signal theft. would these be to our copyright law or communications law? >> thank you. that's an excellent question. the law as it currently stands serve well. as i testified it serves both the public interest and serves broadcasters well. there are current developments that could change that. regulatory proceedings and a number of other court cases. this stand the law is remarkably well. indeed even conceivably joining a new broadcast treaty would not require us to change the law. thus the current statutory scream works well and i'm not aware -- i don't speak on the broadcasters i'm not aware, in

fact, of the broadcasters seeking new rights. thank you. >> thank you. you work on copyright issues. what other issues do you believe are of interest to copyright owners? >> thank you. indeed the subject of the hearing is an important one including the making available right. it's important that creators are ability to secure the return on their investment and labor. and that is currently the challenge quite obvious challenge in front of all of us. i any in the long run it needs to be addressed. >> thank you. beyond what it is today?

if would not change the law in the file sharing context by any measurable degree in the litigating case finance would open up potential issues in the public performance and display areas linking retransmission and issue of that sort for cloud computing and social networking site. >> disease your lack of concern for impact of file sharing reflect a view that congress should reduce copyright protection in other areas? >> i think one of the things that slipped in almost by accident to copyright law we shifted over the last 20 years what we've expanded copyright over the last years to get the individual consumer involved copyright infringers. i think it's a bad development. for the first 200 years it was directed solely at other commercial entities. i think it works best when it works in that fashion.

when you start getting the individual consumers in the mix infringers of one sort or another you get the privacy concerns and other concerns. thing is created real problems for copyright law. mr. love, do you believe other nations are close to a conclusion that drafting broadcast treaty. >> could yo i are pete that. >> do you believe that other nations are close to a conclusion at wipo in drafting a broadcast treaty? in 2007 we thought it was stopped and further progress on it. after the treaty was adopted by w in june of 2013. it opened up a lot of space. i think it was surprising that in september of last year,

country after country took the microphone at the general assembly to call for a diplomatic 2015. i think the secretary is look for a hat trick. they like to have three treaties in hand in the copyright field having concluded the beijing streety in 2012. i think they are focused on that. we prefer there is no broadcast treaty. we are posed to the proposal. but i wouldn't really -- i think people are wrong if they don't think it's moving forward. at this point, there is a large number of countries calling for diplomatic. it's difficult to protect what the outcome will be. >> thank you, sir. let me try to beat the red light. how does one respond to the statement that citizens deserve full access to the laws and

rules that which they are required to -- >> thank you for the question. i think the answer to that depends on an analysis of many dimensions. the first dimension is recognition that standards of codes are original work of authorship and entitled copyright protection. and even at times when they are incorporated by reference in to legislation, the second and the ninth circuit have held those standards and codes not necessarily lose their copyright protection by virtue of that. another i dimension of the issue is a final of the issue is the one raises. that is the one that says that

the citizenship to see the right is. the way they have been bridged over the course of the years is through a tool that is contained in the freedom of information act. that tool is called incorporation by reference. it provides that program agencies can incorporate in to federal regulations extrinsic standards as long as the standards are reasonablily available to the class of persons that affected by it. that tool has permitted federal agencies to comply with their obligation under omba11 while at the same time respect the copyright of the standards that are so incorporated. recently it has been challenged by mr. him and others. they have gone and questioned whether the reasonably available standards ought not be changed to make the stnders for free. and they have concluded, as --

that the current process continues to be the best one. the one that is best designed toker ensure that high quality standards are developed and incorporated in to reference by federal regulation. >> thank you. >> i see the emergency room. i recognize the gentleman from michigan for his questioning. >> thank you very much. >> we appreciate you being us with today. i would like to discuss with you what you see as the key issue facing copyright industry and the public today. when it comes to the current copyright system. >> thank you. it's obviously a broad question. i'll have to give a broad answer. i think the answer is that we are governed bay statute written essentially in 1965. passed in 1967 and now hear in

existence 50 years later with technologies that were not remotely contemplated then. we seek each right of the copyright owner coming under strain. today we've been talking about the distribution right and it's making available component. you have already mentioned that the united states supreme court granted certiorari in the case. that's a case about the performance right. we see because of the internet a convergence of the right response classically, back in 1965 there was a great difference between reproducing a book and publishing it. and distributing it. then a performance which would be a play. today which the bids flow over the internet, sometimes it conceptualize an act of reproduction and sometimes distribution and been argued in cases that it's equally a performance. so a forward-thinking approach to copyright law would be look

at exploitation not within the prism of the five categories that are half a century old. but instead try to formulate the ideal of the road going forward. one unitary right or brought under the rubric of two rights or three rights. i'm not prepared as i sit here today to offer that answer. i think it's exactly the right question to ask. i would be pleased to work with the committee on a going-forward basis. >> we appreciate that. do you think the courts have struggled to apply making available right in the united states even though congress and government experts agree that the existing law should cover the right in. >> yes, i think the court have struggled with the issue. i think one of the main reasons is that some of the individuals targeted have uplocated thousand of copyrighted works. and unfortunately, the result under our law is that somebody who is uploaded thunders of

working might be liable for hundreds of millions possibly even a billion dollar worth of damage. that's why i think at the same time that congress confronts the making available component to the distribution right congress should also rationalize the award of statutory damages. right now the scheme was set? ninth. -- 1999. the law happened to be passed right before the invention of the service called nap steer. our law is trying to keep pace with the development on the ground. that's why i think a unified approach would be best where we look at the making available right and statutory damages and small claims court all in one unitary point of view. >> finally, i wanted to get an explanation of why you change changed your mind on the making available right was not encompassed by the distribution

right. and previous edition. >> good. thank you. it's a challenge writing -- any one stop someone can be taken out of context. and applied in a way that was not intended. in particular, in 1995, there was a second circuit case in which somebody who owned laurel and hardy video said the rights had been violated by cbs because they broadcast his video. he was correct but he said his distribution right had been violated by the performance of the videos. and the the court tended to agree with them. the second circuit reversed. and i wrote up that case to say saints not enough that the works have been made available to the public in some sense by virtue of being broadcast to violate the distribution right. there has to be actual distribution. namely a physical copy passing hands. i wrote that in 1995 three years before nap steer was

formulated. so i did not have peer-to-peer services in mind. unfortunately the sentence was taken out of context later. >> thank you very much. i'll yield back the balance of my time. mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you, mr. con conyers. the recognizes the gentleman from virginia for his statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i would like to follow up on the ranking member's question. professor has raced concerns that making that adding making available right would change long standing jurisprudence. i take it you don't agree with that perception. would you elaborate on your view? does the view imply that coming should never update the law for any reason? >> thank you. yes, mr. chairman. i do disagree with that point of view. it depends what type of law congress were to pass. and congress were to pass a stand alone making right right.

it would be a large change to combat law. the way the cases have arise ton date concerning make available, it has been an aspect of the distribution right. say that have come down on both sides. my testimony today, if we keep our narrow focus is congress should clarify that the distribution right is violated when works are made available. in other words, when an individual uploads copyright work to a shared folder it has been made available to the world and the active copyright infringement is complete. it's not necessary to show a subsequent individual downloaded that work. and think about; therefore, a properly tailored amend does not call in to question existing cases that were rendered under the performance right or the displaywright.

>> thank you. let me everyone on the panel. a great panel. i thank you for your testimony. >> a jump ball here. since the hearing covered three separate topics. are there any that like to comment on any of the other two topics you didn't get to testify in your opening statement. >> mr. love. >> on the issue of copyright law. i think there is distwinings between whether the state laws and regulations in the united states can be copyrighted. i think the u.s. law that work with federal employee, federal regulations are not subject to copyright. there are -- i think it would be good to extend that role to laws at the state level and everything from court opinion to -- and i mentioned that the

convention i.t. has a special provision that gives government extra flexibility in the area of testimonies, of legislation, anything that basically smacks law-type proceedings. i think that it is good you focused on this issue. i think that i certainly agree with what karl was saying comp is if you're expected to -- my father was a judge. if you're expected to aby the law, i think you right have tow in what the law is. i think it's good that the committee is looking at that issue. >> thank you. professor. >> thank you. i'll briefly speak. many of the principles i discussed apply equality to standards we need to ensure that the author of standards can be compensated for their work. and i think she did an explent

job testifying. we should keep in mind that standards are incredibly diverse. and some standards have thousand of parts and thousand of sub parts in those parts. in the case of things like technical standards. standards should not all be treated the same. and there should be due regard to the complexity and incredible expense and incredible value created in standards. >> thank you. thank you. this soot one for you. as the committee continues the work reviewing copyright law. are there topics in copyright law that you would recommend the committee review? >> we'll start with the professor. >> i agree with david. it's statutory damages is going to need to be revisited particularly in the individual consumer context. it's a problem to treat them as we are now. hundred of thousand of dollars in damages.

against a mom and student is not -- >> point well taken. professor schultz. >> the digital me less millennium copyright act are broken. they are based on an outdated paradigm that seems almost nigh '05 now. you can contain a file and stop it from spreading. it's no longer working for creators. >> i noticed a piece recently that said google received the 1900th millionth take down. >> it goes both ways. stens of thousand of people who make the good middle class living can't afford to spend all of their time trimming to chase salespeople around the internet. the system is not working for them. it needs to be revisited. >> mr. rove.

>> i think revisiting the issue of formality is quite important. i think the decision to introduce more mall realize it's impossible to identify the owner of a lot of works and authors are. photographs, the pamphlets. a variety of proposals have been made to deal with the works. one of which is to consider the flexibility you have on formality. certainly for the post trip requirement of 20 years on photographs and 50 years on copyright. you can introduce formality for that extended period. the proposal in the tpp negotiation do that thing that the u.s. is actually imposing. i think the sus in the wrong side of that issue. another thing on sound -- which are not protected by the burn convention will there's no

obligation to have a more faulty . not all things considered copyright in the united states are required under the burn convex formality. i think a deep and technical look where so you can introduce them. some people in the recording industry have expressed some openness to the idea it maybe would be a good idea to sort of give more protection to people i'm sorry. the final thing the treaty for the blend provides an opportunity for the united states to share the collections of work zone with people in other country. thank you, mr. chairman. the written statement i submitted put two other matters in to the hopper. one, the united states supreme court last year ruled that gray market goods can be freely

purchased abroad and imported in to country justice's opinion we said we think it's intended congress it. if not they can tell us. there's a parallel issue in the domestic front which is cloud computing. it introduces new rules of the road. it essentially eliminates the safe guards of the for sale doctrine. congress needs to look at the rules it wishes to have for the road of uncharted territory of the cloud. thank you, mr. chairman. the time is expired. i believe that making viable right ingained in the statute is an essential part of the framework. they concluded that no change to the u.s. copyright law was necessary because existing law already includes making available right.

our federal appellate court arrived a the the same conclusion. this is also the case in various international agreement the copyright treaty. i believe that the making available right is inherittings collusive right to give the creators freedom to express themselves and decide how and when they choose to distribute and public perform their own works. so professors, what if any impact carving out a separate making available right to the copyright act. what effect would it on online theft. thank you, representative. i believe it would stream line the cases. instead of having a large

federal case about every activity of peer-to-peer sharing. there could be a proceeding particularly if congress also adopted my suggestion of having small claims court proceedings. i think it would be a change to streamline the procedures and get quick and fair expedition just nice them. i disagree with the professor. it used to be under nap steer you go on and find one user who the file and download it from that particular user. that sort of file sharing property kl is largely -- most is it's divided to separate seg want and sent in a swarm of people who are simultaneously uploading and downloading the work. the issue of whether you have to prove a download is part of your case is essentially irrelevant under the property property

protocall. almost all the instances where file sharing is down the investigator identifies the person. they were not the person doing the downloading. only a relative handful 20, 30, 40 a few hundred every go any further. if it goes to trial, they get a copy of your hard drive and at that point it's trivial to prove the file sharing activity you engage in. i don't see how it would facility or help small creators. >> no thank you.

>> let me turn a different issue. i ask specifically about the case. we know that the supreme court agreed to hear the case to determine whether online streaming of live broadcast institutes an investment of the copyright holders exclusive right of public performance. given the economic importance of intellectual property in our country, and the evolution of modern technology is this an appropriate question for the court to determine or should congress legislate and settle this area of law how would a decision change the landscape how broadcast content would be delivered to consumers in the future? thank you that's an excellent question. i begin with the second part of it. how would it change the landscape of broadcast. not the only court case that the broadcast and television

creators broadcast industry and television creators face. we have one court saying that essentially intercepting signals and aggravating them and sending them to the customer is not does not require payment of retransmission fees. we have another court saying that stripping commercials out of broadcasts is perfectly okay. we have another court in cable vision essentially saying that a virtual yule on demand service is permissible. and when it is all said and done you have to ask where the revenue is coming from. how these companies will get compensated for their work. i think an decision that comes up favor would undermine the premise in which the system is based. local broadcasters can be compensated for the tremendous investment they have in broadcasting and content

creators can be compensated for their work. so i think it's an appropriate topic for the court. but if the court act -- interpret the copyright fact a way that undermines these fundamental policy this congress will have to act. thank you. >> thank you, i yield back. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina congressman holding. thank you, mr. chairman. maybe this is best directed toward you. but can you take a minute or two and explain further how u.s. copyright law compare that of other nations. particularly distinguishing features. >> okay. the theory of anglo american

copyright law is instrumental. it's there for a purpose to promote the progress of science. in the continent in europe, the underlying theory is much more based on natural rights. there's an intreensive connection between the author and the author's creation and so; therefore, there's a natural right to compensation just by virtue of having created regardless of the social policy that will come out of that activity of copying. it's the broadest answer to your question. the philosophical underpinnings i outline play through with practical implications we see in continental injury prudence which is something that is alien to the u.s. way of copyright and only put in grudgely and only

with respect to work of visual art in 1990. that's a brief answer to an extremely interesting and broad range in question. >> maybe we can dive down on specific in the context of negotiated trade agreement. ttip in particular, i'm thinking what type of copyright issues might be brought up in that context, and do you see for any divergence that cause particular arguments? >> where you talking about the free trade agreement. >> correct. insofar as i'm aware, the u.s. government has had great success in reaching agreement with other country with respect the free trade agreements. there are 120 countries now with whom the u.s. has bilateral relations. those treaties do, i think every

single one of them one or two exceptions include a making available right. notwithstanding the philosophical differences between circht countries with different root of copyright. there has not been disagreement insofar as i'm aware. >> i would like to open up to the panel. if anyone else would like that chime in with particular issues having to do with our copyright laws versus other nations and problems there. yes, sir. u.s. has high norm as far as damages are concerned app lot of foreign countries have lower norms as far as damages. they have broader fair use rights. so the combination is such that technology companies which are really dominant in a lot of internet areas have been able to operate. the u.s. is doing in the free

trade imreement is cherry picking the part of the u.s. through a the -- in some cases that the publishers like. they sort of pick really aimpressive standards as far as damages. the basis for dance which isn't found in u.s. law. it's con trar to u.s. law. on the one hand. kind of a half-hearted way of looking at the fair use. what you've got is a shift of increased liability for u.s. technology companies operating overseas. it has strong damage but more exception than most foreign countries do. which is paradox. i think the problem in trades policy also is that negotiations are secret. you know, we help leak the september verse of the ttp negotiations an negotiation

involving something like 40% of the world's gdp in that negotiation. .. all of this sort of to support your notion there is no need for making available right.

the unauthorized copying, distribution, an austrian copyrighted works are not the problem. he talked about the purpose for not to maximize revenue moon but to make the works pitbull widely available. he said today that the measure if the music output is always a delicate, of the money. by the works and file sharing cahuenga encouraging. end you and-why, even while formerly a legal file sharing is provided much broader access to the pre-existing market mechanisms. first you said earlier that the copyright laws in this area have always focused on the never ending corporation and lehman. and i wonder if you draw the

distinction at the individual to learn what happens when that individual starts to create an opportunity to share hundreds and thousands of tens of thousands and millions of somalis in movies and other copyrighted work that can then be shared with others clearly in medicines pile sharing goes beyond. unbeaten. >> thank you for the question. it is a hard area to get our hands around and counterintuitive to suggest that some point feel less revenue could lead to more work breaks. i was surprised but the result. of course, from my perspective i am an ivory tower academic. of expect my work to have a real word significance. i want to explore issues it tried to figure things out. you get a result like this and publish it.

a bit of controversy. obviously copyright is not in never-ending spigot. deaconess simply add more and more and more and expects to get more works for. there has to be diminishing returns. >> i am not asking you knew to reiterate your testimony. would you say that file sharing is a sharing of cabaret material is okay, is in the cage for an individual for an individual to share tens of thousands for. >> file sharing for sharing tens of thousands if. we have assumed that that has the sale affects as competing commercial half copies in the marketplace, except -- beverly don't understand the argument that a legal file sharing and, if the goal was to spread the amounts of music in creative works and all of this great

intellectual property and to spread it is far and as wide as possible checks allies a deferred direct the computer and and, in the setting of technology to share files and l.a. that it would be further debate. >> retailer to have someone come did through the back door, scuba of the cds it tvs and take them out on the street corners after they have copied them and in hundreds of thousands guiding the business on the road. why is it difficult? >> loco is different when consumers are doing it that when a commercial entity is doing it five. >> i am suggesting the individual who breaks into the big box retailer in skips that may be only one are to takes a couple of seasons tvs and makeup is of those in the of herself and goes ahead it shares the of

the nation far and wide, why is it different to what should it be acceptable for that to happen but not on the streets? >> this individual who, are they offering those copies for free? >> i think it is an important distinction whether for-profit arm of for-profit. >> we had just someone his goal was really just spread the great american intellectual property fifth by making copies in district 88 of his or her own goodwill toward thousand copies to attend the thousand copies, maria's of copies, and that is perfectly acceptable. >> we do have such individuals. in they have coexisted with the commercial market for hundreds of years without undermining it. >> they have libraries that operate and have operated for hundreds of years : not the

setting of people who will make it, freely distribute kenwood to be used without any regulation. you talk of the fact that as you explained the question is not whether file sharing is the decline of record sales, but you talk about other ways that creators can be compensated. separate and apart. did you go through all of the men include yourself aloha fast that it is not the amount lost facts cahuenga dahlia it do-gooders' are virtually capable of spreading intellectual property office which makes them better off and everyone involved in the production of bellmore tv show.

using to review your argument. you do gullikson a ahoy, there is less money going to the industry, but that it is not fair to point out this that may mean there are fewer creators. if he had tougher enforcement for those industries are dollars that would have otherwise ultimately the conclusion the reach that's about it is in the best interest of creators and our country cracks and for creative works to be spread far and wide and as you have acknowledged to and not just a couple of kids rating songs pikestaff.

ultimately going and i talked to who rely on copyright to protect their intellectual property, inconsistent with what they tell us they need in order for us to continue to uphold this great american intellectual property revalues a watch. sfax, which had three or four hours. as a very enlightening. we made a statement concerning standards and of the applied to life in general fest. duty and we could be served by the industry itself setting standards are the believe that we to legislate more?

>> adding that the way the system works know is a public-private partnership with state is developing organizations to have technicalities working with the federal regulators who are in their space. together into the partnership to develop regulations that best meet the requirements of the regulated, whenever that may be. in this country that is a very average tribespeople. there are very many groups that do that, of what the standard developers organization brings to that it is providing a administrative support staff that permits the group visits at the table to be open and bella and transparent and not dominated by any one group. they provide the administrative support for revving consumer said at the table and provide input that would otherwise be provided if it was just a

government-driven the event. so i think that balances of makes it wholesome and makes it the system that is. >> thank you. professor schultz. let's have although example. you are a musician. and the writer you choose, but at this point you have a record out, i see the outcome of music out, and i'd get buy it from new you paid no compensation for me, but when people could your name in my search engine the music comes up. you send me a notice. and i do nothing about it.

your music comes up because when the guy who is illegally selling music to people soft demand you're not getting paid for it. you keep sending me notice and notice and notice. or should be done about that? >> the key for the question. i think indeed speech inherently hard to difficulties. one is that the current notice and take them system is based on identifying a particular style rather than a work. as i said, is based on an old paradigm though we had to do back in 1998 was top of file that escaped into the internet through quarantine, and pull it back. and know every time somebody's work is infringed they have to send a separate notice for every file. >> do you think should be held responsible even though you are

unsure how many people would know loving music begins every time someone gets on my surgeon general bowsher then maria music comes up and then selling it to somebody for $0.10 a pop? fast. >> absolutely, if you're hosting in profiting from somebody else's work either by advertising -- >> steve dagen should be held criminally liable. >> that is a more challenging question. >> of stealing from new. i was a prosecutor for 18 years. and stealing something from you in making a profit. you think it should be charged criminally? >> of course regarding this bill will but that the criminal law can be a useful tool but it has to be very carefully applied to his senses with the users -- >> they keep. >> professor the willis seven other example. instead of when the charity,

you're a poet living in a one-room apartment sibila. the songwriter, looking through your book of poetry and find this magnificently on the road. i take that and put it to music. irvington million dollars of it. >> the issue of derivative is a difficult one and a person would learn of approach that. >> personally for startling. >> you rate. you don't have a problem with it >> to feel that in light of the derivative it is the ridge to the pretty creativity. >> your father is a great poet, struggling and trying to keep a fairly. to lead dollars german he cannot see his children perry's is something be done about that? deal of problem with that karen

fay. >> penicillin in a deal of money of it. >> in music. >> back to the market he originally exploited. he was just a poet. >> zero but. he really wanted to selig. but i took a poll of the book and made to $9. he cannot feed his kids. >> right. my perspective of all of the derivative works is that we should a required necessarily licenses, but it is a derivative of there's with. >> i would tend to disagree on that and the gullibility real if my father said to you know, what i mean here today folks, this- revealed the tape while work. i yield back. >> the guliani from california. >> think you. i stand corrected. >> thank you, mr. chair.

professor in the law, do you think that would raise in the first and a bit of free speech issues? if so, what do you think we will be able to do to avoid those jurors is? >> of believe that a simple clarification that the distribution right includes making the work available does not necessitate a first amendment special-interest a dozen other rise automatically any way. i believe we do not need to pay special edition costs. it could be that congress wishes to have this special half, surgical intervention in the peer to peer delayed because the state of pornography law suits, if congress would -- congress wished to limit seven uprighted three, that would raise the problem of low level in if there was sufficient governmental

interest dissatisfied. but straight make the available distribution does not raise any special first of it concerns. >> i actually agree. create resumption that award made available in a shared folder could be presumed to be down loaded costs it would be in frederick under other interpretation to the existing distribution right. in italy that would raise the first of their problems. he passes general make it available right, an infringement , a public display right where social that working, you're going to get it to some first amendment issues, and i agree that if you trying go after copyright controls it may raise first of issues. >> if we feel that it is implied in a lot today, why you'd think the courts are having so it's

difficult to write out? >> i believe the elephant in the room is a minus territory damages if so that when the young single mother is clearly culpable full copyright infringement in the it she could be held by the jury liable for $100 million a statutory damages , the courts are reluctant to apply the law as written. that is why eat -- i am urging congress for a global solution cajon. the same time it reaffirms the aspect of the distribution right that it would cap statutory damages to reasonable listed to. >> to you agree with the statement earlier that making -- have the explicit reference to making available right would cause economic harm? >> em appositive which aspect of the statement you're looking in, but i like an economics very differently.

suffice it to say that it is an interesting study, but it does not eliminate how much music would there have been created to last year's of syria, senate adopted peer to peer in the file sharing. >> the the there is a way to differentiate and make available more specifically pill would not cause both cases to be reopened and the uncertain they talked about earlier? >> it certainly would be. if he just wants appeared to pier fashion context you could create a presumption of the workman available. you can even make it rebuttable. no one ever gets that far. never gets that far even in the cases. in the one case where it was raised costs to the issue is found guilty, making available destruction on the distribution. it was retried after the

district judge said that is now right his u.s. still found guilty. >> i yield back my time, mr. chair. >> i think the general lee lee. the june live from california. >> the key, mr. chairman. mr. griffin, as a lot of documents be placed in the record earlier. most of them are related to the german banks to you, mr. mallon. it is an amazing thing to me that i came from standard setting organization, electronics industry's association and see a curve. he could not have a high-definition television if we did not figure out what the standards are going to be. do not be arguing over capturing digital broadcasting did not have it. standards are important. the standards and laws are different, and i would like to concentrate someone on this and of the table pahang.

i'm going to read a short as part of the constitution braces to establish post offices and post roads, post offices are next door. this is to promote progress, and i will skip over of science and useful arts related it to -- limited time, i will just read fish how it relates to copyright to what to promote the progress for limited times to authors. the visit. that is the constitution. it is aliyah paragraph. to promote by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries but the short run expect, to promote to others, who authors all long?

that is what point in that of all documents of it. the state of idaho, georgia, mississippi, if they produce a lot, every single person who voted for it is an author. it does not belong to some entity. is it every law in fact -- and i have to tell you, obamacare f. pitbull verdugo want to be authors and others -- a few left to do calabar of the day that it passed through all authors. so my question to and i am going to concentrate on this an open up to rest buried in its rawest form cut his it, in fact, every single person who participates in the creation of wall or the inclusion by association of the standard in author and therefore fire willing to have been

released to everyone there is general that copyright, and undivided and order, don't you ultimately have no possibility of protection? and other words, the state of idaho his inherently wrong if they consider any part of a law that requires or mandates to be, in fact, as a will for copyright my point here, have been in congress for 13 years in about eight days if. the one thing i know is i don't need the copyright to promote if politicians making loss. fox so by definition the promotion being the basis for copyright kaduna we inherently have a decision to make your weather on the laws or anything else which is included in the law but been date has in the right to a copyrighted all, of fundamental -- forgivable we doofus, is it eligible for

copyright? >> congressman, thank you for the question. i think that is the crux of the matter. when it looked at whether the building code texas had a long said that there is no incentive needed for the -- >> politicians will make laws. >> absolutely. >> you pay them per diem and they will show up. >> and i never see a standard body rejects to one of the documents being incorporated by law. that is especially crucial on public safety laws. we may incorporate by reference to many things and perhaps the guidance of this committee could be used on that topic, but for those that are crucial, for example, the laws on testing the toxicity of water fix is something that every citizen it was tragedy was to go, what those laws are. i think that is the key point. you cannot have it both ways. the document is, in fact, the lock to win has to be available. i respect the right of the

standard bodies developer ride waves of standards, once one of those as become law for the kiddies to be available. again, the body can see, please, do gun incorporate. we prefer this not become law which is perfectly acceptable to will double standard bodies. xbox please designate one to be the law. >> of our test tube of follow-up that goes along this line quickly he just said is worth a try to make a point on. if it is a voluntary standard in fact it is available for copyright. and understand that. if it is incorporated in law, at that point should you object to being incorporated or recognize the your waving any copyright objections from the public having free and fair access to essentially a law that they must

comply with? hit. >> they do, carson pirie the answer is incorporated into omb xbox. and those policies and laws dictate that a government agency, a federal agency incorporates this is the committee that must decide what can i cannot be covered under the who promote and a exclusive element of copyrighted. the rest of the panel is extremely important and to work on an all-time goal but in the digital age checks narrowly law and people's access to laws which then must comply with

inherently this committee has decided whether that should be stripped of any and all copyright to the extent that we have the authority which has nothing to do with what a way be thinks because quite frankly kaj they think they can make laws with of congress to reopen the morning every get. constitutionally on what basis would you say that has in the grounding? key. >> if you could be brief. time has expired. >> let me tell you what the second and ninth circuit said of that very point. they said that the due process requires that a free access to the law may be relevant but does not justify termination of bad in this case it was the american medical association. there is no evidence that anyone wishing to use the standard issue in that case 80 difficulty in obtaining it which was the p.m. mike case in the ninth circuit here. the central circus and a similar

case so we're not prepared to all the states reference to a copyrighted work as a legal standard for valuations opposed by countervailing considerations. the rule that the adoption of such a reference by the state legislative body deprived of upper right over the last sentence of that paragraph. wallow there is authority, a professor numbers treatise opposes such a suggestion as and botanical to the advancement of the copyright act. the end of the date is a balance between the rights of copyright holders and the value that those copyrights bring to federal regulation.

>> thank you. mr. chairman, i appreciate your indulgence and want to go on the record. in order to have a vote on final passage we will have to rectify the ambiguity in the law so that every american has free access to every law that he or she was live under. >> that they did zoom in from california and the witnesses. there will be ample time after the hearing for exchanges. nobody is being shoved off abruptly. shcherbakov, but not abruptly him. i think it's relevant from california. mr. jefferies. >> take the chair and the lead this is further testimony. want to start with professor levy if it and try and get some clarity from -- as it relates to some of your written testimony of pages six and seven. bottom of page six he state that

as has been previously discussed the purpose of the copyright is not to maximize the revenue of the music industry are copyright owners or generally. is that correct? >> yes, i take this statement from supreme court decisions. >> is it fair to say that copyright owners or content creators are entitled to reasonable compensation? >> i think we have to sit ten define what reasonable is. that will be a more difficult task than you might imagine. >> is it your view that copyright offers of content creators are entitled to compensation? >> no, it is not my view of that sort at all, and i am happy it there would be where will paid. mightily respective is the focus should be of the protection of put. obviously a well compensated arson musician class is probably important.

>> let's focus of the constitution. appreciate that observation. the relevant provision is article one section a, clause eight which reads support of the progress of science and useful lives by supplying limited times to authors and inventors. dell, the progress of science part of that provision the

creation of work. >> is a general proposition come have a disagreement with that statement. >> what would you disagree with? >> well, is always a question of

how many rights and how broad they need to be. do we need to address every specific instance in the academy we talk about leakage. instances where individuals are copying. they are not super would not cover the -- constitute copyright infringement. trying to determine whether any given ises of copying to was a reasonably straightforward. the bill would all agree commercial competitor would take for less than the same market price. the all the cleary fists that they ought not be a copyright infringers. >> in my correct this is your position as it relates to the charity of the measure of what happens with meaningful were reasonable compensation is not provided, we should simply allows for the illegal the

simulation are reproductions are sherry works for where. >> i will be interested in that experiment. file sharing give us an opportunity this see what might happen. was formerly illegal. revenues of the music industry cover even went down. so output and what does that tell us about whether we have not enough copyright, too much copyright gorgeous the right amount. if revenue goes down sharply it easy to get as much or more output to offer me that suggests we may have had too much copyright to begin with. >> should we be concerned about the impact on the economy in this area? >> it depends what you mean. for me as an economist effect as of monday does not float to the music industry is going to remain in the consumer pockets in be spent elsewhere.

jobs lost and the copyright sectors, consumers spend that money in those sectors of the economy. >> you referenced earlier in your testimony that vaccines and the ground. you may have visited in the context of this interpretation of alignment and treatises which preceded the development of, the ad industry we. technology changes over time. that is a wonderful thing. the witty of us would agree. the issue is how we accommodate technological changes as they move forward but also create the certainty in the law and the copier protection for the creative community. do you have any words on how to strike that appropriate balance? >> i certainly do agree. the end of my written statement the reproduce one page for 50

years ago. the register of copyrights written in 1965. we don't know what the law will be cool but they said it is becoming increasingly apparent the transmission of works by late computers may be among the most important means if. a final statement was, we believe the day has passed in any particular use of work should be exempted for the reason that it is not for profit. those are wise words to guide us as we go forward. this was written at the culmination of ten years of steady, and i think it beautifully encapsulates much of the philosophy that these to go in which would be my last word on a going forward basis. >> they key. my time has expired. >> thank the gentleman from the york faugh. professor, i owe you a lady and apology. previously mispronounce your surname.

you're not loony. i stand corrected. >> alloys tell my students at ryan smithsonian i am not crazy. >> fast and hold me your list from a mistake. the gentleman from georgia recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. la the coveted wrigley you may have summed up this entire discussion from my perspective. i believe that copyright protection and the protection is not only striking it then helping innovation protecting and growing. and you make comments, just a ploy which struck me in may comes phases to others. their words mean something. the copyright protections means of the. sums up this entire hearing nipponese to be a proper balance struck.

just a poet, just a writer. awhirl list say is different. appreciate. what you do is really a public service. they have a problem with where we are right now, lou the level we are defining. your letter to the senator mcewen, speaker, pro tem, you said the official code of georgia annotated every component of it is the official all. i want to explore that. have some questions. what is an adaptation?

>> and aerostation can be anything from some freelance the sorrow, buy some commercial provider to the comments by the legislative council or the state itself as to the import of the code. >> they keep. is an annotation instead she? >> i'll let you ask that question because it comes to the crux of one of the problems of we face in this committee might want to deal with this issue. i am just a computer guy, law school dropout. want to put all 50 state laws online. >> let's stop right there. i have no problem there. the lodge itself, the problem we're getting into is the definition. if he gets to the free public website shot to when you actually get the free annotation it was this is the annotated code makes specific reference to

say that the law where any other recognized is not copyrighted. is a work of the invitation which is more them along,. >> with congressman, the terms of use of the freeze side probing before making a copy. specifically prohibits. >> what it prevents you from doing is taking a boat in copying it to everyone i was a school that was caught cheating go plagiarism. how else you want to describe it. the questions -- the invitation byrd is really where we're getting here. he may claim. average your book. in states such as georgia, idaho, mississippi, with all due respect to idaho and mississippi first, spread fear, uncertainty, and out. and you are good of there. if you're a part of this he should have a projected costs. he put it up there, that's your choice.

but frankly, i believe you're being disingenuous. to throw a deep chill when you can go three steps and get it for free, the party and concerned about is really the bigger steps costs of taking part of which we all recognize the law, the statute, the silver for californians to will lead the toronto than non annotated the will to say that invitation is low when be like taking this committee memo as saying it is a part of the federal code. is just not true. written by someone else fifth. the question really comes from the, the way that it was handled and. it is already free. the issue is their first. actually was the work of someone else. >> you're right. me to make sure five the

copyright laws and the issues, there needs to be a proper balance. i believe in this issue is officially taking the state of georgia and others in claiming that they are chilling innovation fast is over the top to make a point about something that is the really true. that being that the law itself will not negotiate. as part of the public record, but of i have someone that i broke my adaptation have done the work and we respect the work.

you mentioned there is no need to make available and then it would not have an effect on curbing online theft costs. you mentioned that with bids torrent users there up loading and unloading simultaneously making thousands of illegal copies. the law is already made, but that has not stopped it. they tried to chase their works across the interdict three file

to file sharing which is one of many solutions he himself has written on the issue. the problem with these proposals , their feasibility problems from the treaty compliance problems. so i do not wish to prejudge it at the of said. it is a fascinating vehicle faugh requiring a lot of study. the devil is in the details, but it is a completely different way of looking at the issue, and it deserves to be -- >> he said there are a number of others. other major suggestions available? >> professor fisher at harvard

has proposed something that will basically : entertainment tax. the government could decide how much money has been made through all of the arts and allocate that and allow free sharing of culture. analysts live poorly his book, but it misses that is what it is >> it might be interesting if he take up the word tax which has a certain rate of around here. would you, it? >> said what? >> it is a terrible idea. you're writing the government. the fundamental concept in copyright thought it in the property right decide the terms of which is to alleviate. you take away that liberty he take away the value of the price. >> and your comment now were

applied to private they as well? >> no. to a system like that people entered voluntarily. >> will with your comment on the b? xbox. >> sure. there are plenty of organizations that sell lot of problems, but it is is the a private matter, otherwise the government determines -- >> okay. >> mr. love were professor love wanted to comment. >> we have a lot of history of compulsory plexuses. often connected with the technology. i don't think it is beyond the pale that you moved to some sort of compulsory license. even have the issue of how you pay the money about. the first instance people looked at is the sort of simply think.

different approach is to have the consumer's bill to pick the collection that they grew worse the artists in a way. so that it affects the consumer is becoming a patron of the arts , they needed to be a patriot. >> several operations doing similar things. >> one would give other money. madonna and bruce beers. the other would do a little bit differently. you would be able to pick and support in the way you prefer which is a different model. there are alternatives. >> the sum like things we ought to explore, was see my time has expired and that they view of. >> that they did joy for me york. the distinguished gentleman from texas. >> think you very much. if we were to south, or make

available what would it to that we cannot do already? >> of about sharing context ago that it would change. makes it marginally easier xbox web businesses is is who will see a new round. >> other than making it easier for a plaintiff what other protection are we going to provide creators? >> the evidence is to make it easier for the plaintiff and thereby to comply with the u.s. treaty obligations to resolve the conflict in the case law. >> they're getting away now would not be getting away if we were to do this? >> obviously i don't have empirical figures. >> do you realistically think that there are 80? xbox not guilty parties.

>> the worst part in my mind is we would know. if you adopt a broad general and make the right we would not know. >> would abroad make available right, if i took my copy of the latest novel i bought and read and donated to the library here, let been making that available and would we undermine the for sale doctrine? >> there is an exception

break-in still limited. >> what about making available public spaces. an itunes in my house. there's a shared folder that have been available off to my television set and to my other computer and probably my daughter's television said in my wife's computer. you know, where you draw the lines? >> the danger here is in the standalone rick available right. carter's offer to pass and a seventh rudbeckia little olive dangerous, hovered, i believe we can of oil of those included the danger fear of sharing with tear wife and daughter if we simply define the public distribution right to include making available. we'll include your wife and daughter that is an active public distribution, so you don't need to worry. >> i want to hit each of the topics. i need to get to professor

schultz. an awful broadcaster and understand that stuff is for local broadcaster xbox. you look at something like what is going on, don't they want as many as possible viewing their newscasts serve the more value to sell to advertisers. >> that is a good question. advertising revenue is one component of how they make -- how they constitute the business . their other components including real transmission fees that are resistant to supporting local broadcast. >> i guess the other issue then becomes for at what point to end to the issue did deal with all local television stations to presley walked to my house so that i can watch the corpus christi these past. >> you absolutely don't.

prices soared to richard doesn't go that far. the bigger down here to the other end of the table quickly. i will have to agree at once something is enacted into law the public ought to have a right to get to it for free. don't the standard setting organizations cut dues in general revenue from the members to participate? i've listed in the old days it coslet to protect the books and distribute, but of the marginal cost of making this information available above the internet is basically done and there is zero value to some of these -- and like all that does not fit the standard, to use your analogy. shouldn't the private sector the benefits costs from the paper form and the public have them free. why should an appeal to prick of a copy of the electric co to make sure the electrician vector rewire up to brown.

>> a couple of things. first there a different business walls. many jews faced their reveries of river should fees, radioed. does that tell are largely not-for-profit decision reorganizations that keep their barriers to entry low. they have low entry fees, lower version of fees, but there the very reason that they can cost use the sale's arrived. >> a see my time has expired. lotus italic you and we could debate this for an hour and is of the reelected to. it is important. you may waive your right to that would see fight to get it enacted a law or it gets evicted. is something we could talk about what we have more time. >> there will be ample time for us to revisit this time and again, i am sure. the children for georgia.

>> mr. chair, back in 80 a.d. two going into law libraries, georgia state university tea ready for cases and to represent various folks in the general practice. i recall coming upon doctor -- mr. libber. and i cannot believe that he is sitting here looking is eurydices. i thought he would go to be above 90 years old line them up. thank you for your contribution go answer. then i have long supported strong copyright protections as the backbone of innovation, creativity, and public good, of materials created by the u.s. covenants is government did not deserve copyright protection, nor have they ever received did.

it 88 the supreme court held in banks verses manchester that there has always been a consensus that judicial opinions are in the public to evade because the work of judges spines every citizen checks nba said should remain free for publication to all. since courts have continuously upheld this understanding, it's in the public domain, section 105 of the copyright act reflecting his view, specifically deny copyright protection to statutes and regulations. at its core this issue touches of the american ideal for justice that we will slow laws as governess. this right is fundamental to a rule of law that underpins our democracy, particularly when it pervades our process.

it is also central to upholding our system of checks and balances by holding congress accountable for the legislation passes or fails to pass. as we review copyright protection in anticipation of the next generation or the next great copyright act we must continue to protect americans access to a loss and justice by protecting access to public materials in the public domain. mr. bellwood cost, they give for appearing here to live a forest. a lot to the faq for your work in making public love accessible unknown. it is easy to take for granted heliborne public databases are in our increasingly digital democracy. and less public documents to digitize and available they're often out of reach of many. your written testimony you go to

you were currently publishing official, state to win municipal codes. as a former commissioner n. cass county georgia i appreciate the importance of provinces is working to improve local committees. with the benefit of making both public data available from municipal governments and i will add to my comments the fact that when you want to -- if you're a citizen of the state, go and look up the code, the local and political subdivision, is nice to be allowed to go online, and get that impression. what is the benefit of making both public data available from municipal government? >> thank you for your comments, congressman. the issue we have with the georgia code as it currently is

is you cannot get the ball -- you can i cut to the free website and up fest. what happens when both data becomes available is volunteers, so commercial operations, but often simply said this is will belated make the code significantly more accessible, work on modern but for which up to the minister of columbia recently costs. the copyright was waived. several volunteers came in and develop a vastly better version which informs citizens in a better way. by having both data available we encourage citizen participation in the process of informing each other which is why we care so much of the official code of georgia. >> have local governments responded to making this will cause while the available? >> we have a significant push back at the state level. the city level there will cover

areas with open arms. recently stood up with four staff members, for all global white house officials. recent up with the city clerk of chicago and unveil a new chicago ..

>> and the other was the red book ended those instances the courts found there were copyright protections. what is your opinion? do you agree with the outcome? >> i am not a lawyer. i am just a suggested but might take on that is the decision was about the crucial safety code incorporated into the law. like medical co said needed to be used by doctors. the extent that the public safety was at stake but said they all begin with eight ordnance of a corporation we the people of this uncertainty over

jurisdiction to hear by adopt this. so the government may have the industry did a program that if something is referenced between those situations. >> with the public safety standard one that has specifically incorporated by reference. in fact, we looked as state coach stan mentioned something in passing we keep our hands of those but part and parcel of the allotted to me the fact it is an external document is no different than if the state had offered that themselves what about the building code? was the incorrect? vivid there is a sharper

distinction that was a very unique situation with very unusual fax. the model code writer wrote with specific intent to be incorporated word for word into the law in fact, it was in the defendant copied that but not the model code. under those circumstances of the fifth circuit said as the of all this content loses copyright protection but the clerk was quick 2.0 was a limited case you did did not apply to what they call the standards that are incorporated by reference in to block like this second and ninth circuit case is. and limited to its fact how

that might be decided today is unclear to me some accusing these different codes, how often and what happened verbatim in that case obviously legislators could use those model codes they don't have to adopt at all. as to adopt everything wholesale? >> mine is not the standards developed organization i don't have statistics that he and then some code developers the insurers -- ginger root in to some agreements that could be adopted that there is some regulation to the standard developing organization web site. there are very different kinds and opportunities that is one reason why in the

context of this recent devaluation the this to the federal regulators to come up with the way to make access. at the end of the day it is about access and whether the public has access not how much say cost but if they have access. >> when that decision and was appealed the solicitor general suggested that decision was could block and following that recommendation? >> right. justin in terms as standard dan coats are developed i guess what about the viability without copyright protection? >> is a huge risk to the standards developing organization if they were not permitted to derive

revenue from the sale of standard then they could not fund operations so those include providing see as mistreated support for the development of standards to ensure more reasonably more parties are at the table to be sure consumers are at that table. but the standard developed a organizations that are mission related and not-for-profit organizations are able to do that by selling the standards to use the revenue. if by contrast the government would take that process a way the government would have to provide that expertise or administrative support than the taxpayers would pay for that. the change would result in a detrimental to age to the way the standards are developed in this country. >> i yield back.

>> the distinguished woman from california. >> also to have an opportunity to participate it seems to me people seem to have forgotten their experience with sopa one o go. that the american public attitude toward sopa has said the you turn of what has happened since said anti-performance make available it goes in the same direction. that is a nonstarter in my opinion. but to get the academic discussion but that will not happen. one of the things that has been raised that we should

review is the issue of statutory damages. when you take go looking at some of these outrageous things that have happened with statutory damages i think of the single mother that brought a case awarded 1.$5 million against this woman for downloading 24 songs was no indication she even shared them. that was reduced 54 -- to the amount of 54,000 because of the disproportionate of that nature but you have that kind of statutory scheme is irrational to a and it needs to be changed. that also i spent a long time trying to work on that and finally gave up with other members of the committee because of the intransigence of the

participants. what we need to look at the deal witchhunt -- the damage at we did with the copyright term that basically is a century in that half and we have aggravated the issue of the or fed works you wish sometimes you key and undo the votes and that is what i am convinced i was a freshman and that they require the vote now i know that was not the case for i wish i could undo my guess about on the sunday bono copyright extension act. the real value of this hearing is the issue raised about the standard of public law was coined to ask unanimous consent to put it the standard text message jeddah after do that because my colleague has already

done so. but it seems to me i henderson and there is a business model but you cannot allow that to trump the rule of law. and i am mindful of the discussion that we had about publicly funded research. we had a hearing a couple of years ago with the non-profit society that is funded for the peer review process that is essential by the publisher. but that is a business model that was deleterious to the public's right to have publicly funded research made available.

we have now changed that the way the way the non-profit society will follow along with changes because they do provide a useful model but you cannot allow that current business model to dictate the end result. if you incorporate by reference by documents it has to be a part of the public record. that as soon as the public does not have an interest in violence contractor maybe i can't afford to pay the fee because i will make money but there is a public-interest not just those in the business but it is the public rights to no. this is a sufficient standard? the only way is to make a public and a screen is inappropriate. i totally agree there is no

copyright reform that we should support that does not resolve this issue. i have listened with great interest although there is academic interest, certainly the public spoke very lovely about sopa and i believe we will have the appetite to revisit that either with copyright laws or the ttp negotiations under way. you are right but the leaks to wikileaks our sopa. if that is a ttp it is a dead with my judgment. i yield back. >> i will thank the chairman and ranking member for the generosity of time and i want to associate myself with my colleague this is an excellent panel and weld

committed in this area with a lot of history in this area as well. not enough time for questions i just want to go in court -- across everyone mentioning sopa, yes or no. do you feel congress should weigh your particular testimony today? >> yes. >> no. >> not yet. >> you should pay attention to russa negotiation on the broadcast treaty. >> yes or no? >> should you change u.s. law in that area? >> yes or no. >> we don't know what the treaty is yet. >> thank you. >> no.

>> absolutely. yes. >> professor, professor nimmer it your testimony you have a scenario where the user goes to a trial and is held by the fact that the award was disproportionate with damages is inappropriate that would make them not inclined to make the baking but could you please elaborate? i have ordered to other questions. what would re-read calibration so with the multi-billion dollar judgment? could you expound on your view, professor lunney, of the broken window parable in english that is witches' scene or witches unseen. and i do want mr.

schultz, but if you could expand all little bit. tea nine? >> yes. when j.b. went to trial the award against her was 1.$5 million for her she had the option to settle the plaintiffs offered a settlement she could pay several thousand dollars designed to four musicians charity because she committed perjury in because the trial was so egregious a jury here murderer but what is reasonable man and -- measures? it did make sense in in 1989 to a cap how many works in french because at that point there was not possible to infringe 10,000 works it was physically impossible but with peer to peer is. so congress needs to look at what level of damage is

causing deterrence and compensating is somewhat related to the harm. i did not come here with a ready metric but it could be several hundred dollars for each worker implicated or $100 of debt the given lawsuit or another measure within reason not with hundreds of billions of dollars. >> refinement, clarity and in determining how someone could be made whole. professor lunney? >> 1850's explain to win the government creates the subsidy program is not new monday in the economy they taken from consumer surtax is they have new employment in the arts but we don't see breathtaking the money from the consumers they don't

have that money cannot spend it on something else. the jobs that are lost because consumers along the have that many but we tend to ignore it if you just moved money from one job to another there is no net gain. if we could come up with the magic formula to restore to the music industry some of the money lost perhaps as a result that would not be a net gain in jobs for the economy just forcing consumers to pay more for music they have less money to pay for everything else so any revenue we gained in the music industry we lose elsewhere in the economy. >> more expansion and? >> so with aereo to have a single company distributing a tv signal to many

customers that would seem to fit the definition of a public performance. however aereo what they perceived is a loophole of copyright law are using antiquated technology with the rate of antennas to distribute the signal is not paying copyright royalties or reach transmission fees. you have to ask yourself between the broadcasters airing creators verses aereo two has the right to distribute those signals and a profit? i hope the supreme court rejects the interpretation of the law that allows aereo to do this but if they don't i hope this congress will address that. >> you have been gracious with your time i think there are a lot of competing issues we have a great respect for broadcasters an

artist and the posture that half professor nimmer has taken i yield back my time off we want to express our thanks to the witnesses to have prevailed during this marathon but it has been a worthwhile balance id i appreciate those who have remained in its entirety more than a casual interest in this very significant issue. this concludes today's hearing in without objection all members have five legislative days to submit additional questions for the record. this hearing's the answer to [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

good afternoon i hope your is enjoying the official first day of scsi of the moderator for today's panel but before we start the brief introduction we have some opening remarks i want to introduce the next speaker that has been riding shotgun thank over four years and now with a couple weeks left it has been very interesting it is a revolution in the automobile industry. please welcome david strickland. [applause] >> eight you so much it is a superstar panel. id to stay longer to learn something. as you are aware i will be stepping down from my post in a couple of weeks.

but i've want to share a couple of things very quickly. i have spent '05 minutes. we first peaky and our work during my tenure on sturdy really in earnest 2009 and 2010 and i remember my decision to make sure i came to ces as part of the regular audits show tour dip was the leading water show in america. said team in the big factures recognize that car companies are no longer just car companies but technology companies because there is a convergence there is possibility of opportunity in a great rest. -- risk so in terms of free air we are or what we see or where we will go, i've been

incredibly happy to see so many partners are now talking to each other that was not the case not that bothered go. wireless providers, he did help manufacturers, auto makers in system platform providers the androids the i/o s of though world are now in strategic partnerships to figure out ways for bird and speaking of which. ♪ [laughter] i wish i plan that. but i did not. but i will tell you that from the parts of the agency of nhtsa as a safety regulator and other regulatory bodies that are in partnership the fcc, the

ftc, but we have one chance to get this right. i implore all of you to continue on in your path not only communicating at the level you are talking right now but frankly building a broader base of how we attack the problems we see in the future of connectivity at large. vehicle to vehicle that we were gonna the agency in the fall and connecting the driver to the vehicle, to the outside world and how we can innovate safely. but i will tell you the one thing to disrupt all of our and safety systems and push for technology to get it through the initiative where we focus on increasing seatbelts interlocks to eliminate from driving having the vehicle recognize if you are over the limit

than reducing human error. the hope of reducing traffic fatalities at 10,000 people come to 5,000 people is based on this technological hope. but we will not attain its if we do not address privacy and all those components that people hold dear. we're at a sensitive time in regards to these issues. the power of everything that we rely on a safety systems in connection will be attained if consumers don't trust the work of the regulators. so my best official request of this administrator at the consumer electronics show we have to do more and half to be better and have to do it faster. the agency is in a position right now where i have always said like what grade gretzky's dad said to him

don't go where it is to go where it is going. nhtsa has to do that and we will and the team will continue that work but everybody in this room has a responsibility we have to make sure we have the trust of the american people for all of these wonderful innovations. that is my hope period my wish. again everybody in this brutal the partners of the past four years that have made this the most dynamic time anti-nhtsa has ever had in office and you are truly have the ability to do god's work. keep talking, a key planning come to keep innovating come to keep growing and please keep safety as the number one priority. thank you very much. [applause] >> that was very interesting.

talk about privacy only today. [laughter] i have been coming to this show and was vegas almost 45 years and have heard innovation revolution and tell i was sick but the issue rereleasing the start of something that will revolutionize travel travel, safety, david alluded to the idea of zero fatalities that people realistically talk about now but there is a long road to get there. that is the starting point. i will very quickly burned through the of folks on the panel they get off of the discussion because we don't have a lot of time. from toyota, of verizon from gardner in in to the association of global auto makers, delphi, in the

alliance of automobiles manufacturers. since we were just talking about it as a policy discussion, how can anybody in the legislature, the government, they keep up with the changes we see? . . >> that's fine. the question is how can we keep up and how can the ministry should keep up with what is changing in the telematics world or the automotive world. we have to have a lot of people i guess. full employment act for the government because it's changing dramatically. i think a lot of the changes good and there's a lot of innovation. the cars are giving smarter and yes the cars are