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

85–600 PDF 2014

RISE OF INNOVATIVE BUSINESS MODELS: 

CONTENT DELIVERY METHODS 

IN THE DIGITAL AGE 

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 

NOVEMBER 19, 2013 

Serial No. 113–74 

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 

NOVEMBER 19, 2013 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENT 

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 

WITNESSES 

Paul Misener, Vice President, Global Public Policy, Amazon.com 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6 

John McCoskey, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Motion Picture Association of America 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 13 

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

Sebastian Holst, Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, PreEmptive Solutions 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23 

David Sohn, General Counsel and Director, Project on Copyright and Technology, Center for Democracy and Technology 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 33 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 35 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

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 ...................................................................... 45 

(1) 

RISE OF INNOVATIVE BUSINESS MODELS: 

CONTENT DELIVERY METHODS 

IN THE DIGITAL AGE 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 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 1:31 p.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Howard Coble 

(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Coble, Goodlatte, Conyers, Watt, 

Marino, Smith of Texas, Chabot, Issa, Poe, Chaffetz, Farenthold, 

Holding, Collins, DeSantis, Smith of Missouri, Chu, Deutch, Bass, 

Richmond, DelBene, Jeffries, and Lofgren. 

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

Clerk; and (Minority) Stephanie Moore, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. COBLE. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to 

the hearing. 

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 our witnesses today and those in the audience 

as well. 

This afternoon we will hear from a group of a—from a panel of 

distinguished representatives, who are involved with some of the 

leading copyright policy in technology issues of our time. The benefits to America’s economy, brought about by our Nation’s copyright 

laws are the envy of the world. Our economy is stronger and generates more original creativity than in any other country. 

Although probably true that the way I listened to music way 

back yonder, when I was growing up, is certainly not the way 

young people listen today. I can say with certainty that America’s 

a better place when the creativity of our Nation’s artists can be enjoyed by our society. And now that everyone seems to own a collection of handheld electronic devices, Americans have even more access to more content than any time in history. 
2 

*The information referred to was not available at the time this hearing record was printed. 

One reason why this creativity exists is that our Nation’s intellectual property laws are designed to reward those who invest their 

time and resources into the developing of original works of intellectual property. This intellectual property is not just embodied in a 

song, a book or a movie, but in the very device used to enjoy it. 

Our Nation is also not hesitant when it comes to embracing new 

ways of doing business. For example it is safe to say that the Internet has simultaneously destroyed old business models while developing new ones. 

One of our witnesses works for a company that has demonstrated 

how the Internet has created new business models. Built originally 

around the old-line distribution of books, Amazon has grown in less 

than two decades into a diversified company that recently announced a partnership with the U.S. Postal Service to expand home 

deliveries into Sunday in some cities. In this case, innovation is 

changing business models and driving government policy to help 

meet consumers’ demand. 

I look forward from all the witnesses this afternoon about the 

rise of innovative business models in the digital age and how consumer expectations are changing as a result. 

Good to have you all with us. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from North 

Carolina, Mr. Watt, for his statement. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I am going to pass on the opportunity to make an opening 

statement because I really want to give the witnesses to testify. 

And I understand we are going to have a vote and I have got to 

be somewhere. 

So, I—in the interest of time to get to the witnesses and hear 

their testimony, I think I will submit my statement for the record 

and yield back.* 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. And, as you have—Mr. Watt 

pointed out, there will be a vote, I am told, forthcoming. So, we will 

proceed accordingly. 

If you all will bear with me just for a minute. 

Let me, first of all, just ask you—each of you to stand, if you will, 

and we will. I will swear you in. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. COBLE. Our first witness today is Mr. Paul Misener, Vice 

President for Global Policy, Public Policy at Amazon.com. For the 

past 14 years Mr. Misener has been responsible for formulating 

and representing the company’s public policy position worldwide. 

Mr. Misener received his J.D. from the George Mason University 

School of Law and a B.S. in electrical engineering from Princeton 

University. 

Our second witness today, Mr. John McCoskey, Executive Vice 

President and Chief Technology Officer at the Motion Picture Association of America. Prior to the MPAA, Mr. McCoskey was a—has 

served as Chief Technology Officer at PBS and Vice President of 

Product Development of Comcast Corporation. He earned his M.S. 

degree in computer science and technology management from 
3 

Johns Hopkins University and his B.S. in electrical engineering 

from the Bucknell University. 

Our third witness today, Mr. Sebastian Holst, Executive Vice 

President and Chief Strategy Officer at PreEmptive Solutions. In 

his position, Mr. Holst is responsible for product strategy and management aiming to protect software against reverse engineering 

and piracy. Mr. Holst is also a cofounder of The Mobile Yogi mobile 

app focusing on yoga. He received his degree from Vassar College 

and Harvard Business School. 

Our fourth and final witness is Mr. David Sohn, General Counsel 

and Director for the Center on Democracy and Technology Project 

on Copyright and Technology. This project seeks to promote reasonable pro-consumer approaches to copyright and related policy 

issues. Prior to joining CDT in 2005, Mr. Sohn worked as Commerce Counsel for Senator Rob Wadden and practiced law at Wilbur, Cutler & Pickering. Mr. Sohn received his J.D. from the Stanford School of Law and his B.S. from Albers College. 

And I think I heard a bell, so I think it might—— 

Why don’t we start with our first witness and get the—and then 

with the bell I will go vote and we will return imminently. 

If you gentlemen—we would like for you to confine your statements, if possible, within the 5-minute time range. And there is a 

model on your desk. When that red light appears, your time is running out. You won’t be severely punished, however, but if you could 

stay within that time limit I would appreciate it. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL MISENER, VICE PRESIDENT, 

GLOBAL PUBLIC POLICY, AMAZON.COM 

Mr. MISENER. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you. 

My name is Paul Misener and I am Amazon’s Vice President for 

Global Public Policy. 

Thank you and Mr. Watt for inviting me to testify here today 

about the digital content delivery. 

Mr. Chairman, Amazon’s mission is to be earth’s most customercentric company where people can find and discover anything they 

may want to buy online. In furtherance of that mission, we sell millions of different products in a wide variety of categories. But, 

Amazon was born as a media content delivery country—company 

with the provision of content to our customers and it remains a 

very important part of our business today. 

When Amazon began selling online, in 1995, the content we sold 

was limited to the text, pictures and other graphics contained in 

physical books. Three years later, in 1998, we began to sell music 

and video content, also delivered on physical media, primarily 

audio compact disks and VHS videotapes. 

When I began working for Amazon 14 years ago, our Web site 

had a customer support help page entitled, ‘‘Just what is a DVD?’’ 

That described the then new digital video disk technology. It included observations like, quote, ‘‘VHS video tapes are far too entrenched in the market to disappear any time soon,’’ and, quote, 

‘‘don’t worry you won’t have to trash your VCR, if you don’t want 

to.’’ Now, as antiquated as these observations seem to us today, the 
4 

reality then and the reality now is that Amazon seeks to provide 

our customers the greatest selection of content using the best, most 

convenient technologies. 

By the end of 2007, however, we had introduced digital download 

services for books, music and video. And now, when we speak of 

digital delivery, we speak primarily of digital content delivered 

electronically via the Internet. And so, our digital delivery business 

today is a natural continuation of origins as a place where customers can find and discover what they want to buy online. 

Amazon Instant Video is a digital video streaming and download 

service that offers more than 150,000 titles. For digital music, the 

Amazon MP3 store currently has a growing catalog of more than 

24 million songs in the United States. The Kindle digital bookstore 

opened 6 years ago this month and has grown to millions of books, 

newspapers and magazines. We now sell more kindle books than 

print books. And, remarkably, Kindle owners read four times as 

many books as they do prior to owning a Kindle. 

Mr. Chairman, in addition to digital content obtained from traditional publishers, Amazon makes it easy for creators to self-publish 

their work. For example, the Amazon subsidiary CreateSpace provides digital content delivery of video via Amazon Instant Video. 

Similarly, authors may use Kindle Direct Publishing to publish 

books independently on the Kindle store. Amazon Studios is a new 

way to encourage the development and distribution of digital video 

content. As you may have seen in Friday’s Washington Post, Amazon Studios has introduced its first comedy series, Alpha House. 

Of course, Mr. Chairman, digital delivery of content to consumers 

requires some physical infrastructure and electronic devices. You 

probably have heard of cloud computing. And, as you may know, 

Amazon has a cloud computing business called the Amazon Web 

Services or AWS. Amazon Cloud Drive, which is built on AWS, lets 

customers manage and store music, videos, documents, and pictures through the Internet. In addition, the Amazon Cloud Player 

enables customers to securely store their personal music in the 

cloud and play it on a wide variety of devices including Kindle Fire. 

AWS helps enterprise customers with various data storage and 

computation needs. It also has partnered with Netflix for the delivery of digital content. 

Digital content can be accessed and played through a wide variety of devices including a fabulous little box from Roku and available at Amazon that allows me to watch and hear Amazon instant 

video, as well as Netflix, Hulu and Pandora, directly on my family 

room TV. And you can read you Kindle books on a large number 

of devices and platforms. Importantly, customer expectations today 

are not only that an individual customer should be able to enjoy 

digital content on a single device of her choice, but also that she 

should be able to enjoy the same content across multiple devices. 

One other, newly available place and time for enjoying digital 

content deserves mention. After working for years with the airline 

industry and others, Amazon is proud to have played a key role in 

the Federal Aviation Administration’s decision just a few weeks 

ago to allow consumers to use their electronics, like Kindle, during 

airplane takeoff and landing. 
5 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, consumers are enjoying the benefit 

of innovative digital content delivery. And Amazon looks forward to 

working with the Committee to preserve those benefits in that innovation. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. And I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Misener follows:] 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Misener. 

Mr. McCoskey, we are going to try to get you in before we go 

vote. So, if you would proceed for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN McCOSKEY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, MOTION PICTURE 

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Watt and Members of the 

Subcommittee, my name is John McCoskey and I am Executive 

Vice President and Chief Technology Officer for the Motion Picture 

Association of America. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on 

behalf of the MPAA and its member companies. You have my written testimony, I would like to go through some of the highlights of 

that in my spoken words. 

So, in the United States and throughout the world, an explosion 

of innovation is occurring, irrevocably changing much of our daily 

lives. The majority of consumers will experience this revolution in 

the way they consume the content that they love: the films, television series, and other video content they watch; the music they 

listen to; and, the books they read. 

In the media and entertainment industry, digital technology advances are affecting everything from glass to glass, that is, every 

element between the camera lens and the screen where consumers 

experience our content. This is also a time of unprecedented change 

in consumer behavior. There are now more mobile devices than 

people in the United States, and smartphones and tablets have outpaced sales of desktop and laptop computers combined. 

As the primary advocate throughout the world for American film, 

television and home video industries, MPAA and our member companies are committed to promoting a climate that provides audiences with as many options as possible for experiencing the great 

video entertainment our country produces. 

Nearly 42 million homes in the United States now have Internetconnected media devices including game consoles, smart TVs and 

online set-top boxes. And more than 90 legitimate online services 

are already enabling those homes to download or stream movies 

and TV shows, and that number continues to grow. MPAA’s 

wheretowatch.org Web site offers a one-stop shop for finding legal 

content to Americans. 

And Americans are visiting these services at an incredible and 

growing rate. Last year alone, U.S. audiences consumed nearly 3.5 

billion hours of movies online. Our member companies have embraced this movement of portability, flexibility and ease of access 

for viewers. 

And one way they have done so is through UltraViolet, a free 

digital storage locker that allows a consumer, after purchasing UltraViolet media such as BlueRay, DVD or electronic purchase over 

the Internet, to then access that content on any UltraViolet-compatible device registered to them. Consumers have the option to either seamlessly stream the content or download it for later viewing 

without a broadband connection. Consumers can choose from a 

wide number of UltraViolet-enabled services like Flixster, Walmart’s Vudu, Best Buy’s Cinema Now, and so forth. 
14 

Our member companies, along with other in the Digital Entertainment Content Ecosystem consortium of more than 60 studios, 

retail stores, and technology firms, created UltraViolet to further 

enable consumers to watch what they want, when they want, 

where they want. And because UltraViolet is powered by such a diverse consortium of innovative companies, consumers are not 

locked to one portal and shift from one service to another as each 

continues to innovate. UltraViolet also enables sharing of content 

among up to five connected accounts and 12 devices. And more 

than 13 million accounts have registered for UltraViolet to date. 

The overwhelming success of these legal services and distribution 

models in the bridging digital marketplace is a testament to the 

success of the U.S. copyright regime, which promotes investment in 

both creativity and delivery of content. Recognizing creators’ property interest in their creations encourages them to create even 

more innovative content. And this in turn spurns investment in applications, services, devices, and other technologies for viewing that 

content. 

The Copyright Act enables and encourages entrepreneurs to innovate and creates a competitive marketplace for these products 

and services. This is reflected in companies like Netflix, Hulu and 

Amazon, whose online streaming services began as distribution 

outlets for content created by others, but now also drive development of new original programming. 

This is a transformative time for content creators and distributors of types, but especially for those working in the American film 

and television industry. Our industry supports nearly 2 million jobs 

in the United States. It is responsible for 108,000 businesses across 

all 50 States, and 85 percent of those employ fewer than 10 people. 

In 2011, the industry supported $104 billion in wages, $16.7 billion 

in taxes, and a $12.2 billion trade surplus. 

And, as the marketplace continues to evolve in the digital age, 

we will continue embracing these innovations and the plethora of 

legitimate services for delivering content to consumers when they 

want, how they want, and on the platforms they want. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Subcommittee, 

I thank you again on behalf of the MPAA and our member companies for the opportunity to testify today. And we look forward to 

working with you, in the days, months and years ahead, to ensure 

that this revolution in content creation and delivery continues to 

be embraced by all members of the digital economy, and that creators and makers continue to be encouraged to experiment and innovative. 

And I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCoskey follows:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. McCoskey. 

You all stand easy and we will return imminently. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. COBLE. We will resume the hearing. 

I owe you an apology, I told you I would be back imminently, but 

our return is not so imminent. But, I had no control over that. 

Good to have you, Mr. Holst. If you will be—if you will kick us 

off on the second event. 

TESTIMONY OF SEBASTIAN HOLST, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER, PREEMPTIVE SOLUTIONS 

Mr. HOLST. Okay. 

Chairman Coble, Member Watt, distinguished Members of the 

Committee, my name is Sebastian Holst and I appear today wearing many hats. 

I am the Chief Strategy Officer at PreEmptive Solutions. Our 

software products are used by tens of thousands of developers to 

secure and to monitor their apps, increasing app quality, improving 

user experience and securing intellectual property. I am an app 

creator who, along with my wife Dawn, have published a family of 

yoga apps for consumers and small businesses. I am the founder 

of a cyber-security and brand-monitoring service that provides 

threat analysis for public and private institutions. And I am also 

here representing the Association of Competitive Technology, ACT, 

the world’s leading app association representing over 5,000 small 

and medium-sized tech companies. 

Today I am pleased to have the opportunity to share a software 

developer’s perspective as the Committee considers the transformative impact of emerging content delivery methods in the digital age. 

To truly appreciate the magnitude of innovation occurring 

around us it helps to consider this one fact: no technology has been 

adopted faster by consumers than the smartphone ever; not the 

car, the microwave, not electricity, or even the Internet. And just 

what makes these smartphones so smart? Quite simply it is the 

apps they run. In just 6 years, smartphone apps have grown into 

a $68 billion industry and are expected to top $140 billion by 2016. 

The industry’s growth is also a job creation machine. Over 

750,000 jobs in the U.S., and over 800,000 in Europe have been created through this new app economy. And with the median salary 

for a software developer topping $92,000, these are great jobs to 

have. 

The rise of the mobile app economy has also significantly 

changed how apps are developed and marketed. Before the 

smartphone paradigm shift, developers faced enormous obstacles 

reaching consumers. We either sold packaged software in a store 

involving huge overhead or over the Internet where getting noticed 

was hard and managing payments and financial data could be exceptionally burdensome and even risky. Taken together these challenges posed significant barriers to entry and stunted growth. 

And then came the smartphone app store: a simple, centralized 

one-stop shop for the consumer. In an app store a developer sells 

software directly to consumers. And, for a reasonable percentage of 
22 

the topline, app stores handle financial transactions, product placement and ensure a safe, standardized shopping experience. With 

the app stores, consumers find that what—with app stores consumers find the apps they are looking for and developers can do 

what they do best—build great apps. 

Of course app stores are not all created equal. How are stores 

curated? Meaning how apps are vetted for quality, truth in advertising, and even for how they use underlying hardware and network services can make the difference between a safe and satisfying shopping experience or one where malware, piracy and privacy risks cannot be safely ignored. Some of the most widely 

used—surprisingly, non-curated stores are popular. Some of the 

more widely used smartphones cater to this category. Yet, ironically, while usage is high in many of these ‘‘wild west’’ marketplaces, curated stores still deliver more than 75 percent of the revenues earned by app makers. 

Another byproduct of app store popularity is that they are starting to exhibit some of the old problems. Specifically, with over a 

million apps available in app stores, discoverability, the ability to 

stand out in a crowd, is once again becoming difficult. But now developers have a better answer to this problem. Reputation, quality 

and a focus on users, experiences and their preferences are critical 

to standing out in a crowded marketplace. 

One key innovation here has been the rise of application analytics. Application analytics provide visibility into user trends, end 

user behaviors and all manner of quality. Application analytics 

technology, like PreEmptive’s, has emerged as one of the key competitive weapons successful developers are using to separate themselves from the rest of the pack. 

Now some people will tell you that technology changes everything. But, when it comes to basic notions of right and wrong, fairness and innovation, nothing could be further from the truth. 

Thanks to technology, the potential for growth and innovation has 

never been higher. But that is why the need to stay grounded in 

our basic beliefs has never been greater. I am confident that a review of the copyright system will be successful, as long as we remain true to these principles that have guided our judgment on the 

universal themes of intellectual property, fostering innovation and 

fairness. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. And I look 

forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holst follows:] 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Holst, I appreciate it. 

Mr. Shaw—Sohn? Sir, am I pronouncing your name correctly? 

Mr. SOHN. Sohn, yes. 

Mr. COBLE. Sohn. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID SOHN, GENERAL COUNSEL AND DIRECTOR, PROJECT ON COPYRIGHT AND TECHNOLOGY, CENTER 

FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Mr. SOHN. Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Watt, Members of 

the Subcommittee, on behalf of the Center for Democracy and 

Technology, thank you very much for the opportunity to participate 

in today’s hearing. 

My statement today will focus on how consumer expectations and 

behaviors are evolving in today’s marketplace for copyrighted 

works. What I would like to do is highlight a few trends and then 

offer some thoughts on what those trends mean for congressional 

action on copyright. 

So first, consumers increasingly expect the ability to get what 

they want when they want it. The Internet—Internet delivery— 

gives them convenience and immediacy. It also frees them from the 

limits of what is on TV at a particular time or what physical inventory will fit on the shelves at their local store. So, increasingly consumers expect to have comprehensive selection, to be able to pick 

precise content to suit their individual tastes, and to enjoy that 

content at times of their own choosing. In short, it is becoming 

more of an ‘‘on demand’’ world. 

The second trend I would point to is the rising importance of mobility and portability. Rather than being tethered to a particular 

place or a particular device, consumers increasingly want seamless 

access to their content on a mobile basis and across multiple devices. 

Third, and in some ways most significant, there has been a massive increase in creative activity by the public. Consumers today 

are not just passive recipients of creative material. They create and 

interact with copyrighted works as never before. They blog, they 

distribute photos and videos on social networks, they use excerpts 

of other works to create their own remixes or commentary. In sum, 

digital technology really blurs the lines between creators and consumers, enabling greater public involvement and interaction with 

creative works than ever before. 

The good news is that distribution models and technologies are 

rapidly evolving in ways that both cater to and fuel these trends. 

There are new business models, such as streaming services based 

on subscriptions or advertising. Social networks play prominent 

new roles in empowering individual creators and artists to distribute works either with a commercial purpose or without a commercial purpose. Creative Commons offers a more diverse set of licensing strategies. New classes of devices, like tablets and e-readers, create new options for consumers. 

In lots and lots of ways, the market is working. But, inevitably, 

it is also a work in progress. Responding to these kind of evolving 

demands is not a onetime challenge. It requires ongoing experimentation and innovation. 
34 

So, with these trends in mind, I would like to offer several 

thoughts for Congress’s review of copyright law. 

First, Congress should focus on ensuring that the legal regime 

encourages continued innovation to give consumers what they 

want. Now, to be clear, consumers are not legally entitled to ondemand access to everything they want any more than they are entitled to get everything they want for free. But, everyone is better 

off if the market can develop new offerings that recognize what 

consumers want and find ways to provide it lawfully. Because 

whenever legal services don’t do a good job of catering to market 

demands, unlawful sources are out there waiting to fill the gaps. 

In the end, the best and most effective defense against widespread 

infringement is a robust and evolving content marketplace. 

To promote that goal, Congress should start by taking care not 

to undermine those elements of the current regime that encourage 

marketplace and technology innovation. My written statement 

highlights three in particular: the safe harbor, set forth in section 

512 of the DMCA; the ‘‘Sony doctrine’’ concerning products capable 

of substantial non-infringing use; and the flexible and hugely important doctrine of fair use. 

Congress should also consider reforming the Copyright Act’s statutory damages provisions. The current regime acts as a massive 

risk multiplier for any company or individual trying to navigate 

any unsettled area of copyright law. It therefore discourages innovation. And it undermines the trend toward public creativity and 

interaction by threatening individuals with disproportionate sanctions for any mistake they might make. 

Another step Congress should consider is providing greater legal 

certainty for personal noncommercial uses, such as moving content 

among devices for one’s own personal use. 

And finally, Congress should make simplifying the Copyright Act 

one of the goals of any reform effort. As more and more of the public creates, remixes and otherwise interacts with copyrighted material, copyright needs to be easier for the public to navigate. 

Once again, thanks for the opportunity to participate today. We 

look forward to working with the Subcommittee as its work on 

copyright continues. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sohn follows:] 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Sohn. 

I appreciate the testimony from each of the witness. And I appreciate those in the audience. Obviously, your presence here represents more than a casual interest in the subject at hand. 

Gentlemen, we try to comply with the 5-minute rule as well. So, 

if you all could keep your responses terse, we would appreciate 

that. 

Mr. Misener, as your company has grown, what challenges, from 

a copyright perspective, have you faced? 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There are three that I have outlined in my written statement 

and I can briefly summarize them here. 

One is with respect to music licensing. The process is very difficult and cumbersome. If the policy goal is to get as much copyrighted works available out to paying consumers, this—the current 

process for licensing is in need of reform. 

Second, as Mr. Sohn has just described, the statutory damages 

provisions currently in law are—can produce some exorbitant penalties and create high risks for—especially for large libraries of 

copyrighted works. And it seems to me that those damages might 

be limited in some way that recognizes good-faith efforts to not infringe or to use fair use or when a defendant faces a novel question 

of law. 

And lastly, all of this innovation depends heavily on maintaining 

an open and nondiscriminatory Internet. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Sir. 

Mr. Holst, with extremely low or even no-cost price points for 

apps, what justifications do you hear from pirates who cannot 

claim that prices are too high as a justification for their theft? 

Mr. HOLST. The fact that an application is either free or low-cost 

doesn’t really represent either the work that has gone into it or the 

strategy—the total market strategy. From a risk point of view, 

pirating and counterfeiting of these free apps essentially is equivalent of being able to deliver counterfeit car parts or pharmaceuticals. So, very often, branded, recognized software is remarketed and redistributed with certainly nefarious motivations. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, sir. 

Mr. McCoskey, for you and Mr. Sohn. What are the most effective ways, in your view, to convince consumers to use legitimate alternatives to online piracy? 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. One of the things we try to do is actually make 

sure that consumers know that there are legitimate sources of content. And that is one of our challenges in this ecosystem, we got 

all these different players, actually being able to get those legal access to content in front of consumers, when there is a mix of access 

to illegal content. So, a big part for us is, not only creating paths 

and distribution mechanisms where we do distribute this content 

legally, but also getting consumers ways where they can find that 

content. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Sohn? 

Mr. SOHN. I think it is largely a question of having lots of choice 

and lots of innovation in the marketplace. It is going to require experimentation to see what forms of services consumers are most in-
44 

terested in. But, I think the early success of iTunes, which was 

kind of a pioneer in digital music, showed that when services give 

consumers a broad selection at an attractive price point and a service that works well, consumers are interested in using the lawful 

marketplace. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

The Chair is recognizing the Ranking Member for the full Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. I would yield to the gentlelady, Ms. Chu, if it is 

all right with her and you. 

Mr. COBLE. It is fine with me, if it is okay with her. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Chu? 

Ms. CHU. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. 

Well, first I would like to submit for the record three items. First 

is testimony from Sandra Aistars, Executive Director of the Copyright Alliance. Ms. Aistars testimony illustrates that it is not just 

major motion picture studios and TV show creators who are inventing—investing and supporting new distribution models, but an entire alliance of creators, from church music publishers to remixers 

to medical illustrators to illustrators, who are engaging in expanding in all kinds of digital delivery models. Which demonstrates that 

copyright owners of all mediums and backgrounds work actively to 

ensure that their work is easily accessible and can be enjoyed as 

widely as possible. 

And then the second is a study that was released today from the 

Intellectual Property Alliance, which solidifies the fact that U.S. 

copyright industries, for the first time, contributed over $1 trillion 

to the U.S. economy accounting for nearly 6.5 percent of GDP. I 

mean, obviously, with this report, we know that creative rights are 

driving economic growth and innovation. 

And thirdly, I am submitting a Copyright Alliance article about 

this intellectual property report. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection, they will be received—— 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE [continuing]. And made a part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 

ATTACHMENT 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 

Ms. CHU. Thank you so much. 

Well, my first question is for Mr. McCoskey. One of the consumer 

complaints out there is that content creators do not do enough to 

make their works available and accessible. But, now we have more 

than 90 legitimate streaming services offering movies and TV 

shows in the U.S., such as Amazon, Netflix and UltraViolet, just 

to name a few. There is truly a service for every type of content 

consumer out there, whether it is for your smartphone or tablet so 

that you can watch whatever, whenever you want. 

And although Americans legally consumed about 3.5 billion 

hours of movies online in 2012, a recent study by NetNames 

showed that 24 percent of total Internet bandwidth worldwide involves traffic on infringing sites and services. Why do you think 

that is the case, considering the rise of all these innovative ways 

for consumers to watch content legally in their digital space? And 

what more can the key players in the Internet ecosystem do about 

this? 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. Well, as you have pointed out, this is a problem 

that continues to evolve. And so, the fact that now there are 90 

places that you can find legitimate in the—content in the country 

is important. And that number is growing. But the reality is that 

piracy still is a big issue for the industry. This is a multi-stakeholder ecosystem. And we think that voluntary measures of getting 

all the players together in the ecosystem are working toward solving that issue. So, for example, we have a thing we call the Copyright Alerting System that helps identify when consumers are accessing infringed content. And we use that as a mechanism along 

with other players in the ecosystem. But, it is a constant issue and 

it is evolving and we think the best way to deal with that is to continue talking and working with every player in the ecosystem. 

Ms. CHU. Okay. 

Mr. Misener, I want to thank you for testifying on behalf of Amazon today. Not only am I a longtime Amazon Prime member, but 

a fan—I am also a fan of Prime Instant Video. So, I certainly enjoy 

what you’re doing. And it is great to see that your company is now 

contributing to the Internet ecosystem with creative works, with 

your Alpha House in which you have invested $11 million. But, you 

now would be facing unauthorized streaming. And so, I was a bit 

curious about your role or your stance on statutory damage, because now you could be the victim of this piracy. What is—how do 

you reconcile that? 

Mr. MISENER. Yeah. Thanks, Ms. Chu, very much. 

Amazon abhors piracy. We have from our very beginning. Our 

very first day was selling legitimate copyrighted works. And so, 

every time some pirated material is used or made available a sale 

is lost. So we are in a position of always trying to work with content creators and now with original content creators, like with 

Amazon Studios, we want to be in a position to ensure that legitimate copyrighted works are available conveniently at competitive 

prices for our customers. And that is going to dissuade piracy in 

the first instance. 

As far as the statutory damages go, the limitations that we are 

suggesting are ones that go to legitimate mistakes, perhaps. When 

someone has—makes a good faith effort and perhaps comes up 
88 

against—they believe they are not infringing or they believe that 

they are engaged in fair use in a legitimate way. Or for example, 

if they are at a point where there is a novel question of law that 

is raised and reached by a court. At that point, that is where the 

statutory damages ought to be limited. 

Ms. CHU. Okay. 

Well, I think my time is out so—— 

Mr. COBLE. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

The distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino? 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. 

Good afternoon, gentlemen, thank you for being here. 

I have been studying search engines for some time now, several 

weeks now. I have been studying the types of search engines and 

the big search engines that are out there. And one thing that 

seems to be a common thread running through the search engines 

are: even though we are aware of a pirate Web site, whether it is 

telling us that we can give this—send this music free or they 

charge us 10 cents for it or movies or any other technology that you 

want to get into—they are appearing at the top of Web—of the 

search engines as an entity, which one can get into immediately. 

Do you understand my question so far? 

Okay. No response. You must understand it. 

What do we do, what does industry do, what do the search engines do about having these pirate sites pop up at the top of a 

search, compared to the legitimate entities that are out there that 

are several pages down? Anyone care to venture into this first? 

It is like school, I will call on you. 

Mr. Misener? 

Mr. MISENER. I can defer to my colleagues. [Laughter.] 

So, naturally we like it when Amazon shows up first. But, when 

it doesn’t—— 

Mr. MARINO. Very legitimate. 

Mr. MISENER [continuing]. There should be a good reason for it. 

And so, I—we don’t have a search engine business, per se. We have 

a site that is searchable, obviously. But it is a question—it is a difficult question. We think that the DMCA is out there for addressing infringement on particular Web sites, right? There is this notice 

and takedown provision for platforms. And we think that is what 

strikes the right balance between the interests of the creative community and the platform operators. 

But, as far as Web site searches themselves go, I think maybe 

Mr. McCoskey has a stronger view. 

Mr. MARINO. Mr. McCoskey? Because I have—last weekend I visited New York and had the opportunity to visit businesses. And 

one of their biggest complaints, in the technology end of things, 

was piracy. And I actually took down a couple of rogue sites. But 

we know that as soon as that site is taken down, ten others go up. 

So, again, to reiterate my question so it is clear I probably didn’t 

present it clearly. What do we do about preventing those rogue 

sites popping up at the top of the list? 

Because how many of us go through page after page to find a legitimate entity? No, we look at the first three or four. And routinely I am coming up with the first two or three, at least, are 

rogue sites. And the reason I know this is because my kids, 18 and 
89 

14, and I—you saw me come in with my music. And I download 

music and listen to it all the time, but they tell me, ‘‘Dad, stay 

away from this one and stay away from that one, because a guy 

in your position can’t afford to have headlines saying that I am 

downloading music and not paying for it.’’ And I have to agree with 

them. 

So, how do we address this issue? How does—from a technical 

standpoint, how does the industry address this? Because I am 

not—you notice I am not mentioning any names, and I do not want 

to, because I have been in rooms where we have taken down things 

by all the big companies. 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. So, I think the—you know, it is a big problem 

and it is a dynamic problem, so it does change. I think it is a combination of approaches to this. The most important one, we believe, 

is actually having a dialogue between the players and the ecosystem, who are generally not bad actors. The bad actors are the 

infringing sites. And working together on algorithm changes. 

And an example we have is we did work with one of the big 

search players several months ago. They did an algorithm change, 

targeted at reducing the problem that you have identified. And, unfortunately, the results of—after several months of that change, 

where that did not really change the problem much. So, we are 

going to go back to the table and work with them on tying to modify algorithms to the point that we can change that equation. But 

it is a problem. 

Mr. MARINO. Is—as we were talking and doing this right here on 

an iPad and I know that the three that came up are rogue Web 

sites. They are at the top. So, I would prefer that the industry take 

care of this, we not legislative, but seriously take care of this because this is one of the biggest complaints I am hearing. 

And then I also want to address—— 

Mr. HOLST. Yeah, I—— 

Mr. MARINO. Go ahead, John. 

Mr. HOLST. I would say, first, that it—algorithms can address, at 

a moment in time, the kinds of issues that you are raising. But, 

it is a cat-and-mouse game. So, as soon—you know, people—the 

game of trying to gain the search algorithms for both good, you 

know, good actors and bad actors, started on the first day of the 

search engine. One of the differences though is that, if you are a 

bad actor, you will say and do anything because why not, right? So 

it is very similar to making false claims, you know, on a product 

you might sell in an infomercial. And so, they will play with 

metadata. They will play with false endorsements. They will make 

up phantom accounts. So they do cheat, you know. So, by—so on 

the technical, it is a cat-and-mouse game. It will be—I do not think 

you can ever stamp it out—— 

Mr. MARINO. I see that my time has run out. So, if you could— 

if you would like to respond in writing to me. And I would love to 

hear from anyone on how we resolve this. 

I yield back. Thank you, Chair. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers is recognized. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
90 

This is a very interesting and very important hearing. But, what 

are your opinions about voluntary solutions? Are we relying too 

heavily on this? Or is this just a, you know, polite discussion here 

that nobody really sees as a serious way to reduce piracy? What 

are any of your thoughts about that? 

Mr. SOHN. Sure, I will weigh in on that. I think voluntary solutions can be a very productive way to try to reduce infringement. 

I think there are opportunities. The Copyright Alert System is a 

system that is launched between the major ISPs and some of the 

major rights holders. And I think that is an example of an effort 

that is voluntary. It is aimed primarily at education to make sure 

that users understand the difference between infringing behavior 

and lawful behavior. 

So, I think there is a role for discussion on voluntary measures. 

I think there is also—it is important that we be somewhat cautious 

in approaching those as well in that the more voluntary measures 

aim at punishing or sanctioning particular entities, the more it 

starts getting into a role that we normally do through government 

or with some kind of due process. And so the balance for voluntary 

measures is to figure out where they can be productive without 

causing risks of overreaching or abuse or short-circuiting the due 

process that we would normally expect. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Misener? 

Mr. MISENER. Yes, Mr. Conyers. I think it is a great question. 

The way we have tried to approach it at Amazon is to make the 

legitimate content as easily available and as inexpensively available as possible. In books, in particular, we have seen a willingness 

on customers’ behalf to pay for books. They will pay for them. We 

have over a million that are priced at $4.99 or less, 1.7 million 

priced at $9.99 or less. And people are happy to pay that if there 

is an easy way to do it. And so, from an industry player, like Amazon, our goal is to make it easy to obtain that legitimate content 

for pay. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. McCoskey. 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. So, I think as long as we have a strong support 

of the property right of the content, the industry is really working 

together on these kinds of issues and it is a very dynamic situation. 

You have got all kinds of new distribution paths, new devices for 

consumption. But, at this point, I think that voluntary approach 

is—letting the industry try to work this out is really what we 

would like to see happen. 

Mr. HOLST. I would say that detecting bad behavior, preventing 

it, you know, helping people do the right thing through discovery 

and ease of use that is a fluid activity that really has to be able 

to be agile and to move quickly. On the other hand, there needs 

to be clear guidelines when someone is a bad actor, and that should 

not be by consensus. That needs support. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, thanks for the variety of views on that subject. 

Let us turn to app piracy. Do our current legal tools allow us to 

effectively address the subject of that piracy at all? 

Mr. HOLST. I will go first. I will say, I have actually been the 

subject of app piracy myself. I have found my content in someone 

else’s app actually beating me in the marketplace because they 
91 

took my paid version and made it free. And, in fact, the response 

was quick once I found it, right? So, I think we don’t need more 

legislation. We need—I think we have clear recourse. Again, I 

think the slippery slope is finding those bad guys quickly and preventing them from reintroducing themselves with a slightly different name, right? But that is—but it is a technical and a community issue. I am not sure I need tougher laws. 

Mr. CONYERS. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? 

Then I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. COBLE. Thanks. I thank the gentleman. 

In order of arrival time, I recognize the gentleman from North 

Carolina for the next questioner. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman 

from North Carolina. 

Mr. McCoskey, the technology obviously changes incredibly 

quickly today and is something this Committee grapples with and 

has grappled with throughout history. So, some say recent technological changes demand changes in the copyright law. But, is there 

really a problem today that needs fixing? I mean, hasn’t technological change made it easier to get existing content to viewers? 

And, in fact, hasn’t it also made it easier to get new content to 

viewers? Isn’t it—the video marketplace thriving, you know, under 

the legal regime that we have right now? 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. I think it is doing exactly that. We have this 

strong property right and because we have that it is encouraging 

companies to innovate, try new things and work with consumers on 

what they want. So, I think it is absolutely a good, good program 

now. 

Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Misener, one of your recommendations is for 

a streamlined statutory licensing process for music. Would an accessible and robust ownership database solve most of the problem 

of connecting music copyright owners and licenses, without the 

need for any statutory license? 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you for the question. 

I think that there is a need for some sort of centralized information source. And I agree that if it were legislated I think it would 

be obviously taken more seriously perhaps. But, you are right to 

say that the problem is trying to find information on rights holders 

and to find the authors and the artists, in order to obtain the license permission to make that content available to our customers. 

And so, it may go a ways to doing that. I also could see just some 

reform within the statutory licensing scheme that exists today. 

Mr. HOLDING. Lastly, do you, Mr. Sohn—what are the ways that 

you see, you know, right now that Congress can ensure a robust 

competition in the marketplace for digital goods? 

Mr. SOHN. Well, I think the first things that it can do are take 

care to preserve those elements of the legal regime that are successfully enabling innovation right now. So, the ones I highlighted 

in testimony are fair use, which has been the subject of some important court decisions recently. Also section 512 in the DMCA, 

which provides important safe harbor for innovators. And then, 

some of the court-made doctrine, particularly the Sony doctrine 

from the 1984 case involving the VCR, where they said that if a 

product has a substantial non-infringing use, it is lawful to dis-
92 

tribute it even if some users might end up using it for infringement. So, those are some core principles that have enabled 

innovators to develop innovative technologies, innovative services. 

And those need to be preserved. I think that is first and foremost. 

The second one that I highlight in my testimony is statutory 

damages reform, because I think that is one that creates very high 

risk for any company that is trying to navigate an uncertain or unsettled area of the law. And, in this digital age with Internet technologies, we find that happening in copyright law all the time. You 

have new devices with storage capability that are connected to the 

Internet, so they can be used to send data. There are lots of ways 

that copyright creates questions for new technologies. And so, we 

need a statutory damages regime that doesn’t make it too risky to 

experiment with that. 

Mr. HOLDING. Well, you also recognized in your testimony—either written or oral, I didn’t hear your oral, but I read your written—that streaming has grown in popularity as a primary means 

to distribute copyrighted content online and as an alternative to 

downloading. So, would you therefore agree that criminal penalties 

for illegal streaming should be on par with penalties for illegal distribution and copyrighting? 

Mr. SOHN. I think where the streaming activity is of a scale 

where it is comparable to a criminal downloader, then yes, there 

is no particular reason the law should distinguish between the particular mode of infringement. I think what it should focus on is the 

culpability and the scale of the activity. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

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

The distinguished lady from California is recognized. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today. 

I think it is great what companies are doing to promote access 

to legitimate content, by making it available on so many different 

devices, platforms and services. And it is particularly mind boggling to think of how much access consumers have to content. 

I have also been impressed with what Internet companies are 

doing to promote content partnerships. And the motion picture and 

recording industry associations have done great work to help connect content producers with consumers. And I am especially grateful for the ongoing partnerships, since I represent both. In my district there is Sony, Fox Studios, Culver Studios, Google is right 

next door. There is many other entertainment companies in my district. 

The one thing I am concerned about is the BitTorrent sites and 

I wanted—I know the MPAA won a major copyright victory in its 

settlement with IsoHunt. But, just a couple of weeks after the settlement, it is my understanding, that fans of the sites created a duplicate site loaded with millions of infringing files. And, I know we 

all agree we have to stop this. So, I just had a couple of quick questions. 

I wanted to know what else do you think the industry could do, 

besides providing access to content, to help fight BitTorrent sites, 

is my question. 
93 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. So, as I said earlier, this is a dynamic problem. 

And it is a problem that is still significant for the industry. We 

think that techniques such as the copyright alerting system, that 

basically helps consumers understand when they are accessing infringed content, is a good mechanism for battling this. We think— 

again, back to the multi-stakeholder model of finding the good actors and working together on solving these problems across the 

whole Internet ecosystem, is a way to address these. But it is—it 

will be a continuing issue and continuing work and it will adapt 

and change, you know, as we change our tactics. 

Ms. BASS. And do you think that there is a perception that content owners have been slow to get their products out and that that 

is one of the contributing factors? 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. I don’t think so. I mean, when you look at how 

many outlets there are for content now and consumers are finding 

it in places that they have never been able to find it before legally, 

I think the industry has done a really good job of actually recognizing the desires of consumers and trying to meet them. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. 

And we are still working on getting Amazon to L.A. 

Mr. MISENER. I am sorry. Ms. Bass? 

Ms. BASS. I said we are still working on trying to get Amazon 

to L.A.—to move to L.A. Well I know, but, you know, they can expand and they told me about their expansion. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MISENER. Thank you, Ms. Bass. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentlelady. 

The gentleman from Utah. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank the Chairman. 

And I thank you all for being here. It is an interesting world 

where—I remember when my son, who is now 20, I remember 

when he came running around the corner and he said, ‘‘Dad! Dad!’’ 

And, you know, ‘‘Mom, look at this great big CD.’’ It was a record. 

I was kind of feeling like, ‘‘Wow, okay. Things have changed.’’ Now 

he is 20 and the world is changing ever so fastly. 

Mr. Misener, I want to ask you about your perspective where— 

in the digital age, as we move forward and things become perhaps 

all digital and move that direction, what happens when you die? 

What happens when you want to pass that along? Should you own 

that content? Are—should you have some certain privileges? 

Should the government just stay out of this? Should every person 

just make this—every organization make it up and have different 

rules? 

And then, I want to follow up and allow the MPAA to answer 

this as well. 

Mr. MISENER. Thanks, Mr. Chaffetz. 

You are talking, in part, about the First Sale doctrine and what 

happens. And, as you know, for the most part digital downloads 

and streaming are licenses that are granted to the users. At Amazon, if you do die and your family has access to your account, yes, 

you get access to that digital content as well. But that seems like 

kind of an extreme way to circumvent the licensing rule. 

So, hopefully this can be resolved in a way that is clear. And I 

think we are happy to work with the Committee and also—— 
94 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But what do you think should happen? 

Let me have the MPAA answer and then I will come back to you 

for a second. 

What should happen? Somebody gets an extensive library of movies, you know when they purchase a DVD it is pretty simple, right? 

But, when they go out and they license all this, do they own it? 

Do they not own it? Is it a combination? What is the right answer? 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. I think it is a grey area today. And I will say 

that with a flag that says I am an engineer not a lawyer. And— 

but I do think, when you look at a product like the motion picture 

industries put together like UltraViolet, one of the things that anticipated is the need to share content across accounts. So that is 

one way to deal with that is to allow multiple people actually to 

have access to that content, you know, as long as they are—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So, let us say I go out and I purchase a thousand 

movies over the course of time, which seems like we have done in 

our family. And I wanted to sell that. Are you okay if I sell that? 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. Again, I am going to claim to be an engineer 

here and not go down the legal path on that. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And I guess for my colleagues on the Committee, 

this is one of the questions is who owns that? And you are right 

this is First Sale doctrine and how does that work in an electronic 

age? So, does—— 

Mr. Sohn, did you—I see you nodding your head. Please, jump 

on in here. 

Mr. SOHN. Sure. No, I think you have put your finger on a really 

important issue. The First Sale doctrine, as it currently exists in 

law, seems to be mostly focused on tangible products. But certainly 

consumers have some expectation that when they have engaged in 

a transaction that looks like a purchase, that they ought to have 

some rights to then dispose of that content down the line or share 

it and so forth. And I think it is an important issue for the Subcommittee to consider as it is reviewing copyright law is how can 

we structure some approach to these issues that works for the digital age that recognizes both that, when people purchase things, 

they do want to be able to pass them along. But, at the same time, 

to recognize that there are a lot of new business models out there, 

often people get things on a subscription basis, and it is less clear 

that that is really an appropriate context in which First Sale 

should apply. So—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. All right, so—— 

Mr. SOHN [continuing]. An appropriately cabined First Sale doctrine that applies to the digital age is, I think, something Congress 

should work on. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And I guess it is—and we will allow you, Mr. 

Holst, to jump on in here—but that is one of the core questions. 

We got the question somewhat surrounded. But I need help for you 

all and others in the audience, what is the answer to these questions, not just restating the question. 

But—Mr. Holst, please jump in here. I think my time is expiring. 

So—— 

Mr. HOLST. I would just say that however you land on that—the 

always to that question, transparency and consistency, is the most 
95 

important thing. If people know what is expected, most will comply. 

So confusion is way worse than a slightly imperfect—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So, if I said that you—when you buy it you own 

it, you should be able to do what you want with it. Is that—would 

everybody agree or disagree with that? 

Mr. HOLST. I would say—briefly, I would say, if that was the 

term at the point of sale, I would reflect that in my price and in 

my model and I could be fine with it. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And I actually like the way a lot of movies you 

can get right now, you can rent it or you can buy it and purchase 

it. But I think one of the questions for this Committee is how do 

we deal with this in a broader context. 

I will let you each quickly—but my time is expired, Chairman. 

Mr. MISENER. Well, we will work with you, obviously, Mr. 

Chaffetz, and try to figure this out. It is not an easy question, it 

goes to the core of copyrights. And it is—you know, we are—I think 

you are seeing four people who understand the issue and don’t 

have all the answers. But hopefully we will be able to work with 

the Committee to come up with answers. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. And the—gentlemen you will have 5 days to respond 

to whoever so we are okay time wise. 

The distinguished gentleman from Louisiana? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just say, as I have been studying these issues, it has become clear and I think that Mr. Chaffetz’s questions highlight the 

complexity of what we are dealing with here. But also, I think that, 

you know, as you all have testified, the importance of intellectual 

property and copyright in the country is critically important that 

we understand and that we get it right. Part of my fear is that we 

will move so slow, as a deliberative body, that technology will pass 

us by as we do that. 

And sometimes, even as you all in your complex world negotiate, 

we miss things. And the example I gave today at lunchtime was 

ringtones. Friends in the music industry came and they said, 

‘‘Cedric, I realize that I sold a million ringtones and I don’t have 

any money from it.’’ It wasn’t covered in the contract because nobody knew you would have ringtones that you could sell. And the 

question became: who owned it and all of those. So, we have to 

make sure we get it right. We have to make sure we understand 

it. 

But here is a question that I will pose to anybody out there is 

that, what are the international implications of any changes we 

consider to licensing models for digital delivery of content to the 

consumer? And what are some of the things that we should consider, as we talk about that, to make sure that the global consumer 

has access to innovative U.S. products via efficient digital delivery 

and so forth? 

Anyone? 

Mr. MISENER. Mr. Richmond, I will take a stab at it. I think it 

is probably a question best addressed by the rights holders, the 

publishers, and maybe Mr. McCoskey will take a shot at it. But, 

a lot of the content itself is geographically limited. That is to say 
96 

that distribution rights are cordoned off by the rights holders. And 

so, from a technology platform that is global, we would love to see 

much more trade in this area. But much of it is limited, again, by 

the rights holders themselves. 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. So, I think for our member companies, it is a big 

part of their business. It is a huge amount of growth in the emerging worlds. And it is a place there—where there is a lot of interest 

and consumption of American content. 

I think, you know, we would certainly like to see, you know, a 

few barriers to that and a few barriers to the movement of content 

into those international markets. Now that it is all digital it is 

pretty ubiquitous, from a distribution standpoint. So, it really 

comes down to, you know, open markets and, you know, free markets with—around the world. 

Mr. HOLST. I would say that the basic constructs of right and 

wrong in ownership and fairness don’t know any international 

boundaries. So, as a developer and as a vendor who works with lots 

of developers, we care very much about these issues. But, in terms 

of implementing and expressing those consistent perspectives that 

is, I am afraid, beyond the scope—that is an international issue, 

which I am no expert in. But, the rules should be—the basic rules 

are the same. 

Mr. SOHN. And I would just add, there is—there are trade treaties around these topics that provide for some basic principles of intellectual property internationally. I do think that the basic dynamic is true on a global level the same as it is on a domestic one, 

which is: it is crucially important that we find ways to license content and distribute content in attractive lawful ways around the 

world. Because certainly, if content isn’t available in those other 

markets, it is going to fuel piracy in those markets and it is going 

to fuel sort of the dark side of the market. And we want the lawful 

market growing. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And in—as I close, and you all can submit this 

in writing or just any ideas that you have that we should keep in 

mind as we ensure or at least I try to ensure that we look at this 

from a very balanced approach when we start talking about new 

content delivery. We are talking about a new consumption economy. But, we also have to make sure that we are still driving innovation and making sure we continue the economic growth. So, anything you have and any thoughts I would certainly appreciate. And 

my office is always open for you all to drop by and have these conversations. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Texas. 

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

And I want to revisit the digital First Sale doctrine for a second. 

You know, back in the old days, when you had a book and you 

bought it, the copyright holder got paid and then it was your book 

to sell. And, of course, when you sold it you didn’t have it anymore. 

And that is kind of the problem now in the digital age. You can 

make a near perfect or perfect copy of something and then sell your 

original. There is no real technological way to deal with that. Any 

sort of DRM, digital rights management, you put in get taken 
97 

away. Do you all see a solution? Or are we really—are looking at 

something that is dead, from a—digital First Sale is dead, from a 

practical standpoint. 

I will start with Mr. Misener? 

Mr. MISENER. Thanks, Mr. Farenthold. I think that we have 

been able to make a very good business for our customers with the 

current arrangements of licensing for both books and music and 

video. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I did learn from Mr. Chaffetz’s line of questioning, I need to give my wife my Amazon password in the event 

I get hit by a bus. [Laughter.] 

Mr. MISENER. And she would have access to it. But again, that 

seems like a pretty extreme way to handle a First Sale—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, I do buy my MP3s from you because it— 

they do not come with any DRM. I have got, you know, offices in 

Corpus Christi and Washington and a laptop. I have run up 

against the five computer limit on iTunes. So, you do have a competitive advantage there. 

But, Mr. McCoskey, do you see a way to make the digital First 

Sale work? 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. Well, I think you have hit on the real issue is 

that it is different from a physical property. And one of the challenges that we have got is our content creators are taking that 

same piece of content and selling it different ways. Sometimes they 

are selling it as a sale, sometimes they are selling it as a rental, 

sometimes they are selling it as—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. So, when I pay 15 bucks on Amazon 

or iTunes to, quote, ‘‘bu,’’ a movie, am I really just licensing it? 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. I think it depends on the actual terms on that 

sale. And I think that is going to vary widely from distributor to 

distributor. So, I think—you know, this is going to be one of the 

topics that I think the Committee is going to dig into in deeper 

hearings. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Let us shift gears a little bit and talk about 

piracy. 

I kind of divide pirates into three different groups: those that are 

out to try to make money from selling copyrighted content, kids 

who do not know any better or at least say they do not know any 

better, and then ideologues who think all information should be 

free. Do you have any sort of breakdown as to the classes? If we 

were finding as solution, as Chairman Issa has suggested, in, you 

know, his open and going after the financial end of it. Is that going 

to solve the problem substantially for you? Or are you going to— 

are we going to still have a problem with the ideologues and the 

kids? 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. I mean, we go after all of the problems. And I 

think the problem is, after you go after them, they tend to morph 

and the shift goes from one to another. You know, if there is piracy 

out there, we are going to continue to go after it. And going after 

the folks that are making money on it is a good way to go, but—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Those are the clear—— 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. Yeah. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD [continuing]. The clear bad actors and seem— 

would seem to be the low-hanging fruit. 
98 

And I guess my other question, and it reflects something some 

of the other Members have been—I think we really have seen a 

shift as the cost to find—get legitimate things have come down— 

music down to under a buck in most cases. These micropayment 

systems are working. I don’t know if that works for the economies 

of movies and motion pictures. But are—is the delay time in releasing it—you know, you—obviously you want it to play in a theater 

for a while and then you have different stages you have. Is that 

delay time driving piracy as people are looking to avoid the movie 

theater experience and still be culturally hip having, you know— 

having seen the latest Superman movie without having to go to the 

theater? 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. It is a complex problem, as you know. And I 

think—what our member companies look to do is actually try and 

recover the incredible investments they make in these properties. 

And windowing and the way they release the product across the 

world is part of that equation. So, it is—there is not even a fixed 

answer to that. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. 

Well, I see I am about out of time. I yield back my last few seconds. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

The distinguished lady from Washington. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

And thanks all of you for being here today. 

As a representative from Washington State, I can say I know 

firsthand the impact innovation has had on our economy. And I 

want to thank you, Mr. Misener, for being here today. Amazon has 

been a huge contributor to that. 

You know, I think you said, Mr. Misener, that four times—people 

are reading who were reading now were reading four times the 

number of books that they had before. What do you think are the 

reasons behind that? 

Mr. MISENER. Well, because—thanks, Ms. DelBene, very much. 

The reasons behind that, I think, are slightly complicated, but they 

are also right in front of us. I mean, when you use a device, like 

a Kindle, you can obtain the books, the music, the videos that you 

want immediately. And it is very convenient. It is a great way to 

be able access video and music, but also books. So the variety of 

books that are available on a device like this are staggering and 

something that local stores just never could keep up with. And it 

is no slight against them. 

But it is that convenience and now with the low pricing. We recognized from the very beginning that our customers wanted the 

lowest prices for everything. But also the willingness to pay for 

things, and so it is not free. It is something low. And one thing 

they also have told us, very clearly, is that they believe that a digital book should be less expensive than a physical book and for the 

very obvious reasons that there isn’t paper and print and covers 

and shipping and all those things. And so we agree. And those— 

all those factors, the convenience and the price and the selection 

have all led to this increase in reading that we see. 

Ms. DELBENE. And you think it is for—as a content creator that, 

even though the price might be lower because it is a different me-
99 

dium, that the increased volume generally leads to a benefit for 

content creators in terms of getting their information out there and 

the return they would get? 

Mr. MISENER. Yeah, absolutely. 

In fact, we have seen a couple of different cases where—well, 

there are now over a dozen individual authors who have sold a million copies each of a work that they have self-published through 

Amazon. And that is a big deal. And so—but our—also from the 

perspective of traditional media, I am not sure you are aware, but 

many of the books that appear in a physical bookstore end up not 

being read by anybody, but sent back and actually recycled. And 

that—those numbers are somewhere on the order of 30 percent of 

the books are never read. They are actually just shredded. And so 

that kind of wastefulness just goes away with an electronic distribution model like this. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. 

Mr. McCoskey, you had talked about increased usage of, you 

know, of, you know, videos, et cetera, given the UltraViolet service. 

Do you have similar metrics or ideas, in terms of what has happened in terms of consumer behavior? 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. Well, I think it is actually really interesting, because when the media entertainment industry started looking at 

consumption and the changes in consumption, I think there was a 

big fear that people were going to get tablets and mobile devices 

and they were going to stop watching in their homes and they were 

going to stop watching linear television and broadcasts and all 

those things. And what the numbers have shown, in this country, 

is that people are just consuming more content. 

So, the fact that they have got access to content, in more places 

on more devices actually has increased their consumption overall. 

Broadcast television viewing is up, you know, even though people 

are now watching more online and watching more on mobile devices. So, that won’t continue indefinitely and, at some point, you 

know, people run out of hours in a day. But, right now, the fact 

that there is so much good content out there on so many different 

available legitimate platforms, people are embracing that. 

Ms. DELBENE. So, as we see, kind of, movement to more centralize or, you know, cloud-based services and access to information, what concerns do either of you have in terms of privacy? 

These issues have come up a lot. Have you—in terms of how that 

may impact your business models. 

Mr. MCCOSKEY. I am sure others want to answer this too. 

That is, frankly, not the biggest concern for us, Ms. DelBene. It 

really is maintaining that open, nondiscriminatory Internet so that 

consumers continue to have the access that they have enjoyed to 

date on the Internet. And so, any kind of threat to that openness, 

including things like data caps, are a concern. They haven’t been 

a problem so far, but it certainly is worth the vigilance of this Committee to make sure that that does not get into the way of—in the 

way of consumer access to that content. 

Ms. DELBENE. Do others have feedback on that? 

Mr. SOHN. Sure. 

So, on privacy issues, I think it is sort of separate from the topic 

of this hearing. But, there is a very real need to address the basic 
100 

privacy expectations of consumers to make sure that, as people go 

to these markets to participate in these increasingly thriving markets, they are not dissuaded by the amount of personal information 

that they have to turn over or uncertainty about how that information might be stored or passed along or used. So, I do think there 

is a role for Congress to look at privacy issues. And doing so would 

help build confidence in these lawful online marketplaces. 

Mr. HOLST. I would just say that the release cycle of application 

publishing is at a much higher rate than a movie or a collection 

of music. And rather than doing focus groups and large surveys, 

there are analytics that are collected to allow for continuous improvement. And I don’t think there are privacy concerns, as long 

as the application analytics are targeted for the developer of the 

application, you know, as a separate stream. So, the word ‘‘analytics’’ is thrown around a lot. Application developers need to have 

insight into how their software is being used to improve it. And I 

don’t think there are concerns, but it just needs to be—people need 

to be mindful of why that telemetry is collected. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

The distinguished gentleman from Georgia. 

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

A lot of things, you know, have been said and some of this we 

have done before. And I think the industry working some of this 

out—you know having the, not only the vested interest but also 

other interests as well to make this work—is a good route to take. 

And I want to turn my questions a little bit to, I think, the 

underpinnings of some of the discussion today, except for this first 

question. And it is going to go a lot to you, Mr. Sohn. We—you and 

I are going to have a conversation on some of it. 

You had mentioned, and Mr. Holding had a great question, on 

the—concerning should the penalties be the same, you know, for 

the infringers. And you said, ‘‘Well, it depends on the scale.’’ Well, 

can you define that for me? Okay, is it—if I infringe 20 times or 

if I put it out or copy and sell it 20 times, 30 times, 1 time, what 

scale is appropriate for them to be a similar penalty? 

Mr. SOHN. Sure. 

Excuse me, so, under current law, frequently penalties for copyright are civil. 

Mr. COLLINS. Exactly. 

Mr. SOHN. There is that civil enforcement. And then, when it 

reaches a certain threshold, we get to criminal enforcement. So, my 

only point really was that we don’t want to be setting too low a bar 

for criminal enforcement. We want to make sure that criminal enforcement is targeted at the true bad actors, people that are doing 

things for a profit, people are doing things at substantial scale, not 

small-scale actors who are engaged in noncommercial behavior. So, 

I think we already have some standards for that, regarding the distinction between civil and criminal. And my only point was, for 

streaming, I don’t think that the mode of delivery what is—is what 

is important. What is important is that the law draw that distinction and set an appropriate bar for criminal treatment. 
101 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I think—and that is something that we are 

going to have to get—you know, elevate our different standards. I 

think, as we get into this new realm and we are looking at new 

areas, I think this is coming out as a question that needs to be addressed. 

But I want to move on to something else. And I am not going 

to do digital First Sale. We could spend all day on that issue and 

how we get—— 

But, I read with interest, and I think it really goes to your written testimony, which I read and along with others. And it goes 

back to the issue, in my mind, of protection of rights and encouraging innovation and being a part of this process. And I think, in 

reading your written testimony, it became interesting to me, especially when you said, ‘‘Consumers are creators too, not just passive 

recipients.’’ And, as I look through that, your—as I read through 

it, I came to this quote here and it says, ‘‘Of course, some manipulations of creative works can rise under issues under copyright law, 

but there is no question that the flexibility of digital technology facilitates greater involvement and interaction with creative works.’’ 

I want to stop right there and I am going to come back to it. 

And then you go on, just a little bit further, and talk about innovation in the marketplace, which is interesting. You start off by 

saying, ‘‘To be clear, the fact the consumer increasingly expect on 

demand access to the copyrighted content of their choice does not 

mean they are legally entitled to it any more than they would be 

entitled to get it all for free.’’ But then, you come down by the end 

of that paragraph, you said, ‘‘But where the market fails to cater 

to substantial customer appetites, that represents lost opportunity. 

Everyone is better off in the market—if the market can develop 

new offerings that recognize what consumers want and find and 

provide a way for that.’’ 

And then, the next page over it says, ‘‘Encouraging the continued 

development of innovative business and technology is the most productive thing that Congress can do,’’ and the reason was—the 

statement was, ‘‘evolving content providing convenient and attractive options for satisfying consumer demand is the best defense 

against widespread infringement.’’ 

In other words, what I gained from listening to this is, one— 

there are two parts that I would like for you to talk about. One, 

to have the creative manipulation by users, you have to inherently 

have a starting point to do that. They cannot—they are not creating in—according to what you framed your example, they are not 

creating ex nihlio. They are not creating from nothing. They are 

creating from what someone else has created. And, in your statement there was, is that the flexibility has caused this. And I think 

there has to be an understanding that there is a creative right 

there. And that there is a property right issue. 

As you move through your testimony though, it seemed to go to 

the fact of this—that, if we can get it, then we should have a right 

to it. And I think that—I would like to hear your balance there. 

Because it seems to me you are, in some ways, you are contradictory in stating that there is a content right, you accept that. 

But, as someone said, and I am not sure who it was and it may 

not have been anyone on this panel, said, ‘‘they were just slow to 
102 

get the content out.’’ Well, if I create something and I do not want 

to put it out that is my right. That is inherently the right of the 

creator to either expose it or not expose it, no matter if you desperately want it or not. How do you justify—or how do you come 

to these, basically, seemingly contradictory terms in your own written testimony. 

Mr. MISENER. Sure. 

So, what I was trying to get at there was I think there is a— 

it is, as you say, yes, if you create some content, you have legal 

rights to that content, you can control how to distribute it, when 

to distribute it and so forth. I do think, as a practical matter, 

where there is substantial demand in the marketplace to access 

certain content and people are willing to pay for that, everyone is 

better off if we can get to a marketplace where providers are able 

to provide to consumers the kinds of copyrighted content that they 

want when they want it and find lawful business models for doing 

that. That makes money for the creators. That gives consumers 

what they want. And, as a side effect and a very important side 

effect, it moves us more in the direction of a lawful content marketplace and discourages the unlawful content marketplace. 

So, it is really—I think the contradiction you point to is me saying one hand, well there is a legal right and on the other hand, 

there is this practical consideration. And I think what I am trying 

to say is, as a practical matter, the best place for us to get to is 

for the producers to produce the content in a way that consumers 

want to enjoy it. 

Mr. COLLINS. My time is expired. That is something I will address further, but thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, thanks 

for holding the hearing today. 

I am glad to talk about the roles of copyrights in America. I 

think that this hearing is a great opportunity for us to challenge 

the notion that innovation and copyright protections are at odds or 

that content technology are looking to Congress to balance competing interests, far from it I think. Having access to movies and 

music gives people a reason to adopt the latest technology, the latest innovative platforms help creators reach audiences that they 

would never otherwise touch. 

So, it seems like our goal as a Nation is to grow the pie for everyone fairly, instead of fighting about how we slice up what we see 

here today. I think our witnesses would agree. I believe the longterm success of our country depends on the work of inventors as 

well as artists and creators in moving the country forward, improving all of our lives with new medicines, technologies, shaping our 

culture. But, all of that progress and innovation is threatened 

when copyrights aren’t protected. 

So, Mr. Holst, I just wanted to follow up on something that you 

had spoken about. You talk about the enormous opportunities that 

digital content in the digital marketplace can offer. But your testimony referenced the problem of the uncurated app stores, where 

some app stores are more cooperative than others in removing infringing versions of pirated apps. As a victim of piracy yourself, you 
103 

had to go through the process of trying to have illegal versions of 

your app removed. And I was hoping that you could just tell us a 

little bit more about what the process is like for a small business. 

What do you have to do? Are the stores—the app stores the same? 

Are some more or less cooperative? And, what is the response— 

what is their response, if they refuse to take action? 

Mr. HOLST. Thank you. 

Well the question is an excellent one and has a number of different parts—they always have a number of different parts. The 

trickiest part is the discovery. Okay, if somebody steals your content and then markets it in a way that isn’t your brand name, you 

might not find it amongst the millions of apps that are available. 

So, discovery is a challenge, and that is not a legal question, it is 

just the hard thing to do. 

Once I discovered it, and I discovered it quite accidentally. I was 

just seeing who was beating me in my category. And the cover page 

was actually different. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw a phrase 

that I use. I drilled down and literally saw pictures of my wife, who 

is the yogi in the app. And I said, this is definitely infringement. 

I will have no problem proving this. And, in fact, I didn’t. And I— 

it was—I was provided with some forms to fill out. And, within 48 

hours, the app was removed. 

However, the bad actor, the publisher themselves, were not 

banned from any of the marketplaces. And in fact I looked—this 

was 2 years ago and that publisher still publishes apps. And, if I 

look at what is in those apps, they are language translation services, the Bible for children. Clearly, in my view, content that they 

likely have, I can’t prove it, but they have likely lifted, right? 

And so the question of finding the infringement is hard. Once 

you find it, I think it is fairly straightforward. And everybody 

wants to do the right thing. But then the question is: what do you 

do when you don’t have proof around other apps and those bad actors? Because they can put on all sorts of veils and hide themselves. That is a difficult challenge as well. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Does it make a difference in the nature of the 

store? Uncurated—having someone—— 

Mr. HOLST. Yeah. And so—great point. So, the question isn’t how 

quickly they respond, although uncurated they tend to just have 

less of an infrastructure to interact with publishers. The real danger there is that the quality of the basic—the original inventory. 

So, if I look at a thousand apps in one of these uncurated marketplaces—and there are a number of studies, I will be happy to send 

those on, that show that not just infringing content, but apps that 

violate privacy have unexpected behaviors significantly higher. So, 

it is a more dangerous neighborhood to visit. And so you are more 

likely as a consumer to get something dangerous. Not now as a 

publisher, but as a consumer. That is the—— 

Mr. DEUTCH. And thank you. 

Mr. Misener, I just wanted to circle back. There are a lot of 

phrases that get thrown around on our committees, particularly in 

this area. The nondiscriminatory Internet—what is your definition 

of the nondiscriminatory Internet? 

Mr. MISENER. It is ensuring that network operators don’t interfere with their users’ ability to obtain content from the sites and 
104 

sources of their choice. And so, basically, end users, you and I in 

our homes, have a contract with a network operator to have Internet access. Through that contract, that end user ought to be able 

to access all the lawful content that he or she wants. 

Mr. DEUTCH. But it wouldn’t be discriminate or discrimination 

against copyright infringers would be permitted, wouldn’t it? 

Mr. MISENER. Yeah, I said lawful. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Right. 

Mr. MISENER. So, correct. So all the lawful content they should 

be entitled to reach. And the discrimination concern is very real, 

especially where some network operators are also the provision of— 

the provisioners of competing video and content services. And so, 

if they are providing services in parallel with the services that 

their customers want, that would be untoward. And that is something that I think the Committee should keep an eye on. 

Mr. DEUTCH. I appreciate that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. Thanks gentlemen. 

I thank the witnesses and I thank those in the audience. As I 

said, your presence here for the past 2 hours, indicates more than 

a casual interest in this very significant issue. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional 

material for the record. 

This hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:26 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ