

Review Program shall be borne fifty percent (50%) by the Participating Content Owners 

Group and tifty percent (50%) by the Participating ISPs. 

I. Generation of Monthly Reports 

Within ten (10) business days of the end of each calendar month during the term 

of this Agreement, each Participating ISP shall provide reporting of non-personally 

CONFIDENTIAL 14 
224 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

identifiable infonnation to the Content Owner Representatives identifying, on an 

anonymized basis and in the fonnat set forth in the Participating ISP's Implementation 

Agreement, infonnation about those Subscribers who have received Copyright Alert(s) 

during the applicable calendar month and the total number of alleged P2P Online 

Infringements by each such Subscriber. Such reporting may be done via Automated 

Copyright Notification System CACNS") standards or other available methods as 

mutually agreed in the Participating ISP's Implementation Agreement. The Parties may 

not (i) use or disclose such data to governmental entities (absent lawful process) or other 

third parties, unless prior approval for each such use or disclosure is received from a 

majority of the CCI Executive Committee and the data is disclosed only on an 

aggregated, anonymized basis, or (ii) use such reports or any of the data that is included 

in or may be extrapolated from such reports to attempt to obtain the identity of a 

Subscriber; except that (1) the Parties may use the reports or data to analyze the 

effectiveness of the Copyright Alert program; and (2) the Content Owner Representatives 

or any other member of the Participating Content Owners Group may use such reports or 

data as the basis for seeking a Subscriber's identity through a subpoena or order or other 

lawful process. For the avoidance of doubt, the Parties agree that the Content Owner 

Representatives may share such reports with the other members of the Participating 

Content Owners Group, provided such Parties agree to abide by the limitations set forth 

in this Section 4(1) 

5. Technical Operations· Implementation Agreements 

A. The Content Owner Representatives and each Participating ISP (and the 

members of the Participating Content Owners Group, as necessary) will work together in 

good faith to establish and agree upon standardized forms and procedures for a Notice 

Process (for example, by incorporating ACNS or other mutually agreeable standard(s), 

and endeavoring to include identification of Methodologies used, if practical). The 

foregoing sentence notwithstanding, the Parties acknowledge that a common interface 

between the Content Owner Representatives and the Participating ISPs may not be 

technically or financially practical. The Content Owner Representatives and each 

Participating ISP (and the members of the Participating Content Owners Group, as 

necessary) will document the standards contemplated in this Section SCA), notice 

volumes, and other pertinent details concerning the technical operation of the Notice 

Process and Copyright Alert Program between the Content Owner Representatives and 

the applicable Participating ISP in an Implementation Agreement. The Content Owner 

Representatives and the Participating ISPs shall agree to a form of the Implementation 

Agreement, including the terms and conditions of such agreement, that shall be used by 

all of the Participating ISPs. Each Participating ISP and the Content Owner 

Representatives (and the members of the Participating Content Owners Group, as 

necessary) shall make reasonable efforts to execute their Implementation Agreement no 

later than three (3) months after the Effective Date (as defined in Section 8CA) below) 

B. Reserved. 

CONFIDENTIAL 15 
225 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

C The MP AA Group and the RIAA Group will allocate the number of ISP 

Notices that each shall be entitled to send to each Participating ISP per month (i) on 

behalf of their members, the RlAA Group's members' distributed labels, and those 

entities set forth in Attachment D hereto; and (ii) on behalf of independent record labels 

and film production companies that are members of the American Association of 

Independent Music ("A2IM') and tbe Independent Film and Television Alliance 

("TFTA"), respectively (collectively, the "Independent Content Owners"), provided that 

IFTA, A2IM, and the Independent Content Owners (as applicable) agree to be bound by 

written agreement (for so long as such agreement remains in effect) to the tenns set forth 

in Sections 4eC) 4eD) 4CH)ei) 4(1) SeA) seC) 6 7 8 geE) geF) and 10 of this 

Agreement that apply to all members oftbe Participating Content Owners Group 

(collectively or individually) and certain designated provisions of each Participating 

ISP's Implementation Agreement as set forth therein. 

D. Each Participating ISP may temporarily cease processing ISP Notices or 

reduce the number ofISP Notices being processed if, in the sole discretion of the 

Participating ISP, (i) the Participating ISP receives more ISP Notices than its business 

processes and systems can reasonably address, (ii) the Participating ISP receives more 

calls from Subscribers regarding Copyright Alerts than its designated customer service 

representatives can reasonably address (taking into account the other demands on 

Participating ISP customer service representatives for unrelated purposes), or (iii) other 

demands on the Participating ISP's business processes and systems, such as requests 

from law enforcement, must be given precedence. If the Participating ISP temporarily 

ceases processing ISP Notices for any of the foregoing reasons, the Participating ISP 

shall promptly notify the Content Owner Representatives, subject to any limitations on 

such notice as may be imposed in law or regulation, and shall work cooperatively with 

the Content Owner Representatives and, if agreed by all affected Parties, the Independent 

Expert, to resolve any issues relating to tbe over-provisioning ofISP Notices. 

6. Consent to Receive Notices 

A. Entry into this Agreement by a Participating ISP shall constitute consent 

by that Participating ISP to receive ISP Notices from the Content Owner Representatives 

(or their service providers) on behalf of the Participating Content Owners Group, those 

entities set forth in Attachment D (as such attachment may be amended from time to 

time) (or in the case of the RIAA Group, on behalfofthe RIAA Group's members' 

distributed labels), and tbe Independent Content Owners upon implementation by the 

Participating ISP of its Copyright Alert Program, subject to all of the tenns and 

limitations set forth in this Agreement and the Participating ISP's Implementation 

Agreement. The members of the Participating Content Owners Group may change from 

time to time upon mutual written agreement of the Parties, provided that MPAA and 

RIAA shall remain Parties to this Agreement and, provided further, that in no event shall 

such changes increase the notice volumes applicable to each Participating ISP under this 

Agreement and each Participating ISP's Implementation Agreement, unless this 

Agreement or the Participating ISP's Implementation Agreement is modified with the 

CONFIDENTIAL 16 
226 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

written consent of the Participating ISP to increase the number ofISP Notices that may 

be sent. Nothing in this Agreement shall require a Participating TSP to accept notices 

from any third party or restrain it from doing so. No ISP Notices or other notices of P2P 

Online Tnfringement directed to Subscribers shall be sent to the Participating TSP by or on 

behalf of the members of the Participating Content Owners Group, the Independent 

Content Owners, and those entities set forth in Attachment D of this Agreement (as such 

attachment may be amended from time to time) (or in the case of the RTAA Group, on 

behalf of the RIAA Group's members' distributed labels) except pursuantto this 

Agreement and the Participating TSP's Tmplementation Agreement. 

B. Prior to the Copyright Alert Program launch date for the applicable 

Participating TSP, such Participating ISP shall continue to process notices concerning P2P 

Online Infringement in accordance with such Participating ISP's then current policies or 

practices or, if applicable, agreements with any member of the Participating Content 

Owners Group. 

7. Force Majeure 

No Party shall be liable to any other Party for any delay, failure in performance, 

loss or damage due to fire, explosion, interruption of power supplies, earthquake, flood, 

the elements, strike, embargo, labor disputes, failure of public transit or other public 

infrastructure, acts of civil or military authority, war, terrorism, acts of God, acts of the 

public enemy, acts or omissions of carriers or suppliers, acts of regulatory or 

governmental agencies, or other causes beyond such Party's reasonable control, whether 

or not similar to the foregoing and whether or not the Parties contemplate such 

circumstances at the time of entering into this Agreement. 

8. Term· Withdrawal 

A. This Agreement shall become effective upon the date all of the Parties 

have executed this Agreement (the "Effective Date"). This Agreement shall remain in 

effect for a period of four (4) years following the Effective Date. 

B. Any Party may withdraw as a Party from this Agreement prior to its 

expiration (i) if such Party reasonably determines that continued participation in this 

Agreement is not technically, commercially, operationally or otherwise practical; (ii) if 

such Party is subject to a complaint before any administrative agency, court, or other 

governmental entity challenging the lawfulness of the Copyright Alert program, a 

Participating TSP's Copyright Alert Program, the Agreement, or an Tmplementation 

Agreement to which it is a party or any conduct taken under such agreements or 

programs; (iii) if another Party to this Agreement is subject to a complaint before any 

administrative agency, court, or other governmental entity challenging the lawfulness of 

the Copyright Alert program, a Participating ISP' s Copyright Alert Program, or the 

Agreement or any conduct taken under such agreements or programs; or (iv) if a 

government entity enacts or establishes a government-sponsored program or judicial, 

administrative, or executive process concerning P2P Online Infringement that imposes 

CONFIDENTIAL 17 
227 

materially different obligations than those set forth in this Agreement. 

9. Records and Evaluation 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

A. Consistent with its general policies and business practices for retaining 

Internet access service subscriber records, each Participating ISP agrees to keep 

reasonable records pertaining to its Copyright Alert Program. Each Participating TSP also 

agrees to use reasonable efforts to provide semi -annual reports to CCI of the results of its 

Copyright Alert Program, which shall include, in an aggregated, anonymized form, nonpersonally identifiable infonnation regarding the ISP Notices received and Copyright 

Alerts sent and such other aggregated, anonymized data as the Participating ISPs may 

from time to time agree to provide. 

B. Consistent with its general policies and business practices for retaining 

records regarding Online Infringement, each Content Owner Representative agrees to 

keep reasonable records pertaining to its participation in the Notice Process under this 

Agreement including records of the Methodology(ies) currently and previously in use and 

the effective date(s) of such use. Each Content Owner Representative agrees to use 

reasonable efforts to provide semi-annual reports to CCI of the results of its Notice 

Process, which shall include, in an aggregated, anonymized form, non-personally 

identifiable information regarding the ISP Notices sent to the Participating ISPs 

concerning activities relating to P2P Online Infringement by the Participating ISPs' 

Subscribers and such other aggregated, anonymized data as the Content Owner 

Representatives may from time to time agree to provide. Such reports shall be in a form 

to be determined by each Content Owner Representative in its discretion. 

C. CCI shall keep confidential all records and data relating to the Notice 

Process and Copyright Alert Programs. None of the records and data relating to the 

Notice Process and Copyright Alert Programs shall be made publicly available by CCI 

without prior approval by a majority of the Executive Committee. 

D. CCI shall review on an annual basis, beginning on the twelve (12) month 

anniversary of the Effective Date and occurring each subsequent year thereafter on the 

anniversary of the Effective Date, the number of Copyright Alerts sent by the 

Participating ISPs to each Subscriber's account at each step of the Copyright Alert 

Programs. Based on the information that CCI receives from the Participating ISPs and 

the Content Owner Representatives, pursuant to Sections 9(A) and 9(B), in order to 

assess the effecti veness of the Copyright Alert program, CCI shall assess among other 

things (i) the proportion of Subscribers of each Participating TSP who ceased receiving 

Copyright Alerts at each step of the Copyright Alert Program; (ii) the average overall 

number ofP2P Online Tnfringements detected for Content Owner Representative assets 

over a weekly or monthly period (in general, and by Participating ISP); (iii) the number 

of ISP Notices received and the number of corresponding Copyright Alerts sent; (iv) the 

number and percentage of individual Subscribers who, after receiving one (1) or more 

Copyright Alerts, did not receive additional Copyright Alerts corresponding to their 

accounts (in general, and by Participating lSP); (v) the number of Subscribers who 

CONFIDENTIAL 18 
228 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

requested a review under the Independent Review Program, and at what step they 

requested it; and (vi) the number and percentage of Independent Reviews which resulted 

in a decision in favor of the Subscriber - and why such decisions were made. As part of 

its annual review, CCI shall also examine whether Copyright Alerts are successfully 

reaching account holders. The Parties shall consider in good faith any recommendations 

made by CCI resulting from such review and assessment. 

E. The Content Owner Representatives, those members of the Participating 

Content Owners Group and Independent Content Owners selected by the Content Owner 

Representatives, and the Participating ISPs shall establish a working group under the 

auspices of CCI, which will consist of appropriate representatives of each Party, who will 

meet regularly (at least quarterly during the eighteen (18) months following the Effective 

Date and then at least semi-annually thereafter) to assist in the initiation and 

implementation of this Agreement, assess its ongoing operation, and thereafter 

recommend to the Parties on a non-binding basis any suggested amendments to this 

Agreement to improve its scope or effectiveness. The working group may consult with 

the Independent Expert as appropriate 

F. CCI shall maintain any reports or other information provided by any Party 

hereunder in the strictest confidence and shall not disclose such reports or information to 

any third party or any Party other than the Party which originated the report or 

information, absent wTitten consent from the originating Party or as otherwise required by 

law. In the event CCI receives a subpoena or other legal process seeking the disclosure 

of such reports or information, CCI shall immediately notify the Party whose reports or 

information is subject to the subpoena or other legal process and provide such Party with 

the opportunity to seek a protecti ve order or otherwise to oppose disclosure. If 

authorized by the Executive Committee, CCI shall also seek a protective order or oppose 

disclosure. 

10. Miscellaneous 

A. The Content Owner Representatives, the members of the Participating 

Content Owners Group, the Independent Content Owners, and the Participating ISPs 

appreciate that alternatives to obtaining and sharing music, movies, and other copyrightprotected works by means other than unlawful digital distribution should be encouraged. 

The Content Owner Representatives will undertake appropriate efforts to ensure the 

widespread communication oflawful alternatives for consuming content through online 

distribution methods and encourage the public to utilize these alternati ves. Each 

Participating ISP will, via Copyright Alerts and other avenues, encourage Subscribers to 

seek legal alternati ves to obtain copyrighted materials. 

B. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of New York, 

without regard to any conflict of law principles. The Parties hereby consent to the 

exclusive jurisdiction of any state or federal court sitting in the Borough of Manhattan, 

New York over any judicial proceedings arising out of or related to this Agreement and 

agree that all claims in respect of such judicial proceedings shall be heard in such state or 

CONFIDENTIAL 19 
229 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

federal courts in the Borough of Manhattan, New York The Parties further agree that 

any such proceeding shall be tiled in the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of New York if such court has jurisdiction over the proceeding 

C. Nothing expressed or implied in this Agreement is intended, or may be 

construed, to confer upon or give any person or entity other than the Parties hereto any 

rights or remedies hereunder. This Agreement may only be amended by written 

agreement signed by all Parties hereto. 

D. This Agreement is subject to any laws or regulations that may be enacted 

by Congress or adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (or any other 

federal or state administrative, regulatory or legislative body). If any future law or 

regulation makes unlawful any provision of this Agreement, that provision will be 

severed from this Agreement. If any Participating ISP, Content Owner Representative, or 

member of the Participating Content Owners Group reasonably concludes that such 

invalidated provision is material to the Agreement or that severing such provision is 

otherwise impracticable, such Party may immediately terminate its participation in the 

Agreement. 

E. Headings herein are for convenience of reference only and shall in no way 

affect interpretation of this Agreement. 

F. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with 

respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all proposals, oral or written, all 

negotiations, conversations or discussions, and all past dealings or industry customs 

between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. 

G. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts and 

duplicate originals, each of which will be deemed an original and all of which together 

will constitute one and the same instrument. An executed copy of this Agreement 

transmitted via facsimile or email by the executing party and received via facsimile or 

email by the other party shall have the same legal force as an executed original version of 

this Agreement. 

H. The waiver by a party of any breach of this Agreement by the other party 

in a particular instance shall not operate as a waiver of subsequent breaches of the same 

or different kind. Failure of a party to exercise any rights under this Agreement in a 

particular instance shall not operate as a waiver of such party's right to exercise the same 

or different rights in sub sequent instances. 

[The rest of this page is intentionally left blank.] 

CONFIDENTIAL 20 
230 

Agreed as ofJuiy 6, 2011: 

The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. 

~: \) ~ "" r2.1l lA .'---} )(.--.~ Name' TitiT:·--,S .... \-,"""P,..........R--:At;,....--5 ,-.. ,,-,.::-'£;-cC-"-C 

The Recording IndusUy Association of America, Inc. 

~---------------------- Name: __________________ __ 

Ti~e:. __________________ ___ 

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 

fu; _________ _ Name:, __________________ __ 

Title: ____________ _ 

Paramount Pictures COIporation 

~------------------ Name: ________________ _ 

Title: ________________ _ 

Sony Pictures Entertairunent Inc. 

fu:: _________ _ 

Name: 

Title~ --------

Twentieth Century Fox Film COIJIoration 

Rr. _____________ _ Name: _____________ _ Title: _____________ _ 

Universal City Studios LLC 

~:,----------------- Name: ____________ _ 

Title:, _______________ _ 

Warner 13ro!;. Entertainment Inc. 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 21 

FIN~ 

7/61Z0~1 
231 

Agreed as of .Tu ly 6, 2011 : 

The Motion Pidur~ Association of America, Inc. 

!b:: _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Walt Disney Studios ::vI:otion Pictures 

!b:: 

Namc: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Paramount Pictures Corporation 

Bv: __________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title: ___________ _ 

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. 

!b:: _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Tilk: __________ _ 

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation 

Bv: ___________ _ 

:'-Iamc: __________ _ 

Title: 

Universal City Studios LLC 

Bv:. __________ _ 

Name:. __________ _ 

Title:. __________ _ 

CON FlDE1\TIAL 21 

FiNAL 

7/6/2011 
232 

Agreed as of July 6, 2011: 

The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. 

fu:: _________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

The Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. 

Name: ~----------------- __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 

fu:: kt . fA t~-~··~-~·- Name: 1!l..L-t> rJ "'t)«p.vlt"l'rwa-tJ 

Ii!k.: I$u;,,· v.-r 1 8,"""£#'<1.. Co!l"'!>a.. 

Paramount Pictures Corporation 

fu: _________ _ Name: _________ _ 

Ii!k.: _________ _ 

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. 

];!j::------------ Name: __________ _ 

Title:, _________ _ 

Twentieth Century fox Film Corporation 

fiy:----------

Name:, _________ _ 

Ii!k.: __________ _ 

Universal City Studios LLC 

ID:: ___________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title:, __________ _ 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 21 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 
233 

Agreed as of July 6, 2011 : 

The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. 

fu: _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title:, __________ _ 

The Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. 

fu: _________ _ Name:, __________ _ 

Title:, _________ _ 

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 

fu: _________ _ Name:, __________ _ 

Title:, __________ _ 

Paramount Picture~ 

fu: JJ) Name: • t'l.\'C/olM.<" 'Y, FILI( J(.~ 

Title: [\,Iv 

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. 

fu:, _________ _ Name:, __________ _ 

Title:, __________ _ 

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation 

fu: _________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title:, __________ _ 

Universal City Studios LLC 

fu: _________ _ 

Name: 

Title: ----------

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. 

21 

FINAL 

716/2011 
234 

Agreed as ofJuly 6, 2011. 

The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. 

fu _________ _ 

Name' Title: -----------

The Recording Industry Association of America, Inc, 

fu: _________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Titlc: __________ _ 

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 

fu: __________ _ Name: ___________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

ParamollnL Pictures Corporation 

Ry: ___________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Tit[c: ___________ _ 

Sony Pictur s Entertainment lnc. 

fu':-i'-----7~"""'-=Vl:'-~"-i-:-l-=----- Name: ___ -'-'-'---'-= _____ _ 

Ti~e Sr. EVP / General Counsel 

Twentieth CcntUlY Fox Film Corporation 

Bv: ___________ _ 

Name: ___________ _ 

Title: ___________ _ 

Univcrsal City Studios LLC 

fu: _________ _ 

Name' 

Tille: ___________ _ 

Warner Bros. Entcrtainment Inc. 

PRIVILEGED AND CO'lFIDENTIAL 21 

FINAL 

7!612011 
235 

Agreed as of July 6, 20 II: 

The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. 

fu': _________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

The Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. 

fu': _________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 

fu': _________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Paramount Pictures Corporation 

fu': _________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. 

fu': _________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation 

fu': '1f'~ C· ~/er4y!!flyh~, Name: /fr;&fI!,£ C WJled)""" 

Title: .AS;S(:sT"",,~ Sua if""'o/ 

Universal City Studios LLC 

fu': _________ _ Nmne: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. 

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 21 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 
236 

Agreed as of July 6, 2011: 

The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. 

fu: _________ _ 

N'l,IIl~: ________ _ 

Title: _________ _ 

The Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. 

fu: ________ _ 

Namc: __________ _ 

Title: _________ _ 

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures 

]!x: ________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title: _________ _ 

Paramount Pictures Corporation 

fu: _________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Tille: _________ _ 

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. 

fu:--------- Name: __________ _ Title: _________ _ 

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation 

fu: ________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

fu:_~~~~~~~~­

Name:----.---I"-"'-'H''--''-'''-;-, .... '"'--,~!_'' 

Titlc:----"=="--"''''--L..<-_(-J ....... _ 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. 

PRNILEGED M1IJ CONFIDENTIAL 21 

FINAL 

11612011 
237 

UMG Recordings, Inc. 

P.y---.-.... ---~ t'Jalllc: ____ .. _. ____ _ 

Iitlc: ____ _ 

Warner Music Group 

Sony Music Entertainment 

Jb:: __ _ 

!)<illlf: ___ ._ .. _. _____ _ 

IW~:_. _____ . . ___ _ 

EMI :o.1usic North America 

Hl:~_ .... __________ . _____ _ 

Nalll9' .. __ . _____ ._~ __ 

Titlg: ___ _ 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

SBC Internet Services, Inc., BdlSouth Telecommwlications, Inc., Southwestcm Bell 

['ckphone Company, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Illinois Bell Telephone 

CompmlY, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone 

Company, Nevada Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, 

Wisconsin Bell, InC., The Southern ~ew England Telephone Company, and Hell South 

Telecommunications, Inc. (the AT&T lne. companies) 

fu: _________ .. _ .. _____ _ Namc: ___________ ._ 

1)tk: ___ __ 

Vemon Online LI ,C, Verizon Online LLC - Maryland, and Vcrizon Online 

Pennsylvania Partnership (the Verizon companies) 

py: .. _--_._------ Narlli~:__ __._. _____ . 

Tit~: _________ _ 

PRIVILEGED AND CO;-';FIDENTIAL 22 
238 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. 

~:'-------------------- Name: _________________ _ 

Title:. ___________________ _ 

Warner Music Group 

~:----------- Name: _________________ _ 

Title: ____________________ _ 

Sony Music Entertainment 

~:'-------------------- Name: __________ _ 

Title:. ___________________ _ 

EMI Music North America 

~:.----------- Name:. __________ _ 

Title:. ___________________ _ 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

SBC Internet Services, Inc., BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Southwestern Bell 

Telephone Company, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Illinois Bell Telephone 

Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone 

Company, Nevada Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, 

Wisconsin Bell, Inc., The Southern New England Telephone Company, and BellSouth 

Telecommunications, Inc. (the AT&T Inc. companies) 

~:'-------------------- Name: __________ _ 

Title:. ___________________ _ 

CONFIDENTIAL 22 
239 

Wa1l1cr Bros. Entertainment Inc. 

fu· ___________ _ 

l\al1le: ____ ~ 

Iitlc: ________________ _ 

U:V1CJ RccOl·dings. Inc. 

B\': ___________________ _ 

l\umc: ______ . __ .. 

Title: ... 

Sony Music Entertainment 

B\': ______ _ 

N amc: _________________ __ 

Title: ______ _ 

EMI Music l\Olth America 

fu: _______ _ l\aITL~: ______________________ __ 

Title: _______ __ 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

SBe lntemet Services. Inc .. IkliSoulh Telecommunications. Inc .• Southwcstcm Bell 

Telephune Company. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Illinois Bell Telephone 

Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Cumpany. Incorporated. Michigan Bell Telephone 

Company. l\evada Bell Telephone Company. The Ohio Bell Telephone Company. 

\'v'isconsin Bell. Inc .• The Soulhc1l1 New England Telephone Company. and BcllSouth 

Tekcoll1l1lunicalions. Inc. (the AT&T Inc. companies) 

Bv: 

1\an1.';: 

Title: ____ _ 

(·Ol\FIDF:-.iTIAL 
240 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc . 

.fu:: _________ _ 

Name: _________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

UMG Recordings, Inc. 

.fu:: 

Name: __________ _ 

Iitle: __________ _ 

Warner Music Group 

.fu::----------

Na!.!.t~: __________ _ 

Iin~: 

EMI Music North America 

:6y:----------- Name: ___________ _ 

Title: ___________ _ 

FINAL 

7/612011 

SBC Internet Services, Inc .• BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Southwestern Bell 

Telephone Company. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Illinois Bell Telephone 

Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company. Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone 

Company, Nevada Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, 

Wisconsin Bell, Inc.,. The Southern New England Telephone Company, and BellSouth 

Telecommunications, Inc. (the AT&T Inc. companies) 

.fu:: _______ _ 

Nam~: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

CONFIDENTIAL 22 
241 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. 

~:'-------------------- Name: Title: -----------

UMG Recordings, Inc. 

~:-------------------- Name:, ____________________ __ 

Title: ___________ _ 

Warner Music Group 

~:-----------------­

Name: 

Title: -----------

Sony Music Entertainment 

~:------------------- Name: _________ _ 

Title .. · _____________ _ 

EMI Music North America 

~:.--,-L=",:' ..:....M---,-__ _ Name: I'A UL_ kA N IJ 

Title: c.f':O 

FINAL 

7/612011 

SBC Internet Services, Inc., BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Southwestern Bell 

Telephone Company, Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Illinois Bell Telephone 

Company, Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone 

Company, Nevada Bell Telephone Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, 

Wisconsin Bell, Inc., The Southern New England Telephone Company, and BellSouth 

Telecommunications, Inc. (the AT&T Inc. companies) 

~:------------------- Name: ____________ _ 

Title: ______________ _ 

CONFIDENTIAL 22 
242 

\Vam~r Bros. Fni<Jrtaimnenl 

Warnol' 1vlUSIt tirou!) 

fu: _________ _ 

Sony 1'v1usi;; Flli.ertninmcnt 

fu:: 

EMf Musk North Amcrk,l 

fu: _________ _ 

SBC fnkmct 

CONFIDENTIAL 

&. General CrJolJ11Sel 

fINAL 

7/61201l 
243 

VeriLon Online LLC, Verizon Online LLC . Maryland, and Vcrizon Online 

Pennsylvania Partnership (the Verizon companies) 

At/v/' 

fo,.lr;:~ 

i 

Comcast Cable Communicalions Management, LLC 

~;-------------------- Namc: ___________ _ 

Titlc: __________ _ 

CSC Holdings, LLC 

fu: __________________ __ Name: ___________ _ 

Title: ___________ _ 

Time Warner Cable Inc. 

fu: __________________ __ 

Name: ___________ _ 

Titlc: __________ _ 

CONfIDENTIAL 23 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 
244 

Verizon Online LLC, Verizon Online LLC - Maryland, and Verizon Online 

Pennsylvania Partnership (the Verizon companies) 

fu: _________ _ Name: ____________________ __ 

Title: __________ _ 

CSC Holdings, LLC 

fu: _________ _ Name: ___________________ _ 

Title: ___________ __ 

Time Warner Cable Inc. 

fu: _________ _ 

Name: ___________________ _ 

TitIe: _____________________ _ 

23 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 
245 

Verizon Online LLC, Verizon Online LLC - Maryland, and Verizon Online 

Pennsylvania Partnership (the Verizon companies) 

fu: _________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title: __________ _ 

Comeast Cable Communications Management, LLC 

fu: __________ _ Name: __________ _ 

Title: ___ r-______ _ 

Time Warner Cable Ine. 

fu: __________ _ 

Name: __________ _ 

Title: ___________ _ 

23 

FINAL 

7/612011 
246 

Verizon Online LLC, Verizon Online LLC - Maryland, and Verizon Online 

Pennsylvania Partnership (the Verizon companies) 

~:'------------------ Name: _________ __ 

Title:. __________ _ 

Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC 

~:------------------- Name: _________ __ 

Title: _________ _ 

CSC Holdings, LLC 

~:------------------- Name: _________ __ 

Title:, _________ _ 

Time Warner Cable Inc. 

~.~ N~~ 41rTNJtn{z/ 

Title: 51} e'l-OEtvr'i Gc.-

CONFIDENTIAL 23 

FINAL 

71612011 
247 

Attachment A - Participating ISPs 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

The Participating ISPs are the following: SBC Internet Services, Inc., BellSouth 

Telecommunications, Tnc., Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, Pacific Bell 

Telephone Company, lllinois Bell Telephone Company, Indiana Bell Telephone 

Company, Incorporated, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, Nevada Bell Telephone 

Company, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, Wisconsin Bell, Tnc., The Southern New 

England Telephone Company, and BeliSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (the AT&T Inc. 

companies); Verizon Online LLC, Verizon Online LLC - Maryland, and Verizon Online 

Pennsylvania Partnership (the Verizon companies); Comcast Cable Communications 

Management, LLC; CSC Holdings, LLC (solely with respect to its cable systems 

operating in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut) (the Cablevision systems); and 

Time Warner Cable Inc. 

CONFIDENTIAL 24 
248 

Attachment B - Participating Content Owners Group 

The members of the Participating Content Owners Group are the following: 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

I. MP AA and the following MP AA members: Walt Disney Studios Motion 

Pictures, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., 

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Universal City Studios LLC, and 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., and their successors and assigns. 

2. RIAA and the following RIAA members: l)MG Recordings, Inc., Warner Music 

Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and EMI Music North America, and their 

successors and assigns 

CONFIDENTIAL 25 
249 

Attachment C - Independent Review Program 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

The Independent Review Program described below is intended to provide an alternative, 

fast, efficient and low-cost means for Subscribers and Copyright Owners to obtain 

independent resolution of genuine disputes that may occur in connection with the 

Copyright Alert program outlined in the Agreement. Its purpose is to provide a 

Subscriber with a non-exclusive procedure to seek review of Copyright Alerts associated 

with the Subscriber's account in the event a Mitigation Measure is about to be applied on 

the Subscriber's account. 

The Independent Review process shall be just one avenue of appeal for Subscribers 

challenging such measure. This Independent Review process does not prevent 

Subscribers or Copyright Owners from addressing disputes through the courts, and that is 

the proper forum for addressing issues that are beyond the scope of this Independent 

Review process. 

1. Grounds for Independent Review. Once a Subscriber has received a Copyright Alert 

stating that a Mitigation Measure is about to be applied, the Subscriber may request an 

Independent Review of that Copyright Alert and prior Copyright Alerts (as described in 

paragraph 4.14) on the following grounds 

(i) Misidentification of Account - that the ISP account has been incorrectly 

identitied as one through which acts of alleged copyright infringement 

have occurred. 

(ii) Unauthorized Use of Account - that the alleged activity was the result of 

the unauthorized use of the Subscriber's account of which the Subscriber 

was unaware and that the Subscriber could not reasonably have prevented. 

(iii) Authorization - that the use of the work made by the Subscriber was 

authorized by its Copyright Owner. 

(iv) Fair Use - that the Subscriber's reproducing the copyrighted work(s) and 

distributing itlthem over a P2P network is defensible as a fair use. 

(vi) Misidentification of File - that the file in question does not consist 

primarily of the alleged copyrighted work at issue. 

(vii) Work Published Before 1923 - that the alleged copyrighted work was 

published prior to 1923. 

All detenninations shall be made by an independent "Reviewer" as described below, and 

the determinations shall have the effect set forth herein. 

2. Standard of Review. 

CONFIDENTIAL 26 
250 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

2.1. Misidentification of Account. A Subscriber shall prevail on this defense if 

the Participating ISP's and/or Copyright Owner's records indicate, upon Independent 

Review, that a factual error was made in (1) identifying the lP address at which the 

alleged copyright infringement occurred and/or (2) correlating the identified TP address to 

the Subscriber's account. In reviewing the Participating ISP's or Copyright Owner's 

records, automated systems for capturing TP addresses or other information in accordance 

with Methodologies have a rebuttable presumption that they work in accordance with 

their specifications, unless the Independent Expert's review of any such Content Owner 

Representative Methodology resulted in a Finding of Inadequacy in which event such 

rebuttable presumption shall not apply to such Content Owner Representative 

Methodology. 

2.2. Unauthorized Use of Account. A Subscriber shall prevail on this defense if 

the Subscriber adequately and credibly demonstrates that the alleged activity was the 

result of unauthorized use of the Subscriber's account by someone who is not a member 

or invitee of the household (e.g., via an unsecured wireless router or a hacked Internet 

connection) of which the Subscriber was unaware and that the Subscriber could not 

reasonably have prevented. The foregoing sentence notwithstanding, the Reviewer may 

in his or her discretion conclude that a Subscriber is entitled to prevail under this defense 

despite the Subscriber's failure to secure a wireless router if the Reviewer otherwise 

concludes that the Subscriber adequately and credibly demonstrates that the alleged 

activity was the result of unauthorized use of the Subscriber's account by someone who is 

not a member or invitee of the household of which the Subscriber was unaware. In 

detennining whether this standard has been satisfied, the Reviewer shall consider the 

evidence in light of the educational messages previously provided by the Participating 

ISP. Except as set forth herein, this defense may be asserted by a Subscriber only one (1) 

time to give the Subscriber the opportunity to take steps to prevent future unauthorized 

use of the Subscriber's account. Any subsequent assertion of this defense by a 

Subscriber shall be denied as barred, unless the Subscriber can show by clear and 

convincing evidence that the unauthorized use occurred despite reasonable steps to secure 

the Internet account and that the breach of such security could not reasonably have been 

avoided. 

2.3. Authorization. A Subscriber shall prevail on this defense if the Subscriber 

adequately and credibly demonstrates with written or other documented evidence that the 

Subscriber's alleged activity was actually specifically authorized by the Copyright Owner 

or its authorized representative. Such written or other documented evidence typically 

must include a true and unaltered copy of the agreement or communication asserted to 

grant the claimed authorization. Such evidence shall not be deemed adequate and 

credible if, among other things, (i) the evidence on its face does not support a claim of 

authorization, (ii) the evidence does not appear authentic, or (iii) a reasonable person in 

the Subscriber's position would not have concluded that the communication was in fact 

authorizing the specific use made of the work and that such authorization came from the 

actual Copyright Owner or by someone authorized to act on his/her behalf The defense 

shall fail if the Copyright Owner has demonstrated: (x) that the specific use of the work 

made by the Subscriber was not in fact authorized by the Copyright Owner; (y) if the 

CONFIDENTIAL 27 
251 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

alleged authorization did not come directly from the Copyright Owner, that the person 

purporting to grant authorization was not authorized to act on behalf of the Copyright 

Owner for purposes of authorizing the specific use made of the work by the Subscriber; 

or (z) that the documentary evidence submitted by the Subscriber likely is not authentic 

or has been altered in a material manner. 

24. Fair Use. A Subscriber shall prevail on this defense if the Subscriber 

adequately and credibly demonstrates fair use of the copyrighted work under prevailing 

principles of copyright law (which shall be identified as described in section 6). 

2.5. Misidentification of File. A Subscriber shall prevail on this defense if the 

Subscriber adequately and credibly demonstrates that a factual error was made in 

identifying the file at issue as consisting primarily of the alleged copyrighted work. In 

making this determination, the Content Owner Representative Methodology used to 

identify the file shall have a rebuttable presumption that it works in accordance with its 

specifications, unless the Independent Expert's review of any such Content Owner 

Representative Methodology resulted in a Finding ofInadequacy in which event such 

rebuttable presumption shall not apply to such Content Owner Representative 

Methodology 

2.6. Work Published Before 1923. A Subscriber shall prevail on this defense if 

the Subscriber adequately and credibly demonstrates that the alleged copyrighted work in 

question was actually published prior to 1923. 

3. Effect of Decision. Tfthe Reviewer's decision is in favor of the Subscriber for a 

particular Copyright Alert, that Copyright Alert shall be deemed invalid, the filing fee 

described in paragraph 4.1.6 shall be promptly refunded to the Subscriber, and the 

Participating ISP shall remove that Copyright Alert from the Subscriber's account 

records and refrain from applying any Mitigation Measures based on the invalidated 

Copyright Alert(s). All other Copyright Alerts shall remain valid, and shall count toward 

future Mitigation Measures. If the Reviewer's decision for a particular Copyright Alert is 

in favor of the Copyright Owner, that Copyright Alert shall be deemed valid, and if 

applicable, the Mitigation Measure shall be applied promptly. The Reviewer's decision 

will be binding solely for the purposes of the Copyright Alert program. By participating 

in the Independent Review, the Subscriber, the Participating ISP, and the Copyright 

Owner agree to waive all rights to challenge the Reviewer's decision for purposes of the 

Copyright Alert program. The Reviewer's decision shall have no effect outside of the 

Copyright Alert program, shall not act as res judicata or collateral estoppel or any similar 

bar, and shall not have any precedential impact for other Independent Reviews with 

respect to other Subscribers within the Copyright Alert program. In any judicial 

proceeding between a Subscriber and a Copyright Owner concerning subject matter that 

is or has been the subject ofIndependent Review, neither the Subscriber nor the 

Copyright Owner shall seek to enter into evidence, or otherwise refer to or cite, either the 

fact of the Independent Review or any outcome of the Independent Review. 

4. Independent Review Procedure. 

CONFIDENTIAL 28 
252 

4. I. How to Initiate an Independent Review. 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

4.1.1. ACIR Form. When the Participating ISP sends a Copyright Alert 

stating that the Subscriber's account is subject to a Mitigation Measure, the 

Participating ISP will also make available to the Subscriber access to an online 

Application to Commence Independent Review ("ACTR") form and related 

materials. The ACIR form and related materials will permit the Subscriber to 

review all of the Copyright Alerts applicable to the Subscriber's account that have 

not previously been subject to review, as further described in paragraph 4.1.4. 

The ACIR form will identify all of the information necessary for the Subscriber to 

invoke an Independent Review, including each defense asserted as to each work 

identified in a Copyright Alert under review, and also include space for provision 

of the Subscriber's contact information. 

4.1.2. Authorization. The ACIR form will contain an authorization by the 

Subscriber to disclose relevant personal information to the Reviewer and to the 

Participating ISP. Such information includes (I) information contained on the 

AClR form, (2) information in the Participating ISP's possession, custody or 

control identifying the Subscriber or relating to any Copyright Alert sent to the 

Subscriber by the Participating ISP concerning alleged infringement, (3) 

information regarding the Participating ISP' s matching of the IP address in an ISP 

Notice to the Subscriber's account, and (4) details of actions taken or proposed to 

be taken as Mitigation Measures by the Participating ISP with respect to the 

Subscriber's account. Except as explained in the next sentence or as required by 

judicial order or other legal process, all Subscriber personal information will be 

held in confidence and not disclosed to the Copyright Owner. If the Subscriber's 

defense is based on authorization, then the Reviewer may, in his or her discretion, 

disclose to the Copyright Owner onl y such personal infonnation concerning the 

Subscriber as is reasonably necessary to permit the Copyright Owner to rebut a 

claim of authorization if that information is required for such purposes. The 

ACIR form will contain an authorization by the Subscriber to disclose relevant 

personal infonnation to the Copyright Owner in the circumstances described in 

the immediately preceding sentence. 

4.1.3. Information Required. The Subscriber must (I) identify the 

defenses asserted as to each work identified in each Copyright Alert at issue by 

checking the proper boxes on the ACIR form, (2) explain the specific basis for 

each defense, and (3) provide the corresponding back-up material to support such 

grounds. In the case of a defense of authorization, the ACIR form must be 

accompanied by the applicable written or other documented evidence that the 

Subscriber's alleged activity was specifically authorized by the Copyright Owner 

or its authorized representative, as described in paragraph 2.3. In the case of a 

defense of fair use, the ACIR fonn must (1) be accompanied by a true and 

unaltered copy of each content file that the Subscriber asserts to be a fair use 

under prevailing principles of copyright law; and (2) an explanation of each use 

CONFIDENTIAL 29 
253 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

the Subscriber made of the file, including any distribution or downloading 

identitied in the Copyright Alert(s), and the basis for claiming each such use as a 

fair use. 

4.1.4. Cupyright Alerts SubjeGt to Review. The Subscriber shall have the 

right to invoke Independent Review for the last Copyright Alert sent as well as 

prior Copyright Alerts, provided that the right to have a particular Copyright Alert 

reviewed shall be waived if that right is not invoked the first time the Copyright 

Alert becomes eligible to be reviewed. Accordingly, when a Subscriber first 

receives a Mitigation Measure Copyright Alert, the Subscriber may invoke the 

Independent Review process as to any prior Copyright Alert, but if any of those 

Copyright Alerts is not reviewed at that time it will thereafter be unreviewable. 

4.1.5. J'vfllltiple Wurks Identified ill a Cupyright Alert. In cases in which a 

Copyright Alert alleges infringing activity with respect to multiple works, the 

Independent Review process may be invoked by a Subscriber only if the 

Subscriber offers a defense as to every work cited in the Copyright Alert. A 

Copyright Alert will be considered valid and provide a basis for the application of 

a Mitigation Measure if the Subscriber is found to have no valid defense as to any 

one work cited in the Copyright Alert, unless the Independent Review establishes 

a pattern of invalid allegations in the Copyright Alert sufficient to cast substantial 

doubt on the Copyright Alert's remaining allegations. 

4.1.6. Filing Fee. The Subscriber shall be required to pay a filing fee of 

thirty-five dollars ($35) in order to invoke the Independent Review, unless the 

Subscriber qualifies for a waiver or reduction in the filing fee in accordance with 

the procedures of the Administering Organization (as defined in paragraph 5.1 

below). This fee will be refunded to the Subscriber in the event that the Reviewer 

decides in favor of the Subscriber as to any Copyright Alert eligible for review. 

4.1.7. Deadline. The ACIR form, related materials and filing fee ("ACIR 

Package") must be submitted electronically within ten (10) business days after 

receipt of the relevant Copyright Alert. Except as contemplated in paragraph 5.6 

below, failure to properly submit an ACTR fonn by the due date shall be deemed a 

waiver of the right to seek Independent Review regarding the applicable 

Mitigation Measure. 

4.1.8. Submission (ifACIR Package. The Subscriber must submit the 

ACTR Package to the Administering Organization. The Administering 

Organization shall immediately send a copy of the ACIR Package to the 

applicable Participating ISP. 

4.1.9. Effect of Filing for Independent Review. A Subscriber's filing of 

the AClR fonn stays implementation of any Mitigation Measure. A Subscriber's 

failure to file an ACIR or otherwise challenge an allegation of copyright 

CONFIDENTIAL 30 
254 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

infringement shall not be construed as an admission or waiver in any other forum 

or context. 

4.2 Process for Independent Review. 

4.2.1. Selectioll ofRevielver. All Independent Reviews shall be resolved 

by one (1) individual serving as an independent Reviewer. The Reviewer will be 

selected by the Administering Organization from a panel of neutrals, as further 

described in paragraph 5.2. 

4.2.2. initial Review of ACiR Package. A Reviewer will review the ACIR 

package within five (5) business days of receipt to detennine whether it is 

substantially complete. To be considered substantially complete, (1) the ACIR 

Package must include a substantially completed AClR form; (2) the AClR form 

must assert a defense as to each work identified in the relevant Copyright Alert 

subject to Independent Review; (3) for each defense asserted as to each work, the 

ACIR Package must include sufficient infonnation as described in paragraph 

4.1.3 to pennit the Independent Review to proceed meaningfully and to 

potentially result in a decision in favor of the Subscriber; and (4) the ACIR 

Package must include the required payment as provided in paragraph 4.1.6. If the 

ACIR Package is not substantially complete, the case will be denied. The first 

time an ACIR Package is denied, such a denial shall be without prejudice to 

afford the Subscriber one additional opportunity to correct any mistakes or 

omissions in the ACIR Package. In such a case, the Reviewer shall notify the 

Subscriber of the relevant defects and afford the Subscriber five (5) business days 

to remedy the defects by submitting a substantially complete ACIR Package. 

Otherwise (except as provided in paragraph 5.6 below), such a denial shall be 

with prejudice. Either a denial without prejudice that is not remedied within 5 

business days or a denial with prejudice shall have the same effects as a denial on 

the merits (see section 3). 

4.2.3. Verification that Defense of Unauthorized Use of Account is not 

Barred. In the case of any defense of unauthorized use of account, the 

Reviewer's initial review will also consider whether that defense is barred 

because the Administering Organization's records indicate that the Subscriber 

previously asserted that defense in another Independent Review. If so, the 

defense shall be denied, unless the Subscriber can show by clear and convincing 

evidence that the unauthorized use occurred despite reasonable steps to secure the 

Internet account and that the breach of such security could not reasonably have 

been avoided. If for any reason the Administering Organization's records are 

inconclusive as to this question, the Reviewer will request clarification from the 

Participating ISP pursuant to paragraph 4.2.4. 

4.2.4. ('ulleetiun ufStandard ilIfurmatiunfrum Participating iSP and 

Copyright Owner. If the ACIR Package is substantially complete, the Reviewer 

will, if needed, request standard relevant information from the Participating ISP 

CONFIDENTIAL 31 
255 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

and/or Copyright Owner to assess the grounds for review Details of the standard 

information to be provided by the Participating ISP and/or Copyright Owner for 

different types of defenses shall be determined by mutual agreement of 

representatives of the Administering Organization, Participating ISPs and 

Copyright Owners as implementation proceeds, with the goal of having provision 

of this standard information be a straightforward and largely automated process. 

In the case of a defense of misidentification of account, information to be 

provided by the Participating ISP is anticipated to consist of infonnation in the 

Participating ISP's possession, custody, or control relating to (I) ISP Notices 

received by the Participating ISP and matched to the Subscriber's account, 

(2) Copyright Alerts sent to the Subscriber by the Participating ISP, and (3) the 

Participating ISP's matching ofIP addresses on ISP Notices received by the 

Participating ISP to the Subscriber's account. Information to be provided by the 

Copyright Owner is anticipated to consist of all or part of the evidence package(s) 

(i.e., information relating to the alleged access to copyrighted material) for one (1) 

or more Copyright Alerts that are the subject of the Independent Review. The 

Participating ISP and Copyright Owner, as applicable, will provide the relevant 

information to the Reviewer within ten (10) business days after receipt of the 

request. 

4.2.5. First Suhstantive Review. Within five (5) business days from 

receipt of the relevant standard information from the Participating ISP and/or the 

Copyright Owner, the Reviewer will review the case record substantively to 

detennine if additional infonnation from the Participating ISP and/or Copyright 

Owner is required, or whether it is apparent without soliciting further information 

that the Subscriber will not prevail as to all works cited in anyone (1) or more 

Copyright Alerts. 

4.2.6. Supplemelltal !t!formatioll. The Reviewer shall have the discretion 

to request supplemental information from the Participating ISP, Copyright Owner 

or Subscriber within the five (5) business day period referred to in paragraph 

4.2.5, if such information would likely be material to ajust resolution of the 

Independent Review. If the Reviewer makes such a request, the applicable 

party(ies) shall have ten (10) business days to respond. If the Subscriber asserts a 

defense of authorization or fair use and the Reviewer determines that the defense 

may have merit, then the Copyright Owner shall receive all relevant information 

about the defense from the Reviewer and be afforded an opportunity to provide 

evidence to rebut the defense within ten (10) business days from receipt of such 

information. Such information shall include (I) in the case of a defense of 

authorization, all substantiating evidence and explanation submitted by the 

Subscriber as to each relevant work and the Subscriber's identifying information, 

unless the Reviewer concludes that the Copyright Owner does not need to know 

the identity of the Subscriber to evaluate the Subscriber's claim that his or her 

activity was authorized; and (2) in the case of a defense of fair use, the content 

file submitted by the Subscriber as to each relevant work and an explanation of 

why the Subscriber believes each use of that content file to be a fair use. 

CONFIDENTIAL 32 
256 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

4.2.7. Final Assessment and Issuance of f)ecision. Within ten (10) 

business days of receipt of all requested information, including any supplemental 

information provided pursuant to paragraph 4.2.6, or passage of the relevant time 

to provide supplemental information in the event no supplemental information is 

received, the Reviewer shall assess the complete case record and enter a final 

decision. Tn doing so, the Reviewer shall determine the relevance, materiality and 

weight of all evidence based on the available record. The proceedings will take 

place exclusively on the written record, and there shall be no live hearings. For a 

Copyright Alert alleging infringement of multiple copyrighted works, in order to 

find in favor of the Subscriber with respect to the Copyright Alert, the Reviewer 

must consider and find in favor of the Subscriber as to a defense for each 

individual work referenced in the Copyright Alert or must find a pattern of invalid 

allegations in the Copyright Alert sufficient to cast substantial doubt on all 

allegations in the Copyright Alert. Upon reaching a final decision, the Reviewer 

will notify the Subscriber, Participating ISP and Copyright Owner of the outcome, 

and if the decision is a denial of the Subscriber's defense, the Reviewer will also 

include a short description of the rationale for the denial. 

4.2.8. Withdrawal of Notice hy Copyright Owner. A Copyright Owner 

may withdraw an ISP Notice at any time during the Independent Review process, 

which shall have the same effect as a finding for the Subscriber as to the 

withdrawl1 Copyright Alert (see section 3). 

4.2.9. Communications Among Parties. Except as specifically described 

in these rules (e.g, in the case of requests for information as described in 

paragraphs 4.2.4 and 4.2.6), there will be no communication between the 

Reviewer and the Participating ISP, Copyright Owner or Subscriber concerning 

the Independent Review. There is to be absolutely no discovery between the 

parties to the dispute, and no party shall have any obligation to respond to any 

request for information or to provide any particular information, except as 

described herein. 

5. Administration ofTndependent Review Process. 

5.1. In General. The Independent Review process shall be coordinated by the 

administering organization selected by the CCI Executive Committee ("Administering 

Organization"). The Independent Review process shall be governed exclusively by these 

rules. 

5.2. Selection of Reviewers. The Administering Organization shall have 

mechanisms for establishing a panel of neutrals and for ensuring their continuing 

neutrality, their compliance with these rules, and their adherence to the governing 

principles of copyright law as provided in section 6. Reviewers must be lawyers, but 

need not necessarily have the legal or case management expertise that would qualify 

them to act as arbitrators of more complex disputes in a broader-ranging alternative 

CONFIDENTIAL 33 
257 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

dispute resolution process. The Administering Organization shall provide Reviewers 

training in this Independent Review process and governing principles of copyright law 

determined as described in section 6. Reviewers may be staff employees of the 

Administering Organization if the volume of disputes subject to the Independent Review 

process so warrants. 

5.3. Automation. The Administering Organization shall implement automated 

processes for managing the workflow of cases proceeding through the Independent 

Review process, including means for seeking and obtaining information from 

Participating ISPs and Copyright Owners in a manner that minimizes the associated 

workload on Participating ISPs and Copyright Owners and is automated to the maximum 

extent practicable 

5.4. Records of Subscriber History of Invoking Independent Review. The 

Administering Organization will maintain a secure database of Subscribers' history of 

invoking the Independent Review process, which will be available to Reviewers when 

evaluating future disputes involving the relevant Subscribers. Thus, for example, it 

should be possible for a Reviewer to determine from this database whether a Subscriber 

has previously asserted a defense of unauthorized use of account, and a Reviewer may 

consider a Subscriber's Independent Review history in evaluating the credibility of 

claims under review. 

5.5. Recordkeeping and Review. The CCI Executive Committee and 

Administering Organization will establish processes for (1) maintaining records 

concerning proceedings, (2) periodically reviewing anonymous, aggregated information 

about issues and outcomes so that trends can be identified and addressed if warranted, 

and (3) confidentially auditing decisions for purposes of evaluating the performance of 

Reviewers and the Administering Organization. Except to the extent necessary to 

maintain records of outcomes of proceedings for purposes of operation and review of the 

Independent Review process or as otherwise expressly set forth herein, Reviewers shall 

not prepare written decisions in the cases they decide. The Parties to the Agreement 

agree to negotiate in good faith as to adjustments in the Independent Review process if 

such adjustments are warranted by actual experience in operating the Independent 

Review process. 

5.6. Provision of Information. Fair and efficient administration of the 

Independent Review process depends upon timely provision of information requested by 

the Reviewer at various steps of the process, as described in paragraph 4.2. Whenever 

these rules set forth a timeframe for provision of information requested by the Reviewer, 

the Reviewer may grant reasonable extensions of such period (not to exceed ten (10) 

business days) for substantial good cause shown. In the absence of the requested 

infonnation at the deadline for providing the same, the following provisions will apply: 

5.6.1. Delays in Pruviding Standard Infurmatiun. If the Reviewer 

properly requests a standard package ofinfonnation from a Participating ISP or 

Copyright Owner, as described in paragraph 4.2.4, and the Participating ISP or 

CONFIDENTIAL 34 
258 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

Copyright Owner does not provide the requested information as to some or all 

claims or works on a timely basis, (I) the Reviewer shall promptly notify the 

Participating ISP or Copyright Owner and the Participating ISP or Copyright 

Owner shall have a further five (5) business days to provide the requested 

information; and (2) the Administering Organization shall reflect such deficiency 

in reports to be provided periodically to the CCI Executive Committee. Recurring 

failure of a Participating ISP or Copyright Owner to provide requested standard 

infonnation during the initial period identified in paragraph 4.2.4, in other than 

isolated instances, will be considered a breach of its obligations under the 

Agreement. If a Participating ISP or Copyright Owner does not provide available 

requested information within a further five (5) business days, (a) the dispute will 

proceed to the next step of decision making based on the available record without 

such information, giving the Subscriber the benefit of any doubt concerning the 

missing requested information; (b) the Administering Organization shall reflect 

such deficiency in reports to be provided periodically to the CCI Executive 

Committee; and (c) the Participating ISP or Copyright Owner will be considered 

in breach of its obligations under the Agreement. 

5.6.2. Delays in Providing Supplemental Infurmatiun. If the Reviewer 

properly requests supplemental information from a Participating ISP, Copyright 

Owner or Subscriber pursuant to paragraph 4.2.6, and the Participating ISP, 

Copyright Owner or Subscriber does not provide the requested information as to 

some or all claims or works on a timely basis, the dispute will proceed to the next 

step of decision making based on the available record without such infonnation. 

If the Reviewer believes that the position of a party to the proceeding other than 

the one that has failed to provide the requested infonnation is otherwise 

meritorious, the Reviewer shall give such party the benefit of any doubt 

concerning the missing requested infonnation. 

6. Legal Principles to Be Aoolied in Independent Review The Independent Review 

process will, to the extent relevant, apply prevailing legal principles as detennined by 

United States federal courts. The Administering Organization will commission an 

accepted, independent expert on copyright law, who is approved by the CCI Executive 

Committee, to outline prevailing legal principles of fair use for purposes of deciding 

defenses of fair use, and any other legal principles necessary for resolution of issues 

within the scope of this Independent Review process. Such outline will be updated from 

time to time as necessary. If additional material questions oflaw arise as the Independent 

Review process is implemented, they may be referred to an accepted, independent expert 

approved by the CCI Executive Committee as needed. The Administering Organization 

will advise the Parties to the Agreement of issues referred to, and principles determined 

by, such an expert, and provide a process for the Parties to the Agreement to provide 

input concerning the issues, so as to ensure that the expert's detenninations are fullyinformed and reflect prevailing law as determined by United States federal courts. 

CONFIDENTIAL 35 
259 

f 

Attachment D - MPAA Member Company Affiliates 

FINAL 

7/6/2011 

The MP AA member companies' affiliates are entities under the control of an MP AA 

member company. For purposes of this Attachment D, "control" is detined as (I) the 

ownership of at least fifty percent (50%) of the equity or beneficial interest of the 

controlled entity, (2) the right to vote for or appoint a majority of the board of directors or 

other governing body of such entity (if the board or governing body may exercise 

authority with less than a majority, then the right to vote or appoint the number of 

directors necessary to exercise that authority), or (3) the right or authority to grant, 

approve or withhold, directly or indirectly, financial resources necessary to the operation 

of the controlled entity. As of the Etfective Date of this Agreement, the following 

entities are MP AA member company affiliates: 

Disney Enterprises, Inc., entities controlled, directly or indirectly, by Disney 

Enterprises, Inc. (together, "Disney Enterprises Entities"), and such other entities 

as have authorized the foregoing to send Copyright Alerts on their behalf with 

respect to works distributed by Disney Enterprises Entities. 

Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., entities controlled, directly or indirectly, by Fox 

Entertainment Group, Inc., (together, "Fox Entertainment Entities") and such 

other entities as have authorized the foregoing to send Copyright Alerts on their 

behalf with respect to works distributed by Fox Entertainment Entities. 

NECDniversal Media LLC, entities controlled, directly or indirectly, by 

NECDniversal Media LLC, (together, "NECD Entities") and such other entities 

as have authorized the foregoing to send Copyright Alerts on their behalf with 

respect to works distributed by NECD Entities. 

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., entities controlled, directly or indirectly, by 

Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc. (together, "SPE Entities"), and such other 

entities as have authorized the foregoing to send Copyright Alerts on their behalf 

with respect to works distributed by SPE Entities. 

Turner Entertainment Networks, Inc., entities controlled, directly or indirectly, by 

Turner Entertainment Networks, Inc. (together, "Turner Entities"), and such other 

entities as have authorized the foregoing to send Copyright Alerts on their behalf 

with respect to works distributed by Turner Entities. 

Viacom, Inc, entities controlled, directly or indirectly, by Viacom, Inc. (together, 

"Viacom Entities"), and such other entities as have authorized the foregoing to 

send notices on their behalf with respect to works distributed by Viacom Entities. 

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, entities controlled, directly or indirectly, by 

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures (together, "Walt Disney Studios Entities"), 

and such other entities as have authorized the foregoing to send notices on their 

behalf with respect to works distributed by Walt Disney Studios Entities. 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., entities controlled, directly or indirectly, by 

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (together, "Warner Bros. Entities"), and such 

other entities as have authorized the foregoing to send notices on their behalf with 

respect to works distributed by Warner Bros. Entities. 

CONFIDENTIAL 37 
260 

19 June 2013 

Annex I 

of GAC Safeguards 

to All New gTlDs 

The following is a draft proposal for how TCANN could implement the "GAC Safeguards 

Applicable to All New gTLDs." This is an unapproved draft subject to further NGPC 

consideration. 

1. WHOTS Verification and Checks (GAC Register # 2013-04-11-Safeguards-l) 

ICANN is concluding its development of a WHOTS tool that gives it the ability to check 

false, incomplete or inaccurate WHOTS data as the Board previously directed staff in 

Board Resolutions 2012.1l.08.01 - 2012.1l.08.02 to begin to "proactively identify 

potentially inaccurate gTLD data registration in gTLD registry and registrar services, 

explore using automated tools, and forward potentially inaccurate records to gTLD 

registrars for action; and 2) publicly report on the resulting actions to encourage 

improved accuracy." <httR / !\Vy.ivvic;ann. org! en/grQup_s/boarcl/clo(;ulnenJsiresgl11tiol1s~ 

OSnov 12-cn. htm> ---------------- ------- - -- ---

Given these ongoing activities, ICANN (instead of Registry Operators) is well positioned 

to implement the GAC's advice that checks identifying registrations in a gTLD with 

deliberately false, inaccurate or incomplete WHOIS data be conducted at least twice a 

year. To achieve this, ICANN will perform a periodic sampling of WHO IS data across 

registries in an effort to identify potentially inaccurate records. ICANN will also maintain 

statistical reports that identify the number of inaccurate WHOIS records identified This 

undertaking by ICANN would not require ICANN to provide special certifications to 

Registry Operators certifying the accuracy of any WHOIS data. The WHOIS verification 
261 

and checks would be focused on the current version of WHO IS requirements, but would 

eventually broaden to include directory services. 

2. Mitigating Abusive Activity (GAC Register # 2013-04-II-Safeguards-2) 

ICANN will include a provision in the proposed New gTLD Registry Agreement (as a 

mandatory Public Interest Commitment in Specification II) 

obligating Registry Operators to include a provision in their Registry-Registrar 

Agreements that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a 

provision prohibiting Registered Name Holders from distributing malware, abusively 

operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or 

deceptive practices, counterfeiting or otherwise engaging in activity contrary to 

applicable law, and providing (consistent with applicable law and any related procedures) 

consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain name. 

Paragraph 2 of the PIC Specification attached as Annex IT includes language to 

implement the GAC advice. Because the Registry Operator does not have a direct 

contractual relationship with the Registered Name Holder, the language proposed in the 

PIC Specification would require the Registry Operator to include a provision in its 

Registry-Registrar Agreement, which in tum requires Registrars to include a provision in 

their Registration Agreements prohibiting Registered Name Holders from engaging in the 

abusive activity listed in the GAC advice. 

3. Security Checks (GAC Register # 2013-04-11-Safeguards-3) 

ICANN will include a provision in the proposed New gILD Registry Agreement (as a 

mandatory Public Interest Commitment in Specification 11) requiring Registry Operators 

periodically to conduct a technical analysis to assess whether domains in its gILD are 

being used to perpetrate security threats, such as ph arming, phishing, mal ware, and 

botnets. Ihe provision will also require Registry Operators to maintain statistical reports 

2 
262 

on the number of security threats identified and the actions taken as a result of the 

periodic security checks. Registry Operators will maintain these reports for the agreed 

contracted period and provide them to TCANN upon request. The contents of the reports 

will be publically available as appropriate. 

Because there are multiple ways for a Registry Operator to implement the required 

security checks, TCANN will solicit community participation (including conferring with 

the GAC) in a task force or through a policy development process in the GNSO, as 

appropriate, to develop the framework for Registry Operators to respond to identified 

security risks that pose an actual risk of harm, notification procedures, and appropriate 

consequences, including a process for suspending domain names until the matter is 

resolved, while respecting privacy and confidentiality. The language include in Paragraph 

3 of the attached PTC Specification provides the general guidelines for what Registry 

Operators must do, but omits the specific details from the contractual language to allow 

for the future development and evolution of the parameters for conducting security 

checks. This will permit Registry Operators to enter into agreements as soon as possible, 

while allowing for a careful and fulsome consideration by the community on the 

implementation details. 

4. Documentation (GAC Register # 2013-04-11-Safeguards-4) 

As detailed in # I above, ICANN will maintain statistical reports that identify the number 

of inaccurate WHOIS records identified as part of the checks to identify registrations 

with deliberately false, inaccurate or incomplete WHOTS data. Also, as detailed in #3 

above, Registry Operators will be required to maintain statistical reports on the number of 

security threats identified and the actions taken as a result of the periodic security checks. 

Registry Operators will maintain these reports for the agreed contracted period and 

provide them to ICANN upon request. The contents of the reports will be publically 

available as appropriate. 
263 

5. Making and Handling Complaints (GAC Register # 2013-04-11-Safeguards-5) 

Registry Operators will be required to ensure that there is a mechanism for making 

complaints to the Registry Operator regarding malicious conduct in the TLD. Section 4.1 

of Specification 6 of the proposed New gTLD Registry Agreement provides that, 

"Registry Operator shall provide to TCANN and publish on its website its accurate 

contact details including a valid email and mailing address as well as a primary contact 

for handling inquires related to malicious conduct in the TLD, and will provide TCANN 

with prompt notice of any changes to such contact details." Also, Section 2.8 of the 

proposed New gTLD Registry Agreement provides that a, "Registry Operator shall take 

reasonable steps to investigate and respond to any reports from law enforcement and 

governmental and quasi-governmental agencies of illegal conduct in connection with the 

use of the TLD." 

ICANN operates the WHOIS Data Problem Reports System 

<http.llwww.icann.onden/resources/compliallce!complaints/whoislinaccuracy-form>, 

which is a mechanism for making complaints that WHOTS information is inaccurate. 

6. Consequences (GAC Register # 20l3-04-II-Safeguards-6) 

As indicated in #2 above, ICANN will include a provision in the proposed New gILD 

Registry Agreement (as a mandatory Public Interest Commitment in Specification II) 

obligating Registry Operators to include a provision in their Registry-Registrar 

Agreements that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a 

provision prohibiting Registered Name Holders from distributing malware, abusively 

operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or 

deceptive practices, counterteiting or otherwise engaging in activity contrary to 

applicable law, and providing (consistent with applicable law and any related procedures) 

consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain name. 

4 
264 

f 

Consequences for the demonstrated provision of false WHOTS infonllation are set forth 

in Section 3.7.7.2 of the 2013 RAA 

<http://v.'V-iw. i cann. om.! enlresources/reaj strarsiraa/proposed-agreemen t -2:2apr 13 -en. pdf>: 

"A Registered Name Holder's willful provision of inaccurate or unreliable infonllation, 

its willful failure to update infonnation provided to Registrar within seven (7) days of any 

change, or its failure to respond for over fifteen (15) days to inquiries by Registrar 

concerning the accuracy of contact details associated with the Registered Name Holder's 

registration shall constitute a material breach of the Registered Name Holder-registrar 

contract and be a basis for suspension and/or cancellation of the Registered Name 

registration." Paragraph 1 of the proposed PTC Specification includes a requirement that 

Registry Operator will use only ICANN accredited registrars that are party to the 2013 

RAA so that these consequences are contractually required. 
265 

f 

Annex II 

Proposed PIC Spec Implementation of GAC Safeguards Applicable to all New 

gTLDs 

(19 June 2013) 

The following is a preliminary draft reference version of the Beijing GAC safeguards 

advice for safeguards applicable to all new gILDs implemented as Public Interest 

Commitments - for discussion only. 

Specification II 

Public Interest Commitments 

1. Registry Operator will use only ICANN accredited registrars that are party to the 

Registrar Accreditation Agreement approved by the ICANN Board of Directors on 

,2013 in registering domain names. A list of such registrars shall be 

maintained by ICANN on ICANN's website. 

2. Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement 

that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision 

prohibiting Registered Name Holders from distributing malware, abusively operating 

botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive 

practices, counterfeiting or otherwise engaging in activity contrary to applicable law, and 

providing (consistent with applicable law and any related procedures) consequences for 

such activities including suspension of the domain name. 

3. Registry Operator will periodically conduct a technical analysis to assess whether 

domains in the ILD are being used to perpetrate security threats, such as pharming, 

phishing, malware, and botnets. Registry Operator will maintain statistical reports on the 

number of security threats identified and the actions taken as a result of the periodic 

security checks. Registry Operator will maintain these reports for the term of the 

Agreement unless a shorter period is required by law or approved by ICANN, and will 

provide them to ICANN upon request. 
266 

Appro\cd Rcsolutions I Mccting ortllc Nc\\ gILD Program Committcc I http://\\ \\ \\.icanl1.org/cn/groupsiboard/doculllcntsircsolutions-nc\\ -gtld-2. 

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 

GROUPS (fEN/GROUPS) } BOARD (lENfGROUPS/BOARD) ) DOCUMENTS (lENfGROUPS/BOARDfDOCUMENTS) 

Approved Resolutions I Meeting of the New gTLD Program Committee 

25June2013 

1. Consent Agenda 

a. Approval of NGPC Meeting Minutes 

2. Main Agenda 

a. ~~gJ~~:~~!.g~.~~y.~~e.~_g..9..~r:!.!i.~~~~) Statement on TMCHNariants 

b. Safeguards Applicable to ali New gTLDs 

Rationale for Resolutions 2013.06.25.NG02 - 2013.06.25.NG03 

c. Category 2 Safeguard Advice re Restricted and Exclusive Registry Access 

Rationale for Resolutions 2013.06.25.NG04 - 2013.06.25.06 

d. Singular & Plural Versions of the Same String as a I.~.!?.c~~p' .. ~~.y.~I_~.q~~l~l 

Rationale for Resolution 2013.06.25.NG07 

e. L~_Q_(l!.1.!~!.9.Q.~~rDE!.1~_~!.~LQf.9.~~l?~!jC?Ql Protection 

AOB 

1. Consent Agenda 

a. ApllTOYaI of NCPC Mt-'Cting Minutes 

Resolved (2013.06.25.NG01), the Board approves the minutes of the 4 June 2013 New gJ::~_I;:U.9.~~~!j~JC?p. ~_~I,I~! 

QQ0.:1~j~) Program Committee Meeting. 

2. Main Agenda 

1 of 16 

a. ~_~~<;:::.(~~:~.~n~~.~!I.~:i.~9D:.~.I).~~i~.!~! Statement on TMCHIVariants 

No resolution taken. 

b. Safeguards Applicable to all Ne\\ gTLDs 

Whereas, the 9~gj9_Q.~~!!.1_rn_~_~.t~L~_t1~.L~Q.~_g.9_Q1_f'!1j!J.e.~1 met during the l~~.~.t-.!.fI~!~~~.t_9.c?'~RSl~.!~~.~.f~! .. ~.~~lg.~~_c;! 

.tJ_~~~.§_~!.1_q._~~.I!1.b.~~~146 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communique on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communique"); 

Whereas, the Beijing Communique included six (6) elements of safeguard advice applicable to ali new gTLDs, which 

9/16/20]] lOA-X AM 
267 

Appro\cd Rcsolutions I Mccting ortllc Nc\\ gILD Program Committcc I http://\\ \\ \\.icanl1.org/cn/groupsiboard/doculllcntsircsolutions-nc\\ -gtld-2. 

2 of 16 

are identified in the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee) Register of Advice as: (a) 2013-04-11-Safeguards-1, 

(b) 2013-04-11-Safeguards-2, (c) 2013-04-11-Safeguards-3, (d) 2013-04-11-Safeguards-4, (e) 2013-04-11-

Safeguards-5, and (f) 2013-04-11-Safeguards-6 (collectively, the "Safeguards Applicable to All Strings"); 

Whereas, on 23 April 2013, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) initiated a public 

comment forum to solicit the community's input on how the NGPC should address GAC (Governmental Advisory 

Committee) advice regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) 

strings <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-commenVgac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en.htm (len/news/publiccommenUgac-safegua rd-advice-23apr13-en. htm»; 

\fV'hereas, the NGPC met on 8 and 18 May and 4, 11 and 18 June 2013 to consider a plan for responding to the GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee)'s advice on the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Program, including the 

Safeguards Applicable to All Strings; 

\fV'hereas, the NGPC met on 25 June 2013 to further discuss and consider its plan for responding the GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee)'s advice in the Beijing Communique on the New gTLD (generic Top Level 

Domain) Program; 

Whereas, the NGPC has considered the public comments submitted during the public comment forum, and has 

determined that its position, as presented in Annex I (/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annexi-agenda-2b-25jun13-en.pdf) [PDF, 72 KB] attached to this Resolution, is consistent with the GAC (Govemmental 

Advisory Committee)'s advice regarding Safeguards Applicable to All Strings; 

Whereas, the NGPC proposes revisions to the final draft of the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Registry 

Agreement <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-commenVbase-agreement-29apr13-en.htm (len/news/publiccommenVbase-agreement-29apr13-en.htm» as presented in Annex II (/en/groups/board/documents/resolutionsnew-gtld-annex-ii-agenda-2b-25jun13-en.pdf) [PDF, 64 KB] attached to this Resolution to implement certain elements 

of the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice regarding Safeguards Applicable to All Strings; and 

Whereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to 

exercise the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) Board's authority for any and all issues 

that may arise relating to the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Program. 

Resolved (2013.06.25.NG02), the NGPC adopts the "NGPC Proposal for Implementation ofGAC (Governmental 

Advisory Committee) Safeguards Applicable to All New gTLDs" (19 June 2013), attached as Annex I (len/groups 

Iboard/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-i-agenda-2b-25jun13-en.pdf) [PDF, 72 KB] to this Resolution, to accept 

the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee)'s advice regarding Safeguards Applicable to All Strings. 

Resolved (2013.06.25.NG03), the NGPC directs staff to make appropriate changes to the final draft of the New ~ 

(generic Top Level Domain) Registry Agreement, as presented in Annex II (/en/groups/board/documents/resolutionsnew-gtld-annex-ii-agenda-2b-25jun13-en.pdf) [PDF, 64 KB] attached to this Resolution, to implement certain 

elements of the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice regarding Safeguards Applicable to All Strings. 

Rationale ror Rc!\olution!\ 2013.06.25.NG02 - 2013JI6.25.NGOJ 

Why the NGPC is addressing the issue? 

Article XI, Section 2.1 of the ICANN (Internet COrporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) Bylaws 

http://www.icann.org/en/abouVgovernance/bylaws#XI (/en/abouVgovemance/bylaws#XI) permit the GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) to "put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or 

by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies." The GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) issued advice to the Board on the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) 

Program through its Beijing Communique dated 11 April 2013. The ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 

and Numbers) Bylaws require the Board to take into account the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s advice 

on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the polices. If the Board decides to take an action that is 

not consistent with the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice, it must inform the GAC (Govemmental 

Advisory Committee) and state the reasons why it decided not to follow the advice. The Board and the GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) will then try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no solution 

9/16120]] 10:48 AM 
268 

Appro\cd Rcsolutions I Mccting ortllc Nc\\ gILD Program Committcc I http://\\ \\ \\.icanl1.org/cn/groupsiboard/doculllcntsircsolutions-nc\\ -gtld-2. 

:; of 16 

can be found, the Board will state in its final decision why the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice was 

not follovved. 

What is the proposal being considered? 

The NGPC is being asked to consider accepting a discrete grouping of the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) 

advice as described in the attached "NGPC Proposal for Implementation of GAC (Governmental Advisory 

Committee) Safeguards Applicable to All New gTLDs" (Annex I (len/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtldannex-i-agenda-2b-25jun13-en.pd0 [PDF, 72 KB[; 19 June 2013), which includes the six (6) items of safeguard 

advice from the Beijing Communique applicable to all new gTLDs. This advice is identified in the GAC (Governmental 

Advisory Committee) Register of Advice as: (a) 2013-04-11-Safeguards-1, (b) 2013-04-11-Safeguards-2, (c) 

2013-04-11-Safeguards-3, (d) 2013-04-11-Safeguards-4, (e) 2013-04-11-Safeguards-5, and (0 2013-04-11-

Safeguards-6 (collectively, the "Safeguards Applicable to All Strings"). 

Which stakeholders or others were consulted? 

On 23 April 2013, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) initiated a public comment forum 

to solicit input on how the NGPC should address GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice regarding 

safeguards applicable to broad categories of new gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) strings http://'v'lJ'v'lNol.icann.org 

len/news/public-commentlgac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en. htm (Ien/news/public-commentlgac-safeguard-advice23apr13-en.htm). The public comment forum closed on 4 June 2013. The NGPC has considered the community's 

comments in formulating its response to the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee) advice regarding Safeguards 

Applicable to All Strings. These comments also will serve as important inputs to the NGPC's future consideration of 

the other elements of GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee) advice not being considered at this time in the 

attached annexes. 

What concerns or issues were raised by the community? 

ICANN (Intemet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) received several responses from the community 

during the course of the public comment forum on broad categories of GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) 

safeguard advice. Of comments regarding safeguards applicable to all new gTLDs, approximately 29% of unique 

commenters expressed opposition whereas approximately 71% expressed support. 

Regarding support, commenters expressed general agreement with the safeguards. Those expressing support also 

expressed concern over the method of implementation and that the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee) should 

not dictate the specific procedures for implementation. Supporters also indicated that some of these safeguards are 

already inherent in the 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation Agreement). 

In adopting this Resolution, the NGPC specifically acknowledges comments from the community opposed to the 

NGPC accepting the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s advice. The NGPC takes note of comments 

asserting that adopting the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee) advice threatens the multi-stakeholder policy 

development process. ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)'s Bylavvs permit the GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) to "consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN (Internet Corporation 

for Assigned Names and Numbers) as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may 

be an interaction between ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)'s policies and various 

laws and intemational agreements orwhere they may affect public policy issues." (Art. XI, § 2.1.a) The GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) issued advice to the Board on the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) 

Program through its Beijing Communique dated 11 April 2013. The ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 

and Numbers) Bylaws require the Board (and the NGPC) to take into account the GAC (Govemmental Advisory 

Committee)'s advice on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the polices, and if the Board (and the 

NGPC) takes an action that is not consistent with the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee) advice, it must 

infonn the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) and state the reasons why it decided not to follow the advice. 

The parties must then try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. Thus, the GAC (Governmental Advisory 

Committee)'s advice is part of the multi-stakeholder process. 

The posting of the Beijing Communique to solicit public comment on the broad categories of the GAC (Govemmental 

Advisory Committee)'s safeguard advice demonstrates ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 

9/16120]] 10:48 AM 
269 

Appro\cd Rcsolutions I Mccting ortllc Nc\\ gILD Program Committcc I http://\\ \\ \\.icanl1.org/cn/groupsiboard/doculllcntsircsolutions-nc\\ -gtld-2. 

..j. of 16 

Numbers),s commitment to a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model, and provided stakeholders with approximately six 

weeks (including the public comment and reply periods) to analyze, review and respond to the proposed 

recommendations. The NGPC views finding a workable solution to the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s 

advice as a step forward as the community continues to respond to the needs of registrants, the community and all 

stakeholders. 

The NGPC also took note of the comments from the community in opposition to ICANN (Internet Corporation for 

Assigned Names and Numbers) implementing the safeguard advice concerning WHOIS verification checks to be 

performed by registry operators. The NGPC acknow"tedges the ongoing work in the community on WHOIS 

verification. In response to these comments in opposition, the NGPC accepted the spirit and intent of the GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee)'s advice on the WHOIS verification checks by having ICANN (Internet 

Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), instead of registry operators, implement the checks. ICANN 

(Intemet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is concluding its development of a WHOIS tool that gives it 

the ability to check false, incomplete or inaccurate WHOIS data, as the Board previously directed staff in Board 

Resolutions 2012.11.0B.01 - 2012.11.0B.02 to begin to "proactively identify potentially inaccurate gTLD (generic Top 

Level Domain) data registration in gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) registry and registrar services, explore using 

automated tools, and forward potentially inaccurate records to gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) registrars for action; 

and 2) publicly report on the resulting actions to encourage improved accuracy." <http://\¥oJV'W.icann.orgJenJgroups 

Iboard/docu ments/resolutions-OBnov12-en. htm (len/grou ps/board/docu ments/resolutions-OBnov12-en. htm». Given 

these ongoing activities, the NGPC determined that ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) 

(instead of Registry Operators) is \oVe1l positioned to implement the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s 

advice. 

With respect to mitigating abusive activity, the NGPC acknow"tedges the comments noting that registries do not have 

relationships with registrants and should not be required to determine whether a registrant is in compliance with 

applicable laws. To address this concern, the NGPC included language in the PIC Specification that would obligate 

registry operators to include a provision in their Registry-Registrar Agreements that requires registrars to include in 

their Registration Agreements a provision prohibiting registered name holders from distributing malware, abusively 

operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, 

counterfeiting or otherwise engaging in activity contrary to applicable law, and providing (consistent with applicable 

law and any related procedures) consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain name. 

With respect to the safeguards regarding security checks, the NGPC considered that the comments in opposition 

raise important questions about the costs and timing of implementing this measure, and the scope and framework of 

the security checks. The NGPC is mindful that there are various ways a registry operator could implement the 

required security checks, and has taken these concems into consideration in its response to the GAC (Govemmental 

Advisory Committee)'s advice. The NGPC's response directs ICANN (Intemet Corporation for Assigned Names and 

Numbers) to solicit community participation (including conferring with the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee» 

in a task force or through a policy development process in the GNSO (Generic Names Supporting Organization), as 

appropriate, to develop the framework for Registry Operators to respond to identified security risks that pose an 

actual risk of harm, notification procedures, and appropriate consequences, including a process for suspending 

domain names until the matter is resolved, while respecting privacy and confidentiality. The proposed implementation 

of the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s advice is phased to account forthe commenters' concerns. The 

proposed language in the PIC Specification will provide the general guidelines for what registry operators must do, 

but omits the specific details from the contractual language to allow for the future development and evolution of the 

parameters for conducting security checks. 

With respect to consequences in the safeguards applicable to all strings, the NGPC took note of the commenters' 

concems that this item of safeguard advice is already addressed in the 2013 RAA (Registrar Accreditation 

Agreement) and by the WHOIS Data Problem Report system. The GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s 

concems are addressed in the existing framework and the NGPC is not proposing to duplicate the existing 

enforcement models. 

The NGPC also takes note of the comments requesting that the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee) advice be 

9/16120J] 10:48 AM 
270 

Appro\cd Rcsolutions I Mccting ortllc Nc\\ gILD Program Committcc I http://\\ \\ \\.icanl1.org/cn/groupsiboard/doculllcntsircsolutions-nc\\ -gtld-2. 

5 of 16 

rejected as "last-minute" or "untimely." The commenters asserted that this introduces uncertainty into the Program 

and the makes material changes to the AGB. As an alternative to accepting the advice, the NGPC considered the 

timing consequences if the NGPC rejected the advice. The NGPC took note of the procedure for any consultations 

that might be needed if the Board (and the NGPC) determines to take an action that is not consistent with GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) advice, which was developed by the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned 

Names and Numbers) Board-GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group (BGRI-WG). The procedure 

was approved by the BGRI-WG in Beijing and would be used for any consultation on this GAC (Govemmental 

Advisory Committee) advice. The procedure says that the consultation process should conclude within six months, 

but that the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee) and the Board can agree to a different timetable. On balance, 

the NGPC determined that entering into a consultation process on this particular section of the safeguard advice 

would introduce greater uncertainty into the Program than if the NGPC found a workable solution to accept and 

implement the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s safeguard advice applicable to all strings. 

The complete set of comments can be revievved at: http://WvVW.icann.org/en/news/public-commenVgac-safeguardadvice-23apr13-en. htm (/en/news/pu blic-commenVgac-safeguard-advice-23a pr13-en.htm). 

What significant materials did the NGPC review? 

As part of its deliberations, the NGPC reviewed the following significant materials and documents: 

GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) Beijing Communique: http://WvVW.icann.org/en/news/correspondence 

Igac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf (/en/nelNS/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf) [PDF, 156 KB] 

Public comments in response to broad categories of GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee) safeguard advice: 

http://WvVW.icann.orgJen/nelNS/public-commenUgac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en.htm (/en/news/public-comment 

Igac-safeguard-advice-23a pr13-en.htm) 

Report of Public Comments, New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Board Committee Consideration of GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) Safeguard Advice dated 18 June 2013: http://w...vw.icann.org/en/nelNS/publiccommenVreport-comments-gac-safeguard-advice-19jun 13-en (lenin ews/public-comment/report-commentsgac-safeguard-advice-19jun13-en) 

What factors did the NGPC find to be significant? 

The Beijing Communique generated significant interest from the community and resulted in many comments. The 

NGPC considered the community comments, the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s advice transmitted in 

the Beijing Communique, and the procedures established in the AGB for addressing GAC (Governmental Advisory 

Committee) advice to the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Program. 

Are there positive or negative community impacts? 

The adoption of the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice as provided in the attached annexes will assist 

with resolving the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice in manner that permits the greatest number of 

new gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) applications to continue to move forward as soon as possible. 

Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) 

(strategiC plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public? 

There are no foreseen fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of this resolution. 

Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS (Domain Name System)? 

Approval of the proposed resolution will not impact security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS (Domain 

Name System). 

Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 

Numbers)'s Supporting Organizations or ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)'s 

Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment? 

On 23 April 2013, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) initiated a public comment forum 

to solicit input on how the NGPC should address GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice regarding 

safeguards applicable to broad categories of new gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) strings http://WvVW.icann.org 

9/16120J] 10:48 AM 
271 

Appro\cd Rcsolutions I Mccting ortllc Nc\\ gILD Program Committcc I http://\\ \\ \\.icanl1.org/cn/groupsiboard/doculllcntsircsolutions-nc\\ -gtld-2. 

6 of 16 

/en/news/public-commentlgac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en. htm (len/news/public-commentlgac-safeguard-advice23apr13-en.htm). The public comment forum closed on 4 June 2013. 

c. Category 2 Safeguard Adyice re Restricted and Exciusi,e Registry Acce~s 

V\!hereas, the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) met during the ICANN (Intemet Corporation for Assigned 

Names and Numbers) 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communique on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communique"); 

Whereas, the Beijing Communique included Category 2 safeguard advice, vvhich is identified in the GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) Register of Advice as 2013-04-11-Safeguards-Categories-2 (the "Category 2 

Safeguard Advice"); 

V\!hereas, on 23 April 2013, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) initiated a public 

comment forum to solicit the community's input on how the NGPC should address GAC (Governmental Advisory 

Committee) advice regarding safeguards applicable to broad categories of New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) 

strings <http://WNW.icann.org/en/news/public-commentlgac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en.htm (len/news/publiccommentlgac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en. htm»; 

V\!hereas, the NGPC met on 8 and 18 May and 4, 11 and 18 June 2013 to consider a plan for responding to the GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee)'s advice on the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Program, including the 

Category 2 Safeguard Advice; 

V\!hereas, the NGPC met on 25 June 2013 to further discuss and consider its plan for responding the GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee)'s advice in the Beijing Communique on the New gTLD (generic Top Level 

Domain) Program; 

Whereas, the NGPC has considered the public comments submitted during the public comment forum, and proposes 

revisions to the final draft of the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Registry Agreement <http://WNW.icann.org 

lenlnews/public-commentlbase-agreement-29apr13-en .htm (/en/news/public-commentlbase-agreement-29apr13-

en.htm» as presented in Annex I (/en/groups/boardldocuments/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-i-agenda-2c-25jun13-

en.pdf) [PDF, 52 KB] attached to this Resolution to implement the Category 2 Safeguard Advice for applicants not 

seeking to impose exclusive registry access; and 

V\!hereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to 

exercise the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) Board's authority for any and all issues 

that may arise relating to the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Program. 

Resolved (2013.06.25.NG04), the NGPC adopts the "Proposed PIC Spec Implementation of GAC (Govemmental 

Advisory Committee) Category 2 Safeguards" (20 June 2013), attached as Annex I (/en/groups/board/documents 

lresolutions-new-gtld-annex-i-agenda-2c-25jun13-en.pdf) [PDF, 52 KB] to this Resolution, to accept and implement 

the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee)'s Category 2 Safeguard Advice for applicants not seeking to impose 

exclusive registry access. 

Resolved (2013.06.25.NG05), the NGPC directs staff to make appropriate changes to the final draft of the New.9IhQ 

(generic Top Level Domain) Registry Agreement, as presented in Annex I (len/groups/board/documents/resolutionsnew-gtld-annex-i-agenda-2c-25jun13-en.pdf) [PDF, 52 KB] attached to this Resolution, to implement the GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee)'s Category 2 Safeguard Advice for applicants not seeking to impose exclusive 

registry access. 

Resolved (2013.06.25.NG06), the NGPC directs staff to defer moving forward with the contracting process for 

applicants seeking to impose exclusive registry access for "generic strings" to a single person or entity and/or that 

person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in Section 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement), pending a dialogue with the 

GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee). 

Rationale ror Resolutions 2013.116.25.NGII4 - 2013.116.25.06 

Why the NGPC is addressing the issue? 

Article XI, Section 2.1 of the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) Bylaws 

http://WNW.icann.org/en/aboutigovernance/bylaws#XI (/enlaboutigovemancelbylaws#XI) permit the GAC 

9/16120J] 10:48 AM 
272 

Appro\cd Rcsolutions I Mccting ortllc Nc\\ gILD Program Committcc I http://\\ \\ \\.icanl1.org/cn/groupsiboard/doculllcntsircsolutions-nc\\ -gtld-2. 

7 of 16 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) to "put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or 

by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies." The GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) issued advice to the Board on the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) 

Program through its Beijing Communique dated 11 April 2013. The ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 

and Numbers) Bylaws require the Board to take into account the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s advice 

on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the polices. If the Board decides to take an action that is 

not consistent with the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice, it must inform the GAC (Govemmental 

Advisory Committee) and state the reasons why it decided not to follow the advice. The Board and the GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) will then try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no solution 

can be found, the Board will state in its final decision why the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice was 

not follovved. 

What is the proposal being considered? 

The NGPC is being ask.ed to consider accepting Category 2 safeguard advice identified in the GAC (Governmental 

Advisory Committee) Register of Advice as 2013-04-11-Safeguards-Categories-2. For applicants not seeking to 

impose exclusive registry access, the NGPC is being asked to consider including a provision in the PIC Specification 

in the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Registry Agreement that 'NOuld require TLDs to operate in a 

transparent manner consistent with general principles of openness and non-discrimination. Additionally, the proposed 

PIC Specification would include a provision to preclude registry operators from imposing eligibility criteria that limit 

registration of a generic string exclusively to a single person or entity and their "affiliates." The term "affiliate" is 

defined to mean a person or entity that, directly or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, is 

controlled by, or is under common control with, the person or entity specified, and "control" (including the terms 

"controlled by" and "under common control with") means the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct 

or cause the direction of the management or policies of a person or entity, lNhether through the o\M1ership of 

securities, as trustee or executor, by serving as an employee or a member of a board of directors or equivalent 

governing body, by contract, by credit arrangement or otherwise. [New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Registry 

Agreement § 2.9(c) http://ne...vgtlds.icann.orgJenJapplicantsJagbJbase-agreement-specs-29apr13-en.pdf 

(http://newgtlds.icann.o rg/en/appl icants/agb/base-agreement-specs-2 9apr13-en. pd0 [PDF, 600 KB[[ 

For applicants seeking to impose exclusive registry access for "generic strings", the NGPC is being asked to defer 

moving forward with the contracting process for these applicants, pending a dialogue with the GAC (Govemmental 

Advisory Committee). The term "generic string" is defined in the PIC Specification to mean "a string consisting of a 

VofOrd or term that denominates or describes a general class of goods, services, groups, organizations or things, as 

opposed to distinguishing a specific brand of goods, services, groups, organizations or things from those of others." 

To implement the advice in this way, the PIC Specification will define exclusive registry access as limiting registration 

of a generic string exclusively to a single person or entity and their affiliates (as defined above). All applicants would 

be required to respond by a specified date indicating whether (a) the applicant is prepared to accept the proposed 

PIC Specification that precludes exclusive registry access or (b) the applicant is unwilling to accept the proposed PIC 

Specification because the applicant intends to implement exclusive registry access. 

Which stakeholders or others were consulted? 

On 23 April 2013, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) initiated a public comment forum 

to solicit input on how the NGPC should address GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice regarding 

safeguards applicable to broad categories of new gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) strings http://VIJVIJIN.icann.org 

len/news/public-commentlgac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en. htm (Ien/news/public-commentlgac-safeguard-advice23apr13-en.htm). The public comment forum closed on 4 June 2013. The NGPC has considered the community 

comments in formulating its response to the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee)'s Category 2 Safeguard 

Advice. 

What concerns or issues were raised by the community? 

ICANN (Intemet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) received several responses from the community 

during the course of the public comment forum on broad categories of GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) 

9/16120J] 10:48 AM 
273 

Appro\cd Rcsolutions I Mccting ortllc Nc\\ gILD Program Committcc I http://\\ \\ \\.icanl1.org/cn/groupsiboard/doculllcntsircsolutions-nc\\ -gtld-2. 

S of 16 

safeguard advice. Of the limited number of comments specific to the Category 2, Restricted Access safeguards, 

approximately 60% expressed support versus approximately 40% expressing concern or opposition. Supporting 

comments generally agreed that, for certain strings, restricted access is warranted. Opposing comments generally 

indicated that this is unanticipated and wholly new policy without justification and that these strings would be unfairly 

prejudiced in the consumer marketplace. Of the comments specific to the Category 2, Exclusive Access safeguards, 

approximately 86% expressed support versus approximately 14% expressing concern or opposition. Supporting 

comments indicated that exclusive registry access should "serve a public purpose." Others indicated that "closed 

generics" should not be allovved at all. 

In adopting this Resolution, the NGPC specifically acknowledges comments from the community opposed to the 

NGPC accepting the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s advice. Opposing commenters generally expressed 

concem that this is new and unanticipated policy, contrary to the bottom-up process. They also indicated that the 

concept of public interest is vague and not adequately defined. The NGPC notes that the Beijing Communique was 

published to solicit public comment on the broad categories of the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s 

safeguard advice. This demonstrates ICANN (Intemet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers),s commitment 

to a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model, and provided stakeholders with approximately six weeks (including the 

public comment and reply periods) to analyze, review and respond to the proposed recommendations. The NGPC 

views finding a workable solution to the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s advice as a step forward as the 

community continues to respond to the needs of registrants, the community and all stakeholders. 

For the comments specifically concerning restricted registry access (i.e. Paragraph 1 of the Category 2 Advice), the 

NGPC takes note of the concems expressed in the comments regarding the "general rule" that a TLD (Top Level 

Domain) should be operated in an open manner. The NGPC understands the GAC (Govemmental Advisory 

Committee)'s advice for TLDs for which registration is restricted to generally be operated in an open manner to be a 

call for transparency, vvhich is fundamental to providing consumers choice in the marketplace, and a goal that ICANN 

(Intemet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) supports. In light of the comments raised, ICANN (Intemet 

Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) included new language in the PIC Specification to accept and 

respond to the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice regarding restricted access in a way that balances 

the concerns raised in the public comments with the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s advice for restricted 

TLDs. The revised PIC Specification establishes what it means for a TLD (Top Level Domain) to be operated 

consistent with principals of openness and non-discrimination. Specifically, by establishing, publishing and adhering 

to clear registration policies, the TLD (Top Level Domain) vvould fulfill its obligation to be operated in a "transparent 

manner consistent with general principles of openness and non-discrimination." 

With respect to comments specifically regarding exclusive registry access safeguards (i.e. Paragraph 2 of the 

Category 2 Advice), the NGPC understands that the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee) and other members 

of the community have expressed concerns regarding "closed generic" TLDs.ln February 2013, the NGPC directed 

ICANN (Intemet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) staff to initiate a public comment period on the issue 

of closed generic TLD (Top Level Domain) applications so that the NGPC could understand and consider all views 

and potential ramifications related to closed generic TLDs. <http://www.icann.orgJenJnewsJannouncements 

Jannouncement-2-05feb13-en.htm (JenJnewsJannouncementsJannouncement-2-05feb13-en.htm». In light of the 

comments raised in this public comment forum, the closed generics public comment forum, and the GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) advice, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is 

proposing a way for a large number of strings to move forward while the community continues to work through the 

issue. 

\fVhile respecting the community's comments, the NGPC revised the PIC Specification to address the GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee)'s advice regarding exclusive registry access. The proposed PIC Specification 

includes a provision to preclude registry operators from imposing eligibility criteria that limit registration of a generic 

string exclusively to a single person or entity and their "affiliates." The definition for "affiliates" is the definition in 

Section 2.9(c) of the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Registry Agreement. For applicants seeking to impose 

exclusive registry access for "generic strings", the NGPC agrees to defer moving forward with the contracting process 

for these applicants, pending a dialogue with the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) to seek clarification 

9/16120J] IO:4S AM 
274 

Appro\cd Rcsolutions I Mccting ortllc Nc\\ gILD Program Committcc I http://\\ \\ \\.icanl1.org/cn/groupsiboard/doculllcntsircsolutions-nc\\ -gtld-2. 

9 of 16 

regarding aspects of the advice, including key definitions, and its implementation. Revising the PIC Specification in 

this way permits the greatest number of strings to continue moving forward while recognizing the concerns raised in 

the community's comments, including additional policy Vo/Ork.. 

The complete set of public comments can be reviewed at: http://WM'V.icann.org/en/news/public-comment 

Igac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en. htm (len/news/public-commentlgac-safeg uard-advice-23apr13-en. htm). 

What significant materials did the NGPC review? 

As part of its deliberations, the NGPC reviewed the following significant materials and documents: 

GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) Beijing Communique: http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence 

Igac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf (Ien/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf) [PDF, 156 KB] 

Public comments in response to broad categories of GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee) safeguard advice: 

http://WM.V.icann.org/en/news/public-commentlgac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en.htm (len/news/public-comment 

Igac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en.htm) 

Report of Public Comments, New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Board Committee Consideration of GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) Safeguard Advice dated 18 June 2013: http://WN'N.icann.org/en/news/publiccommentlreport-comments-gac-safeguard-advice-19jun 13-en (lenIn ews/public-comment/report-commentsgac-safeguard-advice-19jun13-en) 

What factors did the Board find to be significant? 

The Beijing Communique generated significant interest from the community and stimulated many comments. The 

NGPC considered the community comments, the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s advice transmitted in 

the Beijing Communique, and the procedures established in the AGB for addressing GAC (Governmental Advisory 

Committee) advice to the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Program. 

Are there positive or negative community impacts? 

The adoption of the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice as provided in the attached Annex I 

(/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-annex-i-agenda-2c-25jun13-en.pdf) [PDF, 52 KB] will assist with 

resolving the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee) advice in a manner that permits the greatest number of new 

gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) applications to continue to move forward as soon as possible. However, applicants 

seeking to impose exclusive registry access would not be able to progress to the contracting process at this time if 

the NGPC adopts the proposed Resolution. Those applicants would be on hold pending the outcome of the dialogue 

with the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee). 

Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) 

(strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; and/or the public? 

There are no foreseen fiscal impacts associated with the adoption of this resolution. 

Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS (Domain Name System)? 

Approval of the proposed resolution will not impact security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS (Domain 

Name System). 

Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 

Numbers)'s Supporting Organizations or ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)'s 

Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment? 

On 23 April 2013, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) initiated a public comment forum 

to solicit input on how the NGPC should address GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice regarding 

safeguards applicable to broad categories of new gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) strings http://WM'V.icann.org 

len/news/public-commentlgac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en. htm (Ien/news/public-commentfgac-safeguard-advice23apr13-en.htm). The public comment forum closed on 4 June 2013. 

d. Singular & Plural Ver~ion~ of the Same String as a TLD (Top Le\el Domain) 

Whereas, the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) met during the ICANN (Intemet Corporation for Assigned 

9/16120J] 10:48 AM 
275 

Appro\cd Rcsolutions I Mccting ortllc Nc\\ gILD Program Committcc I http://\\ \\ \\.icanl1.org/cn/groupsiboard/doculllcntsircsolutions-nc\\ -gtld-2. 

lOaf 16 

Names and Numbers) 46 meeting in Beijing and issued a Communique on 11 April 2013 ("Beijing Communique"); 

Whereas, the NGPC met on 8 and 18 May and 4 and 11 June 2013, to consider a plan for responding to the GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee)'s advice on the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Program, transmitted to 

the Board through its Beijing Communique; 

V\!hereas, on 4 June 2013, the NGPC took action accepting GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice 

identified in the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee) Register of Advice as "2013-04-11-PluraIStrings" and 

agreed to consider whether to allow singular and plural versions of the same string; 

Whereas, the NGPC met on 11 June 2013 to consider the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) Beijing advice 

regarding singular and plural versions of the same string; and 

V\!hereas, after careful consideration of the issues, review of the comments raised by the community, the process 

documents of the expert review panels, and deliberations by the NGPC, the NGPC has determined that no changes 

to the ABG are needed to address potential consumer confusion specifically resulting from allowing singular and 

plural versions of the same strings; 

V\!hereas, the NGPC is undertaking this action pursuant to the authority granted to it by the Board on 10 April 2012, to 

exercise the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) Board's authority for any and all issues 

that may arise relating to the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Program. 

Resolved (2013.06.2S.NG07), the NGPC has determined that no changes are needed to the existing mechanisms in 

the Applicant Guidebook to address potential consumer confusion resulting from allowing singular and plural versions 

of the same string. 

Rationale for Resolution 2013.06.25.NG07 

Why the NGPC is addressing the issue? 

Article XI, Section 2.1 of the ICANN (Internet COrporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) Bylaws 

(http://WvVW.icann.org/en/about/govemance/bylaws#XI (Ien/about/governance/bylaws#XI» permit the GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) to "put issues to the Board directly, either by way of comment or prior advice, or 

by way of specifically recommending action or new policy development or revision to existing policies." The GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) issued advice to the Board on the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) 

Program through its Beijing Communique dated 11 April 2013. The ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names 

and Numbers) Bylaws require the Board to take into account the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s advice 

on public policy matters in the formulation and adoption of the polices. If the Board decides to take an action that is 

not consistent with the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice, it must inform the GAC (Govemmental 

Advisory Committee) and state the reasons why it decided not to follow the advice. The Board and the GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) will then try in good faith to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no solution 

can be found, the Board will state in its final decision why the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) advice was 

not followed. 

In its Beijing Communique, the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee) advised the Board that due to potential 

consumer confusion, the Board should "reconsider its decision to allow singular and plural version of the same 

strings." On 4 June 2013, the NGPC accepted the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s advice to consider this 

issue. The NGPC met on 11 June 2013 to discuss this advice, and to consider whether any changes are needed to 

the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Program to address singular and plural versions of the same string. 

What is the proposal being considered? 

The NGPC is considering whether any changes are needed to the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Program 

(i.e. the Applicant Guidebook) as a result of the NGPC considering \oVhether to allow singular and plural versions of 

the same strings as requested by the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) in its Beijing Communique. 

Which stakeholders or others were consulted? 

On 18 April 2013, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) posted the GAC (Governmental 

Advisory Committee) advice and officially notified applicants of the advice, http://nevvgtlds.icann.org 

9/16/20]] lOA-X AM 
276 

Appro\cd Rcsolutions I Mccting ortllc Nc\\ gILD Program Committcc I http://\\ \\ \\.icanl1.org/cn/groupsiboard/doculllcntsircsolutions-nc\\ -gtld-2. 

II of 16 

len/announcements-and-media/announcement-18apr13-en (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media 

lannouncement-18apr13-en) triggering the 21-day applicant response period pursuant to the Applicant Guidebook 

Module 3.1 <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice-responses (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants 

Igac-advice-responses». The NGPC considered the applicant responses in considering this issue. 

To note, a handful of unique applicants, representing nearly 400 application responses, addressed this piece of GAC 

(Govemmental Advisory Committee) advice. Most vvere against changing the existing policy but with one identified in 

support of the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee)'s concem. The supporting applicant has filed a string 

confusion objection. Those not supporting the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee)'s concem indicated this 

topic was agreed as part of the AGB and is addressed in the evaluation processes. The full summary of applicant 

responses can be revievved at: <http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice-responses 

(h ttp:J In ewg tid s. ican n . 0 rgl e nl ap pi ica ntsl ga c-adv ice-res po n se s) > . 

What concerns or issues were raised by the community? 

In September 2007, the GNSO (Generic Names Supporting Organization) issued a set of recommendations 

(approved by the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) Board in June 2008) to implement 

a process to allow for the introduction of new gTLDs. These include a recommendation that new gTLD (generic Top 

Level Domain) strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain or a reserved name. The GNSO 

(Generic Names Supporting Organization) constituenCf groups lodged comments during that time, and these 

comments vvere considered as part of the approval of the Program. The NGPC considered these community 

comments as part of its deliberations. 

More recently, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) posted the GAC (Govemmental 

Advisory Committee)'s Beijing Communique and officially notified applicants of the advice, <http://newgtlds.icann.org 

len/ann ouncements-and-medialan nouncement-18apr13-en (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media 

lannouncement-18apr13-en» triggering the 21-day applicant response period pursuant to the AGB Module 3.1. 

Multiple members of the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) and New gTLD (generic 

Top Level Domain) applicant communities have raised concerns to the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned 

Names and Numbers) Board regarding the GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee)'s advice regarding singular and 

plural versions of the same string. Some of the concerns raised by the community are as follows: 

• Allowing singular and plural versions of the same string amounts to a "serious flaw" in the Program, and the 

Program should not rely on the self-interest of others to file objections to avoid string confusion. 

• The independent panels have ruled and it would not be appropriate for either ICANN (Internet Corporation for 

Assigned Names and Numbers) or the Board to overturn these decisions. The findings of the independent string 

similarity review panel should not be upset, absent a finding of misconduct. 

• The Board approved the evaluation process, which included independent assessment of each application 

against AGB criteria, appropriately away from the interests of those with stakes in the outcome. 

• ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) should not change course on this issue, as it 

\oVOuld open the door to one stakeholder group undoing independently arrived-at results because it disagrees 

with the outcome. 

The concems raised by the community highlight the difficulty of the issue and the tension that exists betvveen 

minimizing user confusion while encouraging creativity, expression and competition. The NGPC weighed these 

comments during its deliberations on the issue. 

What significant materials did the NGPC review? 

The NGPC reviewed and considered the following significant materials as part of its consideration of the issue: 

• GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) Beijing Communique: http://WvVN.icann.org/en/news/correspondence 

Igac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf (/en/news/correspondence/gac-to-board-18apr13-en.pdf) [PDF, 156 KB] 

• Applicant responses to GAC (Govemmental Advisory Committee) advice: http://nevvgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants 

Igac-advice-responses (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/gac-advice-responses) 

9/16/20]] lOA-X AM 
277 

Appro\cd Rcsolutions I Mccting ortllc Nc\\ gILD Program Committcc I http://\\ \\ \\.icanl1.org/cn/groupsiboard/doculllcntsircsolutions-nc\\ -gtld-2. 

12 of 16 

• String Similarity Contention Sets <http://w..v...v.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-26feb13-en.htm 

(/en/news/annou ncements/an nounce ment-26feb13-en .htm» 

What factors did the NGPC find to be significant? 

The NGPC considered several significant factors during its deliberations about whether to allow singular and plural 

version of the same strings. The NGPC had to balance the competing interests of each factor to arrive at a decision. 

The following are among the factors the NGPC found to be significant: 

• The NGPC considered whether it was appropriate to reject the work of the expert review panel and apply its own 

judgment to a determination of what rises to the level of probable user confusion. The NGPC considered lfoIhether 

the evaluation process would be undermined if it were to exert its own non-expert opinion and override the 

determination of the expert panel. It also considered lfoIhether taking an action to make program changes would 

cause a ripple effect and re-open the decisions of all expert panels. 

The NGPC considered that the objective of the string similarity review in the AGB is to prevent user confusion 

and loss of confidence in the DNS (Domain Name System) resulting from delegation of many similar strings. In 

the AGB, "similar" means strings so similar that they create a probability of user confusion if more than one of 

the strings is delegated into the root zone. During the policy development and implementation design phases of 

the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Program, aural and conceptual string similarities vvere considered. 

These types of similarity were discussed at length, yet ultimately not agreed to be used as a basis forthe 

analysis of the string similarity panels' consideration because on balance, this could have unanticipated results in 

limiting the expansion of the DNS (Domain Name System) as well as the reach and utility of the Intemet. 

However, the grounds for string confusion objections include all types of similarity, including visual, aural, or 

similarity of meaning. All new gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) applicants had standing to file a string confusion 

objection against another application. 

• The NGPC considered the objective function of the string similarity algOrithm in the AGB (§ 2.2.1.1.2) and the 

results it produced. SWORD assisted ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) with the 

creation of an algorithm that helped automate the process for objectively assessing similarity among proposed 

and existing TLD (Top Level Domain) strings. Various patent and trademark offices throughout the world use 

SWORD's verbal search algorithms. The String Similarity Panel was informed in part by the algorithmic score for 

the visual similarity between each applied-for string and each of other existing and applied-for TLDs and 

reserved names. The score provided one objective measure for consideration by the panel, as part of the 

process of identifying strings likely to result in user confusion. Hovvever, this score was only indicative and the 

panel's final determination was based on careful review and analysis. A full consideration of potential consumer 

confusion issues is built into the procedures that have been applied in the analysis of the strings. 

• The NGPC reflected on existing string similarity in the DNS (Domain Name System) and considered the positive 

and negative impacts. The NGPC observed that numerous examples of similar strings, including singulars and 

plurals exist within the DNS (Domain Name System) at the second level. Many of these are not registered to or 

operated by the same registrant. There are thousands of examples including: 

auto.com autos.com 

car.com cars.com 

new.com news.com 

store.com stores.com 

• The NGPC considered the process used by the panel of experts from InterConnect Communications \oVOrking in 

conjunction with the University College London to perform a visual similarity review to prevent used confusion 

and loss of confidence in the DNS (Domain Name System) resulting fro the delegation of similar strings. The 

panel made its assessments using the standard defined in the Applicant Guidebook: String confusion exists 

9/16/20]] lOA-X AM 
278 

Appro\cd Rcsolutions I Mccting ortllc Nc\\ gILD Program Committcc I http://\\ \\ \\.icanl1.org/cn/groupsiboard/doculllcntsircsolutions-nc\\ -gtld-2. 

11 of 16 

\-\'here a string so nearly resembles another visually that it is likely to deceive or cause confusion. For the 

likelihood of confusion to exist, it must be probable, not merely possible that confusion will arise in the mind of 

the average, reasonable Internet user. Mere association, in the sense that the string brings another string to 

mind, is insufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. This panel utilized its independent expertise, including in 

linguistics, to perform the review against the criteria in the Applicant Guidebook. ICANN (Internet Corporation for 

Assigned Names and Numbers) did not provide any instructions to the panel outside of the criteria specified in 

the Applicant Guidebook, including any pre-judgment of whether singular or plural versions of strings should be 

considered visually similar . 

• The NGPC considered whether there were alternative methods to address potential user confusion if singular 

and plural versions of the same string are allowed to proceed. The NGPC discussed the String Confusion 

Objection mechanism in the AGB, and noted that string confusion objections are not limited to visual similarity, 

but may include any type of similarity, including visual, aural, or similarity of meaning. The DRSP panels 

reviewing string confusion objections use the following standard for assessing string confusion, as specified in 

the Applicant Guidebook: String confusion exists where a string so nearly resembles another that it is likely to 

deceive or cause confusion. For a likelihood of confusion to exist, it must be probable, not merely possible that 

confusion will arise in the mind of the average, reasonable Internet user. Mere association, in the sense that the 

string brings another string to mind, is insufficient to find a likelihood of confusion. The NGPC took note of the 

fact that in the case of a successful string confusion objection, either the application would not proceed (for an 

objection by an existing gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) operator) or an existing contention set would be 

modified to include the application subject to the objection (for an objection by another gTLD (generic Top Level 

Domain) applicant) . 

• The NGPC took note of the objections filed during the objection period, which closed on 13 March 2013. All new 

gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) applicants had standing to file a string confusion objection against another 

application. By the end of the objection period, a total of 67 string confusion objections were filed (see 

http://nevvgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/odr/filings (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/odr/filings)). 

Based on staff analysis, there were a total of 26 singular/plural applied-for, English language strings. The strings 

in these pairs had a total of 21 string similarity objections filed against them. 

Are there positive or negative community impacts? 

The string similarity review is the implementation of the GNSO (Generic Names Supporting Organization)'s policy 

recommendation 2: "Strings must not be confusingly similar to an existing top-level domain or a Reserved Name." As 

noted above, the objective of the string similarity review is to prevent user confusion and loss of confidence in the 

DNS (Domain Name System) resulting from delegation of many similar strings. A full consideration of potential 

consumer confusion issues is built into the procedures that have been applied in the analysis of the strings. The 

adoption of the proposed resolution will assist with continuing to resolve the GAC (Governmental Advisory 

Committee) advice in manner that pennits the greatest number of new gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) applications 

to continue to move forward as soon as possible. 

Are there fiscal impacts or ramifications on ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) 

(strategic plan, operating plan, budget); the community; andlor the public? 

There are no foreseen fiscal impacts associated vvith the adoption of this resolution. 

Are there any security, stability or resiliency issues relating to the DNS (Domain Name System)? 

The security, stability and resiliency issues relating to the DNS (Domain Name System) were considered when the 

AGB was adopted. The NGPC's decision does not propose any changes to the existing program in the AGB, and 

thus there are no additional foreseen issues related to the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS (Domain Name 

System). 

Is this either a defined policy process within ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and 

Numbers),s Supporting Organizations or ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)'s 

Organizational Administrative Function decision requiring public comment or not requiring public comment? 

9/16/20]] lOA-X AM 
279 

Appro\cd Rcsolutions I Mccting ortllc Nc\\ gILD Program Committcc I http://\\ \\ \\.icanl1.org/cn/groupsiboard/doculllcntsircsolutions-nc\\ -gtld-2. 

ICANN (Intemet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) posted the GAC (Govemmental Advisory 

Committee) advice and officially notified applicants of the advice on 18 April 2013 <http://newgtlds.icann.org 

lenlannouncements-and-media/announcement-18apr13-en (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media 

lannouncement-18apr13-en». This triggered the 21-day applicant response period pursuant to the Applicant 

Guidebook Module 3.1. No additional public comment is required as the NGPC's action does not propose any policy 

or program changes to the New gTLD (generic Top Level Domain) Program. 

e. IGO (Intergowrnrncntal Organizatilm) Protection 

No resolution taken. 

AOB 

No resolution taken. 

Published on 27 June 2013 

Board (/en/groups/board) 

Meetings (/en/groups/board/meetings) 

Documents (Ien/groups/board/documents) 

Board & Chair Self-Appraisal (Ien/groups/board/documents/appraisals) 

Board Compensation Election (/en/groups/board/documents/ce) 

Procedure Manual (/en/groups/board/documents/draft-procedure-manual-090ct12-en) 

Resolutions Wiki (https:/Icommunity.icann.org/display/tap/ICANN+Board+Resolutions) 

Statements of Interest (/en/groups/board/documents/sois) 

Audit Committee (/en/groups/board/audit) 

Board Governance Committee (/en/groups/board/governance) 

Compensation Committee (/en/groups/board/compensation) 

Executive Committee (/en/groups/board/executive) 

Finance Committee (Ien/groups/board/finance) 

Global Relationships Committee (/en/groups/board/global-relationships) 

lANA Committee (/en/groups/board/iana) 

New gTLD Program Committee (/en/groups/board/new-gtld) 

Public and Stakeholder Engagement Committee (Ien/groups/board/participation) 

Risk Committee (Ien/groups/board/risk) 

Structural Improvements Committee (Ien/groups/board/improvements) 

ALAC (http://www.atlarge.icann.org) 

ASO (http://aso.icann.org) 

140f 16 9/16/20]] lOA-X AM 
280 

Appro\cd Rcsolutions I Mccting ortllc Nc\\ gILD Program Committcc I http://\\ \\ \\.icanl1.org/cn/groupsiboard/doculllcntsircsolutions-nc\\ -gtld-2. 

eeNSO (http://eenso.ieann.org) 

GAC (http://gae.ieann.org) 

GNSO (http://gnso.ieann.org) 

IElF (len/groups/ietl) 

NRO (http://www.nro.net) 

NomCom (http://nomcom.icann.org) 

RSSAC (/en/groups/rssae) 

SSAC (/en/groups/ssac) 

Technical Liaison Group (/en/groups/tlg) 

Other Groups (/en/groups/other) 

Past Groups (/en/groups/past) 

Organizational Reviews (len/groups/reviews) 

Stay COlmected 

Your email address please. 

News Alerts:.':; HTML Plain Text 

Newsletter: HTML Plain Text 

Compliance NeVo/Sletter: ."' HTML ?- Plain Text 

Policy Update: i'~ HTML Plain Text 

Subscribe 

Follow us @icann (https:lltwitter.com/#!/icann/) 

Videos (http://www.youtube.comlicannnews) 

Photos on Flickr (http://www.flickr.comlphotos/icann/) 

Facebook (http://www.facebook.comlicannorg) 

ICANN Blog (http://blog.ieann.org/) 

Community Wiki (https:lIcommunity.icann.org/) 

Planet ICANN (/en/groups/planet-icann) 

RSS Feeds (/en/news/rss) 

© 2013 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers Press (Jnews/press) I Site Map (Jsitemap) I Privacy Policy (Jhelp/prlvacy) 

ICANN Newark 

mylCANN (htlp/lWW'INmYlcann org!) 

ASO (htlp/lasa Icann arg) 

ALAC (http://IIIIIIII'IIII.atlarge.lcann.org) 

ccNSO (http.f/ccnso.icann arg) 

GAC (httpffgac.lcann.org) 

15 of 16 9/16/20]] lOA-X AM 
281 

f 

Appro\cd Rcsolutions I Mccting ortllc Nc\\ gILD Program Committcc I http://\\ \\ \\.icanl1.org/cn/groupsiboard/doculllcntsircsolutions-nc\\ -gtld-2. 

GNSO (httpffgnsoicannorg) 

RSSAC (fen/groupsfrssac) 

SSAC (fenfgroups/ssac) 

Community WlkI (http://communlty.lcann ~rg) 

Meebngs (http://meebngs.lcann.org) 

New gTLDs (httpffnewgtldsicann ~rg) 

Help 

___ ___ 

160f 16 9/16/20]] lOA-X AM 
282 

Before the 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

In the Matter of Docket No. PTO-C-2013-0036 

Voluntary Best Practices Study Submitted August 21, 2013 

COMMENTS OF THE 

MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 

I. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS 

The Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. ("MPAA") is pleased to provide these 

comments in response to the Request of the United States Patent and Trademark Otlice for 

Public Comments: Voluntary Best Practices Study (Docket No. PTO-C-2013-0036) appearing at 

78 Fed. Reg. 37,210 (June 20, 2013). 

The MPAA is a not-for-profit trade association founded in 1922 to address issues of 

concern to the motion picture industry. The MPAA's member companies are: Paramount 

Pictures Corp., Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., Universal 

City Studios LLC, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc 

These companies and their aililiates are the leading producers and distributors oftilmed 

entertainment in the theatrical, television, and home-entertainment markets. The MP AA' s 

members produce, distribute, and own tens of thousands of extremely valuable copyrighted 

works - works that, unfortunately, are subject to widespread piracy, resulting in billions of 

dollars annually in iinanciallosses and undermining legitimate business models. 

The MPAA's members employ various strategies and tactics to combat such piracy, 

which include efforts aimed at educating consumers about intellectual property and piracy and 

directing them to legitimate offerings, as well as targeting, through appropriate legal means, 

enterprises seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of content creators and owners. In 

particular, MPAA members focus on making their works available to consumers in a wide 

variety of formats, on various platforms, at different price points, to meet consumer demand. In 

addition, they employ digital rights management technologies to thwart unauthorized copying. 

They make extensive use of the notice-and-takedown process set forth in Section 512 of the 

Digital Millennium Copyright Act. They bring copyright infringement lawsuits in federal court. 

They refer particularly egregious commercial infringers to law-enforcement authorities. And, as 
283 

relevant here, they engage in a variety of cooperative, voluntary initiatives with participants in 

the Internet ecosystem. 

To achieve its important societal goal of encouraging creativity - by acting as the "engine 

offree expression,,1 - it is necessary that the copyright system include "appropriate enforcement 

mechanisms to combat piracy, so that all stakeholders benefit from the protection afforded by 

copyright."2 Thus all players in the Internet ecosystem - copyright owners, as well as the various 

intermediaries that facilitate online commerce and speech - have a responsibility and must playa 

meaningful role in addressing the problem of rampant piracy on the Web. This is not only true as 

a matter oflaw; it is also a matter of corporate ethics and an acknowledgment that stakeholders 

whose systems, networks and services are used by unrelated third parties to commit wrongdoing 

are oftentimes best placed to assist in the prevention of that harm. 

One fonn of such cooperation with other players in the ecosystem is taking commerciall y 

reasonable, technologically feasible steps to help curb copyright infringement. Therefore, as a 

general proposition, the MPAA supports - and urges the PTO and other government entities to 

encourage all relevant parties to support - cooperative, voluntary initiatives. Such initiatives, 

which range from precatory sets of "best practices" (which can be either unilateral or negotiated 

among various parties) such as the UGC Principles3 to formal, binding agreements (such as the 

Copyright Alert System\ can, in certain circumstances, improve upon default legal standards 

(such as the DMCA), and are often preferable to expensive, contentious civil litigation and 

criminal enforcement actions. But, as we detail below, cooperative, voluntary initiatives are not a 

panacea, and they are not appropriate to address all forms of piracy. Some voluntary initiatives 

work well; some have more modest success; and some are simply not effective. As noted below, 

some players, such as major Internet service providers, via the Copyright Alert System, and usergenerated content sites, via the UGC Principles, have shown admirable willingness to enter into 

voluntary agreements and take concrete and effective anti -piracy measures, and should be 

applauded for the constructive roles they have played. Unfortunately others, such as the major 

search engines, have largely refused to take a proactive role in addressing the problems of illegal 

activity online. 

Voluntary initiatives like the ones described below are, and will remain, a complement to 

- not a substitute for - other anti-piracy initiatives. And it must always be remembered that, 

when negotiating voluntary agreements, the parties are always bargaining in the shadow of the 

law. In other words, a party's willingness to commit to a particular practice will depend to a 

significant degree on what it perceives to be the legal consequence (or lack thereof) of 

continuing its current course of action, and not committing to any voluntary agreement. Thus 

1 Harper & Row, Publishers, inc. v. Nation linters., HI U.S. 539, 558 (1985). 

2 The Department of COlllmerce Internet Policy Task Force, "Copyright Policy, Creativity, and llUlOvation in the 

Digital Economy," Message from Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, July 21 OJ, available at 

hUp://w\\ \\ .uspto. gO\:!nc\·\ s/publkntions/cop\,ll ghlgrCCtIDapcr.pdf. 

-' 5,'ee iI~fra, Section IT.E. 

4 S'ee infra. Section IIA; see also comments submitted by the Center for Copyright InfoIDlation 

2 
284 

improvements in the law are likely to encourage recalcitrant players to engage in voluntary 

initiatives 

MP AA details below several of the specific initiatives in which it, its members, and other 

copyright owners have participated in recent years. 

II. SPECIFIC INITIATIVES IN WHICH CONTENT OWNERS ARE INVOLVED 

A. Copyright Alert System 

The Copyright Alert System ("CAS") is a program to address one specific fonn of piracy 

the use of peer-to-peer networks to download and distribute movies, television shows, and music 

over the Internet (sometimes referred to as "file-sharing"). The participants are the major movie 

studios (via the MPAA) and record labels, a large group of independent movie producers and 

record labels, and five major U.S. ISPs (Com cast, AT&T, Verizon, Cablevision, and Time 

Warner Cable). Under the CAS, copyright owners scan publicly-accessible peer-to-peer 

networks to detect unauthorized distributions of their works, and then send notices of such 

infringements to the ISPs through which these works are being made available. The ISPs then 

send "Copyright Alerts" to the subscribers associated with such infringing activity. The first 

alerts are purely educational, informing the subscriber that he/she has been detected engaging in 

suspected copyright infringement, and providing instructions on how to stop, as well as 

infonnation about where to legally access movies and music online. But if the subscriber persists 

in his/her wrongdoing, later Alerts will impose "Mitigation Measures," which may, depending 

on the particular ISP, include temporary slowing of Internet access or suspension of service 

pending completion of an online course or contact with an appropriate ISP representative. At no 

time is the subscriber's personal information provided to the copyright owners, and the system 

includes a dispute-resolution system administered by the American Arbitration Association 

known as the "Independent Review Program" through which subscribers may challenge 

Copyright Alerts that they believe were sent in error 

The CAS launched in February 2013, and the participants - including the Center for 

Copyright Information ("CCf'), the body established to administer the program - are only now 

beginning to evaluate the results. While it is too soon to comment on the etlicacy of the CAS, 

MP AA will consider the program a success if it fulfills its goal of educating the public about 

illegal distribution and downloading of copyrighted works, reducing the prevalence of such 

activity, and ultimately encouraging users to shift from the use of illegal peer-to-peer services to 

legitimate sources of content, including the hundreds of legitimate digital services that currently 

distribute content online. 5 The MPAA and its members are also hopeful that the CAS will serve 

as a stepping-stone or model for similar cross-industry collaborations to address forms of piracy 

other than peer-to-peer downloading and distribution. 
285 

B. Advertising Networks 

The past 15 months have witnessed three significant announcements by players in the 

online advertising ecosystem in the US meant to address the problem of advertisements placed 

on sites engaged in piracy: 

On May 3, 2012, the Association of National Advertisers ("ANA") and 

the American Association of Advertising Agencies ("4As"), with the support of the 

Tnteractive Advertising Bureau ("TAB") released a Statement of Best Practices that 

"encourages all marketers to take affirmative steps to address the serious problems of 

online piracy and counterfeiting." 6 The statement specifically advises marketers to 

include language in their contracts and insertion orders to prevent ads from appearing 

on "rogue" sites dedicated to intringement of others' intellectual property rights. As 

the MPAA stated upon the announcement, "This is a major step forward by the 

associations representing online advertisers and marketers to help ensure that their 

ads are not unintentionally providing financial support and credibility for online sites 

whose primary purpose is to steal and market intellectual property." 

Only July 15,2013 several major participants in the online advertising 

ecosystem, induding Google, Yahoo, and AOL, with the support of the lAB, 

announced a set of best practices to address the problem of advertisements placed on 

sites engaged in piracy. While we appreciate the recognition by ad agencies, 

networks and others of the problem, and applaud the support of the Administration's 

Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator for initiatives such as this, we are 

disappointed in the particular set of best practices announced in July, which we 

consider merely an incremental step forward that addresses only a narrow subset of 

the problem and places a disproportionate amount of the burden on rightsholders. 

Absent meaningful proactive steps by players in every sector - advertisers, ad 

agencies, ad placement services, online ad exchanges and rightsholders - the results 

will be similarly incremental. It is our hope that all parties will work together and 

build upon July's announcement. We encourage the Administration to continue its 

leadership and convene a meaningful and transparent multi-stakeholder process, with 

a goal of developing a comprehensive and effective response to significantly reduce 

the presence oflegitimate advertising on illegal Internet sites. We especially 

encourage an approach that would incorporate infonnation from independent thirdparty organizations such as DoubleVerifl, Integral Ad Science9

,veri-Site10 and 

whiteBULLET11 regarding the amount of infringement on particular sites, enabling 

fi ,')'ee h!tI2ibY'DY_,-Cl~Ulit,9rg!J1E;}Y5/pre5_~rrJ~Li{~S{Q5QJJ2 ~9J1Jjn~ jJiIJlg:y-,~!~!, (press release): see also 

httn:l!v,"I,-..t\v.aaaa.orgine\Ys/nress/Paa es/0503l2 onlme piracY.aspx (text of best practices). 

Y,'S'ee hHp:/lintcgmlads.com! 

11 ,See lltfp:iiT\\Y\Y.\yhite-bnlleLcomJ 

4 
286 

advertisers, ad networks and others to make informed decisions about where their ads 

should appear, thus avoiding placement on sites with high levels of infringement. 

Lastly, on July 25, 2103, the lAB announced its "Quality Assurance 

Guidelines 2.0.",]2 Unfortunately, these guidelines are largely toothless when it comes 

to copyright infringement. While the QAG states expressly that "[c]omplaints 

regarding QAG non-compliance may afJect certification ... IP infringement 

complaints do not." (emphasis added). That is so even though another section of 

QAG sets forth a "prohibition" on sale of ad inventory on "copyright infringement" 

sites. Moreover, as with the GooglelYahoo/AOL best practices referenced above, 

MP AA and its members were also disappointed that these best practices place nearly 

all of the burden of ensuring that ads do not appear on sites dedicated to piracy upon 

rightsholders, and do not adequately encourage other players in the ecosystem to 

assume their share of responsibility for addressing the problem. 

In addition to these examples in the U.S., major rightsholders and players in the online 

advertising ecosystem in the U.K. have entered into voluntary agreements intended to combat the 

problem of advertising on sites that contain large amounts of infringing material. Pursuant to the 

program, rightsholders (represented by the Federation Against Copyright Theft, of which MPAA 

is a member; the British Phonographic Industry; and the Publishers' Association) submit 

evidence of infringement to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau ("NFm"), a division of the 

City of London Police. Once NFm is satisfied that the submitted evidence meets criteria set forth 

in the agreements, they may attempt to contact the site operators and ask them to address the 

infringements. 11 Also, NFlB will, after allowing time for the site operators to respond, provide a 

register ofthe targeted web sites to representatives of entities within the U.K.-based advertising 

ecosystem in the hope that this will encourage brand owners, advertisers and those who 

purchase advertising for them to address the concerns. Although this is a small pilot program in 

its early days, initial results look promising in terms of responses from website operators as well 

as a reduction in the volume and variety of advertising observed on a number of the sites, and 

this may prove to be a useful model for the U.S. to observe. 

The varying strengths of these sets of best practices demonstrates that all voluntary 

initiatives must be evaluated on their own merits; to say as a general matter that voluntary 

initiatives are generally a good thing is not to say that any particular voluntary initiative will be 

effective 

C. Payment Processors 

Payment processors remain a lynchpin in helping to reduce potential financial gains by 

the operators of infringing websites. Well-documented and oft-publicized voluntary efforts 

between rights-holders and payment processors have resulted in the creation of new relationships 

12 See N!P~//'}lnv_.i~p._l!cJ~'1PQl!Llly~!l~!rc_';~!11_12~~5L!~J9n_'iC~{pr~~;;_I}::t~8:'it;_{1[\~_bJ}::9[RE9:;?_Q:l~m~c/pr_-OZ}512 (press 

release): see also In1.p:/h"\\ \\ .iab.nclillledia/filGlOuulityAssuIallccGuidc1in.::s725201 :;.OOf (Quality Assurance 

Guideline Version 2.0). 

13 See BBe. "Londonpoliee start to target pirate websites," June 4, 2013. available at 

http://wv/w.bbc.co.llkjne\;p,/teclll101o(~'-22-;()8850 
287 

among interested parties, and we applaud the IPEC' s efforts to facilitate and encourage these 

efforts Consequently, the creation of both systems and processes for addressing the issues have 

produced meaningful results, at least with respect to sites that traffic in counterfeit hard goods 

(e.g., pirated DVDs and Blu-ray discs). We have also seen some positive results with respect to 

sites that traffic in illegal devices and software that circumvent technical protection measures, 

although our experience with respect to cooperation in that area has been more mixed. In 

addition to more consistent cooperation, we would like to see greater leadership from the major 

credit card networks on the problem of so-called "cyberlockers," which are a category of rogue 

sites engaged in digital piracy that are typically supported by paid subscriptions. The MP AA and 

its members continue to engage in dialogue with the card networks and other payment processors 

and welcome greater and more effective measures that can be taken with respect to cyberlockers. 

Due to the pivotal position that payment processing holds in regards to the online ecosystem, 

both the MPAA and payment processors must maintain vigilance in this important area while 

expanding their etIorts to address new forms of copyright infringement as they arise. 

D. Search Engines 

Search engines represent an obvious and pivotal presence within the online ecosystem. 

Search plays an important role for those seeking out content - including infringing content - as 

both a discovery and navigational tool. Many users find infringing content through search 

engines when they were simply looking for that content - quite possibly from a legitimate 

source. However, "free" options are highlighted for the user, both in suggested search terms (like 

autocomplete) and in the search results themselves. When one considers the discovery aspect of 

search - a significant number of users first find a rogue site through search but then navigate 

directly to that site upon subsequent visits - the importance of search as a contributor to internet 

piracy becomes clear. Unfortunately, search engines have thus far failed to undertake sufficiently 

effective action to address their role in directing users to infringing (and otherwise illegal) 

content. To give one prominent example, Google, the search engine with by far the largest 

market share, announced in August 2012 that it would alter its search algorithm to begin 

factoring in takedown notices for Google links to infringing content when displaying search 

results, i.e., the more takedown notices that Google received leading to infringing content on a 

particular site, the lower the site would be listed in Google search results, lessening the chance 

that users would click on links to that site. While at the time we applauded Google's 

announcement as a step in the right direction, unfortunately the results to date have been 

disappointing; the evidence demonstrates that Google's algorithm change has not resulted in a 

demonstrable down-listing of pirate sites. 14 

MPAA and its members have shared their concerns with search engines To date 

however, the search engines have not undertaken the range and depth of efforts required to 

1-1 A study by the Recording Industry Association of America concluded, --Six months [after the announcement of 

Google' s algorithm change]. we have found no evidence that Google' s policy has h,od a demonstmble impact on 

demoting sites with large amounts of piracy. These sites consistently appear at the top of Google's search results [or 

popular songs or artists." See Recording Industry Association of America. --Six Months Later - A Report Card on 

Google' s Demotion ofpirate Sites." Feb. 21. 20 I]. available at hjt[l;!(76}},l.4) 42i3CF2:'fJlI ,~!lJ6,F(i(J:J,A±7(1, 

lC2f)89DJ'9'723.]lelf 

6 
288 

address these concerns adequately, despite the fact that the leading search engines have 

repeatedly stated that the theft of intellectual property is a serious problem. 15 

E. User Generated Content Sites 

In October 2007, a number ofleading producers of audiovisual content (including several 

ofthe MPAA's members) and operators of web sites that host user-generated content CUGC") 

signed on to the "Principles for User Generated Content Services" \the "UGC Principles") to 

address the problem of infringing content hosted on UGC services. 6 Most signitlcantly, the 

UGC Principles call on UGC sites to implement automated filtering technologies that block the 

upload of infringing material. From content owners' perspective, the use of automated filters is a 

major improvement over the baseline DMCA notice-and-takedown system, which often results 

in the re-posting of intringing content immediatel y after it is removed. The promulgation of the 

UGC Principles has played a major role in the widespread adoption of filtering technologies by 

responsible UGC sites. Even sites that have not themselves signed on to the UGC Principles -

most prominently YouTube - have nonetheless deployed tilters to identify copyrighted content, 

providing the rightsholders with the option to block or monetize the content and share revenues. 

MP AA thus believes that the UGC principles have played a major role in making adoption of 

filtering technologies a widespread industry practice, not just in the US but also in international 

territories like China. We encourage the administration to advance the successful and balanced 

framework of the UGC Principles in its international outreach efforts, especially to encourage 

similar progress in Russia. 

F. Domain Name Registration 

Although voluntary initiatives have met with some success domestically, the global 

nature of the Internet continues to pose challenges for US copyright holders. Notably, the US. 

Government (through NTIA) committed in the 2013 Joint Strategic Plan for Intellectual Property 

Enforcement to work with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 

("ICANN") - a private sector, non-profit global organization - to improve the new generic toplevel domain ("gTLD") program, including through "mechanisms for intellectual property 

protection." 17 

ICANN recently adopted a resolution requiring safeguards to address the problem of 

Registered Domain Name Holders engaging in practices that are illegal or harmful to Internet 

1 ~ In addition to the down-nmking of sites based on infringement notices described abuve, other steps :rv1P AA 

believes search engines should undertake to address their role in directing traffic to infringing material would 

include: 1) dc-indexing (i.e., notiisting in search results) sites substantially dedicated to infringement; 2) deindexing multiple infringements of the same content on the same site: 3) providing --red light" \vamings about rogue 

sites to Weilll users on the search results page before they penTrit them to click links they provide to ro.6Jl.1e sites 

(similar to the system Google currently uses to ,\-varn users of links to pages that may containmahvare): and-J.) 

adjusting "autoeomplete" and related features so that they don't suggest queries that lead to rogue sites. 

7 
289 

users, including copyright infringement. IS Although implementation is still in the early stages, 

MP AA remains optimistic that the new lCANN requirements will be an important tool for 

combating copyright infringement on a more global level. Currently, content owners are 

negotiating with new gTLD applicants over which safeguards are most appropriate and how they 

should be implemented. ICANN enforcement will be critical to the success of the new gTLD 

program, and it will be important to monitor the effectiveness of safeguards going forward. 

III. HOW TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF VOLUNTARY INITIATIVES 

Here, MP AA responds to the questions listed under "Supplementary Information" at the 

end of the Federal Register Notice 

1. How should "effectiveness" of cooperative voluntary initiatives be defined? 

The definition of effectiveness of a voluntary initiative should be defined by the degree to 

which the goals of the initiative have been met. For example, given the stated goals of the 

Copyright Alerts System are to (I) educate consumers about the importance of copyright 

protection and (2) help them find better ways to enj oy digital content, the etTectiveness could 

appropriately be defined as (I) decrease in consumer sharing of copyright infringing tiles; and 

(2) increase in consumer accessing oflegal digital content - ideally measured relative to a 

"control" or what/hev would have heen in the absence of the initiative. The latter clause is 

important because the given metrics may increase or decrease due to other factors; correlation is 

not causation. Research that best assesses the etTectiveness of the initiative should isolate the 

specific effects of the initiative from other environmental effects. 

2. What type of data would be particularly useful for measuring effectiveness of 

voluntary initiatives aimed at reducing infringement and what would that data 

show? 

The data used to measure the effectiveness of the initiative should also correlate to to the 

goals of the initiative, and should measure whether the goals of the initiative have been met. In 

the case of "supply" focused initiatives, the measures can involve quantifying changes in supply, 

and also, potentially, corresponding changes in demand. In the case of "demand" focused 

initiative, the focus would be on changes in demand for infringing content, and/or potentially 

changes in demand for legal content. Tn the CAS example above, the data collected could involve 

the number of consumers sharing infringing files, the number of infringing files shared, 

bandwidth consumed by infringement, as well as the number of consumers accessing legal 

digital content, and/or the amount oflegal digital content being accessed, or some derivation. 

Given the ideal is to measure these metrics relative to a "control" or what thel' would hmJe been 

in the absence of the initiative where possible data should be analyzed in areas that lend 

themselves to this comparison, such as pre- and post-implementation data, data for other nonaiTected but comparable jurisdictions, etc. The nature of this data will depend on the initiative. 

3. If the data is not readily available, in what ways could it be obtaiued? 

l~ See NGPC Resolutioll. June 25. 2013. hU:Q:U\\J1J.vjg~'WJ19Jgf~_nLg[Qt!p$!Q9JJr~y~g9~J}nl~DJ%ib·t;--,SQLtlli9115-:::U~_~~::&11o-= 

25jUll13 -elLhtm#2.c 
290 

The availability of the data, and the ways it could be obtained, will be highly dependent 

on the nature of the metrics being tracked. By its nature, illicit behavior is often hard to measure, 

but various approaches can be employed including surveys, panel measurement, direct 

measurement in some cases, and sampling techniques. When evaluating measurement studies, 

the nature and quality of the available data should be assessed. PTO should solicit comments and 

input from industry and other subject matter experts regarding the accuracy and thoroughness of 

these studies. 

4. Are there particular impediments to measuring effectiveness, at this time or in 

general, and if so, what are they? 

The main impediments in general tend to be the availability of data and the existence of 

the necessary conditions in the market to isolate the effects of the initiative in question (i.e., a 

randomized or a natural experiment). Where there are a number of different initiatives and 

conditions affecting the studied universe, identifying the causal etfects ofa particular initiative 

can be challenging and an imperfect process 

5. What mechanisms should be employed to assist in measuring the effectiveness of 

voluntary initiatives? 

As stated above, various approaches can be employed to obtain data, including surveys, 

panel measurement, direct measurement in some cases, and sampling techniques. Standard 

statistical and econometric techniques can then be performed to analyze the data. 

6. Is there existing data regarding efficacy of particular practices, processes or 

methodologies for voluntary initiatives, and if so, what is it and what does it show? 

While not specifically focused on voluntary initiatives, there is data regarding the 

efficacy of similar initiatives such as: 

Notice-sending programs to file sharers "The Effect of Graduated Response Anti-Piracy 

Laws on Music Sales: Evidence from an Event Study in France."l9 

Closure of web sites providing major infringing content: "Gone in 60 Seconds: The 

Impact of the Megaupload Shutdown on Movie Sales.,,20 

An example of a voluntary initiative that has been found to not be as effective as intended: 

Search engine algorithm adjustment to take into account the level of infringement notices 

that a site has received "Six Months Later - A Report Card on Google's Demotion of 

Pirate Sites.,,2l 

19 See hHp:!;papcrs.ssm.com/soB/papc[S,cCm'?abstmct id---19g92-1-U 

21 See http-J!76.74.14.142!3CF95EOl-1816-EfiCD-Anl-1C2B89DE972U!ill 

9 
291 

f 

*** 

The MP AA appreciates this opportunity to provide our views in response to the Federal 

Register Notice. We look forward to providing further input and working with the PTO going 

forward. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Michael O'Leary 

Senior Executive Vice President for Global Policy and External Affairs 

Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. 

1600 Eye St NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

(202) 293-1966 

10 
292 

cap 

Associa tion of Am.,lun 

Publlsh.r5, Inc. """" ",,~~.he •• . a<g 

.55 Ma""""" •• tt1 Ave. 'INI Solie 100 

Wathlll,g!on. 0 C 20001 

r elepn<>t\Oo 120213H-3l75 F ... !20"2) 3-Il.."J69C 

Association of American Publishers 

Wriuen Statement 

September JO, 2013 

US. House ofRepresenlat,\'es 

Comrnincc on the Judiciary 

SubcommittC(" on Coum, Inldle<:lual P,optny. and the Internet 

The Role of VohJJltaty AWCl"t'rnems in the U.S. Intellectual Property S~ stcm 

Hearing 

September 18. 2013 

Introduction 

AAP repll:!lCnts n~'IIrly ] 00 publishers, I1lJIg;O!l, r.om major oomme.cial book andjoumal 

publishers to small non-profit university. and SCholarly presses. Unlike the common ptrception 

of content companies. most publishers in the U.S are small busin~St's. I Allhou!l,h Jargeand 

small publishers have ~ diversity ofintcleSlS and concems: clfeaivecopyright protection and 

enforcement is a shared interest and is crucial to all publishers, regardless of size AAP and its 

memher publishers thus appreeinte thi. opponunity \0 provide commel11s HI Congress concerning 

th e "Role or Voluntary Agrt'ements in the U.S. Intellectual Propeny Systt'm:· 

E.~istiog voluutary agreemC"IJ1S are discussed below to show how, over time. the concepts 

of effective voluntary agreemcnls Of best practiCe!> St.'Cm to have moved from commicmcnts co 

uodenake prooctive measures against che prolifernlion of illegal content online to len robust 

agrt'Cments orbest practices thac place heavy burdens on rights holders for ,datively linle actioll 

in Tt.'1Wll. AAP bclie-'es thaI practical, results-driven, voluntary agreements amo,\!! key. playef$ 

in che Internet, business. and copyright communities an: critical 10 ~lemming che problem of 

rampan1 online piracy, 10 11I8);imize their effectiveness. such ag.reenlClllS should focus on 

, .'>« !;'I"~''QII, '. u .s. c . ...... llum, ... h"p:lA.wI\ .""' ...... tI"'·lroonlstk!bl 

: AAP'. "",,,ib<:rilup IS gc, .. "I1}· d",,1cd ""."'lIII ... roll<1" iUlI pub!i. h,,'lI 0«:'"'''' lrock 10.11 .• popular rocllonl"",,-

foCllOn); hIght' «111<>'11''''; donle"'"'Y ~"d serono;lal) od~"'llon. ,"d rror=",,,.1 ",oj ",hol"IJ· ~h.lu"8 (<:.8 . ""adon"" and .,,,e,,,. )0"" .. 1<, '''U' ''''',ll p,""""1 
293 

encouraging proactive efforts to prevent pi racy3 Publishers appreciate the work of Congress and 

the Administration to bring together stakeholders from various segments of the intellectual 

property ecosystem to create innovative solutions for curtailing piracy and counterfeiting. While 

much remains to be done, it is encouraging to see interest among payment service providers, 

advertising entities, Internet service providers, and one hopes, eventually, search engines 4 in 

promoting an Internet environment that is conducive to the growth oflegitimate content and 

related services. Given the interdependence of content and technology, and the opportunities for 

innovation and growth in both, taking active steps to discourage theft of intellectual property on 

the Internet will, as recently noted by the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator 

("IPEC"), "in fact, further encourage the innovation made possible by an open Internet.'" 

Encouraging investment and innovation is essential to providing the sustainable intellectual 

property ecosystem required by our Constitution, which directs Congress "to promote the 

Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors 

the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.,,6 

Despite this constitutional obligation and the emergence of several relevant voluntary 

agreements, authors of high-quality works receive little if any "secured" time to recoup their 

investments (let alone make a decent Ii ving) because of the lack of meaningful protection online. 

Today, any individual can tind and download an unauthorized copy of virtually any popular 

copyrighted work they want at any time from among the thousands of different sites on the 

Internet. Technological advancement has made it possible for indi viduals to engage in copyright 

infringement in a manner never previously contemplated by Congress. The persistence and 

volume7 of online piracy represent a serious gap in meaningful copyright protection in the digital 

environment, and necessitate an unfortunate diversion of resources from core creative endeavors 

in response. Online piracy significantly threatens the continued viability of all types of 

publishers and copyright-based industries, as well as millions oflocal jobs and their contribution 

to the U.S. economy, while adversely impacting our society and culture in immeasurable ways.' 

I AAP is focused in this statement on "online pimcy:' c g, sites that have made it their business to disseminate 

unauthorized copies of cBocks, journals, and other published materials, rather tlk1l1 on the distinct but still important 

issues of unauthorized uses of such ,,,orks by, C.g., educational institutions. or individuals engaging in ad hoc 

infringement. 

1 Search engines are the main gate,,,ay through ,,,hich a consumer, \vittingly or umvittingly, is directed to the sources 

of infringing content online. Hm:vever, search engines have yet to COBlInit to meaningful discussions with content 

creators on hm\- to better rcfine search protocols to avoid scrving up infIinging links or sites to consumcrs. 

Discussions with search cngincs \vould cCl1ainly bc a \vc1come dcvelopmcnt, which should bc cncouragcd by 

Congress 

-; ,)'ee Prcss Relcase, Officc ofthc Intellcctual Propcrty Enforccmcnt Coordinator, Coming Togelher 10 Comhal 

Online Pirac.J' and COlfntel:/eiting Vetwork Best Practices. (JuI. 15_ 2013) 

http:;'/wvrw.'\"I-'hitehouse.2;ov/blog/2013/0 / i I ':if cOining-to fYe thE' r combJt onlinE' -piracy and C0l1lltcifeiti ng. 

o Art. 1 §8 d. 8, U.S. CON ST. 

") See gellera/~v, NetNames, Sizing the j)iracy Universe, (Sept. 2013) hltp //v,\\ v.'.netmunes.colll/l.J~eIFiJe<;/HetJl(lmeSsiLillfuT piraC\ lm1\'tTSe-rcpor1-2 J pdJ; OIIice of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, 2013 Joint 

Su'ategic Plan on intellectual PropeJ'(V ~nforcemellt, Jun. 2013_ 

h!lPjb~'~uv._,-vll]J~l!Qu~e.g~~yj~il~1il(k[mtJ1TiLe,?/(~~lt1:!/J1?Y;£j20_l3~~.§..~_ill~~:i911~~~~J!al~gic_~pJ;:--l1~.pdf. 

~ ,)'ee Stevcn E Siwek, Copyright Indus/ries in the rrs F.collomy: The 2011 ReporL (Nov 2,2011), 

htt.R:./(~~:Y\~}Y jip~,--c;Q-'Jl!Sc9jJ.J.:right_l1S _S~X~n9Xtl·}:, l~ml. 

2 
294 

Although the subject of this inquiry is "the role of voluntary agreements," the importance of 

that role can only be understood in the context of what has transpired since Congress's 1998 

enactment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), which was intended to address 

copyright enforcement in the age of the Internet and other digitally-networked technologies. 

Since the DMCA's enactment, unanticipated online business models have emerged that exploit 

unauthorized copies of third-party copyrighted works on a massive scale in order to lure user 

traftle to their sites. Typically, there are few consequences for such infringing activity because 

the DMCA "notice and takedown" mechanism, while well-intentioned when the statute was 

enacted, is today ill-suited to addressing the sweeping scope of constantly recurring piracy on 

these sites. At the same time, there have been questionable judicial interpretations of the 

DMCA's Internet service provider "safe-harbor" provisions which have encouraged, rather than 

deterred, the unauthorized exploitation of copyrighted works in this manner and the proliferation 

of various types of sites offering pirated copyrighted content. '! As a result, the DMCA's "noticeand-takedown" system has been turned into a shield for online bad actors, rendering the noticesending mechanism ineffective in addressing piracy while imposing burdensome costs on 

copyright holders. 

With statutory copyright protections diminished by the courts and legislative consensus 

on new statutory enforcement measures proving politically elusive, copyright holders have been 

urged by Congress and the Administration to tum to private sector solutions with various other 

stakeholders in an attempt to make some progress in the fight against online piracy. In this 

context, it is important to note that, as technological solutions (such as content identification 

technologies) improve, the utility of copyright protection via a notice-and-takedown system that 

is reactive by nature may diminish. Thus, voluntary agreements should not merely duplicate 

notice-and-takedown requirements but should move toward a more proactive system that 

attempts to prevent infringement from occurring. 

Neither voluntary agreements nor improved statutory protections will be sufficient on their 

own to adequately protect copyrighted works. However, steps such as clarifying the eligibility 

requirements for the ISP "safe harbors" from infringement liability to more closely track the 

long-standing elements of traditional secondary liability doctrines for copyright infringement'O 

might be a means to provide the necessary incentive for stakeholders to voluntarily establish 

more meaningful commitments to combat piracy, which are necessary supplements to any type 

of statutory protection. Additionally, there will likely be particular issues where Congress will 

need to enact additional measures to ensure that illegal activity does not inhibit the growth of 

legitimate digital content and related services. Only a comb ina/ion of private and public 

<;I There are a "variety of major sources of infringing files, such as: 1) one-click host sites (aka cyberlockers), 2) sites 

,,,hieh systematically link to the hosts, 3) sites facilitating file-slmring ·via peer-to-peer networks, and 4) \vebsites 

\vhich me storefrollts selling individual uIlit copies of pirated vmrks in digit.al fOfllml. 

IlJ For example, 11:1:11 an lSP, UGC Service, or search engine, etc. thaI is 8nare of infringing activit) on its site or 

sen,ice should remove or disable 111:11 infringement regardless of v.,helher it receives actual notice of the 

infringement from the copyright holder. If a site or service is a\\-are of infringemenL whether through acllL.11 

knmvledge of specific infringements or constmctive (i e., -'red flag") knowledge of the activity_ the site or service 

should be obligated to remove or disable the infringing content. 

3 
295 

enforcement mechanisms can reasonably be expected to effectively mitigate rampant online 

piracy. Below, we provide an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the current voluntary 

agreements as viewed by book publishers, along with suggestions for the role of Congress in 

improving the fight against online piracy. 

II. Current Voluntary Agreements 

a. Background 

AAP notes that the extant voluntary agreements attempt to address online piracy and 

promote Internet-based availability of high-quality, legitimate content in one of two ways, by 

either: (1) educating content-users, or (2) directly targeting unlawful activity While the U.S. 

Patent and Trademark Office will be conducting the first otlkial examination of the 

effectiveness of those agreements,l1 it appears that they all have limitations in scope and reach 

that are likely to significantly limit their effectiveness in dealing with specific types of and 

platforms for online piracy and, ultimately, their effectiveness in deterring and reducing the 

frequency and magnitude of its occurrence. 

Existing voluntary agreements are discussed in chronological order below to show how, 

over time, the concepts of effecti ve voluntary agreements or best practices seem to have moved 

from multi-stakeholder commitments to undertake proactive measures against the online 

proliferation of illegal content to weaker agreements or unilaterally-determined "best practices" 

that place heavy burdens on rights holders for relatively little action in return. With online 

piracy continuing to grow,11 the dilution of voluntary agreements evinces a need for Congress to 

provide stronger incentives to encourage stakeholders to implement more meaningful 

agreem ents. 

b. UGC Principles 

The "Principles for User Generated Content Services" eUGC Principles"''), concluded 

in 2007, was the first multi-stakeholder-negotiated voluntary agreement aimed at reducing the 

11 See Depattment of Commerce, Internel Policy Task Force, CopYl'iglIl Policy, ('rea/ivil.V, anJ Jnllovulion 11l Ille 

Digital Fconom:v, 8-1- (Jul. 201 J), httpj'~~~':~'~Y·!!~!9--,gOl:.'~~!~~~-_s:.~·p~lhljq~ti9D~b;:gPI!'igi_l!gr~C~!p?PS1--,prlf. 

12 /)'ee general~l.', Emcsto, ,I.,'ix-/)'irikes Pails /0 HuiJ U,I.,'. Plrale Ray (;ruwlh, TORRENTFREAK.COM (Sept. J, 

20 13) htrp~!Lt~T(9!llf(c!:*---,f_9j!!!~i~-~Jfi1sc_~-JQ!1~~tS!-h~1H-l1_-:;:-pjLa~-~ill'_-E1~9,-~ill::JlQ?_03l; NctNamcs, ,)'izing the Piracy 

[/niverse. (Sept. 201 J). http.-I L~Y~:~~'_.HS;H~'l!ll£~_,--q)miV ~QIEih::~!~19_~~l::nns;_s:-2~in&.....pip1(,]~_lllMYS'1:S~-tcpo~1·) _~ :Rett 

Departmcnt of Commerce. Intcrnet Policy Task Forcc_ Cop.wight Polic.v, CreativI(v. and Iflnovation in the Digital 

t.,'COIlOIn), 84 (Jul. 2013) http://\,YtY'\Y.U'5pto.2:Oi'/newsipublicatlOl1s/copvrightgreenpaper. pdf; Office of the 

Intellectual Property Enforcement CoordiIh'ltor, 2013 Jomt StrategIc jllan onlnte//ectllaI1)roper~v Hfl/orcement, 

(J un. 2013), hHpJiv. \1iW _ '\ hileho!LSe. go\':sites/default/files/mJlb/WEC':20 13-us-ipec-ioint-stnllegic-pl.an pdf. 

13 ,See genera/~v, rrinciples for User Generated Content Services, ugcprinciples.com (describing the agreement 

bet"veen' "leading conunercial copyright o\\'ners ('"Copyright O\\'ners'-) and services prO\·iding user-uploaded mill 

user-generated audio and video content eUGe Sen·ices'·) ... to establish these Principles to foster an online 

ellVlromllent that promotes the promises and benefits ofUGC Servlces and protects the rights of Copyright 

Owners."). 

4 
296 

prevalence of pirated content online. Although both content and Internet-industry stakeholders 

recognized their shared objectives, 14 the threat of secondary liability was a driving factor in the 

Internet-industry's willingness to negotiate and to take on meaningful commitments to address 

online piracy. 

For example, Principle 3 states that "UGC Services should use effective content 

identification technology ["filtering"] .. with the goal of eliminating from their services all 

infringing user-uploaded audio and video content for which [c]opyright [o]wners have provided 

[r]eference [m]aterial." This principle is followed by an extensive list of ways in which UGC 

Services and copyright owners would work together to achieve the goal of eliminating such 

infringing content. Principle 3 thus represents ajoint commitment to directly target unlawful 

activity in order to eliminate infringing content. However, this filtering commitment only 

applies to "audio and video content." 

The current implementation of You Tube's "Content TD" system to prevent the presence 

of infringing audio and video content on its site, one of the largest UGC websites in the world 

with more than 1 billion unique user visits each month and "more than 100 hours of video .. 

uploaded" every minute, points to the value of these UGC Principles when effectively 

implemented." Although eBook andjoumal content were not part of the UGC Principles, AAP 

and its members have provided feedback and reference materials directly to two sites which are 

focused on the sharing of text-based works, Scribd.com and Wattpad.com, to facilitate their 

deployment of technical measures to prevent infringing content from being made available via 

their services. 

Scribd.com describes itself as "the world's largest digital library where people can 

publish, discover, and read books and documents of all kinds on the web or on any mobile 

device.,,16 Scribd's business objectives rely on the fact that "millions of books and documents 

have been contributed to Scribd by the community and this content reaches an audience of 100 

million people around the world every month." 17 To avoid being a destination for infringing 

materials, Scribd has implemented a copyright protection system that it describes as follows 

Content that is removed from Scribd via a DMCA copyright infringement takedown 

notice is added to our copyright protection system. This system perfonns a semantic 

analysis of the document by analyzing ,vard count~ "vord frequency~ letter combinations. 

spacing, and other criteria. 11,e semantic analysis results in a special encoded file that we 

" See id. (describing the shared objectives of Copyright Owners and UGC Services as: .'(1) the elimination of 

infringing content on UGC Services, (2) the encouragement of uploads of\vholly original and authorized usergenerated audio and video content, (3) the accommodation of fair use of copyrighted content on UGC Services, and 

(4) the protection of legitimate interests of user privacy. '" Also noting that "adhering 10 l the UGC J Principles ""ill 

help UGC Services and Copyright O""ners achieve those objectives."). 

15 See Google. llow GOGgle hghts Piracy. GOOGLE.COM (Sept. 20l3) 

11!1I)_s:/!~Q~;;.:gQ9g1<:;:~~Q.m:IiI~/d::~~T}.!t~~B:P[d.IJI.~J.dVIqY}JM5!ZE~1J~J)DII;.djJ.'~pJi:-:J 

16 ,\'ee Ahou/, SCRTBD COM http://w,,,'w sClibd_com/about 

" 1d. 

5 
297 

call a "fmgerprint." The encoded fmgerprint is stored in a secure database that is 

inaccessible to the public. 

Whenever a new document is uploaded to Scribd, it is analyzed and checked against the 

"fingerprints" 111 our copyright database. If there's a significant match, the upload is 

remm'ed from Scribd. Since the fingerprint system is based on text analysis, it is less 

effective on documents that do not contain computer-readable te-xt infonnation (such as 

scanned photos)." 

To improve the functionality ofScribd's tilter, certain AAP members provided copies of their 

works for inclusion in its copyright database. Publishers continue to engage with Scribd on 

copyright protection concerns. 

Wattpad.com describes itself as "the world's largest community for discovering and 

sharing stories" for free. 19 Their goal is to attract new writers and readers to post and read 

original content, not third-party works, or as they have put it-"Read what you like. Share what 

you write,,20 Wattpad has worked with publishers to develop a database of book product 

metadata (such as title, author, etc.) to prevent books not authorized for distribution on Wattpad 

from being shared via the service. 

To be clear, AAP does not endorse any specific or particular technology solution. The 

above examples are intended to illustrate that responsible website operators have options to 

prevent their services from being used to distribute pirated content; flexibility in designing 

appropriate technological measures to achieve their legitimate business objectives; and willing 

partners in the content industries to provide reference materials and feedback for improving the 

operation of appropriate technology solutions. Collaboration between copyright owners and 

Internet services, which was crucial to creating the UCG Principles, will also be critical for 

ensuring that technological solutions can evolve over time to address the ever changing nature of 

infringement on the Internet. 

c. lACC Payment Processor Portal 

Established in 2011, the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition's (IACC) Payment 

Processor Portal (Portal) is a multi-stakeholder agreement that directly targets unlawful activity. 

The goal of the Portal is to cut otT revenue to sites that sell counterfeit products or pirated 

content. To accomplish this goal, the TPEC helped payment processors, content and product 

owners negotiate a set of best practices to withdraw payment services from sites selling 

counterfeit or pirated goods. lACC's Portal vets and consolidates rights holder notices 

identifying sites that traffic in such illicit goods. Now in its second year of operation, it appears 

that many payment providers trust the legitimacy of the notices received through the Portal and 

18 Joson, 11011' LJoes SCl'ibd JJell' Protect the Rights ojAl1thoI'8'. SCRlBD.COM (Feb. 26, 2009) 

lJl!R~/!~gpp~n~._~rib_(!.~X)11l-"~lJLri~E/2---,~D57_-11Q}~-dQ9~-::Sgrih~J-JldJ!-IlIQt~~:t:!lw:"lighLs:-_9r-1L!!~bQr~:-. 

19AhoUJ, WATTPAD.COM http"l/w\vw.\vattpad com/about 

,,, Presentation, Allen Lau. Wattpad Company Info. (May 24, 2010) (on file with author) (emphasis added). 

6 
298 

are amenable to terminating merchant accounts that have been shown to be engaged in infringing 

activity. 21 

However, unlike the UCG Principles, which provide general guidelines for how any UGC 

Service can design its site to deter uploading and distribution of pirated audio and video content, 

the IACC Portal is a service that content owners must pay a substantial fee 22 to use. To date, the 

Portal has been used primarily to shut down merchants selling cOllllte~feit products because 

payment processors generally require evidence of a specific unlawful sale to terminate a 

merchant account. Unfortunately, sites making available infringing copies of copyrighted works 

through sales of "premium" subscriptions (providing advantages to users such as faster 

downloading speeds and greater file-storage space) are generally outside the scope of the IACC 23 program 

d. Copyright Alert System 

In early 2013, after years of discussions, the music, movie, and television communities 

launched the Copyright Alert System (CAS) in partnership with five major US Internet service 

providers (TSPs). Like the lACe's Portal, implementation of the CAS requires a commitment of 

very substantial financial resources, borne by participating rights holders and ISPs. CAS aims to 

decrease illegal sharing of movies and music through peer-to-peer (P2P) networks by having 

ISPs pass along notices from participating rights holders to subscribers that appear to be engaged 

in illegal activity. 

The CAS uses a more than generous six-notice educational approach in attempting to 

deter P2P file-sharing. Once a rights holder's monitoring service detects infringing behavior 

over a P2P network, the rights holder notifies the relevant ISP, which forwards an educational 

notice to the infringer(s). The first 1-2 notices are intended to educate the infringing ISP 

subscriber about copyright and provide information about legal alternatives for accessing 

content. If recurring infringing activity is detected, the 3,d and 4th notices require 

acknowledgment of receipt of the educational message. Not until the St!, or 6th notice will a 

subscriber be subject to any mitigation measures, such as reduction of bandwidth. 

P2P piracy is a problem for publishers, but it is not the only one. One-click host sites 

(aka cyberlockers) playa larger role in making pirated eBooks and journal articles publicly 

available by providing online storage for users to upload and share copyrighted content. 

However, the CAS does not address the dissemination of pirated content through one-click host 

21 Sec The Role ofVoluntm~v Agreemellfs ill the U.S. Illtellectual Propertv s.:vstem: Hearing Before the House 

Judiciary Conunittee Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, II 3th Congress (2013) 

(statement of the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition) (providing the most recent enforcement statistics), 

:: AAP notes lh.o'll tIre Porlalllnd other systems de\eloped by private stnkeholders 10 implement voluntary 

[Igreemenls have 5ubslanli[ll development, implementation and lTwinteIwnce costs, ,,\'Inch Iili.ely justify the fees 

charged by lAce and other. HO\'\,ever, ""ith ITwny publishers being small businesses, ne hope that cost niH not 

sef\.'e as a functional barrier to rights holders participating in elIective \'OluntaI~\' measures. 

2"l It 1S not uncommon for one-c1ick host sites to offcr both frce and subsctipt10n 1ll0dc1s for do\vtl1oading pirated 

content. 

7 
299 

sites, online storefronts, blogs, or other individual web sites that likewise account for a significant 

portion of online piracy. 

A one-size-tlts-all approach may not be practical or effective. However, finding an 

effective solution for the different types of online piracy is crucial. Data on the effectiveness of 

CAS' educational approach to combating P2P piracy is not yet publicly available. 24 While 

government-sponsored graduated response policies that incorporate more restrictive 

consequences than the CAS for repeat infringers have had some short-term effect on P2P activity 

in the past, e.g., France's HADOPl, it is unclear whether these models effecti vely reduce P2P 

activity over time. It thus remains to be seen whether a private, education-focused initiative will 

result in any noticeable decline of illegal P2P activity. 

e. Ad Network Best Practices 

Most recently, in July of this year, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (lAB) and top ad 

networks (GoogJe, Yahool, 2417 Media, etc) announced the Best Practice Guidelines to Address 

Piracy and Counterfeiting (Best Practices), which directly target unlawful activity with the 

objective of "reducing the flow of ad revenue to operators of sites engaged in significant piracy 

and counterfeiting.,,2' Yet, despite the fact that eBook piracy web sites , business models are 

often based on the sale of advertising space on their websites rather than on the sale of individual 

copies, it is unclear whether any rights holder groups were consulted in the development of these 

"best practices" (as certainly publishing interests were not)26 

To be sure, the Best Practices provide apolefllia11y useful commitment to completely 

"remov[e] the website [distributing pirated content] from the Ad Network,,27 However, it 

remains to be seen whether any meaningful change occurs in the manner in which 

advertisements find their way onto bad actor sites given that the Best Practices clearly favor the 

ad networks. 

Specifically, the Best Practices impose complex notification requirements 28 on rights 

holders in order to initiate the process of requesting that an ad network stop placing ads on a 

2~ Aui see, Emcsto, ,r..,'ix-,r..,'frikes Fails 10 Hall L~ .. r..,'. Piraie R.(v (Jrowlh, TORRENTFREAK.COM (Sept. 1, 20ll). 

b!1f':1 itorrGlJtf\~1l1539J]lL~i~ =-~!TjJ~~_~_ .. :fgjh=-tg~1fl-~l.!-i-:llli~lY:-he.l_-:£19_~":1h_=JJQ2Q~L. 

25 Resl Praclice (;uidelines 10 Address Pirac~v and CounJerjeiling, (JIll 15, 2013), U:t!]!:d1TIY}L)Q 11l1JQE!pJjY~5-,gQ!.ll{ 

2() AAP hopes that the Ad Nef\:vorks \\ill, ho\-ve\·eL uphold their cOllunitment 10 "'Participate in an ongoing dialogue 

\\'ith content creators, rights holders, consumer organizations, and free speech advocates" to ensure that these Best 

Practices become a meaningful tool in the fight against online piracy. See Best Prac:Jice Guidelines fa Address 

Pirac:v and COlfntet.ieiting. General Conuuitments (d) (Jui. 15.2013) http://\V\yw.2013ippmcticcs.com/. 

2i Sec Bcst Fractice Guidclincs to Address Firac.v alld COllllfeljeiting, Compbint Process (h) (JuI. 15,2013). 

http:.l/\Y'Y\Y.2013ippractices con;;'. 

:~ SpecificnUy, notices must contain. (1) the specific URLs of the <llleged infringements (clearly identifying the 

"specific products or lT1:1terials and their locntion on the 'l-vebsite"); (2) the identity, location and contact infonl1ation 

for the \:\'ebsite: (3) further evidence of infringement, e.g .. through screenshots: and (4) a copy of a cease & desist 

letter or takedO\Hl notice pre\·iously sent to the \\'ebsite as \\'ell as a description of action undertaken by the ""ebsite. 

/ .. ,'ee Best Practice Guidelines to Address Piracy and Countelfeiting, Appendix A. (Jul 15,20 I J), 

htm.:! {T~~~':~Y ,20 U ipPJ~.c!ig.9S~t.:;ODJ!. 

8 
300 

particular website. As noted above, the current DMCA notice-and-take down system is already 

fraught with problems and yet, quite inexplicably, here an even more complicated system is 

envisioned as possibly stopping ad support for sites distributing pirated content. The Best 

Practices unjustitiably burden rights holders with providing a notice containing the specitic 

URLs for each "specific [pirated] product or material." This is in addition to requiring the rights 

holder to provide a copy ofDMCA-compliant takedown notices for the same content. 

The judicially-created, de/acto requirement that rights holders identify specific URLs for 

each DMCA takedown notice already imposes a substantial cost on rights holders and results in 

little practical reduction of piracy. Doubling this burden for rights holders only impedes 

enforcement by having ad networks process and take action,29 one-by-one, on potentially 

millions of separate URLs, which is plainly inefficient .. l() Without question, eliminating vital ad 

revenue that supports sites that are dedicated to distributing pirated content would have a 

noticeable impact on piracy. However, achieving this goal is unlikely under such complex 

requirements. 

Instead, when a rights holder identifies a particular work, or list of works, that are not 

legitimately available for free, ads supporting any page containing these works on a website 

should be disabled instead ofrequiring continuous searches and unique notices from the 

copyright owner for each page containing the same underlying work. Adopting this 

"representative list" approach will save rights holders and ad networks time and money. 

Furthennore, if these Best Practices are actually intended to have a meaningful effect on 

ad-supported online piracy, participants should ensure that their ads stop supporting the worst 

pirate sites, e.g., Pirate Bay, in any way. All participants in the online advertising ecosystem 

should be encouraged to work together to develop a comprehensive and effective approach to 

eliminating legitimate advertising on illegitimate sites, including the use of technological 

solutions that incorporate information provided by independent third-party verification services3l 

to help enable infonned decisions about ad placement. 

TIT. General Principles for Future Voluntary Agreements 

While there are many positive features of the existing voluntary agreements, they cannot be 

the only means for addressing the problem as there simply is no "silver bullet" to stop online 

piracy. There are, however, a few general principles that AAP believes should be at the core of 

29 As noted above. the Ad Networks can choose to "femov[ c] the [entire] website from the Ad Network" instead of 

removing ads from one webpage at a time. HO\yeVeI, there is no parallel options (e.g. a representative list of 

infringements) for rights holders, \"ho must il1ste<ld include URLs for each and every infringement. See Jd. at (h); 

Appendi.,A 

30 As one e.\.mnple of the sheer volume of notices that mus! be sent to ITwke any impact on pime)" see Google' S 

T ITlllSparency Report on requests for removal of links to infringing material 

(hUQ:ll\1_\V_,~_.gQ9gk_SS)lr}!lnll~'3I~:iJ~J1c). rS:-l~9JJh~lltQ\:l!.lsl(,.'!-2l3'~jglJ-tl~), ""hich shm"s that Google receives millions of 

takedown requests each month, for hundreds of thousands of speclfic URLs, by thousands of copylight o'Vllcrs 

11 For example: VcriSitc http://www.vcri-sitc.comland Whitc Bullet, ill:ti2~~.'~-~Y-'~:21yhjj:c_:I)~1H~ts_01JJi. 

9 
301 

any effective voluntary agreement or set of best practices. AAP believes that the impact of 

current and future voluntary agreements would be greater if the following general principles 

informed the structure and application of such agreements: 

Best practices are more likely to achieve stated objectives if all relevant stakeholders are 

active contributors in the development of the best practices from the beginning. 

2. Private, voluntary agreements have flexible tenns that are more easily moditied than 

statutory prescriptions. Therefore, voluntary agreements should include a process for 

soliciting feedback from rights holders and other affected stakeholders, and using that 

feedback to improve the operation and/or etTect of the agreement or best practices in a 

timely manner32 

3. Compliance with best practices statements, as well as procedures for implementing 

voluntary agreements, should be transparent. Providing more data to facilitate efforts to 

measure the implementation and effectiveness of best practices and voluntary agreements 

will help ensure that stakeholders are not wasting resources on ineffective policies or 

actions. 

4 Voluntary agreements should not require a quid pro quo (e.g., removal of pirated content 

on the condition that right holders license use of their legitimate content to the 

participants) to undertake responsible actions to eliminate pirated content from web sites. 

5. Solutions developed as part of voluntary agreements should be practicable and scalable 

for various types of rights holders, many ofwhich are small businesses. 

6. Where applicable, technological solutions should be explored to facilitate efforts to 

efilciently and etTectively combat online piracy. By doing this voluntarily, stakeholders 

avoid any possibility of a technology mandate. 

7. Voluntary agreements should be reasonable, i.e., the time, cost, and effort to comply with 

or implement such agreements should 110/ unduly burden one group or another, but 

should be shared by rights holders, Intemet companies and intermediaries. 

8 Respect for privacy, due process, and freedom of speech are critical to maintaining a 

creative Intemet economy, and such values can coexist with efTective anti-piracy etTorts. 

Many of these general principles are common sense and speak for themselves. When 

solutions to a problem are sought, it is best to involve the relevant parties; to measure whether 

the actions are having their intended effect; and to evaluate the current strategy to determine if 

resources are being wasted. Potentially less obvious is that copyright piracy hanns more than 

just "best sellers" and box-office hits. In reality, there are also sites providing pirated textbooks, 

complex scientitic articles, and niche-market books. And, as noted above, most publishers in the 

U.S. are small businesses that do not have the resources to continually search the Internet for 

their content, sue multiple (or even single) web sites, or take part in expensive voluntary 

enforcement initiatives. Furthermore, even large publishers do not have unlimited resources to 

invest in sending millions of take down notices that fail to reduce piracy, or to join anti-piracy 

12 AAP agrees \"lth RTAA that lye should --never confuse motion for action" in regard to 3ntl-plracy actiYltlcs and 

that what is rcally important is that anti-piracy measures arc effective. 

10 
302 

initiatives that pay lip-service to combating piracy but do not provide meaningful incentives for 

participants to take effective action or measurements of the initiative's ability to reduce piracy. 

Lastly, perhaps because we represent an industry dedicated to the dissemination of 

knowledge, AAP believes the importance of transparency for creating and maintaining effective 

public and private copyright enforcement mechanisms cannot be stressed enough. 

Unfortunately, there is currently little transparency about pirated content and anti-piracy 

measures. However, transparency is necessary for stakeholders to undertake efficient, accurate 

and effective efforts to reduce online piracy. A number of entities in the online ecosystem (ad 

networks, ISPs, search engines, one-click host site operators) have or can easily obtain data 

concerning their own compliance and implementation of voluntary agreements that would be 

useful in assessing the impact, cost, and reach of such anti-piracy efforts. 

IV. Role for Congress 

While private parties may be in the best position to negotiate and craft tlexible methods for 

combating online piracy, Congress still has an important role to play in creating meaningful 

incenti ves for stakeholders to conclude and implement e±Iecti ve agreements. Moreover, because 

voluntary agreements are a necessary but not sutlicient tool for combating online piracy, 

Congress may also need to fix the shortcomings of the current statutory copyright enforcement 

mechanisms (e.g., the eligibility requirements for the lSP "safe harbors" from infringement 

liability, including: notice-and-takedown, repeat infringer policies, and knowledge standards). 

There will also be additional issues for which Congress will need to "fill in the gaps" by enacting 

additional measures to ensure that illegal activity does not inhibit the growth oflegitimate digital 

content and services online. 

Furthermore, Congress has an important role to play in ensuring transparency, which has 

been noticeably absent in the fight against online piracy, despite the importance of sharing 

information to combat piracy in the digital age. Congress and the Administration may be in the 

best position to encourage all entities within the Internet and intellectual property communities to 

share relevant data where doing so would improve anti-piracy tools and be allowed by law. 

Importantly, Congress would be able to take into account and weigh the harms and benefits of 

such sharing, and thus ensure that privacy, due process, and freedom of speech are adequately 

protected. 

11 
303 

f 

V. Conclusion 

Congress's comprehensive review of the Copyright Act is an opportunity to encourage 

private stakeholders to develop and implement etl'ective voluntary anti-piracy measures that will 

complement statutory copyright protections. AAP looks forward to continued engagement with 

Congress and the various stakeholders to further explore ways to make combating copyright 

piracy more efficient and effective for all parties involved. 

Sincerely, 

Allan Adler 

General Counsel 

Vice President for Government Atl'airs 

Association of American Publishers 

455 Massachusetts Ave. NW 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

Phone 202/220-4544 

Fax: 202/347-3690 

Email: adler@publishers.org 

12 
304 

Statement of the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies 

The Role of Voluntary Agreements in the U.S. Intellectual Property System 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet 

September 18, 2013 
305 

AS 0 P I AL LlANC£ FOR SAr-E I ()NLlN£ I'I-IAR."ACIE~ 

The HOl>orablc Bob Goodlatle 

Chairman 

House Judidary Committee 

2309 Rayburn House Omu' BuildIng 

WashinglQn, DC 20$15 

The Honorable Howard Coble 

Ch.irman 

House Judiciary Subcommittee on Court., 

Intellectua) Property and the inlernet 

2188 R~vburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20S1~ 

Septembe, 24, 2013 

l~e Honorable Mel Wall 

R.nkin ~ Member 

Hous" Judiciary Commin"e 

2304 Ravburn House Office Building 

Wa~lngton. DC 20515 

The HOfIorable JollII COllyetS, Jr. 

Rankins Member 

House iudidary ~ubcommlttee on Cou,t. 

Intellectual Property and Ihe Internel 

2426 RaybUrn HOUS .. Office Building 

Wasll;"!!o,,, DClOS1S 

0.. ... Chalnnan Gcodlatle, Chairman Coble. Ranking Member Wall ilnd R"n~lnB Member Ccnye,,, 

On behalf ollhe Aliiance fa. Safe Online Pharm.des-IASOP), thank YOllfor the opportllnily to sllbmit 

the following testimony for th e record to supplement your September 181h subcommittee hcaring 

regirding the role of veluntarv agreements in the U.S.lntelle1:tUilI property system. ASOP is a I\()()profl t 

"'ganl,ation dedkated to protecting patient safety globally and ensuring patient ace"" to safe and 

leglUmJtc online pharmacies In JtcerdJnce with applicable laws. Fer this reason, we are concerned by 

rogue sites that violate laws and endanger pa tien ts; we ~Ilpport strong volllntary praeUees th.t help to 

enSure the In ternet can be a positive ,eSOllree fo, all, while nol enabling crimes against p~blic health 

that are preventable. 

o..'pile the existence of many .afe onUne pharmacle. th at adhere to laws and s.fety 'landards, the 

IMe",et has opened the door 10 thous.ands of criminallnle,nel sites posing IS legitimate phi'macles 

and seiling polenliallv unsafe medicines. Indeed, at anyone time the re are approximately 35·50,000 

actille online drug sellers, 97% of which do not comply with U.S. laws, puning pati"-f\ts.t fisk. Illegal 

online "pharmacy" operatfons are big bUSiness. th e largest of which ge~erate between S1 million and 

l,S million In s.a ~ uch month.' 

Illegal onlinedru8 !>(!liel5 leign legitimacy and endanger patients. Thfoy ~ell p,escfiption drugs without it 

presuJptlon, operate without 3 pharmacy license, and/or peddle counter/efl 0' otherwise nlcgltlmate 

drugs wit h con\ilminant5, such a§ p,,'nt. floorwu, and borit acid. Th ese illegal drug websltes treate a 

major he alth and s.afety fisk to U.S. COnsume,S. For elQmple, a man in Wichita, hns.as died Irom an 

acdd~ntal o",",do,e of d,ugs he receIved from an onlin ~ ' pha rmacy" wahoot ever visilong" doctor. 

Others ha~e suffered brain damage, been hospitalized, or Simply not rc(e)ved th e heahng benefits 

needed trom drugs p urchased online. 

2 
306 

Easy access to prescription drugs through illegal online drug sellers has also contributed to a growing 

prescription drug abuse problem in our nation. This is of particular concern with regard to young people, 

who are frequently online, unsupervised and vulnerable to the ploys of illegal online drug sellers. 

Pharmaceuticals are the 13th most purchased product online, yet today patients are just a click away 

from online "medicines" that may fail to provide any therapeutic benefit, harm, or even kill a patient. 

Internet consumers should not have to play Russian roulette with their health. ASOP thanks the House 

Judiciary Committee for its consideration of the grave implications of this growing threat to public 

health. 

While the U.S. government plays a critical role in protecting patient safety, the U.S. and other 

governments cannot tackle this international and fast-moving problem alone. Law enforcement actions 

require substantial time and resources to track the illegal online drug sellers, who can elude authorities 

while taking in profits and endanger patient lives. While making cases and putting criminals behind bars 

is essential, Internet commerce companies have the unique ability to protect patients immediately 

through voluntary actions. 

Every Internet intermediary has a role to play to protect consumers through meaningful and appropriate 

actions addressing illegal online drug sellers' use of their services. These companies witness the threats 

on their platforms and can address them through prompt voluntary actions without waiting for a court 

order. Voluntary actions such as terminating service, locking domain names, and otherwise refusing to 

do business with illegal online drug sellers yield immediate and substantial benefits to patients. In 

combination with continued domestic and international law enforcement and policy, voluntary 

agreements will make the Internet safer for patients. 

ASOP is grateful for the Subcommittee's work to understand and, where appropriate, help advance 

voluntary agreements from private sector companies who have the ability to protect patients from 

illegal and dangerous online drug sellers. Your leadership and oversight are crucial. Private sector 

companies, including the members of Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies (CSIP) and other e-commerce 

companies, are beginning to accept their responsibility to protect patient safety online. We strongly 

support your efforts to strengthen and build upon these ongoing efforts; we urge the Committee to 

remain a vigilant watchdog of the effectiveness of voluntary agreements that will protect patients. 

ASOP recently submitted comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office regarding the 

importance of measuring the effectiveness of voluntary agreements. We would like these comments to 

be submitted for the record by the Committee to supplement the other testimony provided in your 

hearing. We also offer a list of recent law enforcement actions and survey of reported patient harms as 

further evidence of the scope of the problem, which may also be submitted for the record to underscore 

the importance of Congressional oversight. 

Thank you again for your leadership and consideration of this important public health issue. 

Respectfully, 

Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies 
307 

AS 0 P I ALLIANCE fOR SAFf ONLINE PliARMACIES 

Testimony for the Record: Subcommittee HurinS on - The Role alVolunta", Agreements In Ih .. U.S, 

Intelle<:tl,lal Propert v System" 

September 18, lOll 

INTRODUCTION 

The AIII~Il,e lot S~le Online Pharmacies (MOPI ~pprl'Ciate~ thl! opporl uMlIy to submilihe followioR 

comment. for th" record. The.e commef'l, We,e prevlou,IV .ubmiUed 10 USPTO Request for Public 

Comments on Augu.t 21, 2013 (Doc~el No: PTO-C-2013·0036~ legardlns the processes, dala mett1ts. 

and methoool"llie. th at wuld be u.ed to a .... " the effect;",," .... of GOOp"'I1'Ilivl! agreement< and other 

voluntary Inillatives to reduce in lellecwa l property Infringement Ihal occurs online, Including 

,peclHc~11y the crimes of lIIesal online d,ug",lIers. 

ASOP is a nonprofit organilatlon with the goal of pmtecling patlem safety ~nd ensuring patlenl acce.s 

10 sale and legi((ma te online pharmacies In accordance with applicable taws- ASap's membership 

,,,dud ... th .. Am .. r!can Pharmacist.. A.sociatlo", Eli lnly & Comp."v, Enfo"e the Act, European Alliance 

for Acces. to Soale Medicines, International Pharmaceuti cal Fede(atlon,legiIScript, Merd, Me,,'. Hulill 

Network, National A"ociatio" 01 Chai" OWII Stores, Need~Med., the Partne rship at Orug-Fr .... ,org, ami 

Takeda Pharmaceutical., 

ASOp believes thit pati enUdese""" protection from illegal Or i!legitlm.le websites selling Or oHerlng to 

seli drugs purponin~ to be licensed and compliant pharmacies, while endangerina patienh- Ii"" •. 

De.pile Ihe lstl!/1ce 0/ m.n~ safe online pharmacies which do adhere tos.fety standards, Ihe nature 

of the InteroN ha. opened the door to thousands o f criminal (aka "rogue "' Internet sites posing"' 

legitimate pharmacies and se lling pOlenjj all~ unsale medicine s, The resull: palient' a re just one dick 

away from pureh.,ing medkine lllat could have a dangerous or fatal co"se'luenc,,_ 

A, ASap SUPPORT FOR VOLUNTAR~ BEST PRACTICES 

ASOP applaud, the While Hous .. fo r its continued commitmem to. ,Ir;rtegy that aim. 10 prOlect publ k 

heallh and safety and comb.! !lleeal online drug sellers th at peddle coun te rfellS and other unsafe 

produc ~ to unsuspectlnB patients, The Obama Admlni.tr.tlon .nd its l" elle' U~1 Property En forcement 

Coordinator, Victor1a Espinel, have made significant sl,idc.s on thiS issue, beginning with their initial Joint 

Slra eg~ In 2010, 

The Admini,tratlon'. , trategy igh tl ~ re<OBnllc, ""d eMour'Oge, the [fltiul rol .. and respOnslbll t~ of the 

pr1vate sector In adopting voluntary pr;rttices thai Can better protect COnSUmer. and prellCnl criminal 

activity that may result in harm or e""n de ath •. In the 2013 ,lrategy, the Administration tails particula' 

all~ntion to thc Center for Sale.lnlernet Pharmacies (CSIP), a nonprofit 0I13,,113110n comprised of 

Internet commerce companies, which was established to Increase collaboration and action, to reduce 

Ihe number of rOKue online ·pharmacles," ASOP agree' that CSIP and other Internet commerCe 

• 
308 

companies have the unique ability to adopt and commit to enforcing practices that can protect patients 

in a way no government or other organization can. As such, ASOP greatly appreciates and encourages 

the Administration's support for (SIP and relevant voluntary actions by the private sector to combat 

rogue online "pharmacies". ASOP is also supportive of effective oversight and constructive engagement 

regarding the value of such voluntary practices and how they can be measured, improved, and 

strengthened as necessary for the benefit of patient safety, public health, and crime prevention. 

CSIP and its thirteen member companies have taken the following efforts to date which have helped to 

raise awareness about the threat and the CSI P organization's own commitment to disrupt this criminal 

activity: 

Development of a functional infrastructure to facilitate the sharing of information about 

suspect online pharmacy websites amongst the nonprofit's corporate members; 

Partnership with ASOP, other nonprofits and the US government on education and public 

messaging; 

Collaboration with FDA on Operation Pangea, an international law enforcement initiative to 

identify and address illegal online drug sellers; 

Participation in international dialogues with EU and Japan stakeholders; and 

Donation of search engine advertisements which direct consumers to awareness videos, 

developed in partnership with ASOP and/or the LegitScript pharmacy URL verification tool. 

We applaud these activities from CSIP and encourage their increased collaboration to reduce illegal 

online "pharmacies" and protect patients. However, all stakeholders -- public and private, domestic and 

international - must do more to put criminals on the defensive and prevent continued growth of their 

online presence. There are critical elements that are needed from the private sector, including 

increased vigilance to monitor and cease business transactions with illegal online "pharmacies," as well 

as increased collaboration to establish model responsible business practices that can help prevent this 

growing crime in a more systematic way. 

The private sector's involvement in protecting the public health from Internet criminals will not be 

successful if it is not assessed critically, reviewed, and improved upon. In order to ensure that it is 

successful and meaningful, it must not be restricted to the policies of a few individual companies or 

isolated public relations activities. The goal of these voluntary initiatives must be to realize a significant 

change in the online environment that will either prevent or greatly deter criminals from operating 

freely as they do in today's environment. The commitment to do this has already been made in 

principle with the establishment of CSIP and their public announcement to work together to protect the 

public from these illegal sites. If appropriately measured, their work (and the work of other responsible 

private sector actors, including those abroad) can change the environment online and realize outcomes 

that make a difference in patients' lives, now and in the future. Accordingly, ASOP offers the following 

specific comments on how to assess the effectiveness of voluntary initiatives aimed at combatting illegal 

online drug sellers. 
309 

B. ASOP RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE 

Question #1: How should "effectiveness" of cooperative voluntary initiatives be defined? 

Specific to the rogue online pharmacy issue, "effectiveness" of voluntary initiatives to combat illegal 

online drug sellers ought to be defined in terms of the direct impact on the safety of 

patients/consumers, including: 

a. The "cleanliness" of the Internet pharmacy marketplace (i.e. the number of illegitimate online 

pharmacies found in search results and other online locations); 

b. Transparency of Internet commerce company corporate policies and development of 

recommended best practices to monitor and prevent the facilitation of illegal online 

"pharmacies;1I 

c. Increased consumer awareness about the dangers of purchasing from illegal online drug sellers 

including providing consumers with a list of legitimate online pharmacy websites. 

However, only (SIP and other Internet commerce companies have the direct ability to affect the 

cleanliness of the marketplace. For this reason, ASOP's comments will focus on how to measure the 

impact of voluntary actions that could directly improve the safety of the Internet pharmacy 

marketplace, rather than how to measure the effectiveness of consumer awareness initiatives. 

Question #2: What type of data would be particularly useful for measuring effectiveness of voluntary 

initiatives aimed at reducing infringement and what would that data show? 

Specific data regarding key voluntary initiatives of (SIP and its members would provide a useful tool for 

measure the effectiveness of their efforts, which ASOP strongly supports. 

The following suggestions include recommended metrics for measuring the effectiveness of various 

voluntary practices ongoing today: 

1. Mimicking consumer behavior: 

a. Searching terms such as "Buy [insert drug namer in search engines, social media sites 

and other Internet platforms and then identifying and quantifying the illegal online 

pharmacies in those locations (such as on the first two pages of results). This would 

mimic the behavior of consumers looking online to purchase a prescription medicine. 

These data have the benefit of being readily available and not sensitive or confidential, 

and could also be tracked over time for trends and measurement of progress. 

2. Effectiveness of CSIP members' standards of conduct and/or other voluntary best practices: 

a. The measurable outcomes from (SIP members' own voluntary enforcement activity in 

2012 and 2013, other than the aggregate data related to Operation Pangea that has 

been publicly released, including: 

The percentage of illegal online pharmacy activity on each member's platform, 

as evidence members' commitment to (SIP's mission and to shed light on what, 

if any, voluntary policies are working; 

6 
310 

ii. The number of websites blocked/transactions stopped by each sector involved 

in (SIP, which as a stand-alone number (not a percentage) shows the scope of 

the problem and how individual policies or best practices being employed by 

(SIP members are helping to achieve these results and/or curb the threat; 

iii. Percentage change in the number of solicitations to (SIP companies by illegal 

online drug seller operators, as evidence of the effect that corporate policies 

can have on rogue actors' activities (e.g. the rogue actors may stop trying to use 

XYZ registrar and instead seek out a safe-haven registrar who does not enforce 

policies against illegal sites); 

iv. The number of internal appeals by illegal online drug sellers that each company 

(or sector) has had to respond to, which informs future efforts to establish 

effective, tailored voluntary enforcement protocols; 

b. The internal policies, strategies and tactics adopted and the resources (internal or 

external) that have been helpful in creating effective corporate voluntary enforcement 

programs within (SIP member companies, which will demonstrate to stakeholders what 

works and what doesn't; 

c. (SIP's standards for membership (e.g. expectations of voluntary enforcement), to 

evidence (SIP members' tangible commitments to addressing the issue and to help set 

standards/best practices against which other Internet commerce companies could be 

evaluated; 

d. (SIP's recommendations for what other Internet commerce companies (non-(SIP 

members) could be doing to help clean up the Internet pharmacy marketplace in order 

to help export standards/best practices and establish guidelines against which other 

companies could be evaluated. 

3. Effectiveness of (SIP's "neutral forum for sharing relevant information about il/egallnternet 

pharmacies among members (forum}": 

a. The type, quantity and frequency of information shared in the forum, e.g. prospective 

threats or only post-investigation information, to show whether and how such a forum 

can be used to proactively address rogue activity; 

b. Information on breadth of participation among members, i.e. what sectors most actively 

use the forum and at what frequency, to inform how to improve the forum for increased 

effectiveness across multiple sectors and platforms; 

c. Data on what (SIP members do in response to shared information, e.g. send warning 

letters, cut-off transactions, etc., as evidence of the tangible outcomes resulting from 

the forum; 

d. Information on how and to what extent the FDA, FBI, DHS or other law enforcement 

agencies have access to or utilize the forum for sharing information, to show the 

measurable value of the pUblic-private partnership. 

4. Effectiveness of (SIP's assistance with "law enforcement efforts where appropriate?" 

a. Data on how (SIP assisted in Operation Pangea in 2012 and 2013, to show the direct 

additional value of (SIP's involvement: 

Number of leads solely attributable to (SIP members; 

ii. Number of leads from other sources reviewed or confirmed by (SIP members; 

7 
311 

iii. Number of illegal online drug seller websites shut down by CSIP members (as 

opposed to taken down in response to law enforcement warning letters or 

other actions); 

b. Information on other ways CSIP has aided law enforcement efforts, aside from 

Operation Pangea, to show whether and to what extent the Internet commerce 

companies are involved in regular or ongoing enforcement efforts: 

Data on how often CSIP liaises with law enforcement to de conflict, share, and 

take joint action on lead. 

Question #3: If the data is not readily available, in what ways could it be obtained? 

ASOP recognizes that some of these data may be sensitive and/or may not be readily available to 

Internet commerce companies, i.e. it may not be currently produced or collected through currently 

existing business practices or processes. However, for CSIP members who have committed publicly to 

combating illegal online drug sellers, we would nonetheless expect these companies to establish 

systems and processes by which to evaluate the effectiveness of their voluntary initiatives. While the 

Internet commerce companies themselves would best know how to measure the outcomes of their own 

initiatives, use of the following of systems and processes might be helpful: 

1. Monthly monitoring of the number oJa. Companies using the platform for both legal Internet pharmacies and illegal online drug 

sellers business purposes; 

b. Illegal online drug seller transactions blocked; 

c. Appeals from illegal online drug sellers seeking to use the platform's services; 

d. Warning letters and/or compliance bulletins distributed to clients. 

2. Annual (if not monthly) use of a third-party to audit the platform for: 

a. Rogue activity; 

b. Overall cleanliness, e.g. percentage rogues using the company's system for illegal online 

pharmacy activities. 

Question #4: Are there particular impediments to measuring effectiveness, at this time or in general, 

and if so, what are they? 

If measured by the number of illegitimate online pharmacies found in search results and other online 

locations, ASOP does not have first-hand knowledge of any particular impediments that would prevent 

Internet commerce companies and/or the government from measuring the effectiveness of voluntary 

actions.' Nonetheless, we have heard from (SIP that the following issues make it difficult to measure 

effectiveness: 

Z We note, however, that if measuring effectiveness were to require test purchases of pharmaceuticals from 

suspect online drug sellers, then impediments could include the cost and effort needed for such test purchases 

(including obtaining prescriptions where needed), as well as the analytical lab testing and secure handling and storing of such 

samples. 

8 
312 

1. Due to differences in the sectors involved in CSIP (e.g. payment processors vs. registrars), it is 

difficult to determine a consistent way to measure and reflect CSIP's effectiveness; 

2. Even within a sector (e.g. advertising providers), there are substantial differences in the way 

each company operates, again creating challenges in measuring "apples to apples;" and 

3. Companies, especially smaller organizations, may not have allocated the resources (staff time, 

budget, etc.) that are needed to measure tangible outcomes. 

While these issues may present initial challenges to CSIP's ability to measure the effectiveness of its, and 

its members', voluntary actions, there is a compelling public health interest in finding ways to do so. In 

order to vigilantly protect consumers, policymakers, regulators, law enforcement and health groups 

must be able to assess whether voluntary actions are working or not. If not, these stakeholders owe it to 

the public to take additional action, whether through new legislation, increased enforcement or other 

measures. Accordingly, Internet commerce companies must be expected to bear some burden of proof 

- even if such requires establishing additional systems and processes to measure new data points or the 

hiring of a third-party monitoring organization - to evidence that their programs are working. Without 

these data, stakeholders are unable to appropriately evaluate existing practices and determine what, if 

any, additional actions are warranted to better protect public health. 

Question #5: What mechanisms should be employed to assist in measuring the effectiveness of 

voluntary initiatives? 

ASOP encourages the Administration consider the following mechanisms to help evaluate the 

effectiveness of voluntary initiatives: 

1. Mimicking the behavior of consumers looking online to purchase a prescription medicine (see 

response to Question #2 above) and tracking the "cleanliness" of results over time for trends 

and measurement of effectiveness; 

2. Issuance of official recommendations from the Administration on metrics for measuring the 

success of voluntary initiatives that have been undertaken already and included in the IPEC 

strategy (2013), including a procedure to promote accountability for reporting on the outcomes; 

3. An annual request for a public report to the Administration or to Congress from companies and 

organizations who have committed to voluntary initiatives, which would provide year-over-year 

information from which long-term effectiveness may be evaluated; 

4. GAO investigation and/or other government audit of (1) the effectiveness of voluntary initiatives 

every three years which would take into consideration the Administration's official 

recommendations (item #1 above) and use the annual reports from companies and 

organizations as a means of evaluating progress (item #2 above); and (2) the extent to which 

rogue Internet pharmacies are utilizing companies in the same sectors that have not engaged in 

voluntary compliance measures; and 

5. U.S. Government-organized annual public meeting to facilitate information-sharing about key 

voluntary initiatives and to increase dialogue among private sector, public sector, and nongovernment organizations to promote evaluations and improvements. 

9 
313 

Question #6: Is there existing data regarding efficacy of particular practices, processes or 

methodologies for voluntary initiatives, and if so, what is it and what does it show? 

ASOP understands that CSIP has made efforts to evaluate the efficacy of particular initiatives the 

nonprofit and its members have undertaken since 2012. CSIP has reported results available at 

h lip:!!www.safemedsonline.otg/who-we-are/uur-resulis/. 

We applaud these initial outcomes from CSIP. That said, ASOP does not have full information on the 

methodology used or consistency ("apples to apples" nature) of information provided by CSIP's 

members and thus cannot comment on the accuracy of the information provided. Also, these data 

reflect only the voluntary initiatives taken by the thirteen companies involved in CSIP; there are many 

other companies (including those based off-shore but who provide services and/or facilitate 

transactions to U.S. consumers) who should similarly be dedicated to protecting patients and likewise 

measuring the efficacy of their practices. ASOP is not aware of other existing data. 

CONCLUSION 

Despite the various recommendations provided herein to increase the effectiveness and impact of CSIP's 

actions to date and in the future, and that of its members and future members, ASOP considers CSIP to 

be a crucial partner in the fight to protect patients and ensure improvements that can bring about a 

change to the online environment as it relates to reducing the prevalence of illegal online "pharmacies." 

CSIP has undertaken a brave and new initiative that will require much learning, evaluation, and 

adaptation to ensure its success. The willingness to embark upon this initiative is symbolic of the 

corporate responsibility and forward-thinking nature of its members, and for that, we applaud them and 

look forward to their continued partnership and commitment to this issue. 

The U.S. government plays a critical role in protecting patient safety, enforcing laws, and preventing 

crime. In the case of illegal online "pharmacies," voluntary and good corporate practices by Internet 

commerce companies can provide a solution to advance all of these goals, decreasing the burden on 

government and reducing threats to patient safety (and associated costs to the health-care system). As 

such, the voluntary initiatives must be measured effectively to ensure progress and advance the 

Administration's overriding goals. We applaud this exercise as a tool to achieve that outcome, and we 

hope it will be completed and used effectively to advise on next steps and future policy. 

We must all work together to protect patients and the public health, public and private sector. ASOP 

remains committed to playing our role. In order to achieve the most beneficial outcome for patients, 

we must be able to adapt our rules, regulations, laws, and voluntary corporate policies to accommodate 

for advances and changes in technology and the availability and wide use of the Internet today. As such, 

we cannot allow the Internet to be a platform for crime against patients. But we must also remain 

vigilant to work together in a way that ensures the sustained integrity, free and open nature, and 

conveniences of the Internet so it continues to be a vital tool for all, enjoyed by all. 

10 
314 

LAw ENFORCEMfNT ACTIONS AND PATIEN i HARMS RELATED TO ILLEGAL ONLINE DnuG SELLERS 

Recent Law Enforcement Cases, Prosecutions and Investigations 

A few examples of recent u.s. and international law enforcement actions involving online drug sales, in 

chronological order: 

1. In the summer of 2011, U.s. federal agents identified a 41-year-old, Shane Lance. The agents 

arrested Lance and indicted him on multiple counts, including conspiracy to traffic counterfeit drugs. 

Last spring, he pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to traffic and one count of trafficking, and 

in November he received his sentence: 10 months in prison and a $5,100 fine to be paid to Pfizer.' 

2. In December of 2012, the State of Oregon fined Hayden Hamilton, founder of ProgressiveRx.com, 

$50,000 for operating without an Oregon pharmacy license. The 35-year-old Portland businessman 

has shipped medicine from India and other countries to customers in the United States and around 

the world 4 

3. On April 24, 2012, two men pleaded guilty and were sentenced for smuggling counterfeit and 

misbranded pharmaceuticals into the u.s. Both men operated an Internet business in Israel that 

used multiple websites to illegally sell large amounts of prescription drugs to U.S. purchasers. In 

total, they sent approximately 9,000 separate drug shipments to U.S. purchasers, generating over 

$1.4 million in gross proceeds. Ultimately, one man received 10 months in federal prison, was fined 

$30,000 and forfeited $50,000. The other man received one year of probation, was fined $15,000 

and forfeited $15,000.' 

4. On August 5, 2012, Chinese government officials seized "more than $182 million of counterfeit 

pharmaceuticals last month in the latest attempt to clean up a food and drug market that has been 

flooded with fakes." Chinese police arrested more than 2,000 individuals and destroy 1,100 

production facilities for producing counterfeit drugs.' 

5. On August 9,2012, a Puerto Rican man faced up to 10 years in prison after being found guilty by 

a jury on U.S. federal charges stemming from his role as a key operative for a drug ring that 

distributed large quantities of Chinese-made counterfeit pharmaceuticals throughout the United 

States and worldwide. Special agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) 

Homeland Security found more than 100,000 pills made to resemble a variety of popular 

prescription medications, including Viagra, Cialis, Valium, Xanax and Lipitor. 7 

1 "Inside Pfizer's Fight Against Counterfeit Drugs," Bloomberg Businessweek (January 17, 2013); available 

at http://www.bu::>iness\N(.ek.comiarticies/2013- Ol-17iinsidc: pfilers tight C;painsl counterfeit-drup;s 

1 "State lines online pharmacy with Portland ties; Oregon shipments blocked" U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DecembN 21,2012); 

at http://www.orpwmliw.cmn/hc .. lth.!index ... 3f/?012!12Istattfinesonlinephannacvwi.htmi 

Israeli men sentenced for smuggli'1g counterfeit ami misbrandpd pharmaceuticals into the United States" U.s. [)ppartment of Homeland 

Security (April 24, 2013); available at ~:~V'.j.ic~:~neW5/release~L1204/120474st!o.~:..h.!Q!. 

6 "China Arrest 2,000 Individuals and 1,100 Production Facilities for Making Counterfeit Drugs" Rx-360 (August 5, 2012) available at 

"Man convicted for role in international counterfeit drug distribution scheme 

Search continues for organization's ringleader" U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ICE (August 9, 2012); available 

atblli21L~~'~J~~~5/r("lea5eld1-1Q<.'t:.11..9.fu"!..~~.li:...'ili!l 

11 
315 

6. On January 9,2013, a pioneer of the Canadian Internet pharmacy business, Andrew Strempler, 38 

years old, was sentenced in U.S. federal court in Miami to four years in prison for conspiracy to 

commit mail fraud in connection with the sale of foreign and counterfeit medicines to U.S. 

customers.8 

7. On March 13, 2013, Edmond Paolucci, 54, of Coventry, Rhode Island and Patrick Cunningham, 44, 

of Cranston, Rhode Island, admitted to the court that they participated in a conspiracy to repackage 

illegal drugs and sell them under various names and labels to consumers who placed orders via the 

Internet. A significant portion of the proceeds realized from the sale of the illegal drugs was 

laundered back to individuals in Israel. 9 

8. On March 27, 2013, nine defendants were sentenced for their roles in illegally distributing 

controlled substances to customers who bought the drugs from illicit Internet pharmacies. The 

defendants were also collectively ordered to forfeit more than $94 million in illegal proceeds. Drug 

Enforcement Administration Acting Special Agent in Charge Bruce C. Balzano stated, "Prescription 

drug abuse has risen to alarming levels, often times leaving a trail of devastation behind and 

negatively impacting our communities. The individuals sentenced this week were involved in online 

pharmacy schemes that were illegally distributing controlled substances."l0 

9. On March 27, 2013, three men and one woman have been sentenced in relation to the illegal 

online supply of prescription only and counterfeit medicines. This follows an undercover operation 

by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regu latory Agency (M H RA). Searches of the homes of 

those involved uncovered stashes of counterfeit medication and generic prescription only medicine. 

This included Viagra, Cialis, diazepam and methadone. A study of a computer also showed email 

traffic between Andrew Luxton, Samantha Steed, Carl Willis and others indicating the previous 

supply of illegitimate medicine." 

10. On June 27, 2013 the U.S. FDA reported the successful execution of Operation Pangea VI, a law 

enforcement initiative resulting in the elimination of 1,677 websites selling illegal prescription drugs. 

In partnership with the Department of Justice, FDA's Office of Criminal Investigations, Interpol, and 

authorities from nearly 100 countries took action against 9,600 websites. Dangerous drugs valued at 

$41 million were seized. 12 

Department of Justice (March 27, 2013) available at 

http://wlI',,~Jl:!gice.gov/usao/cCln/new5/7Q13!201::; 03 ?7 nine. sentenced pre~5ll!:'I!l 

L "Three men and one woman sentenced in counterfeit medicines case" MHRA (March 27, 2013) available at 

htl p: I/www.mhra.goll .ukiN ewsCentre/Pre~~rf'1 ease~/CON2548 S J 

12 "International operation targets online sale of illicit medicines" Interpol (June 17,20]3); available at.b..!!:JlJlV'!ww.int~[QQh~ 

medi2/i\.ew;,-m"'dia-releases/20:l3!PROT~ 

12 
316 

Examples of Patients Harmed by Medications Purchased Online 

These are just a few illustrations, in chronological order, of the serious and growing global problem of 

illegal online drug sellers. 

1. On February 12, 2001, U.S. citizen Ryan Haight died from adverse reactions to painkillers that he 

purchased over the Internet. He was only required to fill out a questionnaire that was 

"examined" by a doctor who had never met himB 

2. On December 17, 2006, Craig Schmidt, a 30-year-old plastics salesman, purchased Xanax (an 

anxiety drug) and Ultram (a painkiller) from an online drug seller without seeing or speaking to 

the doctor that prescribed the medications. After taking the drugs, he nearly died and has been 

left permanently impaired with brain damage that inhibits him from driving or even walking 

without stumbling. 14 

3. Marcia Bergeron, a Canadian resident and US citizen, died in 2006 from heavy metal poisoning 

caused by the contaminated prescription medications she had purchased from an illicit online 

pharmacy. Otherwise healthy, the coroner determined that Bergeron died of cardiac 

arrhythmia caused by metal toxicity from counterfeit medication. According to the coroner, the 

website where Marcia bought her medicines looked reputable as did the box of pills, but the 

drugs were actually shipped from overseas and had high levels of lead, titanium, and arsenic, 

which caused her death.'s 

4. On May 22, 2008, a man from Wichita, Kansas died from an accidental overdose of drugs he 

received from an online pharmacy. He obtained these drugs without ever visiting a doctor. The 

man's wife described her husband as "an addict --and that the Internet sites that sold him the 

drugs were his pushers."" 

5. Steven Kovacs was a n-year old aspiring psychologist in New York when he started buying 

medication online after first being prescribed Adderall, used to treat attention-deficit 

hyperactivity disorder, and Xanax, used to treat anxiety. Steven died of a prescription drug 

overdDse Dn July 8,2009 after mixing, Adderall, Xanax and OxyContin17 

6. Lorna Lambden, a 27-year old London paramedic, was found dead in her apartment on 

December 17, 2010 after she accidentally ingested a fatal dose of medication purchased from an 

11 "Don't underestimate the danger of drugs from abroad" San Diego Union-Tribune (February 25, 2011); available at 

http://www.'iqnons-ond!PQo,cnmlnl?w,pCl1/Feb/) ')jdor1t -undf'restimote- the-danger -of-druq<;-[rom-abrood/This medicine was misused. The 

patient, without a prescription, purchased pain medications over the Internet. He had a serious reaction and died. The patient was only 

required to fill out a questionnaire that he was "examined" by a doctor who had never met him. 

11 "Online Extra: The Deadly Side Effects of Net Pharmacies" Bloomberg Businessweek (December 18, 2006); available at 

http:/h,ww .busin('~swe(?k.com/stories/2006 12 -17/cnli no -ext! 8- the dca dly- si de e ffcct5-of- nel-ph8rmJLies 

1, "Counterr elt Pills Elought Onlme Leads to Death, Coroner Confirms," The Times Colonist (July 6, 2007); available 

at http://wWY'; .UJ nil fl;:Lcom/vicl mia!1 mpswlonist/new,: !smry< htmr?id=05147ca2-97%-4868-bf4?-75e9399 1 Sf8."i&k=2903Q Th is mrdicinr wa ~ 

contami~ated with significantly high levels of metal. 

16 "Widow: My Husband Died from Online Drugs" CNN (May 22, 2008); available at 

ilt.!QJfwww.cnn.com!2008/HEMTH/OS/21/QD.llile.drugs/iDQE.)(.htmFiref-:allsearch This drug was misused and abused. The medicine was 

purchased online without a doctor's Visit or a prescription. 

17 "Mom, Schumer urge Web Pharmacy Crackdown," NE'wsday, United States (July 10, 2011); iwailable at http://www.i1ew~rlay.com/lon?­

i~land!rr.'2.m-~chum~-w~b-phannilC'l-craddown-j ,.~016S8] This medidne was obtained without a prescription and was abused because 

online prescription drugs were ea3ily accessible. 

13 
317 

f 

illicit foreign online pharmacy. The coroner report found four-times the therapeutic level of the 

drug, Amitrptyline in her blood. i8 

7. In January of 2010,150 patients were admitted to hospitals in Singapore after taking counterfeit 

Tadalafil and herbal preparations that claimed to cure erectile dysfunction. Seven (7) of the 

patients were comatose and four (4) subsequently died from the online drugs which contained 

powerful ingredients used to treat diabetes. 19 

8. On June 3, 2011, an emergency room doctor, from Texas, suffered a stroke from ingesting 

counterfeit Alii from www.2daydietshopping.com. The counterfeit Alii was produced using the 

controlled substance sibutramine, rather than the approved ingredient oriistat, and then 

shipped to the US for redistribution. Two individuals operated the site. The first is a Chinese 

citizen who has been sentenced to 7 years in federal prison, $504,815.39 in restitution to 

victims, and deportation following his sentence. The second US citizen received 3 years 

probation. 2o 

9. On April 4, 2012, a mother and son in Los Angeles were looking for cold medication. They 

purchased and fell victim to a counterfeit drug "vitamin injection." The victim's heart rate 

increased rapidly, experienced severe headaches, dramatic weight loss, pass-outs and numbness 

in lips. The victim was eventually hospitalized. 21 

10. On April 23, 2013, Sarah Houston, a 23-year old medical student in the United Kingdom, 

obsessed with her weight, purchased DNP, a deadly diet pill, through an online drug seller. The 

pill, sold as a weight 1055 aid through many illicit online pharmacies, is actually a pesticide with 

lethal consequences to humans. v 

1~ "Paramedic died after taking tablets she bought over the Internet to help her sleep," The Daily Mail, United Kingdom (May 20, 2011); 

avai la ble at http://www.d .. lIymail.co.uk/newsiartide-1388795JParan1Pdlc-Lorna-i(lmbden-di0d-ovNdnsinf-sl::?eping-t8blets.htmITh is med Ici n e 

was purchased without a prescription and it was misused. The patient took anti-depressants as a sleeping aid. 

19 "Counterfeit Internet Drues Pose Significant Risks and Discourage Vital H('alth Checks," Science Daily (January 20, 2010). This contamina ted 

mediCine, claimed to c.ure erectile dysfunction cDn~ained a powerful drug used to treat diabetes. 

http://www.scienccd .. iiy.comlrelease:;!/OlO/Ol/1IJU120085348,hlm 

Ie "June 3, 2011: Chinese National Sentenced to Federal Prison for Trafficking Counterfeit Pharmaceutical Weight Loss Drug" U.S. Department of 

Justice (June 3, 2011); available at http://www.fdagoviICFCI!Criminal!nvf.stiWirions!ucm2S791 ?htm 

This medicine was contaminated with significantly high levels of mptal. The patient suffered a ~troke after ingesting the medication. 

2_ "Cracking Down on Counterfeit Drugs" San Diego Union-Tribune (April 4, 2012); available at 

b..tJELL't'~w.ut~andiego.c{]m/newsI2012/~m:.LQ4.!S:r3cking-down-munterfeit-drug.;/?p;:;ge-:-l#ar!!..<:;~ This medicine was contaminated. 

12 "Banned slimming drug kills medical student: Coroner attacks online dealers who target the vulnerable" The Daily Mail, United Kingdom (April 

22, 2013); available at hI tp:/IWWW.d8ilyma,i.co.uk(health/3rtide-731?98fi!Sara 11- Hous ton-Flanned-slimm I ng-drug-mJ P-kills-medica I-~tud ents:oronpr-attack~-online-dei1INS-lare-f'!t-vlllner "ble.html This medicine was misused. The patient took both anti-depressants and a pili marketed 

as a weight loss aid containing lethal ingredients. 

14 
318 

e Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies 

September 24, 2013 

Rep, Bob Goodlatte, Chamt1an 

Rep. John Conyers, Jr, Ranking Member 

U.S. House Judiciary Commiuee 

2309 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Statement of The Center for Safe Online Pharmacies 

Submitted in the Hearing on 

"The Role of Voluntary Agreements in the U.S. Intellectual Property 

System" 

Before 10 the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the 

Internet of 

House of Representatives Judiciary Committee 

September 18, 2013 

Dear Chairman Goodlalte, Ranking Member Conyers, and Members 01 the 

House Judiciary Committee: 

The Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies (CStP) respectfully submits this 

statement for the record of Ihe September 1 e, 2013 hearing before the House 

Judiciary Subcommittee on Couns, Intellectual Prope(1y, and the Internet, enHtled 

'The Role of Voluntary Agreements in the U.S. Intellectual Property System:' 

CSIP was founded in 2011 as a non-profit with the mission to promote and 

encourage safe online pharmacies. Our organization is dedicated to voluntary 

collaboration between Intemet service providers. Our members, which do fl.Q! 

include drug manufacturers nor pharmaceutical companies, fund and support 

CSIP activities, inctuding sharing data about illegal websites, COllaboration with 

law enforcement entities, and consumer education campaigns. Our member 

corporations inctude Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Visa, MasterCard, American 

Express, Discover, eNom , GoDaddy, PayPal, Neustar, Facebook, and most 

recentty UPS. 

CSIP welcomes the Subcommittee's interest in the imporlan! role voluntary 

industry initiatives play In the online ecosystem . The safe purchasing of 

prescription drugs is fundamental to proiecting consumer health and safety and, 

if not managed through safe and legal channels, represents a potentially fatal 

threat to the lives of unknowing consumers. CSIP and its member companies 

have made enormous progress in addressing ittegal pharmaceuticals through 

voluntary measures. 

The voluntary efforts enabled by CSIP are buill 011 unprecedented coliaboratioo 

www.safemedsonllne.org 
319 

e Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies 

between the public and private sectors and have yielded posltive results. The 

following are a few examples of the important and effective work CSIP has 

accomplished: 

• In July 2012, CSIP launclled a data.sharing portal thai enabled our 

member companies \0 share Information about illegal online 

pharmaceutical sites. Through this collabOration our members shut 

down activities of 3,127,235 illegal pharmacy sites. 

• In pannership with LegitScript, CSIP provides an onllne pharmacy 

checker tool. Consumers can enter a URL to see whether an online 

pharmacy is legitimate, find patient-assistance programs for affordable 

medications, or report Illegal online pharmacies. This tool also 

identifies known National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) 

certified online pharmacies, 

• CSIP participates in Operation Pangea with the FDA, INTERPOL, and 

other domestic and intemationallaw enforcement organizations. 

Operation Pangea is the largest globallntemet-based operation 

focusing on illicit websites selling fake or counterfeit medicines. In 

November 2012, GSIP helped In this Operation to shut down more 

than 18,000 illegal pharmacy websites, and law enforcement officials 

seized approximately $10.5 million worth of illegal pI1armaceuticals 

worldw"ide. tn June 2013, GSIP helped shut down 1,6n siles and law 

enforcement agents seized mOfe that $41 million worth of counterfeit 

and illegal drugs. 

• CSIP has supported consumer education campaigns by the Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA)'s BeSafeRX and the Partnership for 

Drugfree.org's Medicine Abuse Project, a campaign. whiCh generated 

a total of 41 ,265,758 social media impressions. 

As a result of CSIP's partnership with search engine advertisers, the 

number of illegal drug and pharmacy ads on major search engines like 

Googte and Bing (Mlcrosott) has declined by 99.9%. 

CSIP's voluntary efforts have been enthusiastically supported by both 

government and private stakeholders. The wol1< of CSIP has been recognized in 

the 2013 • Joint Strategic Plan for Intellectual Property Enforcemen( developed 

by the Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEG). In addition, 

Ihe Subcommittee's hearing on the role of voluntary efforts fOllowed the first 

CSIP sponsored roundtable event held In Washington D.C. on Tuesday, 

September 17, 2013. This event brought CSIP member companies together wilh 

government officials from the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Criminal 

Investigations, the Office 01 the U.S. Trade Representative, the U.S. Department 

www.safemedsonllne.org 
320 

f 

e Center for Sa fe Internet Pharmacies 

of Commerce, Interpol, and the Office of the U,S. Intellectual Property 

Enforcement CoordInator, as well as industry leaders representing !he Global 

Intellectual Property Center, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy 

(NABP), the Pharmaceutical Security Institute (PSI). and partner organizations 

including legllScrjpt and the Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies (ASOP), 10 

discuss trends and issues related to illegal online pharmacies and ways to drive 

collaboration among organizations. 

As our efforts have proven, voluntary industry initiatives have an Important role 10 

play in addressing this complex issue, CSIP remains committed to engaging in a 

national discussion about the rise of illegal online pharmacies and the effective 

role the private sector can play in curbing illegal online pharmacies. 

We thank; the Subcommittee for convening its hearing and for the opportunity to 

provide this statement for the record, and we would be pleased to provide the 

Committee with further information on these iniliali .... es. 

Sincerely, 

D~;~.~c~'~n:ter for Safe Internet Pharmacies 

~ h 

cc: 

www.safemedsonllne.org 
321 

www,digmediurg 

Honorable HOward Coble 

Chainnan nfthe SUbcooulliuee OIl 

Inlel1\lCtuall'roperty, Competition, and 

the Internet 

U.S, House Comminee on the Judiciary 

2188 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, DC 205 I 5 

Dear Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Wall 

September 18, 2013 

~OI1orable Mel Wan 

Runkin,l!Member oflhe Subcommiuee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and 

the Internet 

U,S House Commince on Ihe Judi ciary 

2]04 Rayburn UOB 

Washington, DC 205 I S 

The Digual Media Associal1OfI ("DiMA") 1 would like 10 thank you for scheduling 

loday's subcomminee hearin,l! OIl the " lIvlc ({ J'"IIII,I(,ryAgreemml.l' I" III,! V.S, (wel/eel"l/I 

I'rUfx'r~~ ' !J)'slem" and providi ng us with an oppOflllnity to share our thou!!hts on this important 

subject 

DiMA, aud our membl'f companies, stand a! Ihe ftlfefront of developing new and trealive 

wlIys to legally distribute ernertainmct.1t contenl onli ne. [n the past deCide, Ollr members have 

revolutionized the way musi c can til' legally purchased vi a online musics!ores, We have 

launched new and innovative lJJusic and video streaming servicl's We have transfomlcd the 

traditional reading process through th,! ",despread distribution ofe·books And. l\Iost recenUy, 

we have pannered with copyrigbt o\\ ~rs to fonn new li censin~ opponunilies centered upon 

llser-genenued content. In sum, our members are constantly !!Xplor1llg new outlets for the 

legitimate online distribu1ion of digital music, film, 1e1evision pnd books, 

The by product of our sucress ,~ ~tt'11ds beyond ~pecific member company b~ne/it. It also 

guarantees that copyright ownen,; ,,;11 con1inue to be handsomely rewarded rOf thciT creative 

' DL\tA IS a 'IIlPO'WI) I«t'gou/.fd t~.>ek _ 'llIlJQII Ilot! l1:P"'SCnlS th" lepl all,d poiII') "1'''tt:S'S of A"'''nca'. 

leOO 'IIgO"linc: d" lfibuIOIl; ofdignal millie, f1ln ~ 1C1",;sion lind booh A rll)! liJi orOiMA nOCfttbers c,," ~ found:ll 

lW~MW4I on:lJd>o "I.;l![!i!I!!JCm!?cr;. 
322 

LeLtcr- to Hon. Coble kllld Hon. \ValL, SepLember 18, 2013 

endeavors and consumers will enjoy numerous ways to legally access the content of their 

choosing. 

With this in mind, DiMA welcomes the utilization of voluntary agreements to help stem 

unwanted acts of online infringement. Such agreements when properly developed have the 

potential to offer flexible, yet targeted solutions to online infringement that are often difficult to 

replicate through the traditional legislative process. 

Going forward, however, the key to success in this area will depend greatly upon the 

ability of participating stakeholders to craft voluntary agreements that are data driven, forw·ardthinking and industry inclusive. The following section addresses each of these concepts in 

greater detail 

I. Voluntary agreements should be data-driven. 

In recent years, numerous studies have been introduced for purposes of highlighting the 

rate at which online piracy occurs and the negati ve impact that it has on the U.S. economy . Yet, 

when these studies have been reviewed by objective third-party governmental entities the various 

methodologies employed by the individual researchers have been called into question2 -leading 

other governmental entities to stress the need for additional evidence-based research' 

The lack of reliable data in this area is truly unfortunate. Accurate data can inform 

policymakers and relevant stakeholders of the true size of the problem associated with online 

infringement. Once properly developed, data can be used to determine which aspects of online 

piracy are most problematic; thereby providing a roadmap into which types of online 

infringement to tackle first. Data can also be used as a benchmark by stakeholders to measure 

the progress of voluntary agreements in curbing such behavior in the future. 

II. Voluntary agreements should not only seek to limit access to infringing materials, 

but also aspire to reduce demand for infringing content. 

Most of the voluntary agreements established to date have been focused primarily on 

eliminating unauthorized access to copyrighted protected works. The UGC principles 

agreement, for example, promotes the adoption of filtering technologies aimed at blocking a 

, Loren Yager, Observations on Efforts to QuantifY the Effects of Counterfeit and Pirated Goods, Government 

Accountability Office, GAO-IO-423 (2010). available at lltJp;i/jYlYWJQ!O.gov!"S"'I,,'iI0j3030~Lp!lr. 

3 National Research Council. Copyrighl in lhc Digilal Era: Building Evidence [or Policy (2013). available al 

hJtn;{!J}J-~J:Y.J}@Sd.JJLG-!1W1Q&.pI1Q'l!:~..£Ql~id=J .. fJi8J)_ 
323 

LeLtcr- to Hon. Coble kllld Hon. \ValL, SepLember 18, 2013 

user's ability to upload infringing materials that could otherwise be shared with third-parties. 4 

The advertiser and payment processor agreements each seek to deprive 'rogue' web sites of 

important revenue which often serves as the financial incentive for operating such sites. 5 And, 

the ultimate sanctions found in the Copyright Alert System include Internet throttling and 

possible temporary suspension in an etTort to discourage unauthorized access of protected 

materials. (, 

Efforts to limit access to protected materials have merit, but they represent only a small 

portion of a truly viable and comprehensive solution for reducing online piracy. Indeed, recent 

evidence tends to indicate that the hest way to reduce online infringement, particularly with 

regard to entertainment content, is through increased licensing initiatives that promise to make 

such materials more widely available through legitimate online outlets. 7 Going forward, 

voluntary initiatives would be well served to address this topic. 

III. Voluntary agreements should be structured in a way that guarantees maximum 

participation. 

As mentioned earlier, voluntary agreements have the potential to offer well-informed, 

targeted solutions to help curb online infringement. The success of such mechanisms, however, 

will depend heavily upon the ability of conveners of future discussions to encourage a wide 

swath ofrelevant stakeholders to participate in future endeavors. 

Persuading copyright owners to participate in such negotiations should prove to be quite 

simple. Convincing others however might be more difficult; particularly if those stakeholders 

4 ,)'ee http:.'hnn.v.l.H!cprinciples.comi 

7 See Brett DamJaher, Michael D. Smith et al.. Co/Nerting Pirates Without Camubalizing Purchasers: The Impact of 

Digital Distribution on Physical Sales and Intemet Pimcy (2010). available at hltp!/ssrn.com/absl1:1ct~13g182'i: see 

ai,,, Mmy Madden, TIle State of Music Online: Ten Years After Napster (2009). Pew Intemet & American Life 

Project, at -1-, a\·ailab1c at h.1Ip~j.1!;,;\.~i.~!Kl}~CJ,_Olg,~R~PQlt.6lZD!l..')/:9_- ]J~_~fit;Jlr;.:9J-::M!ts.it;~QD.lip9_-T~u-);5~;JT~-0Hq: 

Nffilst~LaS12": see also Adventures in the Netherlands: Spotify. Pimey and the new Dutch Experience (2013). 

ayailable at btl:Q:!{.n~~~p-()@"L:_S9]'H{IJ..'o~2..QJJ.1.Ql.LJj'{~ldyelltn£~B.:..ill-=-.TItlh~Uill-l<1ffi{; see also The \Vashington Post. Hmv 

CBS sparked more online piracy or its own show (2013). available at hHp:i/\HHv.\tashin~IOlmost.cOln/blogs/th.e­

.?).\'tLcJ.1J~~~J~.(;.ot~/(l~m~jhQ\\.-::~t)~:-?TJ-,!r~:&~t:n]0.~-gD~il1~.:1?Lr<l~.\:{)(-Jt~dl\~JJ~sllQ~'.L. 
324 

f 

LeLtcr- to Hon. Coble kllld Hon. \ValL, SepLember 18, 2013 

view their role as nothing more than working to solve a problem caused by unrelated thirdparties. In order to alleviate such problems and ensure that all participants are properly 

motivated, voluntary agreements should include appropriate incentives that benefit all 

participating stakeholders 

Conclusion 

In closing, DiMA and our member companies stand willing and eager to work with 

members of this committee, other policymakers and representatives of the stakeholder 

community as they seek to craft voluntary agreements that will help bolster the viability of 

legitimate outlets for digital content via the elimination of online piracy. DiMA members, 

collectively, spend several billion dollars annually for the right to legally distribute such content; 

and to the extent that voluntary agreements can be viewed as a tool to help protect the current 

pace of growth and innovation within our industry they are a welcome addition. 

If you have any questions regarding this correspondence or need any additional 

information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 639-9502. 

Sincerely, 

lsi Gregory Alan Barnes 

General Counsel, DiMA 

cc: Members of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition, and the Internet 

4 
325 

Testimony of 

Future of Music Coalition 

On 

"The Role of Voluntary Agreements in the US 

Intellectual Property System" 

Hearing 

House Subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual 

Property and the Internet 

September 18,2013 
326 

Testimony of Future of Music Coalition 

House Subcommittee on the Courts, 

Intellectual Property and the Internet 

2138 Rayburn Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

September 18,2013 

September 18, 2013 

Dear Chairman Goodlatte, subcommittee Chairmen Coble and Marino and members of 

the committee: 

It is a privilege to submit the following testimony for the record in this hearing on matters 

relating to voluntary agreements to aid in the enforcement of United States intellectual 

property (lP) law. 

Future of Music Coalition (FMC) is a national nonprofit education, research and 

advocacy organization for musicians. For 13 years, we have observed changes to 

traditional industry business models, and sought to inform artists about what these 

changes could mean for their ability to reach audiences and grow their careers. With 

regard to music copyrights, FMC recognizes the need to protect the rights of artists, while 

establishing systems that provide the returns on investment necessary to a diverse and 

sustainable creative sector. 

There is little doubt that rapid developments in digital technology have created 

tremendous upheaval to traditional music business models and posed any number of 

challenges to individual creators with regard to their enumerated rights under US 

copyright law. These developments have, however, also ushered in new opportunities for 

creative expression and commerce while enabling for the first time in history the ability 

for artists to publish their work globally and near-instantaneously with the click of a 

mouse (or the tap of a screen) 

It is not necessary to itemize the benefits of networked digital technologies in this 

testimony. Rather, we will examine why individual creators and independent 

2 
327 

Testimony of Future of Music Coalition September 18, 2013 

rightsholders must be a part of any proposed solutions to copyright enforcementvoluntary or legislative-as these constituencies are the most in need of meaningful 

protections yet also must retain access to today's tools of distribution and the innovations 

still to come. 

We are pleased that many of the theoretical concepts advanced at the beginning of the 

last decade by Future of Music Coalition and our allies in the musician, composer, music 

manager and independent label communities have come to pass. This is in no small part 

due to the open structures of the internet, which allow for the development of innovations 

that are now providing the critical infrastructure of a legitimate digital music 

marketplace. Today's musicians and composers have numerous paths to audiences, and 

fans have an increasing array of fully licensed digital music platforms with deep catalogs 

of music available at a low cost and with ever-expanding interoperability. 

The economics of these various platforms differ, and many are yet to mature. Existing 

copyright law can, by design or happenstance, aid or hinder the development of 

legitimate digital music services. We recognize the importance of Congress taking a close 

look at the current copyright regime with an eye towards optimizing the law to reflect 

today's realities and accommodate the future. Intellectual property enforcement is a 

necessary aspect of this review, and we commend the Subcommittee for holding today's 

hearing on how the needs of creators and rightsholders might be balanced with the 

importance of preserving platforms for speech as well as Congressionally recognized 

exceptions to existing protections. 

There is no doubt that unauthorized distribution and access to expressive works 

undermines the viability of the legitimate digital marketplace, and effects everything 

from the perceived and actual value of existing works to the investment in the creation of 

new works. Enforceable IF protections are essential to the ongoing development of 

exciting services that can attract users, as well as the propagation of high-quality content 

on these services. We would advise the subcommittee at the outset, however, that not all 

musicians and composers are direct beneficiaries of copyright, though many benefit 

3 
328 

Testimony of Future of Music Coalition September 18, 2013 

indirectly from the commercial opportunities generated from copyrighted works. l Those 

who have historically made a living from copyright-such as songwriters-may feel the 

negative impacts of piracy disproportionally to other music creators. However, we do feel 

that it is important to recognize that musical artists are diverse and highly specialized and 

that their collective interests are not always in peIiect alignment with industry trade 

groups and their corporate members. 

FMC spends expends considerable effort to conduct original research into how these 

developments at1ect actual music creators. In 2010, FMC launched Artist Revenue 

Streams-a multi-stage research project to assess whether and how musicians' revenue 

streams are changing in an evolving music landscape 2 

As a small musicians' nonprofit, we are limited in our ability to assess every aspect of the 

copyright industries and how musicians and composers fit into the overall picture. 

However, we hope that our work in identifying 42 discreet revenue streams available to 

music artists and how this compensation breaks down according to a range offactorsfrom professional aHiliation to vocational role to geographical location-proves useful to 

the subcommittee and anyone curious about how musicians and composers experience 

these issues. 

Another large chunk of our work concerns translating public policy and voluntary 

agreements to increase artist awareness and understanding of various proposals and 

initiatives. As this hearing is focused on voluntary agreements and best practices, we will 

highlight our recent etJorts to document and translate these approaches for the benefit of 

creators and the public. 

Pros and Cons of Voluntary Agreements and Initiatives 

In the wake of contentious debates around the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the 

PROTECT TP Act (PIP A), it's easy to understand why non-legislative approaches to IP 

1 TIlOlll<;On, Kri~tin. "Otfthe Charts: Examining 1Ju<:icians' Income from Sound Recordings A.rtist Revenue Stream"." Artlst Revenue 

Streams. Future onvlusic Coalition. 12 Junc 2012. \Vcb. 25 Sept. 2013 

2 /\,t;"t ReV<:-l1ue Str.::ams. FutUT<: of MU"lc Coalition, 01 Jan. 2010. Weh. 25 S.::pt. 20B 

4 
329 

Testimony of Future of Music Coalition September 18, 2013 

enforcement are being pursued. When stakeholders can come together to identify shared 

interests and potential solutions, it may result in an approach that's more collaborative 

and flexible than a legislative mandate. But there are also strictly practical reasons for 

pursuing voluntary initiatives. Partisan gridlock in Congress can mean that passing any 

law is a challenge. If, for example, the executive branch can get parties to the table, there 

may be a clearer path to implementation. Voluntary agreements may also allow 

corporations to avoid regulations that they find constraining or objectionable. Still, the 

threat of legislation can be a spur towards participation, and therefore a path to workable 

solutions. Aligned incentives can act as a corrective to the expensive and 

counterproductive combat that too often spills over into legislative branch chambers. 

There are, however, some drawbacks to voluntary approaches. First, there is not always a 

dedicated body to compel transparency and provide oversight. Second, there is the 

possibility that multi-stakeholder compromise may water down any initiative to the point 

that it is unlikely to meaningfully impact the problem, should the parties necessary to 

implementation even agree to whether a problem exists. 

Given the alternative, however, it seems clear that voluntary approaches are the best bet 

for a range of parties to collaborate on solutions that don't inherently disadvantage any 

one sector, while retaining the t1exibility to respond to unanticipated challenges or 

unforeseen consequences of a given initiative. We commend the lawmakers and officials 

who have stepped up to the challenge of bringing parties to the table-particularly the 

Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC)-as a means of 

avoiding the time, monetary and reputation costs of poorly thought-through or overly 

politicized legislation. 

The Copyright Alert System (CAS) 

FMC observed closely developments around establishing a protocol for Internet Service 

Providers (TSPs) and rightsholders to collaborate on a non-legally binding enforcement 

agenda. Initial reports and the subsequent Memo of Understanding between rightsholders 

and ISPs indicated that the CAS would not be overly punitive but rather a shared attempt 

5 
330 

Testimony of Future of Music Coalition September 18, 2013 

to educate alleged infringers of the availability oflegal platforms with the potential of 

mitigation measures should a series ofwamings-often referred to as "graduated 

response"-remain unheeded by an internet user. We are sensitive, as are many, to the 

need to preserve access to a critical lifeline, and were pleased that implementation of the 

CAS did not include provisions to disconnect Internet users at any point in the process. 

We also applauded the decision to avoid potentially invasive technologies to monitor the 

network, but instead rely on public trackers to scan for infringing activity. We would 

reinforce the notion that transparency and oversight of the CAS is crucial not only to its 

etJectiveness, but also to build trust among communities that have too often come to 

regard one another with suspicion. As our March 07, 2013 Billboard Op-Ed] pointed out, 

"[Such 1 an effort will benefit from transparency in order to build trust among 

stakeholders and to measure effectiveness. The former is key to making smarter choices 

around enforcement and growing the legitimate marketplace in a way that benefits not 

just the big companies, but also creators. Tn this way, incentives might be better aligned 

and artists and fans can gain confidence in today's music ecosystem. Even ifit was 

designed to limit unintended consequences, the CAS must operate in plain sight." 

Payment Processor Best Practices for Online Copyright Infringement 

American Express, Discover, MasterCard, PayPal and Visa are among the payment 

processors who have agreed to adopt voluntary measures to deal with web sites tratlicking 

in ill-gotten IP. Rightsholders can now interface with the payment processors regarding 

alleged infringement of their rights online. The payment processors will then contact the 

online merchant-a site or service offering the content-about the complaint and respond 

in a manner consistent with protocols agreed upon in these best practices. This new 

system hopefully establishes a reasonably open, transparent and efficient mechanism for 

reporting infringement direct to the payment processor for review and potential action. 

FMC took the time to describe in some detail the ins-and-outs of these voluntary 

provisions in order for individual artists to avail themselves of the process 4 We have, and 

:J Rae. Ca:<.cy. "Will th.:: Copyright ,\Icrt S~yst<:m Break the Tntemd? By Futur.:: of1>,·lusic Coalition'" Cas.::y Rae." Rtllhoanl. K.p., 07 

\1ar. 20n. Weh. 25 Sept. 20n. 

4 "Paym.::nt Processor Best Practices for Online Copyright Inthngcm.::nt." Payment Processor BeST Pracnces jor Onlme CopYrighl 

In.lhngement: What It .Means/orAflwclGns. Future ofI\..'1usic Coalition, 24 Oct. 2011. Web. 25 Sept. 2013 

6 
331 

f 

Testimony of Future of Music Coalition September 18, 2013 

continue to encourage the timely evaluation of this agreement to monitor for potential 

abuses as well as to identify its successes 

Best Practices for Online Ad Networks 

"Best Practices Guidelines for Ad Networks to Address Piracy and Counterfeiting" is a 

joint effort to reduce the flow of ad revenue to infringing websites. The initiative is 

supported by the Interactive Advertising Bureau, along with 2417 Media, 

Adtegrity, AOL, Conde Nast, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and SpotXchange. It is beyond 

our technical aptitude to comment on the specific aspects of advertising networks 

germane to a discussion of combatting infringement, but we are impressed at the 

willingness of participating parties to identify a path forward that does not appear to 

compromise the flexibility of an important new avenue for legitimate commerce. Perhaps 

unsurprisingly, there are some in the music community who feel that these agreements do 

not go far enough' For our part, FMC encourages a thoughtful, inclusive and deliberate 

approach to measure the effectiveness of this entirely new protocol before passing 

judgment on the et1icacy of a system that is still in its nascent stages of implementation. 

Conclusion 

FMC remains committed to advocating for a copyright regime that reflects the balance 

between creator and those who benefit from exposure and access to a diversity of 

expression. We support and will continue to participate in ongoing discussions among a 

range of stakeholders-including the often-overlooked independent sector-regarding 

mutually beneficial approaches to copyright enforcement. We humbly offer our 

perspectives and data to the subcommittee and the entire Congress for its consideration as 

it continues its inquires into the contours of intellectual property in the digital age. 

Casey Rae 

Interim Executive Director 

Future of Music Coalition 

< "But This Time We lvkan It \Vc1coll1c To 11l.:: Ad Tech Time lvlachill.:: .... " The Tnchordlst. N.p .. 24 July 2013. Web. 25 Sept 

2013 

7 
332 

Statement of Microsoft Corporation 

Submitted in the Hearing on 

"The Role of Voluntary Agreements in the U.S. Intellectual Property System" 

Before to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet of 

House of Representatives Judiciary Committee 

September 18, 2013 

Microsoft appreciates the opportunity to comment on the role of voluntary agreements in 

intellectual property system, the subject of the Subcommittee's hearing on September 18, 2013. 

Microsoft has been deeply involved in several relevant voluntary initiatives, such as the guidelines for 

advertising networks announced in July 2013 by the u.s. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator 

(IPEC), 1 the 2012 statement of best practices issued by the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) 

and American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A),' and the principles for user-generated content 

services developed by leading media and technology companies in 20073 We have also participated in 

other stakeholder dialogues involving online intellectual property issues around the world. This 

statement summarizes our experience with efforts like these and why we think they are a positive and 

useful force in improving the intellectual property system. 

Microsoft approaches these issues from dual perspectives, as a copyright owner and as an 

online service provider. As a copyright owner, we have long relied on the law to protect our core 

software products like Windows, Microsoft Office and Xbox games and to ensure that our customers 

enjoy legitimate and safe copies of our software. Our world·class antipiracy team works hard to make 

enforcement of our intellectual property efficient and effective, and these efforts benefit from voluntary 

initiatives. For example, our anti-piracy team has relied on the payment processor best practices 

announced by the IPEC in 2011 to combat counterfeit online sites operated by criminal syndicates by 

having them cut off from legitimate payment networks. 

As an online service provider, we offer services and advertising networks that on occasion can 

be abused by some engaging in infringing activity. Voluntary initiatives provide companies like Microsoft 

with a framework to address such activity in practical and pragmatic ways that both benefit rights 

holders and do not interfere with legitimate activity of customers and partners. 

Voluntary initiatives playa vital role because the rapid development of technology continues to 

present challenges to existing intellectual property laws. For example, copyright laws in the United 

States and around the world have been updated frequently over the past two decades to address new 

technologies, including the enactment of the landmark Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Yet new 

devices, new services, new networks and new business models keep coming, each raising new questions 

1 http://ViWW.2013ipprr:lctiu:s,com/, See also Victoria Espinel l {{Coming Together to Combat Online Piracy and 

Counterfeiting/!, (July lS, 2013) CmIQJL:t£[t,:VJ :,JJhitehouse goviblogllQ.13/07 !15!col\1ing-i:Oge ~her -combat-onllneQi r<1(:..Y.:~n.rt.~f.Qh!D.!r.l.tf}~!lr~J. 

2 ANA, "Industry Groups Urge Marketers to Take Affirmative Steps to Address Online Piracy and Counterfeiting" 

(May 3, 2012) h.t!21.6.:{yvw.<ln".net/conte~lt/show/ld/23407. 

3 "Principles for User-Generated Content Services" (Oct. 2007) (http:!b.J..R£llilncioli:;;.&mDL) 
333 

f 

about the applicability even of recent laws. Voluntary agreements playa critical role by filling gaps, 

avoiding wasteful litigation and giving guidance to stakeholders on how to follow the law in day-to-day 

operations. They can help stakeholders implement legal rules and adapt to the demands of today's 

technology and business. 

As an example, Microsoft was deeply involved in the "Best Practices Guidelines for Ad Networks 

to Address Piracy and Counterfeiting", developed recently by ad networks under the auspices of the 

IPEe.' An online ad network adopting the best practices undertakes, upon receipt of specific notices 

from rights holders, to exclude websites primarily engaged in piracy and counterfeiting from 

participating in the network. The best practices also specify that ad networks should maintain a 

counter-notice system to correct any mistaken takedowns, which is essential to ensuring that legitimate 

activity is not disrupted. This "notice and takedown" system is built on the same stable foundation as 

Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a foundation that has served both to unleash new 

innovative online services and to enable efficient and effective copyright enforcement online. 

Similarly, the 2012 ANA and 4A pledge also makes notice and takedown the primary mechanism 

to address piracy and counterfeiting. It requires advertising networks to keep pirate and counterfeiting 

sites from placing or publishing advertisements "in response to reasonable and sufficiently detailed 

complaints or notices from rights holders and advertisers." This approach strikes the best and most 

reasonable balance between the legitimate needs of rights holders and the legitimate concerns of online 

services and advertising networks. 

It is important to note that notice and takedown is as integral to Microsoft's online services as it 

is to the goals Microsoft's own antipiracy efforts, which work closely with online services -large and 

small - to make notice and takedown work smoothly and effectively. 

In sum, voluntary efforts, such as the ad network best practices and ANA/4A pledge, help 

reinforce that notice and takedown is not just an abstract concept in the intellectual property statutes, 

but a practical and effective way for online services to address infringement yet still have room to grow 

and create great customer experiences. Complementing legislation such as the DMCA, the many best 

practices and other voluntary initiatives undertaken in the past few years provide robust and 

appropriate measures that promote online enforcement of intellectual property. Voluntary efforts may 

not solve every online intellectual property issue, but it is important that the existing legal measures and 

practices are given every chance to address the problem before any new legislation is considered. 

Once again, Microsoft appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement to the 

Subcommittee, and would be pleased to answer any questions Members may have. 

4 Microsoft on the Issues, {{Microsoft applauds release of Best Practice Guidelines for Ad Networks to Address 

Piracy and Counterfeiting" (July 15, 2013) 

(htlD;//biogs.technet,corn/b/mic rosoft 0'1 the issuesiarchive/2013/07 115/nw:rosoft-apoiauds-reiease .. of-bestQL3ctice-gujdelines-for-ad-network:Ho-address-piracv-and-countflrfeitlng.£S.Qhl 

2 
334 

Links to Additional Material submitted for the Record 

Æ 

I) ANA/4As joint statement of best practices: http:iwww.ana.netconlent.showid23.J08 

2) lAB Network and Exchanges Quality Assurance Guidelines: 

http: -www.iab.netQAGlnitiative'overview'qualityassurance~~guidelines 

and 

http: www.iab.ne/-about the iabrecent press releases press release archive-press rei 

ease·pr-072513 

3) Ad Network best practices: 

hltp:www. whitehouse.gov-blog20 13.07 -15:coming-together-combat -online-pi racy-andcounterfeiting 

http:. ·.www.2013ippractices.com . bestpracticesf-,>1JidelinesforadnelworksloaddresspiraGyan 

dcounlerfeitinghtml 

4) The UGC Principles: http:.www.ugcprinciples.com 

5) ISP MOU documents. For more information, the CCI website is 

www.copyrightinfiJrmation.org 

including a video on how the copyright alert system works, available at 

http:"www.copyrightinformation. orgthe-copyright-alert-syst em 

6) Information about the payment processor best practices: 

http:·www.whitehouse.govsilesdefoullfiles·ombIP HC; 2013 -us-ipec:!oint-strategicplan.pdf (2013 lPEC repOli) 

http:/,www.uspto.gov'ip.o/ficechiefecon· PTO-C:-20 13-0036.pdfj'page ···33 (lACC 

comments to PTO request for comments) 

http: !www.gacgorg Contenli[fploadMemberNews])ocs October%202012%20Report% 

20Io%20IPEC%20-%20FlNAL.pdf (IACC 1 year report) 

Complaint procedures available from some of the payment processors who have 

implemented the best practices: 

https :/iwww.paypal.com 'webapps'mpp/ua 'infringementrpt:full? locale.x·en-US 

hUp:···corporate. visa.comiabout-visasecurity-and-trustintelleclual-propertyrights.shtml?ep-·v .. lym ... ReportBrand4buse 

http:iWww.maslercardcom'us'wee·],D1': MasterCard ~ Anti-Piracyj'olicypdf 

hltp: ;·www.gacg.org·C:ontenI'VploadMemberNewsDocsOc/obe 1'%2020 12%20Report% 

20to%20IPEC%20-%20FlNAL.pdf 

7) The lCANN resolution re: enhanced safeguards for new gTLDs to address, among other 

things, copyright infringement, and related documents: 

hup:.!www.icann.orgengroups·board documents. resolutions-new-gil d-2 5jun} 3-

en.htm;'2.b