U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

94–408 PDF 2015

REGISTER’S PERSPECTIVE ON COPYRIGHT REVIEW 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 29, 2015 

Serial No. 114–22 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

DAVE TROTT, Michigan 

MIKE BISHOP, Michigan 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

SCOTT PETERS, California 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

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

C O N T E N T S 

APRIL 29, 2015 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 1 

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

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 54 

WITNESS 

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

States Copyright Office 

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

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

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Tom Marino, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 43 

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

from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ........ 58 

Material submitted by the Honorable Ted Deutch, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ... 70 

Material submitted by the Honorable Doug Collins, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary .. 72 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Response to Questions for the Record from the Honorable Maria A. Pallante, 

Register of Copyrights and Director, United States Copyright Office ............. 85 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

UNPRINTED MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

List of material submitted for the Official Hearing Record ................................. 92 

http://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=103385 

(1) 

REGISTER’S PERSPECTIVE ON 

COPYRIGHT REVIEW 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 29, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 2141, 

Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Tom Marino presiding. 

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

Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Marino, Labrador, Farenthold, Collins, Walters, Buck, Ratcliffe, Trott, Bishop, Conyers, Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Chu, Deutch, Bass, DelBene, and Jeffries. 

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

Keeley, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet; Kelsey Williams, Clerk; (Minority) Perry 

Apelbaum, Staff Director & Chief Counsel; Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian; Norberto Salinas, Counsel; Jason Everett, Counsel; and 

Maggie Lopatin, Clerk. 

Mr. MARINO. The Judiciary Committee will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of 

the Committee at any time. 

We welcome everyone this morning to our hearing on the Register’s Perspective on Copyright and Review. And I know we will 

get a very thorough, in-depth analysis of this. 

I’m going to turn first now to Ranking Member Conyers for his 

statement. 

And Chairman Goodlatte will arrive shortly to give his opening 

statement. 

And, with that, Ranking Member Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Marino. 

And to the Committee that will be coming in soon and to all of 

our interested friends that are in the audience. You know, in the 

Declaration of Independence, our Founders—wait a minute—okay. 

Today’s hearing culminates the Committee’s 2-year-long examination of the Copyright Act, a process that has involved 19 hearings and 99 witnesses. Our current Register of Copyrights here 

today makes 100 witnesses. It’s a particularly fitting occasion that 

Ms. Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights, testifies at this 

final hearing, as she was the first witness to testify at the begin-
2 

ning of the process. Over the course of this review, we’ve identified 

several priorities that I think we should consider. First, if our Nation is to have a strong copyright system, we, in Congress, must 

restructure the Copyright Office. 

The Office examines the Register’s copyright claims, records 

copyrighted documents, and administers statutory licenses. It provides expert copyright advice to Congress as well as various Federal agencies concerning trade agreements, treaty negotiations, and 

court proceedings. And the Office recommends much needed improvements to the copyright system. 

Nevertheless, the existing Copyright Office is ill-equipped financially and structurally to handle certain challenges presented by 

technological developments and the growing demands of the copyright system. Essentially, the Office needs to modernize and become more user-friendly and efficient. 

I thank Ms. Pallante for acknowledging the Office’s limitations in 

her post-hearing response to my February request about her views 

on reorganizing the copyright letter. Her thorough response included different alternative proposals to help Congress determine 

how best to approach restructuring the Copyright Office. Now I 

welcome other stakeholders in the copyright community to submit 

to us their views and proposals to help bring the Copyright Office 

into the 21st century. 

The 2-year review has highlighted several other areas where the 

copyright community can find common ground and which Congress 

should address promptly. A forum to resolve small claims should 

be established. Fortunately, the Office has already submitted a legislative proposal for addressing the need. 

With respect to music licensing, the Office recently issued a report recommending reforms. For me, that’s a very important area. 

Pending actions in the courts and by the Department of Justice will 

provide additional guidance to Congress as it considers reforming 

music licensing. The Fair Play Fair Pay Act, H.R. 1733, which I 

support, is one legislative proposal to address music licensing, the 

AM/FM royalties for musicians, which is not paid. The issue of orphan works must also be addressed. The Copyright Office will soon 

be issuing a report which will provide Congress a much needed 

framework for a legislative solution. As more copyrighted content 

continues to move to the Internet, current criminal enforcement 

laws must be updated to deter copyright infringement while encouraging new technological platforms which utilize the licensing 

copyright. 

These are a few of the copyright-related issues that have come 

to our attention over the last 2 years that Congress should address 

without delay. For areas which are not ripe and need more detailed 

discussion, we should request that the Copyright Office issue reports and submit legislative proposals on which we can act in the 

near term. 

And, finally, this review has confirmed that strong copyright protections are integral to a strong and vibrant copyright system. I’ve 

noted many times during this Committee’s review that we must ensure that the copyright system treats creators fairly and fosters 

their continuing creativity. Whatever changes Congress makes to 

the Copyright Act must promote creation among artists and protect 
3 

their rights. Strong copyright protections will also foster a marketplace for content that consumers will enjoy as well as encourage 

technological innovation that can be used to watch the content. I 

thank the Chair for holding today’s hearings. 

And I welcome and look forward to hearing from Register 

Pallante. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Congressman. 

I want to welcome our distinguished witness here today. 

And if you would please rise and raise your right hand, I will 

swear you in. Do you swear that the testimony you’re about to give 

is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you 

God? 

Ms. PALLANTE. I do. 

Mr. MARINO. Please let the record reflect the witness has answered in the affirmative. Please have a seat. 

I’m going to begin by introducing the witness today. She has 

been to our Committee numerous times. And we look even more 

forward today to having her here, the Register of Copyrights, Ms. 

Maria Pallante. 

And, in her role as Register, Ms. Pallante leads the legal policy 

and business activities of the United States Copyright Office. Prior 

to being named the 12th Register of Copyrights, Ms. Pallante 

served the Copyright Office in a variety of roles, including Deputy 

General Counsel, and then as Associate Register and Director of 

Policy and International Affairs. 

During her career, she also spent several years as intellectual 

property counsel and director of licensing for the worldwide 

Guggenheim Museums. Register Pallante is a 1990 graduate of the 

George Washington University Law School and holds a bachelor’s 

degree in history from Misericordia University. 

Ms. Pallante, welcome back, and we are extremely pleased to 

have you here today. Your written statement will be entered into 

the record in its entirety. And I ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within the time limit, 

you’re used to the lights in front of you. I’m not going to go through 

that ordeal. 

And would you please begin. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARIA A. PALLANTE, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS AND DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES 

COPYRIGHT OFFICE 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you. Good morning. Vice Chairman 

Marino, Ranking Member Conyers, and Members of the Judiciary, 

it’s a great honor to be appear before you again this morning to discuss the copyright law and copyright administration. I wish to 

thank this Committee for its work of the past 2 years. As I believe 

you know, the review process represents the most comprehensive 

focus on copyright issues in the United States in over four decades. 

I also want to thank the Committee’s thoughtful policy and oversight counsel for the important and very helpful insights they have 

shared with my office in our work. 

And I want to recognize my own staff for their dedication and enthusiasm at every turn, both in the complex portfolios that they 
4 

carry and the numerous and respectful interactions that they have 

on a daily basis with so many stakeholders. The Committee’s review process was designed to sort through the many competing equities that make up the public interest in the digital age. Balancing 

these equities is more challenging than ever before. But it is tremendously important. In fact, Congress has amended the Copyright Act multiple times since 1790, each time ensuring that it is 

strong, flexible, and consistent with our cherished principles of 

freedom of expression. These are the themes that have come 

through in abundance this time as well, both from Members of this 

Committee and the many talented witnesses, all 98 of them, that 

have appeared before the Committee. 

Before turning to the issues, I would like to highlight some of the 

recent efforts of my office. In the past 4 years, in support of the 

Committee’s work, we have published seven policy studies, and we 

have two forthcoming. With respect to Copyright Office technology, 

we completed and published a proactive report and recommendations on current challenges and goals, drawing on public inquiries, 

stakeholder meetings, and expert research. In the area of copyright 

administration, we published a major overhaul of the Compendium 

of Copyright Office Practices, the first one since 1988, setting forth 

new legal guidance in the area of registering digital authorship. 

And, on the subject of document recordation, we released a major 

report assessing how the Office records copyright transactions for 

the public. This report is the foundation for transforming the database that we have from a paper-based process to an innovative and 

interoperable platform for the digital economy. In all of this work, 

we solicited the participation of the public, including scholars, librarians, public interest organizations, bar associations, and the 

content and technology sectors. I am grateful to these important 

communities for participating in our work and for providing critical 

legal and practical perspectives. 

I have been especially inspired by the stories of authors across 

the country, many of whom took time to talk with me personally, 

including songwriters, recording artists, producers, photographers, 

graphic artists, book authors, dramatists, and independent 

filmmakers, all of whom want to be credited and compensated for 

their work. As Register, it has become clear to me that the intelligent and connected world we live in depends heavily upon the creativity and discipline of authors. 

My staff and I have reviewed all of the witness testimony of the 

last 2 years and we’ve divided our recommendations into four categories: Eight issues that are ripe for legislative action if the Committee so chooses; four issues that require foundational analysis 

and public study to assist you; a number of issues that are not as 

urgent; and overarching matters related to the Copyright Office 

itself. These are all further highlighted in my 32-page written 

statement. But I will highlight just a few of them here. 

Starting with the first category, if the Committee is prepared to 

act, it is in a strong position to develop or advance legislation now 

or in the very near feature in these areas: One, overhauling the 

music licensing provisions of the Copyright Act; two, codifying a resale royalty act for visual art; three, creating a tribunal for small 

copyright claims; four, enacting felony streaming provisions; five, 
5 

updating the outdated exceptions that libraries, archives, and museums use; six, creating a framework to use orphan works; seven, 

updating the exceptions for persons who are blind or visually impaired; and, eight, shifting the regulatory presumption in the section 1201 rulemaking. 

I will not go into detail about updating library exceptions or the 

exceptions for persons who are blind or visually impaired. But I 

will sum them up by saying that while some have opposed amending them because they would prefer to rely upon fair use, there is 

virtually no dispute that these sections are outdated to the point 

of being obsolete. Many individuals who need them do not have 

clear guidance about what they can and cannot copy, access, adapt, 

or share without permission. The provisions do not serve the public 

interest, and it is our view that it is untenable to leave them in 

their current state. We have studied them extensively, and we will 

be providing appropriate revisions to the Committee. 

Likewise, it is clear that we have an orphan works problem and 

that most people want a framework that removes egregious damages for good-faith users but also establishes a reasonable payment 

mechanism for copyright owners who reappear. The Copyright Office has studied this issue for 10 years, and we will be releasing 

an updated proposal again soon. 

Turning to music, we recently released a major study of the licensing landscape. Our music community is struggling, as the 

Committee knows, to apply outdated practices, many of which are 

government-mandated. We have proposed a series of balanced 

changes to promote more efficient licensing practices, greater parity among competing platforms, and fair compensation for creators, 

including greater latitude for rights holders to negotiate licenses in 

the free market. The groundwork has been laid for a follow-on process under the oversight of this Committee, and my office remains 

available to assist you. 

With respect to small claims, we also believe the case has been 

made. In our 2013 report to the Committee, we noted the daunting 

challenges faced by copyright owners seeking to pursue small copyright claims through the Federal court process. And we recommended the creation of an alternative but voluntary tribunal for 

this purpose. Although modest in economic value, these claims are 

not small to the individual creators who are deprived of income or 

opportunities when their works are infringed. 

Likewise, we think defendants should be able to raise appropriate defenses in the small claims context. I hope you will give serious consideration to our proposal. 

And I want to discuss section 1201. This rulemaking is ripe for 

congressional attention and, in fact, is already receiving congressional attention. The anticircumvention provisions have played an 

important role in facilitating innovation and providing consumers 

with a wide range of content delivery options. At the same time, 

it has become obvious that the regulatory process can be burdensome for some proponents, especially when trying to renew the exemptions that we granted previously. We are therefore recommending a legislative change to provide a presumption in favor of 

renewal in cases where there is no opposition. 
6 

For other aspects of section 1201, we are recommending a comprehensive study, including the permanent exemptions for security, 

encryption, and privacy research. The rulemaking has always been 

a good barometer for public policy concerns. For example, in the 

2010 rulemaking, my predecessor, Register Peters, observed that 

Congress did not anticipate the types of computer security concerns 

that have arisen since enactment of the DMCA and suggested that 

the 3-year exemption process is a poor substitute for what is needed in this area. 

We are also recommending appropriate study of section 512 of 

the DMCA. These notice and take-down provisions were innovative 

in 1998, and they have largely served stakeholders well. But there 

are challenges now that warrant a granular review. Legitimate 

questions are coming from all quarters. However, a core question 

is how individual authors are faring under a system that requires 

sending notices of infringement over and over and over again without relief. 

All other policy issues, those ripe for action and those ripe for 

study, are discussed at length in my written statement. However, 

I want to flag just two that we have reviewed extensively, the fair 

use doctrine and the ‘‘making available’’ right. In studying all the 

relevant scholarship, legislative history, and jurisprudence, we 

have concluded, as have others, that in each case, the best course 

of action would be to leave these provisions untouched. 

I will end with Copyright Office modernization. We have greatly 

appreciated the Committee’s deliberations and public discourse on 

this topic. We have worked to be transparent about systemic deficiencies and future expectations. It’s an exciting opportunity to 

rethink the Copyright Office in the 21st Century. And at the request of Ranking Member Conyers, I have elaborated on these 

issues and my perspectives in a recent letter. I believe the Office 

requires more secure legal footing and greater operational independence in order to carry out its duties effectively and to reflect 

the incredible significance of the copyright system in the digital 

age. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman for the privilege of testifying. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pallante follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

ATTACHMENT 
40 
41 
42 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Ms. Pallante. 

We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions for 

the witness. And I will be begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. 

And, Ms. Pallante, I think you know where I’m coming from 

when I say this: If we could just take exactly what you said and 

not have a hearing and do it, we would be fine. But we have to 

have a hearing. 

Ms. PALLANTE. I’m all for that. 

Mr. MARINO. And we will proceed that way. 

I first want to thank you for your diligent work in advising this 

Committee in our extensive oversight. Your insight is an invaluable 

process that helps us get through this. Your frameworking of the 

system the way it is and where it should be is very remarkable. 

And I’ve never heard such a precise, accurate, complete report to 

Congress done in less than 10 minutes. So I thank you for that. 

As we move forward, wrapping up through this review, it is clear 

that several changes must be made to bring the Copyright Office 

and copyright law into the 21st century. And I know no one is 

going to do it better than you. We have to modernize the Copyright 

Office, being chiefly—that’s the number one thing among what has 

to be done. 

But, first, I would like to request that I be able to enter a statement from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that outlines their 

views on copyright reform, which includes their echo of support for 

restructuring the Copyright Office. Do I hear any objection? Hearing none, then so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

Mr. MARINO. Ms. Pallante, the idea for an efficient, searchable 

database seems to have a lot of support. Can you tell us what you 

believe you and your team would need in terms of resources, personnel, et cetera, in order to create and maintain such a database 

that will get us into the second half of the 21st century? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you, Mr. Marino. So I agree that the Copyright Office database is a key piece of the digital economy, and we 

have actually several databases that are not connected. So one 

thing we have to do is make sure that the registration database— 

that is, when people apply for registration and receive certificates— 

is connected to the recordation database, that reflects later transactions in the marketplace, including licensing of those works. And 

then that database, that chain of commerce needs to reflect 

metadata and connect to private sector databases where people can 

be found and licenses can happen. 

So, in terms of resources, I would say two things: We should look 

at the fee schedule that we currently have, and we should figure 

out what, if anything, the Committee would like us to do in terms 

of charging for capital expenses. Right now, our statute allows us 

to charge for cost only, not future cost. That’s something that has 

come up in our appropriations hearings. It’s an interesting question. Obviously, it would have to be carefully calibrated to be reasonable. Beyond that, some degree of taxpayer support I think is 

important because I don’t think you should put the database and 

the cost of the databases on the backs of copyright owners alone. 

So many user communities and aggregators also use—the general 

public uses the databases. So, that said, I think that the lion’s 

share of it can be through fees. 

Otherwise, I think in terms of technology, we have to have the 

ability to focus our own staff on our technological needs and not 

have what we need diluted through, perhaps, what the Library, as 

a bigger agency, needs. That’s been a big problem for us. 

Mr. MARINO. My next question, on the issue of depositing their 

works for purposes of registration, I’m told there are limited instances in which a party can simply apply and produce a copy in 

digital form. Is this true? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. So it’s a vestige of the relationship of the 

Copyright Office to the Library. And, in analog days, when one registered and provided a physical copy, the Library became the archive for that copy. Today, we don’t need preservation-quality 

works to register them. We need a data-driven system where people can register on iPads and other mobile devices. So that is true. 

Mr. MARINO. And, in 50 seconds, my last question, can you describe the system used for parties to register in order to receive the 

safe harbor under DMCA? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Are you talking about our database? 

Mr. MARINO. Yes. 

Ms. PALLANTE. So that has been pending for some time. We have 

a rudimentary version of it that has been in place since 1998, when 

the DMCA was enacted. Three years ago, we did a rulemaking and 

provided guidance as to how to update that so it’s more interactive 

and interoperable. And, because our IT is managed by the Library 

of Congress, it is one of many projects still pending in that office. 
49 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. And we’ve come in under the wire by 

15 seconds. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, the 

Ranking Member, Congressman Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Marino. 

And I want to congratulate you, Ms. Pallante, you took 35 pages 

and boiled them down to 10 minutes in a very excellent way. 

In your written statement and oral statement, you suggest that 

there are policy issues that warrant studies and analysis, including 

section 512, section 1201, mass digitization, and moral rights. I 

would like the Copyright Office to conduct and complete reports on 

those policy issues, and we’ll work with the Chairman on making 

a formal request. Is that compatible with all of our discussions and 

all your writing? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. A strong copyright system requires a strong 

Copyright Office, obviously. And there’s consensus to restructure 

the Copyright Office to bring it into the 21st century and to 

strengthen the copyright system. We think it hasn’t been given the 

appropriate attention considering its importance. You already provided a response to my February request for your views on restructuring the Office. And I’ve got a couple followup questions. 

In your letter, you urge Congress to decide soon on the organizational structure of the Office. What kind of a realistic timeline for 

Congress addressing the restructuring do you have and why? 

Ms. PALLANTE. That’s an excellent question, Mr. Conyers. I 

think, ideally, you would do it in this Congress. And my reason for 

saying that is because—— 

Mr. CONYERS. As soon as possible. 

Ms. PALLANTE [continuing]. Because we have a situation where 

we need to map out the next decade really. And we either have to 

do that in the current structure, where, for example, we’re making 

IT investments for the copyright system through the Library’s central IT governance process, or we’re doing it in a way that’s more 

targeted to the copyright system. That’s not theoretical. We actually have a recordation system that is paper-based. We’ve done all 

of the analysis for that. We’re ready to bring it online, and we need 

to know whether we’re doing that in our own IT infrastructure and 

subject to our own IT needs or through a general agency model. I 

also think that some of the policy issues that are interesting to this 

Committee—small claims, orphan works—would be greatly improved if you could structure the agency itself properly. 

Mr. CONYERS. Very good. I’m going to combine my last two questions because I know the light is going to flash. The Copyright Office provides an impartial voice for copyright policy in Congress 

and the Administration. How would it continue to do so under the 

different approaches you’ve suggested as an independent branch? 

And, finally, how would the different approaches you suggested in 

your letter affect your Office’s future funding? And would this impact fees for the copyright community? 

Ms. PALLANTE. So it’s a big question, obviously. We’ve been in 

the same structure for—two big questions—we’ve been in the same 

structure for 118 years. We have been a department of the Library 

of Congress, so not a subagency, not an agency. During that time, 
50 

we have served the Administration, and we have had a very close 

relationship with Congress on copyright policy, every major revision since we were created in 1897. 

Interestingly, although we perform executive branch functions 

and serve Congress, our legal status is unclear. Recently, the Department of Justice, in a music case, in a CRB case, said that when 

the Library of Congress is performing copyright functions, it is 

clearly in the executive branch. What we are asking you to do is 

to codify the structure that we are all comfortable with and have 

known for over a century, which is an independent structure where 

we are impartially serving everybody. In that model, the President 

would appoint the next Register, the Senate would confirm the position, but the Congress would decide the term, and the person 

would be free to advise Congress as well as the Administration, 

without interference, in the way that it always has worked. It 

doesn’t disrupt the Administration or their IP experts but, in fact, 

confirms the coordinating role that now occurs. 

In terms of funding, we are two-thirds fee-funded right now. As 

I said, we might be able to look at charging for capital costs. Big 

copyright owners, large ones, have indicated they’re willing to do 

that if they get services back that reflect that investment. But, no 

doubt, there will be some capital improvements. What I would suggest is that those capital improvements are a great investment in 

the digital economy, though. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. This is your third time before 

us. And each time is as good as it gets. And it gets better. I welcome your coming before the Committee so much. 

And I appreciate your testimony. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Congressman Issa. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Ms. Pallante, it’s good to have you here again. I want to pick up 

where the Ranking Member left off because I think it’s very important. When you came into office, as you know, I was extremely 

pleased. You talked in terms of things that must get accomplished. 

But today’s hearing brings us a lot of information about studies in 

which you want to do more studies. And you already are a fairly 

independent agency, in spite of your lack of certainty in certain 

areas. How do we get you from studying to proposing? And how do 

we get you from proposing to doing? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Well, we would love to be able to be more handson and help the copyright system function. So that is the vision 

that I think—— 

Mr. ISSA. No, I’m talking about in your organization. I’m not 

talking about your affecting—because you’ve been very good, and 

your predecessor was, in telling us what we ought to do in copyright law. And I appreciate that. But I looked to the Constitution 

before I came in. And I’m okay with our role. 

What is it going to take for you to come from studies to real, concrete proposals, dollars and cents, ‘‘this is what we need’’? Look, 

you’re the chief executive of an agency. Once the laws are set—and 
51 

they are currently set—when you fail to perform, you have two 

choices, as a member of your board, so to speak, you have two 

choices: Come to us and tell us you don’t have a solution or come 

to us and tell us you do have a solution. You’ve come to us with 

studies. My question today—and I’m not trying to be in any way 

the bad guy here. I support you. I thought you started well, but 

now I’m beginning to see, after 3 years, a pattern of we have these 

studies and we want more studies. When are we going to see, beyond your desire to be an independent agency and have that codified, when are we going to see solid proposals not on what we do 

but on what you can do or what you cannot do? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you, Mr. Issa. We have proposed recommendations for technology infrastructure and technology recommendations that are fairly precise. Those were done with the 

full public participation of the copyright community. And we published that in February. And that was also referenced by the GAO 

recently. So I think we have been fairly proactive about saying 

what we need. We need our own technology enterprise architecture, 

distinct from the Library. We need our own technology infrastructure, our own technology staff. And we need to make sure we have 

targeted IT investments that are not synergized with the Library 

mission. So we have been actually very precise about that. 

In terms of fees, we have been very precise that we need an updated fee allocation so we can begin to charge for capital costs. 

In terms of authority, I am not the chief executive of the agency. 

I’m the head of a department which is run by the Librarian of Congress. So the question, I think, that we are asking you is: Do you 

want us to put further investments in that structure, or do you 

want to give us the authority legally to do something different? 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Let me read you back your own words because 

I think you’ve given us a lot of what I asked for: One, you don’t 

have enough money to update the Copyright Office to the level that 

the IT system needs; two, you don’t have internal expertise to update the Copyright Office to that level; and, three, the Librarian is 

not going to give it to you, nor do they have it. Is that pretty close? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Almost. What I’m saying is that we don’t have 

the authority to have our own IT staff or control. 

Mr. ISSA. I left that part out. 

Ms. PALLANTE. I would love to—— 

Mr. ISSA. I left that part out because if I understand correctly, 

you need more money and you need a working IT system and you 

lack the expertise in-house and you believe that it does not exist 

within the Library system. 

Ms. PALLANTE. It does not. And we do not have the authority to 

duplicate it. 

Mr. ISSA. So the request here today—and I know my time is expiring, Mr. Chairman—the request I see here today, the solid proposal that I want to go away from this with is: One, you need more 

money; two, you need an IT system that works; and, three, we have 

to figure out how we structure your getting that IT system that 

works, either, A, making sure the Library has it, or, B, finding an 

agency or a structure that would cause you to do so. Is that correct? 
52 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. Except I would say this. That the IT system 

being divorced from the head of the Copyright Office has been a 

terrible model. 

Mr. ISSA. No, no, I understand that. I understand that you are 

looking at a structural IT system that meets your needs. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Correct. 

Mr. ISSA. I cannot presume today that we would do anything except find a way to work it under the current structure, albeit, independent of the Librarian’s needs. So, given that, that is what you’re 

asking for? 

Ms. PALLANTE. I think that’s accurate. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I have a hundred more questions. But 

that is the best answer that I could possibly hope for on one of the 

root problems that we have in having the Copyright Office meet 

the 21st century needs. And I thank you for your indulgence. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, Congressman Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to begin by thanking Chairman Goodlatte for conducting 

the comprehensive review of copyright law and of the Copyright Office that we are now concluding. Over the course of these 20 hearings, we have learned a lot about what is working and also what 

needs to be improved. It’s now our task to put this knowledge into 

action. 

Fortunately, the Copyright Office has helped guide us through 

these difficult issues. And I appreciate all the assistance that you, 

Ms. Pallante, and your staff have provided us throughout this review process. I particularly appreciate your call for the United 

States to join 70 other countries around the world in providing fair 

compensation to visual artists through a resale royalty and your 

comprehensive report on music licensing. 

Along with my colleagues Marsha Blackburn, John Conyers, and 

Ted Deutch, I recently introduced the Fair Play Fair Pay Act to 

correct several longstanding injustices that plague music creators. 

This legislation would ensure that all artists are fairly compensated regardless of where their music is played or when it was 

recorded and would create a technology-neutral system whereby 

Internet radio is on an equal footing with AM/FM, cable, and satellite services. 

Ms. Pallante, you mentioned in your testimony that music licensing issues are ripe for action. Do you believe that Congress should 

move forward with legislation, such as the Fair Play Fair Pay Act, 

to enact the full public performance right? If so, why do you believe 

this is an urgent matter that Congress should address? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you, Mr. Nadler. I think that the Fair Play 

Fair Pay Act is an excellent legislative framework. It reflects a lot 

of the findings of our study. On the public performance right for 

terrestrial radio, in particular, which I understand to be the focus 

of your question, I’ll say this, it’s indefensible as a matter of law 

and, frankly, embarrassing as a matter of policy that the United 

States does not pay public performance—for the public performance 
53 

of terrestrial radio to the creators of the music. We are out of step 

with the entire rest of the world. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I think it’s very well put, very eloquently put. 

Similarly, do you believe it’s important for Congress to take action now to enact platform parity, where all radio services play by 

the same rules? If so, why? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. That was one of the major conclusions of our 

study. I think it was a conclusion that everybody knew was a long 

time coming. We have been regulating the music industry for a 

century. We, therefore, have all these disparate rates and grandfathered clauses that are really, really difficult to apply, do not 

serve the digital economy, do not serve new entrants to the digital 

marketplace, definitely do not serve creators. And beginning to look 

at parity across platforms is a crucial first step. 

Mr. NADLER. It’s a first step toward? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Toward a balanced music bill that reflects the 

21st century. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Switching topics, do you think that the time is ripe for legislation 

on the issue of resale royalties for visual artists? In your testimony, 

you mentioned that several of the recommendations in your past 

reports have been included in the bill I introduced this Congress, 

the American Royalties Too Act of 2015. Can you explain why this 

bill would be a good foundation, in your opinion, if the Committee 

were prepared to act? 

Ms. PALLANTE. I think it’s an excellent foundation. And we really 

enjoyed doing that study because we, again, are out of step with 

about 70 countries around the world in the way that we treat visual artists. They operate differently under the Copyright Act from 

others in that their works are unique. And the value of their works 

is tied to the uniqueness, not the proliferation of copies, as in a 

book or a film where you’re pricing it according to those copies. So 

we would really like to see visual artists generally fare better 

under the Copyright Act because their contributions are critical to 

our heritage and to the digital economy. We just recently issued a 

Federal Register notice asking for even more information about 

how photographers, graphic artists, and illustrators are faring 

under the Copyright Act as a follow-on process to your request for 

that study. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Going back to music, online music service providers today struggle to obtain accurate and comprehensive 

ownership information about the music on their services. Often 

such information is incomplete, not up to date, simply unavailable, 

or not in a format that is universally useable. The lack of ownership information prevents artists and composers from being paid in 

a timely manner. It also disincentivizes new service providers from 

entering the digital music space because of the threat of statutory 

damages for failure to appropriately license or pay creators and 

other copyright holders when they don’t know who they are. What 

reforms do you think might be appropriate to remedy this situation? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes, so, again, another major focus of our public 

process was data. Data is everything to the digital music market-
54 

place. In some instances, there is data. And, in some instances, 

there is a lack of coordination of data. In other words, sometimes 

there’s data missing. Sometimes it’s the coordination of existing 

data that’s the problem. So we proposed a central authoritative 

public database. We recommended that it be operated by a nonprofit entity that is government mandated, along the lines of 

SoundExchange. Licensees could pay royalties for the unidentified 

works into that entity, and that would solve their exposure to liability. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Let me just thank you for your testimony and for your work. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [presiding]. Thank you, Register Pallante. I’m 

going to go ahead and give my statement since I’m late getting 

here, and then I’ll go straight into my question, but a brief statement. 

Two years ago, this Committee began the first comprehensive review of our Nation’s copyright laws since the 1960’s. During these 

2 years, we have had a total of 20 hearings with 100 witnesses, had 

hearings that covered broader topics, such as the role of technology 

and copyright in our economy, to more specific topics, such as the 

scope of copyright protection and fair use. 

Our first witness was the Register of Copyrights, Ms. Pallante. 

She returns this morning and has given her perspective on what 

the Committee has learned over the past 2 years and to update us 

on the in-depth studies that the Copyright Office has completed 

during this time. The Committee recognizes the strong, in-depth 

analysis routinely conducted by the Copyright Office. The Committee has always expected the advice of the Register being provided to Congress on copyright policy issues and the role of the 

Copyright Office itself to come from her independent perspective 

without filtering or direction from others. The Committee welcomes 

her forthrightness about the challenges her office faces, as well as 

what options Congress should consider in order to meet her legal 

requirements and the needs of the copyright community. 

As the copyright review hearing process proceeded, each witness 

was essentially limited to speaking on the topic of that particular 

hearing. However, there are a few participants in the copyright 

system that care about only one copyright issue. Over the next several months, the Committee will be reaching out to all stakeholders 

to invite them to share their views on the copyright issues we have 

examined over the course of our review so far as well as any others. 

Even since we began our review, there have been several new 

Copyright Office studies, new technologies, court decisions, and 

even changes in business models. So we look forward to hearing 

from stakeholders on all of these important issues. During this 

process, we also encourage all participants in the copyright system 

to continue their dialogues with each other. Progress in copyright 

policy requires all parties to work together. Although it is certainly 

easier to discuss copyright policy with a traditional ally, copyright 

policy will not advance unless the lines of communication are open 

among all participants. 

Finally, I’m going to my questions. 
55 

You recently released a comprehensive music study, recommending a series of changes to the music licensing system to improve it. Is improving the existing music licensing system preferable to shifting it to a free-market system with robust 

antimonopoly controls so that market forces determine prices rather than the government? 

Ms. PALLANTE. The goal is most definitely ultimately the free 

market. I would completely agree with you on that. What we did 

was take a century-old regulatory process and try to move it in 

that direction incrementally but also progressively. So if you want 

to completely dismantle all regulation, many people would be very 

supportive of that. I think our concern would be the timetable for 

doing that and how small actors would fare without the regulatory 

protections that have served them and consumers fairly well. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Smaller copyright owners and users have indicated that they struggle with a complex copyright law that is difficult to navigate. Is overall clarification of the existing statute just 

as important as updating the statute itself? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. There is no question that copyright law 

touches everybody, everybody in a modern culture, in a modern nation, in modern global world. And it’s unlike other laws in that respect. It affects everybody. So that is something that our Office 

would presumably be able to help the Congress with by taking on 

more of the education and guidance role. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Committee has heard numerous and sometimes conflicting comments about copyright remedies that range 

from a not very functional system to extreme financial penalties divorced from actual harm. Does this wide range of comments simply 

reflect different opinions? Or can everyone’s comments all be accurate, indicating that we have a remedy system that is not focused 

properly? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Everybody is right. I think our remedies are critical to the functioning of the Copyright Act. You can’t have exclusive right, a system based on exclusive rights without meaningful 

remedies. They would be hollow without remedies. Can we provide 

more guidance to courts? Possibly. Can we make licensing work 

better so that we’re not in litigation and so that remedies play a 

more productive role rather than a hammer? Yes. But whether it’s 

actual damages, injunctions, or statutory damages, they have been 

with the Copyright Act since 1790 in some instances. So it’s very, 

very, I would be very, very careful about amending that quickly. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. This Committee traveled to New York City for 

a field hearing on first-sale issues. There are clear differences between analog and digital items. But how should the law treat 

mixed goods? 

Ms. PALLANTE. This is a great instance of our Copyright Act 

intersecting with what our consumers want. And we do live in a 

global marketplace. People do want to obtain the best prices and 

the best goods. There is a lot to be said for that model. And I think 

our stakeholders who are copyright owners are adapting to that. So 

I would probably monitor that situation at this point. I don’t see 

a need for congressional legislation, anyway, at this point. 
56 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. Those are my questions. We are 

going to have to stand in recess for the speech by the Japanese 

Prime Minister. 

However, we do have time to take one more. 

And so the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, 

Ms. Lofgren, for her questions. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate this hearing. And I just wanted to make a quick 

statement. In your testimony, there’s some things I agree with. 

There’s some things that are reminiscent of SOPA. And I just want 

to state for the Netroots that, to the extent that there are SOPAlike elements, I’m still against them. 

I want to talk about the IT system. I agree that the IT system 

needs to be updated. But I want to talk about the whole idea of 

having taxpayer money allocated to this function. I realize from 

your testimony the constraint really has been created by us because of the forward funding. But the USPTO budget is $3.2 billion, and it’s 100 percent fees. And it just seems to me that that 

ought to be the model here. Your budget is much smaller. But 

there is no reason why the taxpayers should be funding this any 

more than the taxpayers should be funding the Patent and Trademark Office. I just think that it’s possible to do. We have very successful industries in the content area. And I just am eager to work 

with you to explore that further. 

I also want to talk on section 1201. And I was looking up and 

down the dais here, realizing there’s only a few of us left who were 

actually here when the DMCA was adopted. And 1201 caused me 

a lot of heartburn at the time. And it still does. And so here is one 

of the questions I have—and I had then—which is, do you believe 

that fair use is a defense to circumvention under 1201? 

Ms. PALLANTE. I do not believe that the way you enacted the 

statute, that chapter 12 is subject to section 107. It is not part of 

the core Copyright Act. So, no, not legally. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I agree with you. And it’s a major problem. Because without a fair use exception, the digital locks could be used 

to eliminate a fair use or an otherwise authorized use. Digital locks 

could be used to perpetuate only monopolistic practices, not content 

at all. And so I’m hopeful that as you are thinking about 1201, that 

we think, not just about the exceptions—and I think your idea 

about forwarding the approval—of prior approval, but as the exemptions have proliferated, I think it tells us something about the 

underlying defect in the statute. 

Now, sometimes when you say this, people assume, well, you’re 

for infringement. I’m not actually for infringement. But I am for 

eliminating monopolistic practices that hide behind copyright. And 

I am for not using copyright to cripple technology innovation that 

has nothing to do with protecting copyright. And I’m also for making sure that the fair use exception is not destroyed through misuse of technology. 

Now, I was interested in your cybersecurity exception issue and 

the need to expand it. In your mind, what would a cybersecurity 

exception look like? What would it encompass? 

Ms. PALLANTE. I would really want to talk to experts in that area 

before commenting on that. 
57 

What I can say with confidence is that having cybersecurity research needs subject to a 3-year exemption process under the 

DMCA conducted by the Copyright Office and the Library is probably not the best way to go for the Nation. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I very much agree. I recently met with some researchers, academically based, and I think they had probably been 

over to the Copyright Office as well. And they are good guys. They 

are exploring cybersecurity issues. And to do so, they have to actually do some breaking. And we want them to because we want to 

find out what the holes are. But they’re very concerned. They’re a 

law-abiding group. They don’t want to be behind a law violation. 

Have you set up a group that would help you to think about this 

exception? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Nobody has asked us to look at the exception, but 

we would like to do that. And it would be an interesting group because it would be very much in need of technical experts and security experts and people who are really looking out for the security 

interests of the United States. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I see my time is about to expire. And the Committee needs to get 

over to the floor to listen to the Japanese Prime Minister. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. 

And the Committee will stand in recess until noon. And we 

thank Ms. Pallante for her patience. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Committee will reconvene. 

When the Committee recessed, Members were asking questions 

of our star witness, and we’ll resume by recognizing the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Chu, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

First I’d like to enter into the record statements from the Copyright Alliance and Creative Future on their support for a strong 

copyright system. I’d also like to enter a statement from Sound Exchange into the record. 

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

the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

Mr. Chair, thank you for holding this important hearing today. 

After speaking with so many diverse stakeholders from the Los Angeles region and throughout the country, it’s clear to me that we 

have to bring the Copyright Office into the modern age. We need 

a Copyright Office that serves the needs of owners, users, and the 

American public. And that includes giving the Office independence 

and sound legal ground to perform its core mission to administer 

the Copyright Act and resources to invest in a workable IT infrastructure that makes sense for a creative future. I look forward to 

working with you, my colleagues, on the Committee, the Register, 

and the impacted stakeholders to produce a viable solution. 

Register Pallante, you and your team have done such a great job 

despite the challenges you faced from limited resources, staffing 

issues, to outdated technologies. It seems to me that you’re faced 

with the challenge of running an analog office in a 21st century 

world. In addition to this, you’re limited in your decisionmaking, 

given how the Office is currently structured under the Library of 

Congress. 

When Professor Brauneis last testified in the Committee, he 

urged Congress to give serious thought to the vehicle of an independent agency. 

What are your thoughts to creating an independent agency instead of placing the Copyright Office within the Department of 

Commerce or the Patent and Trademark Office? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you, Dr. Chu, for the questions, and thank 

you for recognizing my staff as well. I don’t know how I’m so lucky 

to have the staff that I do. 

I think that those questions go right to the heart of what copyright is about. So if the Office is in the Commerce Department, it 

clarifies a few things. It clarifies what the Department of Justice 

has said is the case, which is namely that we are by and large an 

executive branch agency when we are performing copyright functions. And since all we do in my shop in the Library is copyright 

functions, it’s clear that we are the part of the Library that is engaged in executive branch functions. 

So the question becomes, does it matter? And what does that 

mean for the Library, and what would one lose if we were in the 

Commerce Department? 

I think the principal thing that you lose as the Congress is the 

unfettered and impartial advice of the Copyright Office, which you 

have had since 1897. I think this Congress and all Congresses before it have been very hands-on in copyright policy. The House in 

particular has led the way in discussions about what a balanced 

Copyright Act should look like from the very beginning. And I personally would be heartbroken to see that part of our job compromised, diluted, or even eliminated by putting us only in the executive branch. 

That led us to the conclusion that an independent model would 

really honor what we have always been, and that means that we 

have served Congress impartially, and we have also, though, supported the Administration. In treaties, in trade, we work with the 

Department of Justice very carefully because we administer the 

law. And we didn’t want to disrupt what’s already the case in the 
66 

Administration, meaning that the Congress has provided that the 

Register has a statutory relationship with the Under Secretary, 

who heads the Patent and Trademark Office, and a statutory relationship with the IPEC, that is in the Executive Office of the President. The only issue is that the Register is not at the same level 

and runs the copyright system and the Copyright Office. So, in 

looking at potential conflicts with the Library, because the Library 

has a library mission and a library view of copyright law, in the 

future and looking at the kinds of resources and focused technology 

and staffing that we need, it led us to believe that separating it out 

but honoring the tradition as leanly as possible was the right answer. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you for that. 

I’d also like to ask a question about the small claims process that 

could be an alternative to Federal court. I hear from so many small 

business owners, and the general consensus is that going to Federal court is very, very costly. And that is why I believe we must 

establish a small claims court for creators that need it the most. 

Can you discuss how a system could be established and how it 

will function alongside the Federal court system? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. Thank you. 

So this Committee requested a report from us, and we did a very 

public study for over 2 years about what a small claims process 

could look like. The overwhelming response of the creative community is that they are priced out of Federal court, even where statutory damages are available. And, without meaningful enforcement 

or resolution of contractual issues in cases, not necessarily fullblown major precedent-setting litigation, but just trying to resolve 

gridlock and claims, they need something else. And the small 

claims process that we developed constitutionally would have to be 

voluntary. Both parties would have to agree to it. We think both 

parties would in the circumstances that we’ve laid out. It would be 

capped at $30,000. That’s certainly up to the Committee to change 

or amend or further deliberate on. We thought that number came 

out of our process. And we think it’s critical because we don’t want 

a Copyright Act in the 21st century that provides exclusive rights 

and no way to effectively enforce them, license them, protect them, 

and monetize them. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Trott, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TROTT. Thank you, Chairman. 

I want to thank our witness this morning, Ms. Pallante. I’ve been 

looking forward to your testimony. I’m new here in Congress, but 

everyone I’ve spoken with has commented to me on how insightful, 

helpful, and pragmatic some of your suggestions and insight has 

been for this Committee, and one of the few people that I’ve heard 

about since being here that everyone says great things about, and 

it doesn’t happen too often in this town. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you. Thank you so much. 

Mr. TROTT. So thank you for being here. 
67 

I agree with your earlier comments about how you envision reorganizing the Copyright Office and the independence and the autonomy you need. 

At a high level, what additional costs—you know, how much do 

you think it would cost to do it. Particularly how much in technology needs to be invested, and what’s the cost there? Do you envision the new Office, as reorganized, would be giving guidance on 

issues that come up, and would you also envision new positions like 

a chief technology officer? At a high level, you know, what’s it look 

like, and how long would it take to accomplish? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you. Thank you for your kind words about 

the Office. 

I think you have a big opportunity here to be innovative and create something that you haven’t really had before in the Federal 

Government. So small, nimble, innovative, forward-thinking, flexible agency. Independent, in so that it can serve the Congress as 

well as the Administration, protecting the impartial role that we’ve 

always had. To do that, I have said that we need to have a staff 

that is probably more and more data- and tech-driven. Right now 

I have created a CIO position. I did that last year and hired a deputy as well to begin to do more planning and take more direct responsibility. 

What I think you need to know is that when the GAO came in 

and audited the Library’s IT and they found severe deficiencies— 

it’s a public report—that was not unknown to us. A lot of people 

knew about it. But, unfortunately, I think in making the 39 recommendations to the Library that they made, they also said you 

shouldn’t have multiple CIOs in one agency. You shouldn’t have 

multiple tech staff in one agency. And, although they didn’t say it 

that precisely, it’s very clear from reading the report that that’s 

their recommendation. 

What I said is: It hasn’t worked. We’ve been in the Library’s IT 

system for quite some time. We are not a primary customer. The 

Library’s mission is their first and foremost mission, and I think 

it should be. But it makes it impossible for me to move forward if 

the steps I’ve taken to develop a small IT staff with hopes of building out a better one—and the IT staff includes data people, which 

are really business people. So what kind of metadata are they 

using in the music community? And these are our customers. It’s 

hard for me to build that out if we’re getting the opposite suggestion from auditors. 

And, to be fair to the Library, they’re in a difficult position because they’re being told from me that’s not going to work and from 

the auditors that that’s what they should do. So that’s why I asked 

this Committee to please weigh in on it. 

Mr. TROTT. And the timing, how long do you think once we have 

plan in place and you get some direction and the budget if you had 

to—— 

Ms. PALLANTE. It’s a great question. I’ve thought about this a lot 

and I’ve talked to the stakeholders about this. I hope this isn’t too 

simplistic. I would hope the Committee would do what it thinks is 

right for the copyright system by elevating it appropriately to reflect the significance of the system so that it’s no longer just a department in the Library. 
68 

And then I would suggest that you have an effective date that 

allows you a transition plan to figure out what part of the budget 

should come from fees, what the 3- to 5-year costs are, what the 

long-term costs are. And I think it’s an exciting situation because 

I think in a modern government you should expect a lean, small 

agency to borrow and purchase services from across the government. Like, the Office doesn’t need to have its own HR department. 

It doesn’t necessarily need to create data standards from thin air. 

So I think it could go actually fairly innovatively because our customers are in that space now. 

Mr. TROTT. Great. Well, thank you. I agree with everything you 

said, and the only disappointment is, with all those tech savvy people, you’re going to need you probably don’t need someone like me 

that has Betamax and tape cassettes still. 

So, you know, one of the things that I’ve—since I’ve been here 

there have been a number of groups have come and talked to me 

about the performance rights issue. And there was an earlier question, and I can’t discern necessarily whether you think the fair play 

legislation that’s been introduced is going to solve that problem, 

but, you know, how should I approach that? Because you have the 

strain necessarily between the broadcasters and then, you know, 

the artist who, you know, believe in a willing seller/willing buyer 

concept. 

How should that be looked at by Members, in your opinion? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Well, almost always our Office finds the right balance in these discussions because almost always everybody has a 

legitimate point of view. I have to say, our Office has been looking 

at the public performance right for over 20 years, and it is an example of an issue where we are just on the wrong side. We are out 

of step with virtually every industrial country in the world, and it 

is, as I said earlier to Mr. Nadler, it’s just frankly indefensible as 

a matter of policy that we are not paying creators when their songs 

are played on radio. They’re subsidizing the profits of broadcasters 

in that particular issue. There are plenty of issues where broadcasters have legitimate rights and they should be looked at, but 

that is not one I agree with them on. 

Mr. TROTT. Great. Thank you for being here today. 

I yield back. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

Recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, first I’d like to join the chorus of voices heaping 

praise on Ms. Pallante and her office. Thank you for your leadership, your thoughtful, very thoughtful, analysis of these issues and 

the tireless efforts that you and your staff put in in really strengthening the intellectual property of our country. We appreciate it. 

I want to follow up on this issue of independence, and the understanding that I have that a lot of us I think have come to conclude, 

certainly from today, that the Register would be in a better position—significantly better position if it gained more independence 

through Copyright Office modernization, which I think is one thing 

where there’s broad agreement and I hope that we move forward 

on. 
69 

But following up on this issue, when you were here with us last, 

you somewhat reluctantly discussed the challenges created by the 

fact that the Copyright Office is forced to rely on technical infrastructure at the Library of Congress, including its network servers, 

telecommunications and security operations, in spite of the vastly 

different mandates that the Library and the Copyright Office have. 

And you touched on that a bit here today. 

It seems to me like your inclusion under the umbrella of the Library of Congress, however well intentioned, is hampering the 

work that you do beyond simple technical challenges. It’s not just 

about the technical issues. And I’m sure that—and I acknowledge 

that your response has been somewhat limited here today, but I 

will simply say on your behalf, if I may, that it’s hard to see how 

the Copyright Office can rise to the many challenges of the 21st 

century work that you do without dramatically more independence 

and dramatically more flexibility. I would just make that point. 

I also wanted to follow up on Mr. Trott’s last point. One of the 

primary recommendations of your recent music licensing study is 

that Congress should adopt a uniform market-based rate setting a 

standard for all government rates, and I agree with that. And 

when the Music First Coalition showed me this graphic that we’re 

about to hold up that depicts the current system for the various 

forms of radio, it solidified for me how unnecessarily complex and, 

in fact, as you’ve just pointed out, how unfair the current system 

is. You spoke about the—I mean, your words, that it’s indefensible 

that we don’t pay creators when songs are played on the radio. I 

wholeheartedly agree with that. 

Do you agree that all forms of radio should be governed by the 

same fair-market-value rate standard? 

Ms. PALLANTE. I do. And I think what we’re suggesting in our 

report is that we move toward the free market and we not subsidize or grandfather in oddities that are a reflection of a centuryold system that’s been cobbled together. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Great. And, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to submit for 

the record a considerably smaller version of this graphic that I presented. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
70 
71 

Mr. COLLINS [presiding]. Oh, without objection, but the bigger 

version will be fine as well. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you. 

And, Ms. Pallante, when you appeared before the Committee in 

March of 2013, you and I had an exchange about how to keep the 

copyright review effort timely and relevant, and you said at the 

time that although we love the trade associations that visit us on 

a daily basis—— 

Ms. PALLANTE. We do. 

Mr. DEUTCH [continuing]. As we all do, getting around them, as 

you said then, sometimes in getting to other kinds of creators 

would really by instructional. So, you said, I would also probably 

recommend that if we were to have roundtables, that we get of 

Washington a little bit, go somewhere where people make from a 

living from writing songs at their kitchen table. 

I wonder if you’ve had an opportunity to follow through on that 

and meet with real working creators outside of Washington. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes, in fact, and I remember that exchange. In 

fact, that’s been the most inspiring part of the work for me for the 

last 2 years. I have met with recording artists across the country 

in multiple cities, and to the Recording Academy’s credit, they did 

not filter or script those meetings. I think there was some squirming at times, but it was a very inspiring set of meetings because 

I was really hearing from creators about why they make the livings 

they make, why they care about culture, why they care about creativity; how incredibly disciplined they are and trained in their 

various disciplines; and how they really just want to make sure 

that they are credited and compensated fairly. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And, ultimately, as we go about our work here, it 

is that commitment to their craft, the discipline that they exercise, 

that not only wants them to be compensated, but I think requires 

us to fairly compensate them, ensure that they are fairly compensated for the work that they do. 

Ms. PALLANTE. I agree with you. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thanks, Miss, Pallante. I yield back. 

Mr. COLLINS. Gentleman yields back. 

And now, at this time, the Chair recognizes himself for his questions. And before I start I want to ask unanimous consent to—and 

put into the record Intellectual Property Guidelines for the 114th 

Congress. It’s an open letter. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 

Mr. COLLINS. Ms. Pallante, you’re back, and it’s good to have you 

here. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you. 

Mr. COLLINS. Your staff and you, we have probably developed a 

very good relationship I feel like, and it’s because I think of your 

frankness. I think it’s because of your staff’s willingness to be open 

about where you are in the situations that you’re facing. I think 

also, just as a little bit for those who’ve been here for the hearing 

as well, I think the good part about it it is time for us to act. It 

is time for Congress to act. You have gave ideas and you have laid 

it out fairly well, and I do appreciate that. And we’re going to talk 

about a little bit of that today in my time of questioning. 

But one of things I want to go back to, it’s been mentioned a lot, 

is the copyright in the music marketplace that we have spoke of 

before. Those guiding principles, as you know, and most everybody 

in this world and hopefully in this room know that I introduced the 

Songwriter Equity Act, along with my friend from New York as 

well, to make modest fundamental changes to section 114 and 115 

of the Copyright Act, and I believe it comports with the principles 

of fair compensation that you talk about. 

Do you agree that the Songwriter Equity Act is ripe for congressional consideration and passage? 

Ms. PALLANTE. I do. It’s a great framework. It reflects everything 

we said in our report on those issues. What we provided you with 

is a bigger ecosystem with more issues. We gave you all the music 

issues in one bundle. 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes, you did. 

Ms. PALLANTE. We thought that would be more fun for you. We 

obviously defer to you. If you want to pull out some issues that are 

more ripe than others. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, and can I just—because we’ve had this conversation. And I think sometimes that getting this whole thing— 

we’ve looked at this sort of ball of copyright, and I think one of the 

things is what is putt read out there? Where are we going with this 

so that the community, not just music, but publishers, everything— 

and writers all look at this. And so I am anxious to sort of see 

where we’re going, and I appreciate your comments on that. 

If we don’t act, do you see a down side in the marketplace on 

these issues, especially from the songwriter and creator standpoint? 

Ms. PALLANTE. I’m sorry. One more time. 

Mr. COLLINS. If we don’t act, if Congress doesn’t act, we continue 

to sort of move—do you—what kind of downside do you see from 

your position. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Oh, we are already torturing our music community, right, on music issues. So I don’t know if your question’s 

broader than music, but in that space alone—— 

Mr. COLLINS. It is. 

Ms. PALLANTE. So, in general, the fundamental principles of the 

Copyright Act are strong. We have a duty to protect exclusive 

rights, provide flexible exceptions, but limited, and to provide 

meaningful enforcement. So many of the provisions that we have 

now are from the analog world or older, from the turn of the century. And we’re trying to reinforce the incredible creative output of 
77 

the United States. And to do that, we owe all creators, all investors 

in the marketplace and the public a strong Copyright Act. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. One of the things—and you’ve always been 

very blunt, and I appreciate that. And for anyone who would take 

your bluntness to be anything else, consider it—you know, I would 

just say to them, this Congress, and especially this Congressman, 

would take to grass the exception if anyone was to say anything 

about that. So I’m going to ask direct questions; we’ve talked about 

this. On administering, because, in your report, it’s very broad, especially for music, and we’re not even touched the other parts, and 

I believe that leads to something that I said in one of these hearings earlier, that I’m very concerned your department would have 

a trouble handling that given the current structure. 

So if the Copyright Office was not located in the Library of Congress, you know, and did not act as a subdepartment under the authority of the Librarian of Congress, could you more effectively administer and sustain our national copyright system? 

Ms. PALLANTE. There’s no question. 

Mr. COLLINS. And, again, I don’t think that’s a fault of anyone. 

I think it’s the development of the process. But you do report to the 

Librarian of Congress. Correct? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Absolutely. My whole staff does. 

Mr. COLLINS. And really from a constitutional perspective, does 

that not at times lead to a conflict, inherent? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yeah. It’s a very interesting constitutional question. So, legally, there are potentials for conflict all the time. The 

Library has a library mission. The Librarian’s being asked to oversee two very different missions at the same time. There’s an accountability question. The Librarian is appointed by the President 

and, therefore, can appoint inferior officers like the Register. That’s 

the legal accountability. 

But the practical accountability is that Librarians serve multiple 

Presidents generally, and so the accountability as a practical matter is less clear. After the—there was a case where the Department 

of Justice basically said you are in the executive branch, not the 

legislative branch, which opens the door for us not to be able to 

serve Congress the way we have in the past. So that’s why we’re 

asking for a secure legal footing. 

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

have because I am concerned about sometimes basically you getting 

contradictory directives from the Librarian’s mission, and no offense to them. I think they have that perfect mission to do. They 

need to encourage—but when we talk about IT, we talk about all 

these other things, you are in a different situation. I want you to 

continue, you and your staff, to keep that fight going because you 

do have Members who are intensely interested in what’s going on 

there because I believe it is the very underpinning of our foundation for the next generation of economic development and also the 

creators that have been around forever. So I do appreciate that. 

With that, my time has expired, and I recognize the gentlelady 

from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank you for your presence here 

today, and I know that Members have been going in and out because we’ve been detained in other meetings, and in fact there is 
78 

one overlapping now. But I think it’s very important to, one, emphasize how important copyright and intellectual property is to this 

Committee, to this Congress, and to the Nation, and I might say 

that you are particularly important today because the prime minister of Japan in his speech just finished and indicated his commitment to protecting intellectual property, of which I think he received a standing ovation. So you might want to use that quote or 

comment on how important it is to do that. 

Let me go to the whole question of finance and staffing. In your 

testimony, you mentioned that the Copyright Office has one of the 

smallest staffs within the government generally, and so I would be 

interested in how that’s impacting on your work, and as we’re 

going forward, have you looked at—I know you looked at the President’s budget, but we’re getting ready to go forward. We are absolutely opposed to sequester. We think it has had a dastardly impact. But I’d like to know presently what your situation is with 

your copyright staffing. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you, Congresswoman Jackson Lee. 

I think we should be lean and innovative, and I think when we 

add staff, they should be the kind of staff that can take us into the 

21st century. That said, we’ve lost over 100 people since 2007, and 

we only—you know, we have under 400 FTEs filled now. That’s 

just way too small to do the kind of complex work that we do, and 

it’s much smaller than the staff that previous Copyright Offices 

had when they were doing less complex things. So, while I think 

we should stay small, I think we are cut to the bone at the moment. 

One thing that has been rather frustrating for me is that in my 

conversations with the community, the tech sector, and the content 

industry, it became clear that we should have more hands-on technology expertise. So I took the step of hiring the first Copyright Office CIO, chief technologist, and filled that position last year, and 

then hired a deputy as well for the purpose of figuring out what 

our infrastructure should be, what our databases should look like, 

what our enterprise architecture should be, and then to build out 

the kind of staff that we need slowly, but using our budget allocations. 

What was frustrating for me is that because best practices in the 

Federal Government generally avoid duplication, when the Government Accountability Office audited the Library and made its 39 

recommendations about how to fix that very severely deficient system, one of the things they said was that there shouldn’t be multiple CIOs. There shouldn’t be duplications of staff. So I am really 

caught in a bind on this, and I really am asking the Committee to 

help because I frankly think it’s ludicrous that the Copyright Office 

wouldn’t have data experts and IT staff. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I’m going to follow up on that line of questioning. 

Let me just quickly ask this question about modernizing the Office with the structure of greater legal and operational independence. And what should Congress consider in that new structure? 

And let me get in another question as well because I think this 

goes to how you do your job. And I like the word ‘‘lean but effective.’’ I like to say that. Lean and ineffective or with the shades 
79 

down and the doors locked are not helpful to creating the economic 

engine that you want to create. So the other question I would have, 

I’m wearing my Homeland Security hat, we just passed two 

cybersecurity initiatives last week, when I chaired the Transportation and Security and Infrastructure Committee, we recognize, 

and I know that number’s gone up, 85 percent of the cyber ownership is in the private sector, but the private sector submits through 

the copyrighting process their data. 

So the question I’d ask is the question about legal and operational independence, but also how important it is to have a techsavvy office—— 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. That puts for you, the government, an infrastructure to protect the intellectual property that you 

are now the custodian of or the requests that come in, the applications that come in. If you would include that in your coming together of your answer and the kind of investment and planning you 

think we need for a tech-savvy office that is 21st century. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Thank you so much for the question. That is exactly the crossroads that we find ourselves at. How do we build out 

the tech-savvy office that actually not just serves the digital economy but interacts with it in a way that facilitates it? So when people are submitting to us for registration digital works, they want 

them to be secure. They want them to be effective for registration 

purposes. And they want the technology to accept the data that 

they’re sending us and the files, not to not recognize it because 

we’re using antiquated technology. I don’t think that’s too much to 

ask when people are seeking legal protection and, hence, remedies. 

They then want the chain of commerce to reflect the entire copyright transaction. So people register with us, and then later they 

might license their works. And then we record those licenses, and 

the metadata should be the same global identifying information 

that is used in the private sector. That is exactly the vision that 

you should expect for the 21st century Copyright Office. 

And as to cost, we, as I said, are two-thirds fee-funded now, but 

that is because we are also intertwined in the Library’s IT. That 

could be viewed as a subsidy. My argument would be that that is 

not a subsidy that is working for the copyright community. And so, 

as we look at the proper ratio of taxpayer investment and fees, we 

should go back to what you just said and think about what it takes 

to invest in the economic engine that is the Copyright Act for this 

country. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And do you think the operational and legal 

independence would help you as well as you look forward just restructuring or structuring the Office? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yeah. I think it’s essential because if you don’t 

have that directive, you have an agency that is being required to 

find synergies even though the missions are different and to use IT 

investments for multiple competing purposes. And even in the system we have now where people are paying us for services, nonetheless the money needs to be allocated in this kind of central IT environment, and it hasn’t worked, and I hope that the Library makes 

all the improvements it needs to make for the national Library, but 
80 

I don’t think it’s fair or logical to ask the Copyright Office to wait 

until that happens and then to expect that it will work. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, and I thank you. I saw the 

Chairman with the gavel up. I’d ask unanimous consent for an additional minute just to pose a follow up on the questions that I just 

gave her. 

Mr. COLLINS. At this point, we have a hard meeting coming up 

at 1 o’clock they’re going to have to clear the room for. So at this 

point—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thirty seconds then? 

Mr. COLLINS. How about 15? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Okay. But she’ll have to ask her question. 

We know that Korea and Singapore have strong copyright protections. Should we have that in the TPP? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Strong copyright protections in the TPP? Should 

we have strong copyright protections in the TPP? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes. We know Korea and Singapore have—— 

Ms. PALLANTE. We should most certainly have strong copyright 

protections as negotiating goals of the TPP. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And the Congress—you’re asking us on some 

of the items that you’ve just said to help you with the tech and the 

funding, staffing, and the operational control. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. You are our oversight Committee. We need 

you to direct us. 

Mr. COLLINS. And the gentlelady—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. COLLINS [continuing]. Had a wonderful Georgia 15 seconds. 

With that, the gentleman from New York is now recognized. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank the Chairman, and I thank the Register for 

your testimony here today—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield back. 

Mr. JEFFRIES [continuing]. And your—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you. Since the time is expired, that’s wonderful. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you for your testimony here today, and for 

your thoughtfulness on a whole host of these issues. 

Let me just begin by just trying to get a deeper understanding 

of your perspective as it relates to the need for independence. 

I think the three things that have been under consideration in 

terms of a different model from the current one, would, one, obviously, involve a Presidential appointment but the Office remaining 

within the Library of Congress; two, taking the Office out of the Library of Congress and placing it perhaps within another department, most often discussed is the Department of Commerce; and 

then, three, creating an independent agency. 

It’s my understanding, of course, that you strongly support the 

third option, an independent agency. Is that correct? 

Ms. PALLANTE. That’s correct. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And so that would involve both a Presidential appointment—— 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES [continuing]. Of the director. Correct? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. 
81 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And, presently, you’re appointed by the Librarian 

of Congress. Is there a fixed term to that appointment, or do you 

serve at the pleasure of the Librarian? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Serve at the pleasure of the Librarian. The Librarian has the power to appoint and remove the Register and the 

entire Copyright Office staff, actually. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, in the context of an independent agency, 

would you suggest, or is it your view, have you given any thought 

to whether a fixed term would be appropriate connected to the 

Presidential appointment to establish and embed the independence 

of the agency? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. So that’s a great granular question. My understanding is that in order to make it an independent agency, 

which is a way of saying that you are preserving the role that the 

agency would play with Congress, because if the agency is in the 

executive branch fully, completely, it will be subject to the normal 

clearances of executive branch agencies when it speaks to Congress. So, in order to preserve that 118-year tradition, the President would appoint the Register or the director, the Senate would 

confirm the position, that’s the accountability that you need because the system is so important. But, by Congress setting a fixed 

term, Congress is saying you’re not serving at the pleasure of the 

President completely. You’re serving subject to a term that Congress has enacted. That’s point number one to make it independent. 

Point number two is that you would specify that that agency, 

when called by Congress, will speak impartially and freely. 

And, thirdly, you will decide what the regulatory powers of that 

agency are. Could just be registration, recordation, statutory licenses. It could be small claims. You could add things over time, 

but it’s completely in your discretion. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And, in your view, is that important, given the 

long tradition and involvement in Congress with respect to copyright and the fact that our authority to create an intellectual property system in fact traces back to Article I, section 8, clause 8, in 

the Constitution? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. And, you know, you didn’t have a Copyright 

Office the entire time, but you have had one since 1897, and copyright policy has always been very hands on in Congress. It has the 

only position in the government that allows the kind of balancing 

of equities that is essential to a good Copyright Act. The Supreme 

Court has affirmed this multiple times that it is in Congress’ power 

to do that and to decide the overall regime. So I would be personally quite heartbroken to see that dissipated. I think it served the 

Nation well, and I think that an agency that continues to serve 

Congress but also continues to interact in a coordinated manner 

with the Administration is a great model for the 21st century. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And in order to have sort of a modern, fully functional, first-rate, 21st century Copyright Office, how important is 

the budget autonomy that would be provided in an independent 

agency context that might not necessarily exist if you were to be 

resident within the Department of Commerce or even remain within the Library of Congress even as a Presidential appointee? 
82 

Ms. PALLANTE. I think it’s crucial. So you have never had a Register tell appropriators directly and freely what the Office needs because that’s not how budgets work in the Federal Government. You 

wouldn’t have it in the Commerce Department either. What you 

will always have, unless you give budget autonomy, meaning that 

the head of the Office can tell the appropriators what the needs are 

and then have a direct conversation. If you don’t have that, you 

will always have Copyright Office needs being weighed along 

things that are not about the Copyright Office. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. As my time expires, one last question. With the 

leadership of my good friend from Georgia, Representative Collins, 

in a bipartisan way, several of us have become interested in resolving inequities that exist in the compensation of songwriters. And 

Congressman Collins touched on this to some degree, but I just 

wanted to ask one followup question. You mention that music licensing issues broadly defined are ripe for congressional action. Do 

you think that there’s room for us to precisely consider the dynamic 

that songwriters find themselves in in terms of their compensation 

or perhaps moving toward a willing buyer/willing seller standard, 

and also allowing the rate courts to have an opportunity to consider how artists are compensated on the song recording side and 

factoring in what is fair? 

Ms. PALLANTE. Yes. So we thought those provisions in the Songwriter Equity Act were right on the money. I think we have talked 

extensively today about why a willing buyer/willing seller is the 

right move toward the free market. A better reflection of it than 

a regulated rate, but the issue about what the courts are allowed 

to consider is a crucial one, and we are fully supportive of changing 

that. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Mr. COLLINS. I thank the gentleman from New York. 

As we get ready I just want to—something that was brought up 

is your office has been since 1897. I think what’s amazing is, is 

some of our creators, and especially in the music community are 

still dealing with laws that were created only 15 to 20 years after 

that. That seems to be ripe, if not overripe, for a change. But I also 

want to remind—you also represent a vast industry that is—that 

is growing and changing. I hold in my hand here something that 

I found over the weekend. And if you look through these, here is 

something that you’ve heard me mention before about why songwriters matter. These are handwritten songs and poems that were 

written from my wife’s grandfather and her brothers. 

Ms. PALLANTE. Is that right? 

Mr. COLLINS. They’re somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to 60 

years old. They were written probably at a kitchen table or on the 

side of the road. But, for everyone who is here, and for the reason 

that operate your office and what you do every day, there’s a book 

to be written, there’s a song to be sung. There’s these creative 

rights that I believe the Copyright Office is there to protect, not to 

inhibit but to promote creativity like’s in this folder right here. 

And, with that, that concludes today’s hearing. Thanks to the 

witnesses for attending. 
83 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witnesses and additional materials for the record. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(85) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Response to Questions for the Record from the Honorable Maria A. Pallante, Register of Copyrights and Director, United States Copyright Office 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 

f 
92 

Material submitted for the Official Hearing Record* 

Letter from James H. Billington, The Librarian of Congress 

Letter from Ruth Vitale, Executive Director, CreativeFuture; and 

Sandra Aistars, Chief Executive Officer, Copyright Alliance 

Letter from Rick Swindelhurst, President, Fairness in Music Licensing Coalition (FMLC) 

Letter from Michael Beckerman, President & CEO, Internet Association (IA) 

Recommendations of the Library Copyright Alliance (LCA) on 

Copyright Reform 

Letter from Christopher J. Dodd, Chairman and Chief Executive 

Officer, the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA) 

Letter from Daryl P. Friedman, Chief Industry, Government, & 

Member Relations Officer, The Recording Academy 

———— 

*Note: The submitted material is not printed in this hearing record but is on file 

with the Committee and can also be accessed at: http://docs.house.gov/Committee/ 

Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=103385. 

Æ