U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

64–222 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–847 

OVERSIGHT OF THE OFFICE OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 23, 2010 

Serial No. J–111–99 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MATT MINER, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 184 

WITNESSES 

Almeida, Paul E., President, Department for Professional Employees, AFL– 

CIO, Washington, DC .......................................................................................... 20 

Bienstock, Caroline, President and Chief Executive Office, Carlin America, 

New York, New York ........................................................................................... 25 

Espinel, Victoria A., Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Office 

of Management and Budget, Washington, DC .................................................. 3 

Hirschmann, David, President and Chief Executive Office, Global Intellectual 

Property Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC ..................... 22 

Meyer, Barry M., Chairman and Chief Executive Office, Warner Brothers 

Entertainment, Inc., Burbank, California .......................................................... 17 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Paul E. Almeida to questions submitted by Senators Coburn 

and Grassley ......................................................................................................... 36 

Responses of Victoria A. Espinel and Caroline Bienstock to questions submitted by Senators Coburn, Grassley and Hatch .............................................. 41 

Responses of David Hirschmann to questions submitted by Senators Coburn 

and Grassley ......................................................................................................... 77 

Responses of Barry M. Meyer to questions submitted by Senators Coburn 

and Grassley ......................................................................................................... 84 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Almeida, Paul E., President, Department for Professional Employees, AFL– 

CIO, Washington, DC, statement ....................................................................... 88 

Bienstock, Caroline, President and Chief Executive Office, Carlin America, 

New York, New York, statement ........................................................................ 97 

Copyright Alliance, Patrick Ross, Executive Director, Washington, DC, letter . 108 

March 24, 2010, letter ...................................................................................... 110 

Report ................................................................................................................ 133 

Espinel, Victoria A., Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Office 

of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, statement ............................... 170 

Hirschmann, David, President and Chief Executive Office, Global Intellectual 

Property Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC, statement .. 175 

Meyer, Barry M., Chairman and Chief Executive Office, Warner Brothers 

Entertainment, Inc., Burbank, California, statement ....................................... 186 

Yates, James M., Missouri, statement ................................................................... 196 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT OF THE OFFICE OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., Room SD– 

226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Franken, Hatch, 

Grassley, and Coburn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. There are many things going on on the Hill, 

but this whole area of intellectual property is one of great concern 

not only to me, but to many here. Intellectual property fuels the 

American economy and creates jobs. 

The Chamber of Commerce estimates that American intellectual 

property accounts for more than $5 trillion. IP-intensive industries 

employ more than 18 million workers, many of them in my own 

State of Vermont. 

Just as intellectual property is crucial to our economy, counterfeiting and piracy of that American intellectual property slows our 

growth. We recognize the value and importance of IP throughout 

our Nation’s history. 

It is actually included in our Constitution; a strong, but balanced 

system for protecting intellectual property is not uniquely a Democratic or Republican priority. It is something that joins both parties. 

The pro-IP bill enacted last Congress was co-sponsored by 22 

Senators, 11 Democrats, 11 Republicans, and it passed the Senate 

unanimously. Patent reform legislation is another shining example 

of our bipartisan work in this area. 

Along with Senators Hatch, Sessions and Kyl, we forged bipartisan consensus, legislation to improve the economy and create jobs 

and not add to the deficit. It shows what we can do when we work 

together. 

Today’s hearing is the first oversight hearing with the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. It is her first appearance 

before this panel since her confirmation hearing before this Committee last November. And we welcome Victoria Espinel back to 

2 

the Committee to discuss the joint strategic plan for intellectual 

property enforcement. 

She testified here in her confirmation hearing, got a unanimous 

vote out of the Judiciary Committee, and was confirmed unanimously on the floor of the Senate. 

Congress created the IP enforcement coordinator position in response to concerns of numerous agencies within the government 

sharing responsibility for protecting intellectual property who were 

not sharing information and coordinating as well as they should. 

In order to enforce the laws, we have to have it as efficient and 

effective as possible. And intellectual property crime takes so many 

different areas. It could be a counterfeit, an inferior semiconductor 

that then finds its way into one of our military aircraft. 

It could be the counterfeit and unsafe pharmaceutical products 

used to treat an illness, pirated software. Mob-run Cyberlockers 

subscription service has stolen American movies, as Reuters reported just yesterday. 

In all these forms, it hurts our economy, results in the loss of 

hundreds of thousands of jobs, and billions in tax revenues. But it 

can also put our health and safety in jeopardy here in this country 

and put the health and safety of our troops fighting abroad in jeopardy. 

So the first important task for the enforcement coordinator was 

to create a joint strategic plan, and I applaud Ms. Espinel for the 

way she has worked on that and the openness of it. 

I am concerned that increasingly the Internet is being used to 

steal intellectual property from books and journal articles, software, movies, music. This is no longer an emerging nuisance, but 

a very real threat to our economy. 

The AFL–CIO recently cited studies estimating that digital theft 

of just movies and music cost more than 200,000 jobs. That is unacceptable under any economic climate, and it is devastating today. 

So I wish to work with Senator Hatch, Senator Whitehouse and 

others on legislation that is going to target those that profit directly from taking American property. 

I thank Ms. Espinel for appearing before the committee. And 

something we normally do not do in this committee, if there is good 

news to report from the U.S.-Algeria World Cup match, I will report it. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I have been on this Committee for a third of 

a century and I think that is the first time such an announcement 

has been made. 

Ms. Espinel, of course, had previously served as the Assistant 

U.S. Trade Representative for Intellectual Property. She was chief 

trade negotiator for the United States on intellectual property 

issues. 

She received her undergraduate and law degrees from Georgetown. Those of us who got law degrees from Georgetown appreciate. She has a master of laws degree from the London School of 

Economics. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Ms. Espinel, please go ahead. 

3 

STATEMENT OF HON. VICTORIA A. ESPINEL, INTELLECTUAL 

PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. ESPINEL. Thank you. Chairman Leahy, members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for your continued leadership on this 

important issue. 

I sit here today humbled by my recent confirmation and service 

to the President as the first Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator on a vital issue facing American businesses and American consumers in the 21st century. 

Congress created my office in an important first step at reform, 

and the response has been overwhelmingly supportive. I feel privileged to have the opportunity to work with you on this effort. 

Congress tasked the Administration with developing and implementing a U.S. Government strategy to tackle a wide range of 

problems associated with intellectual property enforcement, and 

today I am pleased to present you with that strategy. 

This first strategy reflects the hard work of and coordination between numerous U.S. Government agencies, including many dedicated public servants and law enforcement officials, the public, the 

private sector, and my small, but hardworking team. But the release of this strategy marks the commencement of a long process, 

and much hard work lies ahead. 

Our country needs America’s ingenuity now more than ever. It 

is America’s innovation that drives our economy and keeps our people working, and that makes our enforcement efforts all the more 

critical. 

In this strategy, we have attempted to capture the most significant issues that require immediate attention. We will be targeting 

counterfeiters and pirates, not those engaged in legal and legitimate activities. Increased coordination, cooperation, and 

prioritization must accompany this first step; and, legislative action 

may be required in order to fulfill our goals. 

The United States has always been a global leader in developing 

new technologies. We lead the way in bringing new pharmaceuticals to consumers, inventing tires that keep families safe on 

the road, developing environmentally conscious technologies, creating innovative software, and producing films, music and games 

that are craved by consumers around the world. 

However, our leadership in the development of innovative technology and creative works also makes us a global target for theft. 

Counterfeiting and piracy affects a vast range of businesses and industry sectors. As part of our efforts to develop the strategic plan, 

we asked the public for input so that we could understand directly 

their concerns, and we received over 1,600 responses. My office reviewed all of those responses and posted them all on our Website. 

I also met with companies across a broad range of America’s industries, as well as unions, academics, and consumer groups, to engage them about where the problems in intellectual property enforcement lie and to find out what we can do to make things better 

for the many Americans and American industries that depend on 

intellectual property for their success. This strategy reflects the 

recommendations that came from the public. 

4 

I want to emphasize that the development of this strategy was 

an interagency collaboration. The Department of Justice, Homeland 

Security, Commerce, USTR, HHS, State and others all worked tirelessly to make this an excellent and forward-leaning strategy. 

The overarching mission is to ensure that all of the agencies that 

have a hand in enforcing intellectual property are working together 

in a coordinated fashion and in a manner that is consistent with 

the priorities of this Administration. 

With increased cooperation and coordination, this plan has the 

ability to alter our approach to enforcement for the better for many 

years to come. To do so, we are taking some bold new steps and 

we look forward to working with you. 

Just to highlight a few items. The U.S. Government will launch 

an initiative to collect and analyze data to determine the jobs and 

the exports that are generated by the intellectual property industries. 

We will also collect data on the resources that we spend on intellectual property enforcement to make sure that we are using those 

resources as efficiently as possible. This information will be valuable to better inform our approach for years to come. 

We will lead by example. We are establishing a governmentwide 

procurement working group which will prepare recommendations 

on how to reduce the risk of the purchase of counterfeit products. 

We will also review our policies and practices to promote the legal 

use of software by those who are doing business with the U.S. Government. 

This Administration is strongly committed to transparency in our 

policymaking. Both the process through which the strategy was developed and the substance of the strategy reflect that. We will increase information-sharing with right-holders. We will work to ensure that victims of crime and the public are appropriately informed of our activities. 

In order to reduce duplication and waste, we will ensure that 

Federal agencies are coordinating, cooperating, and offering broad 

participation on this issue. We will improve the effectiveness of our 

personnel that are overseas to combat intellectual property infringement. We will strive to station those personnel in the countries of top concern, and we will improve coordination of our capacity and training so that the foreign governments have the tools necessary to strengthen enforcement on their own. 

We will work with foreign governments to increase foreign law 

enforcement efforts, and we will promote enforcement of our rights 

through our trade policy tools, such as trade agreements and the 

special 301. 

We are establishing a counterfeit pharmaceutical interagency 

Committee to examine the numerous problems associated with unlicensed Internet pharmacies, health and safety risks in the United 

States due to the distribution of counterfeit pharmaceuticals, and 

the proliferation of counterfeit drugs abroad. 

To further guard against counterfeit drugs, we will increase our 

enforcement efforts in cooperation with relevant agencies, including 

Customs, the Food and Drug Administration, and DEA. 

In order to reduce counterfeit goods coming into our supply 

chain, we want to encourage voluntary disclosure; to encourage imVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:37 Feb 10, 2011 Jkt 064222 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\64222.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
5 

porters to come forward when they learn that counterfeit drugs 

have infiltrated their supply chain without their knowledge. 

We also need to facilitate cooperation to reduce infringement occurring over the Internet. It is important for the private sector to 

work together to find practical and efficient solutions to the problems on their own. 

In the meantime, we will be, also, exploring alternative measures 

to reduce piracy online. For example, we will go after foreign-based 

Websites and Web services that violate our intellectual property 

rights using a combination of tools, including law enforcement, diplomatic measures, and coordination with the private sector. 

We will also conduct a comprehensive review of our laws to determine if there are deficiencies that are hindering our enforcement 

efforts and to make sure that we are addressing those deficiencies. 

Finally, we will undertake a comprehensive review of our efforts 

to support our businesses, big and small, when they are navigating 

in overseas markets, including in China. 

I have stated some ambitious goals. This Committee has been 

steadfast in its fight for justice for the American people. I commend 

your leadership on these issues, and I look forward to working 

closely with this Committee in the coming months on improving 

our enforcement efforts here and abroad. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Espinel appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I believe in balanced copyright laws. The same 

day the Senate passed the Pro-IP Act, the Senate also passed legislation that Senator Hatch and I had to make it easier to use orphan works. 

When I look at online piracy, the criminal enterprises are stealing full-length feature movies made in the U.S., and then that 

money is being used to fund other criminal activity. Organized 

crime used to be involved in things like bootleg liquor and that 

generations ago. Now, they are involved in these things. 

Will you work with us on legislation that we can enact to allow 

us to shut down these kinds of Websites that are being used by organized crime? 

Ms. ESPINEL. Yes. This is an issue of great concern to us and we 

would look forward to working with you on such legislation. 

Chairman LEAHY. Now, one of the concerns we had and one of 

the reasons why, again, several on this committee, in both parties, 

wanted to do this coordination, is that, we were afraid that some 

of the actions that should be taken were not being taken, because 

there was not good enough coordination among the various agencies. 

Are you finding you are able to bring these agencies together or 

are you finding resistance? And be frank. 

Ms. ESPINEL. Thank you, Senator. I have found, in the process 

of putting together this strategy, that there has been a tremendous 

amount of coordination and excellent input from the agencies. 

I really want to underscore actually how committed the agencies 

have been to this process. We worked very, very closely with many 

of them, including the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, 

Commerce, the USTR, State, HHS, and they have worked very 

6 

closely and collaboratively with us to make this strategy as strong 

as possible. 

There are a number of things in the strategy that go to exactly 

the issue that you raised. I will highlight just a few, but we have 

committed to increase coordination of our domestic law enforcement agencies to make sure that they are working together as well 

as possible, including increased information-sharing. 

Chairman LEAHY. If I could just go on that a bit. That coordination, the local law enforcement, there are a lot of things they could 

do if they had the tools, the expertise, and the coordination; am I 

correct? 

Ms. ESPINEL. Yes, you are correct. And, in fact, there are items 

in the strategy that go to that issue very directly; coordination with 

our state and local law enforcement, so that we can maximize the 

resources that we have and help support the Federal law enforcement efforts that we have ongoing. 

We also want to make sure that our personnel that are stationed 

overseas are well coordinated both in country, so they are working 

together well as teams in country, and that they are getting good, 

clear guidance and priorities from the Administration back at 

home. 

We have committed to make sure that our training efforts are coordinated; that we are focusing on the countries of most concern. 

We are also establishing four new working groups. So in addition 

to the interagency Committee that we have created on intellectual 

property enforcement, we will be creating four new working groups 

on government procurement, counterfeit pharmaceuticals, economic 

analysis, and our international capacity-building and training efforts. 

Chairman LEAHY. One of the things I am very concerned about— 

I am trying to say this based on just what has been in the press, 

obviously. If there is a closed session—and I am sure you have seen 

some of the classified material on it. 

But if we are having counterfeit microchips and other materials 

in our Department of Defense chain or acquisition chain, I worry 

what that might do to our men and women who are on the front 

lines, and we are in two wars, and we have other responsibilities 

around the world. 

Is that something that you and the Department of Defense are 

looking at? 

Ms. ESPINEL. Yes, Senator. We share your concern. Selling counterfeit products to our military is reprehensible and must be 

stopped. We are working with the Department of Defense, as well 

as other relevant agencies to address this problem. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, I think it is safe to say that if you need 

help from this Committee or any other Committee on that, you will 

get strong bipartisan help. 

Ms. ESPINEL. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Then, last, you raised the issue of IP theft and 

international organized crime. The Attorney General has stressed 

that. 

Is this a priority in trying to coordinate between Homeland Security and Department of Justice? I know you have referred to this 

7 

already in your department, because if organized crime gets their 

hands into this, we have a real, real problem. 

Ms. ESPINEL. We share that concern, as well. We are concerned 

that this type of activity is very attractive to organized crime, because the profit margins are high and the risk is low. 

I think many of the things that we are doing in the strategy, including the increased coordination efforts that I mentioned, will 

help us better target all types of intellectual property crime, including those that are linked to organized crime. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Hatch. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome to the committee. We are very pleased with your work 

and what you are doing, and I really appreciated your comments, 

your opening comments. 

Today’s hearing is really history-making, because this is the first 

oversight hearing of the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. So I think that is a good thing. 

Let me just ask a few questions here that hopefully will help us 

a little bit. 

When you appeared before this Committee last year, I expressed 

reservations about placing your position in the Office of Management and Budget. As you know, I believe that the IP enforcement 

coordinator position would have been better suited with an organization that had a clear nexus to intellectual property concerns. 

Could you give us an update on how things are working with 

OMB and how many are working with you on your staff, and what 

is your annual budget? 

Ms. ESPINEL. Yes. So just let me start by saying that the Office 

of Management and Budget coordinates policy in a number of 

areas, and one of their roles is to make sure that the agency’s activities are consistent with the President’s priorities and the Administration’s priorities, and that is the role of my office, as well. 

I am lucky in this effort in that I am not alone. There are many 

agencies that are committed to this effort, and so I have the resources and the expertise of those Federal agencies to call on, as 

well as the resources and the expertise inside of OMB. 

Some of those agencies have been generous enough to supply me 

with temporary details in order to help with the development of 

this strategy. So I have a small, but very hardworking team. 

We are a new office, as you know. So we will be assessing our 

needs on an ongoing basis. But I would also just like to say I think 

I came into this job with a choice either to put together a very modest plan that would be easy to implement or put together an ambitious plan. 

It was my choice and the choice of the agencies that worked with 

me to put together a very ambitious plan, and I am confident that 

we will be able to implement it. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you. I noticed in the joint strategic plan 

that the first enforcement strategy action item is the establishment 

of a U.S. Government-wide working group to prevent U.S. Government purchase of counterfeit products. 

As you are well aware, counterfeiting and piracy are not just 

about downloading music or pirated software, although that’s bad 

8 

enough. These crimes affect all sectors of our economy, including 

high tech, pharmaceuticals, auto parts, the quality and safety of 

our food, just to mention a few. 

Take the semiconductor industry, for example. If fake chips find 

their way into many critical parts of our infrastructure, they can 

threaten the safety of not only our military and first responders, 

but the general public who rely on semiconductors to control their 

cars, planes, trains, medical equipment, or even power systems. 

What do you recommend we do to immediately halt this illicit 

and dangerous trade of illegal counterfeit imports? Now, you have 

given us some indications here and I have appreciated what you 

have said so far. 

Ms. ESPINEL. Thank you very much. The health and safety risks 

that are posed by counterfeit products are significant and of serious 

concern to us. 

Obviously, counterfeit products coming into the U.S. Government 

procurement supply chain, particularly our military and our law 

enforcement, is completely unacceptable and something that we 

need to address as a matter of immediate concern. 

As we say in the strategy, we have committed to working with 

the Department of Defense, as well as many, many other agencies, 

to make sure we are getting a handle on this problem and that it 

stops. 

There are other things in the strategy, as well, that I think will 

help us in this effort, including seeking to give more law enforcement authority so that FDA, CVP and others can help stop counterfeit products, including counterfeit pharmaceuticals that are 

coming into our country. 

Senator HATCH. Thank you. There seems to be a lot of misinformation regarding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or 

ACTA. In some cases, those who are intimately familiar with the 

actual text of the publicly available draft treaty documents have 

done the misreporting. 

Now, I recognize that you are not actively negotiating ACTA, but 

I would like your comments on whether ACTA would indeed 

change existing law and what role do you see ACTA playing in increasing the quality of international IP enforcement? 

Ms. ESPINEL. The ACTA negotiations are ongoing, as you know. 

I can say, and let me say very clearly, that the USTR and the Administration do not see ACTA as a vehicle for changing existing 

law. 

Let me also say that the ACTA negotiations, I think, are a critical component of our strategy to increase cooperation with foreign 

law enforcement and our trading partners in other countries, and 

the Administration is committed to concluding an ACTA that has 

strong intellectual property enforcement provisions as part of that 

effort. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment you for your leadership in the IP world and the things that 

you have done ever since I have been on this committee. 

I have appreciated working with you. You are an excellent leader 

in this area, and I just want to personally compliment you for your 

work. 

9 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. We have worked together on these 

things. As we have tried to demonstrate, it is not a partisan issue. 

We think we have some of the most innovative geniuses in the 

world here in the United States. We just want to protect what they 

do. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

your leadership in this area. 

Ms. Espinel, I want to thank you for coming to this hearing to 

speak with us again today. As I mentioned to you at your confirmation hearing, I am extremely concerned about Net neutrality. 

Today, a young kid in his basement in Owatonna, Minnesota can 

create a song and can, via the Internet, become an international 

sensation. If some company can pay for priority Internet access, 

that kid might not be able to have a shot. 

But Net neutrality is and must also be a matter of protecting 

lawful content and usage, and I am also extremely concerned about 

piracy on the Internet. I do not want what happened to the record 

industry to happen to the motion picture industry. I know that people sometimes in those industries get nervous when you talk about 

Net neutrality that lip service is given to piracy, but they do not 

believe it. ‘‘No, you are talking about Net neutrality, you cannot be 

concerned about piracy.’’ 

What I want to know is how do you put in place—and I asked 

this kind of last time—measures to protect against privacy that do 

not impede the free flow of information on the Internet? 

Ms. ESPINEL. We recognize the need for legal certainty and effective measures both to promote investment in the Internet and for 

our right-holders. Let me also say, as you pointed out and as the 

Chairman of the FCC has pointed out, that Net neutrality does not 

apply to unlawful content, including distribution of illegal copyrighted products. 

I felt when I took this job and I feel having now been in the job 

for a few months even more strongly that it is possible for us to 

preserve Net neutrality while still going after the type of illegal infringing activity that you refer to that is a priority for this Administration. 

Senator FRANKEN. I understand that. And maybe we can do this 

further down the road, talk about the kind of architecture in the 

Internet that we need to do that. You also talked about legislative 

action that might be needed to achieve our goals. And the Chairman talked a little bit about that, but I would like to pursue that 

further. 

But I do want to talk about medical device manufacturers in my 

home state of Minnesota. New ideas in medical devices can be a 

huge source of hope and a big help for Americans with medical conditions, and I want to make sure that we protect those intellectual 

property rights that encourage this innovation. 

But recently, people in India and China have been making counterfeits of these devices. Now, how are we going to enforce those 

rights there internationally? That is what I want to know. How are 

we going to enforce on medical devices? 

Ms. ESPINEL. Medical devices, among many industries, are facing 

significant challenges overseas, including in the markets that you 

10 

just mentioned. There is a whole—that is a great priority for us 

and a great concern for us. 

There is a whole section of this strategy that speaks to exactly 

that, to enforcing our rights overseas, and there are a number of 

recommendations in the strategy that go to that. 

Let me highlight one in particular. I think it is very clear to me, 

to our Attorney General, to the Administration as a whole, that we 

need to have the cooperation of our trading partners if we are going 

to effectively address intellectual property. 

We can pour resources and commitment into this issue, but unless we have their cooperation, it is possible for the United States 

to address this problem around the world effectively on our own. 

So there are a number of things in the strategy that go to exactly 

that issue, to make sure that we are making very clear to our trading partners that it is a priority for us that they enforce American 

intellectual property rights; that we work with our trading partners to ensure that they have the tools that they need in order to 

enforce our rights. 

There is good activity already happening now there, but I think 

there is more that could be done and this is our plan for getting 

that done. 

Senator FRANKEN. I just want to make sure that when we are 

doing our trade agreements and talking to our trading partners, 

that we have the leverage to be able to make that happen, and I 

know that is what you did in your last job. 

So thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. ESPINEL. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Coburn. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. Welcome. Following up on a little 

bit of what the Senator from Minnesota asked you. 

Do we have the cooperation of China now in enforcement of our 

intellectual properties? 

Ms. ESPINEL. Obviously, China is an issue of great concern. Obviously, there is much improvement on intellectual property that 

needs to happen with respect to China. 

There is much in this strategy that goes to that issue, but I also 

want to emphasize that this strategy is part of a larger Administration strategy with respect to China; and, in fact, I believe there 

are senior officials, Ron Kirk and Secretary Locke, that are testifying, I believe, at this moment on our overall China approach. 

Senator COBURN. But the answer is no. Is that correct? 

Ms. ESPINEL. The answer is that we need to see improvement in 

China, absolutely. 

Senator COBURN. The answer is we do not have the cooperation 

of the Chinese government. Matter of fact, in a meeting there 2 

years ago, the secretary of commerce of China told me personally 

he had no intent of honoring those properties, because they were 

a developing nation, even though they are a signatory to the WTO, 

which requires them to honor it. 

So just for the record, we do not have the cooperation of China. 

They are stealing our intellectual property. They are stealing our 

future today. 

Which services do you believe have made the most progress in 

strengthening intellectual property enforcement? 

11 

Ms. ESPINEL. In terms of the agencies of the U.S. Government? 

Senator COBURN. Yes, in terms of the agencies. 

Ms. ESPINEL. I can say with great sincerity that I feel the agencies that we work with most closely, and I will name those, have 

shown a tremendous commitment to this issue over the last 6 

months, and I expect that to continue. 

In fact, as much work has gone into developing this plan, the 

much harder work of implementing it lies ahead of us. So I want 

to thank them for the commitment they have shown, but also 

thank them for all the hard work, the increasingly hard work that 

they will be committing to this process as we move forward. 

We have worked very closely with the Department of Justice, 

with the Department of Homeland Security, with State, USTR, 

Commerce, Health and Homeland Services, particularly the Food 

and Drug Administration, and all of them have shown a great deal 

of commitment to this effort. 

Senator COBURN. Is it your plan to focus more on domestic intellectual property enforcement more so than international enforcement? 

Ms. ESPINEL. That is an interesting question. So I think in many 

cases, it is very hard, frankly, I think to draw sort of a bright line 

between them. 

For example, one of the things that we are focused on is coordinating our domestic law enforcement, but much of what our domestic law enforcement does is work to stop products that are coming 

in from overseas from entering our borders. So while that is a domestic coordination effort, it is going to support our international 

efforts. 

That is also true with the Internet, obviously. That is a tool for 

global distribution. So while there may be domestic efforts that we 

are undertaking there, much of that activity is going to address 

Internet activity that is taking place outside of our borders. 

There is an entire section of the strategy that focuses just specifically on actions to enforce our rights overseas, but I want to emphasize that much of what we are doing domestically will also have 

a positive impact on infringement that is occurring abroad. 

Senator COBURN. I want to thank you for the report, and I know 

it was not your responsibility to deliver it on time. It was due in 

2008 to the committee. But I do thank you for the effort that you 

put forward in that regard. 

Tell me what your comments are on the newly reconstituted Intellectual Property Task Force of the Justice Department. 

Ms. ESPINEL. We were very pleased that Attorney General Holder relaunched the task force. The task force has attacked this problem with vigor, and they have worked very, very cooperatively with 

us, with the other Federal agencies, with the Administration as a 

whole. I think it is a very good effort. 

Senator COBURN. How many enforcement actions have you seen 

carried out by them? 

Ms. ESPINEL. The task force that has been set up by the Attorney 

General is not—it is not their responsibility to take on operational 

cases. In other words, what the task force is doing is informing the 

overall policy approach and the prioritization and resources the Department of Justice will put into this effort. 

12 

And in that regard, I think there has been a great deal of energy 

and commitment to this. 

Senator COBURN. But do you recall or are you aware of the number of actions that the Justice Department has filed in terms of intellectual property? 

Ms. ESPINEL. I would rather not take the risk of giving you an 

imprecise answer. So if it is all right with you, I can check on a 

precise number and be back to you shortly. 

Senator COBURN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you 

for holding the hearing. We are a nation that is suffering a lack 

of jobs right now and one of the reasons we are suffering a lack 

of jobs is tens of billions of dollars in productivity and jobs that 

should be in this country have been stolen by those that violate 

international intellectual property rights, chief of which is China. 

Chairman LEAHY. You will get no disagreement here. Senator 

Hatch and I were just talking back and forth, because the two of 

us have worked on this for decades now. I know in my own state, 

so many of our jobs are based on intellectual property, we have become a high tech state, and the constant concern we have in that 

area. 

Senator Whitehouse, I am going to step out for a few minutes. 

But then if you would take the gavel, I will be right back. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [presiding]. I would be happy to. And I 

want to thank you, before you go, for holding this hearing. I want 

to join all of my colleagues in applauding your leadership on this 

issue and emphasizing how important this is, as Senator Coburn 

has just said, to our economy. 

In that context, Ms. Espinel, you indicate in your testimony that 

it is our leadership in the development of innovative technology 

and creative works that makes us a global target for theft. I would 

hazard that we are ‘‘the’’ global target for theft, not ‘‘a’’ global target for theft. 

But I wonder if you have any quantification of the loss to our 

economy from the piracy and theft of intellectual property, not just 

in the entertainment industry, but across biotech, high tech, pharmacy, consumer, defense, all these other areas in which we are at 

the wrong end of the intellectual property drain. 

Ms. ESPINEL. So I would say it is very difficult to quantify precisely the impact of infringement on our economy, because infringement—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE Orders of magnitude? 

Ms. ESPINEL [continuing]. Because infringement is illicit activity 

and it is difficult to quantify. Counterfeiters and pirates tend not 

to keep excellent records. 

That said, I think it is very clear and indisputable that we have 

a very significant problem on our hands, which is why the Administration is focused on fixing it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Orders of magnitude, tens of millions of 

dollars, tens of billions of dollars, trillions of dollars? 

Ms. ESPINEL. It is not my nature or inclination to speculate without precise data. I think it is—from what we hear, from what we 

hear every day from industries across this incredibly broad range 

of American industries—and I should say, even though I have done 

this work for a long time, I myself was surprised when we went 

13 

out to the public and asked to hear concerns and as I traveled 

around the country talking to companies how broad the spectrum 

of American industries was to come forward to tell us that they 

were suffering, both small companies and big companies. 

So I think it is fair to say that it is an enormous problem. I think 

it is having a significant impact on the U.S. economy. 

I am aware, as you may be, as well, that the ITC is doing some 

analysis of this issue, particularly with respect to activities that 

are ongoing in China, and we look forward to the outcome of that. 

I will also mention in this regard that one of the things that we 

have committed to do in this strategy is launch an initiative by the 

U.S. Government to start collecting comprehensive data across all 

the spectrums of American industry that depend on intellectual 

property so that we can—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, let me jump in and ask that you conclude your answer on that in the form of a written response to a 

question for the record, to get back with whatever data you have. 

The reason that I am asking this question is because from my 

point of view, it very much appears that this is an issue that average Americans do not appreciate, because the information is not 

out there about how significant it is. 

When it is defense contractors that are hacked and plans of 

fighter planes that are stolen, it is classified. When it is a biotech 

company that has its process stolen and replicated in China, it is 

not in their interest to disclose that or even really find out about 

it. They just want to kind of keep doing what they are doing. 

I think we have a significant under-appreciation of this. It would 

not surprise me if we are on the losing end of the biggest transfer 

of wealth, the biggest criminal transfer of wealth in the history of 

the planet right now. We are just being—every industry—just 

hoovered out of intellectual property, and I think, frankly, we do 

very little about it. 

So I think the more we can push on the enforcement, it will help 

our trade policies if we are showing really strong enforcement at 

home. 

Why is it that I can go, in four or five mouse clicks, to a pirated 

movie on a Website and find MasterCard and Visa supporting that 

criminal activity by having themselves there on the Website to 

pay? Why is it that we had testimony on this Committee that if you 

go to the Chinese competitor to Cisco, you can find the little personal quirks that people wrote into the software that they designed 

it for Cisco in the Chinese software, proving that they stole it, and 

we are OK with that, we have not done anything about that? 

Over and over again, you see an acceptance of piracy of our intellectual property that I think exists, the tolerance exists, because 

we have not been clear about how hard this hits our economy and 

how many industries it hits and how big the number is of what we 

are losing. 

So my time is going to run out on that, but I really hope that 

you will dedicate some effort to trying to get as solid answer as you 

can to my question and, in your important role as the IP coordinator, dedicate as much of your energy as you can to getting this 

message out to people. And you cannot do that if you cannot tell 

stories or give data. If all you can do is say words like ‘‘enorVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:37 Feb 10, 2011 Jkt 064222 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\64222.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
14 

mous’’—we hear the word ‘‘enormous’’ 50 times a day. It does not 

mean anything. 

We need stories, we need data, and then we can become very 

strong advocates for you and help you solve this problem. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to be able to 

stay very long. But this is such an important issue, I wanted to 

come by and explain that I had conflicts and could not be here. 

I think it is very, very important that we have this oversight 

hearing, because the situation is as serious as Senator Whitehouse 

has just stated. I am very interested in making sure that intellectual property rights are protected here in the United States and 

abroad. 

Because of that, I was engaged in the drafting of the legislation 

that created the IPEC position a few years back. I support improved coordination between U.S. Government agencies to go after 

bad actors and strengthen enforcement of our intellectual property 

laws. And I also want to make sure that we are doing our best to 

efficiently utilize limited resources and reduce duplication and 

waste. 

So I am looking forward to reviewing this proposed strategy and 

hearing how it can be improved for enforcement efforts against 

counterfeiting and piracy. And I am going to submit some questions for answers in writing. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. ESPINEL. Thank you, Senator. I look forward to it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Grassley. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse. 

And thank you for your work today, and to all the witnesses. 

I am very glad we are holding this hearing today. It is incredibly 

important to our state. In addition to the medical device industry 

that Senator Franken spoke about, we are now seventh in the 

country for Fortune 500 companies. We make a lot of things in 

Minnesota and we care very much about the protection of our products. 

In fact, as we move forward, I believe one of the ways we are 

going to get out of this economic rut we are in is through innovation and through actually even more innovation and more products 

and more new things. 

So I am very concerned about this international counterfeiting 

and the piracy that is going on. 

My first question is a specific one. I head up the American-Canadian Inter-Parliamentarian Group, and Senator Grassley sometimes goes to the meeting, and every time we push on this issue 

with the Canadians. And I know the Harper government actually 

asked the Prime Minister about this. 

I know they want to do more on this. But do you know anything 

about the status of the Canadian counterfeiting laws? Because 

there is a major problem, I know, for our movie industry and music 

industry and others with what is going on in Canada. 

Ms. ESPINEL. So let me first just say I completely agree with you 

on the importance of innovation and IP enforcement to our economy. 

15 

The President has made clear that it is the No. 1 priority for this 

Administration to get our economy back on track, and we feel very 

strongly that enforcement of our intellectual property rights will 

help support our jobs and promote our exports. So we are in complete agreement on that fact. 

Turning to your specific question with respect to Canada, we 

share your concerns with the Canadian system, and I appreciate 

your raising it. You may be aware that the Canadians have recently introduced new legislation. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. It seems like they do every year. 

Ms. ESPINEL. It has been an ongoing process with the Canadians. 

And you are right, the legislation has been introduced on this issue 

before. 

I think the latest bill that has been introduced is different from 

earlier bills in significant ways. One of those ways is it is focused 

on enablers. But we are still in the process of assessing that legislation. 

I think it is very important that Canada move forward to address 

the deficiencies in its system. I think it is important that they, in 

addition to the type of legislation that they have introduced, that 

they pass the WIPO Internet Treaties. 

As long as we are discussing Canada and given your interest in 

medical devices, I think it is also important that Canada make 

progress on its own border control. As you may know, they do not 

have sufficient law enforcement authorities for their border control. 

That has made it harder for their law enforcement officials to act, 

and we continue to encourage Canada to fix that problem. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Thank you. Senator Thune and I 

recently introduced a P2P Cyber Protection and Informed User Act, 

which focuses on these peer-to-peer file sharing programs, which 

are often a method for transporting copyrighted works. And I have 

been shocked at some of the stories we have heard more on the 

fraud front from our state of people who—someone goes home and 

they are working from home on the accounting for their company, 

a company of 100 people, and then they do not know their kid has 

one of these programs on and suddenly all the employees’ data is 

there stolen and basically used for identity theft. 

But my focus here is on copyrighted works with peer-to-peer. Do 

you know if that is addressed in the strategic plan and if there is 

a focus on that kind of computer theft? 

Ms. ESPINEL. So there are a few things in the strategy I would 

point to that go to this issue of the distribution of pirated material 

over the Internet, including with respect to P2P. 

First, we believe it is essential for the private sector to work together. So we are and have actively encouraged Internet service 

providers and others to work with the right-holders to come up 

with solutions that are practical and efficient to try to address this 

problem, and we believe that type of cooperation is very important. 

However, I also want to emphasize that it is not our position that 

we will sort of sit back and let the private sector deal with this 

problem on their own. We are also committed to taking action ourselves. 

In that regard, I would mention a couple of things. The foreignbased Website commitment that we have made, it is clear to us 

16 

that foreign-based Websites are a particular problem that we need 

to address, both in terms of the products that are coming into our 

country from those foreign-based Websites and the particular law 

enforcement challenges that they pose because they are overseas. 

So that is a problem that we are committed. 

As we say in the strategy and there has been some allusion in 

ths hearings to we are also undertaking assessment of our laws to 

see if there are deficiencies there that are hindering our enforcement efforts with respect to the issues that we raise and what we 

need to do to address those. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. I will submit some 

other medical device questions, I know that has been covered, for 

the record. But I want to thank you for that and just say I really 

believe if we are going to continue with this innovation economy in 

the direction I think we need to go for our entire country, this is 

going to be a major component of it. 

So thank you for your work. 

Ms. ESPINEL. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY [presiding]. Thank you very much for being 

here. If there are other questions, we will submit them for the 

record. I appreciate you being here. I appreciate having your father 

here in the audience. 

Ms. ESPINEL. Thank you, Chairman Leahy. And thank you and 

the other members of the Committee for continuing to bring attention to this issue and for your leadership. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Staff will set up for the next panel. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. ESPINEL. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Incidentally, in the soccer game, we actually 

did score, but it was disallowed. So it is still zero-zero. As you may 

have noticed, that has happened to the U.S. in a couple of these 

things. I do not want to suggest anything, but there is a strong 

feeling among some of the staff watching that, and doing it solely 

as a professional aid to the chairman, that it was not the world’s 

best call. And those comments had absolutely nothing to do with 

the hearing. 

Now, we have four witnesses here. The first will be Barry Meyer, 

the Chairman and CEO of Warner Brothers, a position he has held 

since 1999. He first joined Warner Brothers in 1971. He has gone 

sort of up through the lines, including executive vice president and 

chief operating officer; has brought Warner Brothers into being one 

of the best companies in America. 

He is a member of many industry boards and associations, including the Motion Picture Association of America, the Museum of 

Television and Radio, and the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts 

and Sciences. 

He received his undergraduate degree from the University of 

Rochester, law degree from Case Western University School of 

Law. 

What I am going to do, if nobody has any objection, we will have 

each witness testify and then we will ask questions, and I am 

aware of the fact that Mr. Hirschmann is suffering from laryngitis. 

Mr. Hirschmann, I can assure you, I sympathize. With all the 

pollen in the air, my voice leaves a lot to be desired. 

17 

But, Mr. Meyer, we will start with you, and thank you very 

much. I know you and Dr. Smith came in here last night and I appreciate having you here; and, Carol Melton, appreciate you being 

here. 

STATEMENT OF BARRY M. MEYER, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, 

WARNER BROTHERS ENTERTAINMENT, INC., BURBANK, CA 

Mr. MEYER. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, and thank 

you, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. 

And I want to start, first, by thanking all of you and your colleagues for passing the Pro-IP Act to establish this critical role of 

intellectual property enforcement coordinator, and thereby to 

strengthen our government’s commitment to copyrights, American 

creativity, and innovation. 

As the release of the joint strategic plan and her testimony this 

morning demonstrates, consumers are being well served by the appointment of Victoria Espinel. She hit the ground running and, in 

our opinion, she is doing an incredible job of bringing together the 

many resources of the Federal Government to coordinate and share 

information. 

The plan she presented represents another important step forward in achieving a higher level of cross-agency collaboration on intellectual property issues, and we are particularly pleased to see a 

call for greater cooperation in the business community in reducing 

the spread of online infringement, as well as the proposal for a 

comprehensive initiative to pursue foreign-based websites that infringe and steal American intellectual property. 

Encouraging all stakeholders in the online ecosystem to help reduce copyright crime and combating illegal online activity from 

abroad are appropriately identified as top priorities in this plan. 

We commend the efforts of all those in the Administration who 

played a role in developing this plan, and especially thank President Obama and Vice President Biden for their deep commitment 

and their strong and thoughtful leadership. 

We stand ready to work with Ms. Espinel to implement this ambitious blueprint for strengthening the government’s coordinated IP 

enforcement activities. 

Mr. Chairman, the work being undertaken by the intellectual 

property enforcement coordinator goes to the heart of what we and 

others in the creative community do to inform, educate and entertain. 

We at Warner Brothers are engaged in virtually every aspect of 

the entertainment industry, from feature films to television, home 

entertainment, animation, comic books, interactive games, product 

and brand licensing, international cinemas, and others. Now more 

than ever, technology and media in all of these businesses are 

seamlessly integrated into consumers’ lives. 

While today’s average consumer still spends more time watching 

content on television than over the Internet, that is changing. Online video views were up more than 200 percent at the end of 2009. 

We continue to see double-digit growth in time spent with online 

media as consumers continue to shift their behaviors and their 

habits. 

18 

Technological advances, coupled with market changes and consumer behavior, have required us to constantly rethink our models. 

We do this more than willingly. We use such events as opportunities to innovate. 

Warner Brothers has developed many new digital delivery models that enable consumers to access content across numerous platforms and devices. Our goal is straightforward—to deliver content 

to consumers in the highest quality, with the most choices, with reliable convenience and portability, at reasonable price points, while 

at the same time diminishing the risks of unauthorized reproduction and distribution. 

Beginning more than 15 years ago, Warner Brothers led the effort to work with consumer electronics and technology companies 

in the development of the DVD. We continue to collaborate with 

the technology industries to deliver content in new, smart, consumer-friendly ways. 

For example, today we include with our Blu-ray titles a standard 

definition version that can be used on a PC, MAC or mobile device. 

We have launched numerous products that allow users to incorporate their social networks into functions like BD-Live to coordinate online movie screenings with friends and post commentaries 

via Internet-connected Blu-ray players. 

With recent data showing that 58 percent of television-Internet 

households use television and the web simultaneously at least a 

third of the time, incorporating these experiences—connecting 

them—is a key component of our digital strategy. 

We have partnered with Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Sony, and 

many others to distribute our products to personal computers, 

media servers, gaming consoles, and mobile devices. Our content is 

available on a wide variety of video-on-demand subscription and 

electronic sell-through services over the Internet, cable and satellite platforms, and mobile networks. 

At the same time that we release our films in physical form on 

DVD and Blu-ray, electronic copies are available for purchase online and can be enjoyed on a variety of devices. 

Warner Brothers is also at the forefront of modifying the traditional distribution windows. Typically, studios released motion pictures on DVD at least 2 months before they were available electronically via video-on-demand rental services. Today, Warner’s 

video-on-demand window coincides with our packaged media release dates so consumers can access both physical and digital options of our content sooner. 

Furthermore, as a result of the FCC’s recent decision promoting 

the use of secure digital outputs, we are now actively pursuing opportunities for an early window release of our films over cable and 

satellite systems in advance of DVD and Blu-ray. 

My point here, Mr. Chairman, is that the image of the entertainment industry as one that is simply circling the wagons around old 

outmoded business models despite the explosion of new technology 

is simply not true. Our industry has been changing and innovating 

with remarkable speed. 

It is clear to all of us that none of this innovation would be possible without the tireless efforts of millions of talented professionals working in the film and television industries, which extends 

19 

far beyond just the studio lots in California or the streets of New 

York. 

Last year, the motion picture industry employed over 2.4 million people and paid over $41 billion in wages across all 50 states. Our 

on-location production activity also supports more than 115,000 

small businesses across the country, 80 percent of which employ 

fewer than 10 people. And when film productions roll into a local 

community, they average $225,000 a day of economic input into the 

local economy. Nationwide, the motion picture industry generated $15.7 billion 

in public revenues in 2008, and we consistently boast a positive 

balance of trade in virtually every country in which we do business. 

While high-speed broadband networks bring immense opportunities for the exchange of information and ideas, the inappropriate 

use of these networks can facilitate the anonymous theft and rapid, 

ubiquitous, illegal distribution of copyrighted works. 

It is not an overstatement to say that rampant theft of intellectual property strikes at the heart of our Nation’s economy. It 

strikes at the heart of the core values of reward for innovation and 

hard work and our ability to complete globally. 

In short, Internet theft puts at risk one of America’s great export 

industries. We at Warner Bros. are doing everything we can to 

combat piracy, spending tens of millions of dollars annually to do 

so. We have secured our production and distribution chains such 

that there has been no pre-theatrical release of a Warner Bros. 

movie in over 5 years. 

We are working with technology companies to develop technical 

tools and reaching out to Internet service providers and online 

intermediaries to enlist their assistance in reducing the vast 

amounts of digital piracy that clog their networks. 

We hope the government will continue to encourage Internet 

service providers, online payment processors, search engines, advertising networks and others to cooperate with copyright owners 

and take reasonable proactive measures to disable or disrupt digital piracy. 

While the release of the joint strategic plan is a critical step forward with respect to government-led efforts, we acknowledge that 

no silver bullet exists either in the public or private sector that can 

fully eradicate the problem of piracy. 

Rather, the problem must be pursued on a variety of levels and 

through multiple approaches, which include providing robust legitimate alternatives, ensuring cross-industry cooperation to prevent 

infringement, and vigorous enforcement efforts at home and 

abroad. But there is no doubt that continued and hopefully increasing government support regarding the value of copyright protection 

and the responsibility of all participants to address the issue of piracy is crucial. 

As the Administration’s plan recognizes, Warner Bros. and others 

in our community play a significant role in the vibrancy of the 

American economy. Enforcement of laws to ensure that consumers 

enjoy what we create has broad benefits, as recognized by today’s 

hearings and the effort described by the coordinator. 

In closing, I would like to again thank Ms. Espinel for her hard 

and thoughtful work to date, and to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

20 

the members of your committee for allowing me the opportunity to 

address this really important topic for our industry. 

I am happy at this point to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meyer appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. Of course, all of the 

statements will be placed in the record in full. 

Paul Almeida is the President of the Department for Professional 

Employees at the AFL–CIO. He has been there since 2001. Mr. 

Almeida serves on several AFL–CIO policy committees, including 

the legislative public policy committee, the international affairs 

committee, and the immigration committee, where he serves as 

vice chair. 

Prior to joining the Department for Professional Employees, Mr. 

Almeida served as president to the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. He has a degree in engineering 

from the Franklin Institute of Boston. 

Mr. Almeida, I am delighted to have you here. Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL E. ALMEIDA, PRESIDENT, DEPARTMENT 

FOR PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, AFL–CIO, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. ALMEIDA. Good morning, Chairman Leahy and distinguished 

members of the committee. My name is Paul Almeida. I am the 

President of the Department for Professional Employees, a coalition 

of 23 national unions affiliated with the AFL–CIO. 

I am honored to speak today on behalf of the more than 4 million 

professional and technical people whom our affiliated unions represent. On their behalf, permit me to commend and thank you. 

Many of you participated in passing the Pro-IP Act. 

My message is simple. Numerous industries are adversely impacted by the theft of intellectual property. Intellectual property 

equates to jobs and income for American workers. Theft of intellectual property raises unemployment and cuts income. 

For too many workers in the United States today, both jobs and 

income are hard to come by. If the United States allows attacks on 

intellectual property to go unanswered, it puts good livelihoods at 

risk. 

With regards to the arts, entertainment and media industries, I 

am especially pleased to deliver today a statement that the executive council of the AFL–CIO unanimously adopted in March. 

I would ask that this statement, ‘‘Piracy is a Danger to the Entertainment Industry Professionals,’’ be made part of the hearing 

record. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection, it will be. 

[The statement appears as a submission for the record.] 

Mr. ALMEIDA. As you will see, the Department for Professional 

Employees proposed this statement on behalf of the nine affiliated 

unions representing professionals, both performing artists and craft 

workers in arts, entertainment and media industries. 

At the core of this statement is a recognition that digital theft 

diminishes incentives to invest and prompts a downward spiral for 

U.S. jobs and our economy. Digital theft imperils jobs and income. 

In the words of this statement, combating digital theft and the 

sale of illegal CDs and DVDs is nothing short of defending U.S. 

21 

jobs and benefits. Estimates of the number of jobs lost to piracy in 

this one sector alone runs in the hundreds of thousands. 

While exact numbers are difficult to find, there can be no question about the magnitude of the problem for the entire United 

States—billions of dollars of revenue for U.S. industries and millions of lost U.S. jobs. 

Online access continues to accelerate and expand. As it does so, 

it increasingly displaces traditional models for distributing content 

and, thus, heightens the potential for digital theft. 

The efforts of the Screen Actors Guild and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, along with the Motion Picture 

Association of America, to conclude an international treaty that 

will protect the economic and moral rights of audiovisual performers will provide additional support in this battle. 

The losses of income arise because entertainment professionals 

depend on compensation at two points; first, when the professionals 

do the work, and, later, when others use and reuse the intellectual 

property that the professionals created. 

In the words of the statement, entertainment professionals may 

work for multiple employers on multiple projects and face gaps in 

their employment. Payments for the work that they have completed 

helps sustain them and their families through under-employment 

and unemployment. 

For AFTRA recording artists, in 2008, 90 percent of income derived from sound recordings was directly linked to royalties from 

physical CD sales and through paid digital downloads. 

SAG members working under the feature film and TV contract 

that same year derived 43 percent of their total compensation from 

residuals. Residuals derived from the sale of secondary markets 

funded 65 percent of the International Alliance of Theatrical and 

Stage Employees, the motion picture industry health plan, and 36 

percent of the SAG health and pension fund. 

Writers Guild of America East-represented writers often depend 

on residual checks to pay their bills between jobs, and, in some 

cases, the residual amounts can be as much as the initial compensation. 

Online theft robs hard-earned income and benefits from professionals who create the works. So digital theft and counterfeiting 

threatens U.S. jobs and income. That is the bad news. The good 

news is that you have taken action and have had the wisdom to 

confirm Victoria Espinel to fill the position you have created. 

Permit me to add a final observation. The arts, entertainment 

and media industries are some of the all too few U.S. industries 

that generate a trade surplus in the midst of growing U.S. trade 

deficits. Professionals in the arts, entertainment and media industries organized in labor unions at a rate far above the private sector generally. 

These facts belie the ill-founded and thoughtlessly repeated misconception that unions somehow undercut union competitiveness. 

Years of research at the Department for Professional Employees 

showed that professional and technical people want a chance to do 

their job right. 

The unions that these people organize help them to achieve that 

goal. With innovation through intellectual property, heavily unionVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:37 Feb 10, 2011 Jkt 064222 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\64222.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
22 

ized industries not only compete globally, but enable the United 

States to lead the world. 

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this hearing, and I 

look forward to answering questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Almeida appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I thank you, also, for being here. It is helpful. 

One of the interesting things about your testimony, sir, is that it 

is nice when we see labor and business sitting side-by-side on 

something where there is this agreement. 

I just hope that we can make sure that not only the policymakers 

here on the Hill, but on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue 

know how important this is. 

David Hirschmann is President and CEO of the Global Intellectual Property Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He is also Senior Vice President of the Chamber. He has been with the Chamber 

since 1992. 

Prior to his work for the Chamber, he served as a staff member 

in the House of Representatives, as a graduate of Duke. One thing 

he and I have in common is we are both losing our voice today. 

But, Mr. Hirschmann, obviously, your full statement will be in 

the record. Please go ahead, however you care to. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID HIRSCHMANN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

GLOBAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CENTER, U.S. CHAMBER 

OF COMMERCE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. HIRSCHMANN. Thank you very much, if you put up with the 

voice. If this does not hold up, I can either have somebody read it 

or maybe we will just stand with what the AFL–CIO said on this 

issue. 

Chairman LEAHY. See the lights dim. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HIRSCHMANN. Mr. Chairman, the leadership you have provided on this issue really is exemplary. It is truly this committee’s 

jobs agenda and it is why labor and business can join together on 

this issue. 

The enactment of the Pro-IP Act 2 years ago was a landmark 

event. We are very pleased that the—— 

Chairman LEAHY. Would you like one of the staff to read the— 

I would be happy to, either from your office or—I realize it is your 

statement, but it is an important statement. 

Would you please identify yourself? 

Mr. Esper. Sure, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mark Esper, and I 

am the Executive Vice President of the Global Intellectual Property 

Center. 

Chairman LEAHY. At the Chamber. 

Mr. Esper. At the Chamber, yes, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Mr. Esper. So I am pinch-hitting right now. 

Let me begin with a statement. As David Hirschmann was saying, the enactment of the Pro-IP Act in the fall of 2008 was a landmark event that was accomplished on a bipartisan basis, with the 

support of a diverse group of stakeholders, including both business 

and organized labor. 

23 

Without that legislation, we would not be having today’s important session. 

We are very pleased that the Administration yesterday released 

the first national IP enforcement strategy. We applaud the White 

House intellectual property enforcement coordinator, Victoria 

Espinel, for undertaking this thorough review of the government’s 

IP enforcement efforts with alacrity following her Senate confirmation late last year. 

Congress and the Administration should focus now on implementing and building up on this plan to approve the effectiveness 

of Federal IP enforcement. As a first step, Congress should help ensure that Ms. Espinel and each of the agencies responsible for a 

portion of this strategy have the requisite authority, budget and 

staff to implement and expand upon this plan. 

U.S. competitiveness has become directly and inextricably linked 

to our Nation’s ability to adequately and effectively enforce IP 

rights. That is why we must do more to address counterfeiting and 

piracy in both the physical and the online environments. Businesses invest heavily in measures to prevent and investigate IP 

theft, but the private sector can only do so much. 

Congress and the Administration must also be committed to implementing sound IP policies and sustaining strong enforcement efforts in the U.S. and abroad. 

In working to implement and build upon this plan, we urge this 

Committee to keep three goals at the top of the list. First, aggressively cracking down on the growing problem of IP theft online by 

making it harder for criminals to use the Internet to distribute stolen American ideas and to harm consumers. 

Second, make the United States the toughest, most capable enforcer of IP laws in the world, building on the Pro-IP Act, by further expanding the dedicated, effective, full-time resources at both 

the state and Federal level to fight IP theft. For example, the Customs reauthorization bill, which provides structure, resources, tools 

and direction necessary to bolster Customs and Border Protection 

and ICE’s capacity to prevent counterfeit goods form entering the 

United States. 

And third, protecting IP rights globally. We must resist all efforts to create unwarranted exceptions to strong IP protections, 

hold our trading partners accountable, and work with ally countries to raise the global bar for IP protection. For example, we 

should complete an ambitious and comprehensive anti-counterfeiting trade agreement, ACTA, with strong IP protection and enforcement provisions this year. 

Let me offer a couple of additional thoughts on the need to 

thwart online theft of IP. Intellectual property thieves are, above 

all else, distribution experts. They do not spend money on innovating new products. They do not spend money on testing products 

for safety. 

Instead, they focus all their efforts on building world class distribution channels for their illicit activities. These are highly organized criminal networks, often with global reach. 

So it is no surprise that these thieves have migrated their illegitimate enterprises to the Internet. This includes both physical goods 

and digital services. It includes everything from knock-off pharmaVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:37 Feb 10, 2011 Jkt 064222 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\64222.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
24 

ceuticals and auto parts to illegal copies of movies, music and digital books. 

Rogue sites offer stolen, live broadcasts of sporting events and 

the latest movies available as digital streams in high definition. 

This is why we welcome the steps outlined in the national strategy 

to ensure our IP enforcement efforts adapt to the digital age. Determining the best way to address this problem without impeding 

legitimate online commerce will not be easy. 

But it is clear that we must move beyond the perception held by 

some that if it is online, it is not a crime. We believe that a serious 

discussion about how to best foster continued innovation while protecting IP in the online marketplace is long overdue. 

The Global IP Center and our members will continue to vigorously pursue voluntary business-to-business solutions, where practicable. However, we also believe that Congress and the Administration should examine this problem and consider new and creative 

efforts to fight counterfeiting and piracy online. 

A reasonable starting point for addressing IP theft online is identifying and shutting down Websites, many of which are situated 

overseas, but many of which are also here in the United States, 

whose business models are indisputably centered on the sale or distribution of counterfeit and pirated products. 

We look forward to working with the Committee and with the 

Congress to explore creative and effective methods that would 

make it more difficult for such sites to sustain a business model 

built on facilitating IP theft. 

In concluding, let me reiterate that protecting IP rights is a critical component of our economic resurgence and vitally important to 

America’s future and job creation. While we anticipate that the IP 

enforcement coordinator will work to further refine this plan, it is 

imperative that she begin implementing it now, given all that is at 

stake. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share our perspectives on these 

important issues. The Global IP Center looks forward to working 

with you, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee and the Congress in 

the future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of David Hirschmann appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Our last witness is Caroline Bienstock, the President and CEO 

of Carlin America, a music publishing company that was founded 

by her father, Freddy Bienstock. Ms. Bienstock first joined the company in 1989. She is a member of numerous industry boards, such 

as the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, the 

National Music Publishers Association. 

She received her bachelor’s degree from Yale College, her law degree at the Boston University School of Law, and her MBA from 

Wharton. 

Ms. Bienstock, please go ahead. 

25 

STATEMENT OF CAROLINE BIENSTOCK, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

CARLIN AMERICA, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Ms. BIENSTOCK. Good morning, Chairman Leahy and members of 

the committee. I am Caroline Bienstock, President and Chief Executive Officer of Carlin America, Inc. I am also a member of the National Music Publishers Association. 

I want to thank you for inviting me to testify today about oversight of the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. NMPA strongly supported the Pro-IP Act of 2008 and the 

appointment of Victoria Espinel as the first intellectual property 

enforcement coordinator. 

We are encouraged by the release of the first IPEC report yesterday, which sets the stage for the development of a joint strategic 

plan for intellectual property. NMPA has not had a chance to analyze the report in detail, but based on a preliminary review, it reflects our views on what the government must do to effectively enforce copyright protections domestically and internationally. We 

will finalize our review quickly and to the extent we have additional comments, we will supplement my written testimony. 

At the outset, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the Committee for all you have done to protect music in 

your support of intellectual property. You have long recognized that 

the property rights of intellectual property deserve no less protection than physical property. 

My company, Carlin America, is a family owned music publishing business founded by my father, Freddy Bienstock. The Carlin catalog includes more than 150,000 songs, including Body and 

Soul, Chantilly Lace, Dedicated to the One I Love, Fever, I Got 

You, I Feel Good, and the scores of ‘‘Cabaret’’ ‘‘Company’’ and ‘‘Follies.’’ 

For more than 80 years—— 

Chairman LEAHY. You realize, half the people in the audience, 

these songs are now going through their minds. 

Ms. BIENSTOCK. As they should be. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BIENSTOCK. Need I say more. For more than 80 years, the 

NMPA has been the principal trade association representing music 

publishers like us, over 2,500 music publishers and their songwriter partners in the United States. To put it simply, music publishers represent the interests of the songwriter and the song. 

Songwriters, in particular, are especially vulnerable to harm 

from online music theft, because they generally do not have the option of earning money from ancillary income streams, such as live 

performance, touring, merchandise sales, or acting. 

The songwriter and music publisher must rely on the old-fashioned, traditional sources of revenue for their money in song, as 

well as while the marketplace is changing everyday. 

Despite the extensive copyright laws in place right now, online 

digital theft is rampant. Millions of copyrighted songs have been 

and continue to be downloaded illegally from the Internet. We have 

seen at least one source that said at this time, 95 percent of 

downloaded music on the Internet is illegal. 

26 

For every illegal download or stream, a songwriter is denied compensation for his or her creative work. This stuff is no different in 

concept from the burglary of a home or shoplifting from a store. 

As we move further into the digital and wireless age, music publishing can continue to flourish, but only if combating online theft 

remains a top priority of our government. Without strong copyright 

laws, music publishing companies would not risk investing in new 

writers or acquiring new songs; and, therefore, existing jobs would 

be lost and new songs and new jobs would not be created. 

To safeguard the songwriter and the music publisher, the government must substantially increase their efforts to combat online digital theft. We believe the strategic plan will be a huge step in the 

right direction. To be effective, funding and implementation will be 

key. We urge the Committee to support IPEC’s efforts in this regard. 

The music publishing community is willing and happy to work 

closely with this Committee and Ms. Espinel and her staff to ensure that copyright enforcement measures are enhanced and 

streamlined. If Congress properly funds the initiatives and enacts 

the proposals recommended by IPEC, online music theft will be 

minimized and music will flourish well into the foreseeable future. 

And most importantly, songwriters will continue to write the songs 

that are so dear to those on this Committee and to the rest of the 

country. 

I thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I am happy 

to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bienstock appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

I will put in the record a submission from the Copyright Alliance, 

with information from all 50 states on the importance of intellectual property. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I note that there are 114 professional photographers employed in the whole State of Vermont. 

Let me ask just one question. I sat here and I have spent so 

much time on this over the years, I watch all the changes. You 

have encryption, you watch films and they will open and within a 

few days, somebody is selling bootleg copies, certainly in the record 

business, with so much online. You see the problem there. 

But there are a lot of other things. It is software, medicine. I 

talked about the real concern I have with the Department of Defense getting material that is going to be vital for our people in the 

field and getting counterfeit matters. 

What happens when you get counterfeit brake pads in your car? 

I just bring it right down to something that would affect every one 

of us, when you are driving to work. 

Assuming the will—and I think there is the will of the bipartisan 

group here—assuming the will, can you believe that we can write 

legislation tough enough to go after this and then have the enforcement mechanism tough enough to go after this? 

I realize we may not get all of it, but given the legislation and 

given the will and our law enforcement and our trade representative and everything, can we make a significant dent in this? 

27 

I will begin with you, Mr. Meyer. What do you think? 

Mr. MEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that we can make 

a significant dent in it, and I think the first step, which has really 

been taken now, is the support of the government. 

We are firm believers in having the private sector work cooperatively between content owners and ISPs, certainly, in the United 

States to try to work out whatever the proper protections are. 

But key to that is a knowledge that the government is supporting all of these actions. And I do think starting with the issue 

of education, of making people understand what is legal and what 

is not legal, and what is infringing content and what is not. It will 

not be an easy task, especially as the technology evolves. 

Starting with that educational component can make an enormous 

difference. And using technology to bolster that education will help 

to address the issue. 

Chairman LEAHY. In fact, I would urge all our colleges and universities, during freshmen orientation, would not allow—they do 

not want to see their students going down to the local stores and 

stealing things off the shelf. It is also stealing if you take it off the 

Internet. 

Mr. Almeida. 

Mr. ALMEIDA. I think you are right. I think a key point is a process of educating the public. You just made the point, Caroline made 

the point. You would not tell your children to go in and take something off a shelf. But somehow, on the Internet, it is all right to 

do that. 

It is all right to also pick something up off the street that is a 

bootleg copy of something. And there is a disconnect that what people’s work for our entertainment is not views as real work. There 

is kind of a disconnect. 

It is our entertainment when we go to a movie or when we listen 

to music, but it is real work for people who do that, and I think 

there is a disconnect there, as well, and I think we need to do that 

education process. And the same with products, as well, that the 

safety is critical to our well being. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Esper. 

Mr. Esper. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I agree, as well. I think not only 

can we make a significant dent in the problem, we cannot afford 

not to try. There is just simply too much at stake. 

As the United States continues to move up the value chain more 

to a knowledge-based economy, this is where our future is. This is 

where we are uniquely competitive in the international environment. So we really have to tackle this. 

I believe that with sufficient action by the Administration, some 

clear legal framework from the Congress, that I think all industries, including those that we call the intermediaries, will get on 

board with this. 

Everybody wants to solve this problem. The challenge is how. 

And as the colleagues here on the panel have pointed out, the big 

challenge is how do you deal with the culture that has emerged, 

has developed over the Internet, the sense that if it is online, it is 

not a crime. 

That is going to be the real challenge to tackle. 

Chairman LEAHY. Ms. Bienstock, I assume you agree, too. 

28 

Ms. BIENSTOCK. Of course, I do. I think the importance is the enhanced enforcement also sets an important tone that combats an 

attitude that has been developing that the Internet is somehow a 

superior vehicle than intellectual property and as they are balanced against one another. 

We have a generation of young people that have grown up believing that music ought to be free, because it is able to be available 

for free. And I think increased enforcement will do something to 

develop the conversations in the home and at universities about 

what is OK to do, and, also, what you open your computer to when 

you bring your computer to file sharing. 

So, yes, I think increased enforcement has a very important role 

both to actually address the problem, but also to denominate and 

make clear what our interests are and that we value intellectual 

property. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Franken, did you have any questions? 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, thank you. Mr. Almeida, as I said before, 

even though I am on this committee, I am not a lawyer, but I was 

in show business. The entertainment—yes, I was. I know it is hard 

to believe, considering what a productive member of this Committee I am. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. The entertainment industry is truly an American industry and, as you put it, one of the all too few American 

industries that generates a substantial trade surplus. 

American culture, music, movies, TV shows, books, is one of our 

Nation’s greatest assets, literally, and I am proud to have been a 

part of that industry. And I am actually a member of three of those 

unions that signed on to the executive council of the AFL–CIO 

statement. I am a member of the Writers Guild, the Screen Actors 

Guild, and AFTRA. 

I can tell everybody firsthand that those residuals that you are 

talking about that you get when you are either between jobs or 

under-employed or over-employed, as I am now, those checks mean 

a lot. And I still get checks—I still get a $12 check every time they 

run Trading Places. 

I just want to ask you what it means to artists and people in the 

crafts when the piracy prevents you from getting those residuals. 

What is the effect of that? 

I would like to ask Mr. Meyer what the effect of all of that is 

on sort of the business plan when someone is either giving a green 

light or not giving a green light to a product, to a movie or to a 

TV show, in terms of how that figures in, because it is not only losing—I think you are not only losing money on what has already 

been made, but in a sense, you are basically having to make a decision, are we going to make this thing, because our ancillary income 

is not going to be what it should be. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. ALMEIDA. Thank you. I think there is also a misconception. 

Most people in America do not work under the business model of 

getting paid for part of their work up front and then waiting to 

get—for use and reuse, and I think it is a concept that a lot of people are just totally unfamiliar with. 

29 

An A-lister, such as yourself, probably does rather well, but 

the—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ALMEIDA. But the working actors who really depend on that 

and the writers who depend on the back-end payments, the residuals, the back-end payments, it is a huge part of their survivability. 

With the stage hands, in particular, that helps to fund their collective pension and health and welfare fund. It does not flow to the 

individual member, but goes to the collective. 

So, again, I think it is a model that most of us have never 

worked under. They say, ‘‘What, you get paid part of it now and 

you get what? You wait for the checks to come? ’’ 

So I think there is a disconnect there, as well, that people do not 

realize this model and how it works, and I think it is an important 

part. 

And I do not mean to answer Mr. Meyer’s part of it, but if funds 

are not flowing, then product is not being made. And that is kind 

of like part of the intangible. It is like how much—would I be making another movie if the money was there. And the piracy is definitely impacting across the board with all of the entertainment 

unions. 

Senator FRANKEN. I think Mr. Almeida just answered your question for you. No, no, go ahead. I am sorry. 

Mr. MEYER. Well, I actually was going to jump in and reiterate 

part of what Mr. Almeida said. Employment in the motion picture 

and television production business is notoriously lumpy for employees. They can work great periods of time intensely and then not 

work for another year or two or sometimes even longer periods of 

time, which leads to the importance of residuals. 

These payments for the reuse of the product that they have 

worked on is what keeps the economic model going, and it is a stabilizing factor in the economic model for so many employees, which 

is one of the reasons why it has been in place for—I think the first 

residual model came into play in 1960. So it is a very, very important consideration. 

But getting back to the point about how it affects the overall economic model, to the extent that this kind of theft reduces the overall economics for any producer, financier or production company, of 

course, it has to affect how many new projects we make, the nature 

of the new projects that we make, which has a concomitant effect 

on all of the employment levels for people who are working on it. 

There is one other point I would like to make, as long as I have 

the floor right now. I guess that is a Senate term. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, you are kind of using my time, but go 

ahead. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MEYER. Then I will get off the floor. Then I will get off the 

floor. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, I had hoped to say something else, but 

these guys just will not stop. But go ahead. Go ahead. 

Mr. MEYER. Senator Whitehouse mentioned something before 

about the transfer of wealth. One of the things that I think we 

30 

overlook when we think about this problem in general is it is not 

just how it is affecting the current state of our business. 

The digital technologies have provided an opportunity for so 

many of our businesses, maybe ours in particular, for the most robust transformational growth that anyone can imagine. 

There is nothing not to like about something that is faster, less 

expensive, and much higher in quality. There is nothing not to like 

about that. The problem is it is hard to see where we could have 

gone, where this could have taken a great American industry were 

it not for the dampening effect of piracy, this effect that is holding 

it down. 

That is why I think everybody has trouble estimating what the 

loss is. You do not know what it could have been were it not for 

this, and I think that is an important thing for us all to keep in 

mind. 

Senator FRANKEN. I am sorry, and I know—let me just make 

about a 20-second comment, because you talked in your testimony 

about sort of all the adaptations you are making that are almost 

a response to piracy, and Blu-ray and the different platforms that 

you are doing, which I think are just amazing and are revolutionizing the way we get entertainment, are changing so fast. 

In some small way, they were a response to piracy. So maybe the 

innovation was prompted by it. But I think that—I applaud you for 

all the different innovation that you are doing in terms of the kind 

of platforms that we are seeing. And this is going to keep transforming and revolutionizing the way we enjoy entertainment and 

get our information. So thank you for doing that. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Whitehouse, and then Senator Klobuchar, and then we will be through. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Meyer, you 

have talked about online piracy being rampant, described how sophisticated criminal enterprises are behind it. But it is also an area 

in which legitimate sophisticated enterprises are also deeply involved. 

If I want to go and download a stolen product of yours, I get 

there on a search engine that is a legitimate search engine, Google, 

and I download it across an internet service provider, like AT&T. 

And if there is a way that I am asked to pay for it, it is not impossible to have Visa and MasterCard be there on that pirate Website. 

So you have these very legitimate businesses that are participating in and supporting the online piracy that is degrading your 

asset base and stealing your revenues. 

Why is this not being adequately worked out in the private sector 

between these industries? You say you spend tens of millions of 

dollars fighting this issue. I assume a lot of that goes to lawyers. 

Everybody knows where the courthouses are. 

What are the things that are inhibiting industries like yours 

from bringing in Visa and MasterCard, from bringing in the ISPs, 

from bringing in the search engines and saying, ‘‘Look, you guys, 

you cannot keep supporting this in this way. We are going to ask 

for a court order,’’ and hash it out through that mechanism? 

What are the failures in that traditional, well established mechanism for private dispute resolution? 

31 

Mr. MEYER. Well, I think it is a great question. Having legitimate enterprises participate in the illegal activity, has a certain 

backhanded way of legitimizing it. If you can pay with your 

MasterCard, it cannot be illegal. 

But in answer to your question, there is nothing. I think that we 

are working very hard now, especially with the ISPs in the first 

place, to try to make sure that they are policing their networks in 

a way to distinguish between illegal activity and legitimate activity. 

One of the technical problems that we have, is that the illegitimate activity has gotten so facile. You referred before to taking 

four or five clicks to get to an illegal download. We worry that it 

is just one click. 

But the distinction, it is so hard to make the distinction that we 

are trying to technically work with them to sort out how you find 

these distinctions. 

But when we do, we are not finding an awful lot of resistance 

on principle. What we are finding is that there are some technical 

obstacles that we have to face together. 

I will say this, that, clearly, in the last short period of time, a 

year or two or three, the involvement, the interest of the government in protecting intangible intellectual property has really, I 

think, weighed heavily on the industry, including those who might 

not have been as interested in it before. 

So even though we are not specifically asking for legislation right 

now, the overall impact of the government’s interest in protecting 

this industry has had an enormous effect on the conversations in 

the private sector. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, we certainly want to help, because 

there is a distinct national interest, given what I consider to be the 

scale of this theft. I mean, I really do think that you could take 

Willie Sutton, Bonnie and Clyde, and the James Gang and add 

them all up together and they are penny ante. They are nothing 

compared to the scale of the theft that we are suffering as a Nation 

right now, and, by and large, often oblivious to it. 

But I still do not—I will just leave you with the thought that it 

seems incongruous that with the level of effort that you have dedicated to this, with the level of stake that you have in this as a business, with the level of attention that this gets from Congress, that 

I could probably leave this hearing and go to my computer and 

within a very few clicks, use Google to get to an illegal Website, 

facilitated by whoever the ISP is here, AT&T, Verizon, I do not 

know, and Visa pops up on the thing and nobody has—you would 

have thought that your lawyers would be there in 30 seconds saying not—as long as I can find it, I am going to take it and shut 

it down, because somehow Google is getting me there. 

Somehow the ISP is delivering the service. Somehow Visa is involved. And if it can be done, it can be cut off, I would think, and 

I do not know why it is not being cut off on a much more aggressive basis. 

Mr. MEYER. Well, Senator, we do utilize the takedown notice provisions of the DMCA. We send out thousands of notices, when we 

notice things are up, that they be taken down. 

32 

The problem with that as a mechanism is that it is after the fact 

and once something is up, it is virally distributed and there is not 

much you can do about it. 

We are talking about a process here that disables the enablers. 

In your example, if you could not go to Google and search for it, 

if that were not able to happen, all the other illegal activity would 

be prevented. 

So that is an enabling practice that we have to look at, and we 

are looking at it right now. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I think we might have just heard a goal 

scored, sudden shouting from the anteroom. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And what people want to hear next are my 

questions, I am sure. 

Maybe we can get a report, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Hold on. Right here, we have got it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You should read it. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. This is chairman’s news. If it went the 

other way, I would announce it. 

Chairman LEAHY. On the important things, not that Senator 

Whitehouse’s question and your answer are not. The U.S. soccer 

team has scored a goal and this one is being allowed to count. So 

it is U.S.–1, Algeria–0. 

[Applause.] 

Chairman LEAHY. This is somewhat unprecedented for me. Is 

this the last minute? Is the game over? Can somebody find out if 

the game is over? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. You can spruce up my questions if you 

could announce that in the middle. 

Chairman LEAHY. Ten minutes left in the game. Take all the 

time you want, Senator Klobuchar. 

I might note, on a more serious thing, Senator Klobuchar and 

Senator Whitehouse and I are all former prosecutors, and I have 

got to tell you, it is not just closing it down, and important that 

is. It is not just bringing suits. 

I would like to see a few people go to jail. It is theft. If you steal $1 million, you go to jail. If you steal $10,000, you are going to go 

to jail. 

I would like to see a few people go to jail for stealing this stuff. 

It may focus the attention. 

I am sorry. Senator Klobuchar, go ahead, please. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you very much, Mr. Almeida, for going through all 

those numbers, which it will help me when we are in these discussions with the Canadians, which I was referencing earlier, because 

I think sometimes it just seems like big corporations and when you 

start talking about the individual people and what the residuals 

mean. 

I was also harkening back to my law school days. My senior essay got published and I would get about—I think like $200 a 

year for royalties for Uncovering the Dome, which Mr. Meyer—my 

book on the politics behind the building of the Metrodome in Minneapolis and never got picked up as a movie. But I am still getting 

those royalties. 

33 

Mr. MEYER. Is it still available? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Yes, it is. That would be probably be an 

ethical violation that I do not want to commit here. 

But I wanted to, first, maybe follow-up with what the Chairman 

was talking about with the criminal. We actually had a case set. 

I think Warner Brothers was aware of it. But a case in Minnesota 

where they actually prosecuted someone, I think it might have 

been music, for illegally downloads, an individual, who was just a 

person that did it, and a jury verdict came in. I cannot remember 

what happened on appeal. 

But the funny part about the story was my daughter was in middle school in Arlington, Virginia. We pick her up 1 day and she 

said, ‘‘Mom, did you hear what happened in Duluth? You can get 

prosecuted.’’ The librarian had called them all in and told them 

about it. 

So I was just wondering if what the Chairman was talking about 

here with the prosecution, as difficult as it is and so many multiple 

violations that are going on right now, do you think that is helpful; 

if education efforts along those lines are helpful? 

Ms. BIENSTOCK. I do think it is helpful. I think it is helpful, because it enables the conversations to occur in people’s households, 

like you had in the car, about the possibility of prosecution for an 

individual. 

While we, as an industry, had issues about suing our own customers, because these are people who, in theory, wanted music 

and, therefore, would have been customers, the net result of litigation was that there were many conversations not only in the home, 

but in schools, and there was an education process that occurred 

at a university level about what it meant to provide bandwidth to 

college students and then not pay attention to what they did with 

it. 

So I think that the prosecution efforts have been useful, but they 

are limited. It’s a game of whack-a-mole. You have to work with 

the ISPs to get them to acknowledge that they are something other 

than a dumb pipe, and I think that has been a challenge for us. 

They are not—because those people are their customers, I think 

there has been an unwillingness on the part of the ISPs to take responsibility for self-policing without pressure from the private sector, but that pressure would be greatly enhanced from the government. 

So we are looking for pressure on the ISPs, to address Senator 

Whitehouse’s point, because we have not been able to do that 

alone. We have met with pushback. So getting the government involved in working with the ISPs would be very useful for us. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. That would be a much bigger way to do it, 

and, also, these organized efforts that we have been referring to, 

which are much bigger prosecutions. 

Mr. Meyer, I know that the movie industry took a slightly different approach to going atfer some of this piracy. The music industry was the first hit by it, just because it was easier to steal. 

Could you talk about what you did, what was the difference in 

the approach, and the changes you are seeing when it was, say, 

peer-to-peer, which I referenced the bill I have with Senator Thune, 

34 

and now it is more about these streaming sites or Cyberlockers or 

some of the new ways that people are stealing things? 

Mr. MEYER. Well, peer-to-peer piracy was really basically a method of trading files and downloading those. So we were always concerned about download times and at what point it became inconvenient for people to steal as opposed to buying legitimate product 

at—actually, really in answer to your question, Senator, one of the 

things that we tried to do was some of the things I talked about 

earlier, which is just making our product available on a wide variety of different platforms and at very reasonable price points. The 

price points of the product that we have produced have really come 

down in many of these venues. 

So we have, in a certain way, tried to compete with the pirates 

in the peer-to-peer world, that required downloading and time and 

effort, by making the product more available legitimately, more 

useable on a wide variety of platforms. 

As the world migrates into a streaming and now a Cyberlocker 

world where one or two clicks away and you can have something 

that requires no downloading time, that just streams in real time, 

and for a small subscription fee to an illegal subscription site, you 

can get an unlimited number of illegally obtained movies. 

Our efforts in adjusting our business models and adjusting our 

use of the technology to put our product out there are becoming impaired. So we are now looking for—we are going to now have to 

look for government help and more help from the technology 

enablers to allow us to really deal with this, because it has gotten 

to a brand new level now. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Are you familiar with the Canadian situation? Because I think people always think about China and other 

countries, but that they do not have good enough intellectual property laws right now. 

While you guys make movies up there sometimes, they have not 

put into place the protections. I think people would be surprised by 

that. 

Mr. MEYER. Well, we were aware a number of years ago. Our industry has done a lot of production in Canada, motion picture production, especially television production, and we were aware a 

number of years ago that our good neighbors to the north did not 

really have in place a camcording law, an anti-camcording law. 

And frankly, thanks to Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn, 

two members of this committee, in a very, very strongly worded letter to the appropriate Canadian governmental official, they put one 

in place relatively quickly. 

Our impression is that they are moving along in that direction, 

continuing to move along in that direction, but are not yet there. 

I do not have anymore specifics about it, though. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Esper. 

Mr. ESPER. Yes, Senator. I just wanted to add one point, as well, 

to build on what was said here, and that is this problem is only 

increasing and increasing exponentially. 

As more and more people gain access to the Internet and as 

Internet speeds increase, the problem will just continue to escalate. 

And it is not just movies and music. I would bet a good deal of 

money right now that somebody is online streaming the FIFA 

35 

Webcast that you are watching right now, that staff is watching in 

the back room. 

That signal is being stolen and you cannot capture it, as Barry 

said a little while ago, in some of these cases. And that is happening across industries, across our own sports leagues. And the 

problem is also now moving into publishing houses and e-books 

across the board. 

So when you see the confluence of all these factors, you really become worried that the 18 million Americans that depend on IP industries for their jobs and the tens of millions more that are indirectly employed by these industries, we have a lot at risk. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I agree. And again, I really see this as the 

key. I commend you for the industries you are in, as we look at 

where we have grown and where we should focus our attention in 

this country, from medical device to biotech to high tech to the 

work in the movie/TV industry. 

We have to look at those areas that are growing and exporting 

and those are the areas that we want to make sure that we are 

protecting, because it is so easy to put such a deep gash into profits 

by simply stealing the idea. 

So I want to thank you all for what you are doing. I know I am 

devoted, as the rest of us are who stayed here, not just to hear your 

testimony, but to hear the final World Cup score. 

Chairman LEAHY. We won. The U.S. won in overtime. 

[Applause.] 

Chairman LEAHY. The U.S. won in overtime. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Overtime? I thought it was one out. 

Chairman LEAHY. It was, but they had 2 minutes left, and they 

won—we won. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. We won, good. 

Chairman LEAHY. It would have been two, except for one of the 

calls, but I am not going to suggest that anyone would make a mistake on a call in soccer. 

I should also state, just for full disclosure, you talked about your 

residuals and Senator Franken his. I also get residuals from three 

Batman movies, the last being Dark Knight. 

I should also add that every cent of that goes to the children’s 

library in Montpelier, Vermont, the Kellogg-Hubbard Library, 

where I had my first library card when I was 4 years old, and I 

use that to encourage kids to read, as they should. We would be 

all better off if kids read better. 

With that, I thank you all for being here. This has been a fascinating thing. Obviously, what I am trying to do is build support 

for even more and tougher legislation and enforcement by the Administration. 

I applaud both the Republicans and Democrats on this Committee who have joined so well in that. 

Thank you all very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m, the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

36 


64222.001
37 


64222.002
38 


64222.003
39 


64222.004
40 


64222.005
41 


64222.006
42 


64222.007
43 


64222.008
44 


64222.009
45 


64222.010
46 


64222.011
47 


64222.012
48 


64222.013
49 


64222.014
50 


64222.015
51 


64222.016
52 


64222.017
53 


64222.018
54 


64222.019
55 


64222.020
56 


64222.021
57 


64222.022
58 


64222.023
59 


64222.024
60 


64222.025
61 


64222.026
62 


64222.027
63 


64222.028
64 


64222.029
65 


64222.030
66 


64222.031
67 


64222.032
68 


64222.033
69 


64222.034
70 


64222.035
71 


64222.036
72 


64222.037
73 


64222.038
74 


64222.039
75 


64222.040
76 


64222.041
77 


64222.042
78 


64222.043
79 


64222.044
80 


64222.045
81 


64222.046
82 


64222.047
83 


64222.048
84 


64222.049
85 


64222.050
86 


64222.051
87 


64222.052
88 


64222.053
89 


64222.054
90 


64222.055
91 


64222.056
92 


64222.057
93 


64222.058
94 


64222.059
95 


64222.060
96 


64222.061
97 


64222.062
98 


64222.063
99 


64222.064
100 


64222.065
101 


64222.066
102 


64222.067
103 


64222.068
104 


64222.069
105 


64222.070
106 


64222.071
107 


64222.072
108 


64222.073
109 


64222.074
110 


64222.075
111 


64222.076
112 


64222.077
113 


64222.078
114 


64222.079
115 


64222.080
116 


64222.081
117 


64222.082
118 


64222.083
119 


64222.084
120 


64222.085
121 


64222.086
122 


64222.087
123 


64222.088
124 


64222.089
125 


64222.090
126 


64222.091
127 


64222.092
128 


64222.093
129 


64222.094
130 


64222.095
131 


64222.096
132 


64222.097
133 


64222.098
134 


64222.099
135 


64222.100
136 


64222.101
137 


64222.102
138 


64222.103
139 


64222.104
140 


64222.105
141 


64222.106
142 


64222.107
143 


64222.108
144 


64222.109
145 


64222.110
146 


64222.111
147 


64222.112
148 


64222.113
149 


64222.114
150 


64222.115
151 


64222.116
152 


64222.117
153 


64222.118
154 


64222.119
155 


64222.120
156 


64222.121
157 


64222.122
158 


64222.123
159 


64222.124
160 


64222.125
161 


64222.126
162 


64222.127
163 


64222.128
164 


64222.129
165 


64222.130
166 


64222.131
167 


64222.132
168 


64222.133
169 


64222.134
170 


64222.135
171 


64222.136
172 


64222.137
173 


64222.138
174 


64222.139
175 


64222.140
176 


64222.141
177 


64222.142
178 


64222.143
179 


64222.144
180 


64222.145
181 


64222.146
182 


64222.147
183 


64222.148
184 


64222.149
185 


64222.150
186 


64222.151
187 


64222.152
188 


64222.153
189 


64222.154
190 


64222.155
191 


64222.156
192 


64222.157
193 


64222.158
194 


64222.159
195 


64222.160
196 


64222.161
197 


64222.162
198 


64222.163
199 

Æ 


64222.164