that did not go away with the defeat of sopa and pipa. the other thing that people pay attention to and in some sense it's a harder problem because you have to worry about it, in some sense is cyber security. right? the real nightmare story for computer regulation is some seriously disproductive infrastructural attack on the internet that takes out some critical, whether it's the airline network or the electric grid or something of that nature, and that would not only be catastrophic in its own right. i think at that point the idea that computers are largely an unregulated area goes away. >> down here. >> my name is henry nichol, i'm from california southern law school. just a quick question. a number of you touched upon this issue upon the global marketplace and i was wondering if you could comment on the creeping danger of harmonizing with foreign law and expanding

federal regulation. i speak specifically of recent controversies that relate to european demands that the u.s. adopt a data privacy regime similar to what ak seps from europe. what is the magnitude, and how can we expand the regulatory regime? >> i got a couple of thoughts about that one. i think when you talk about harmonization, what we actually see is not so much harmonization, but ratcheting up and it's a one-way ratchet again and again and again and especially in the copyright sphere, when you see the move from the united states and the copyright policy that existed for the last couple of years and you move from the convention of trips and what we see again and again on the international level are the minimum standards of protection, so every country has to provide at least this much, but is free to regulate more and

more and more. so the imbalance that occurs there is that you protect more and more, but what you leave out are the safety valves that are designed to make sure that the regulations don't go so far as to kill the golden goose. in copyright, that's creativity and expression. the ideas is yes, you create copyrights and give certain limited rights and you have safety valves and fair use and things like that that let other people use the material to do the things and if you ratchet up the protection cost that maybe you leave behind those protections that are supposed to protect, critically important public speech rights then harmonization is a recipe for eroding the balance that we worked for a couple hundred years to construct. >> well, because what they did is they allowed the department of agriculture to nationalize production to create cartels. that's what that case was about. that's what the labor cases were about and what happens in the

european union which peter did not mention is the wrecking of the labor markets by harmonization which essentially presents competition has created 30%, 40% unemployment rates in various places because once you get -- when you have the common market it's open subject to brussels which is a big plus, but then you get the protective barrier so as to keep everybody else out and that's essentially what's happened in the american agricultural market. we have a common market inside the united states subject to cartel regulation. the reason it's more disastrous in labor than it is elsewhere is because in labor the productivity goes down whereas technological improvements in agricultural against gmos and other kinds of things was large enough so that it more than offset the monopoly losses. you go right back to the 37 decisions and the national cartels is very efficient and it becomes a synonym for carbonization and they are all committed progressives and

social democrats. >> on the internet in particular, the problem is it doesn't obey national boundaries, right? so, you know, general harmonization on good ideas is usually a good thing. harmonization and good ideas is usually a bad thing, but it doesn't work on the internet because your bits aren't obeying those boundaries. so my worry is that the alternative to some level of more or less, regional harmonization is the equivalent on the opposite side of what tony's talking about, right? which is the most restrictive regulatory regime ends up controlling, right? >> i pretty much agree with it. >> i have to say, i agree with that in the sense that i don't -- although i don't like international governments and international bodies, on the other hand, if you are, an internet business you are confronted with just a

nightmarish set of complex, local rules and state by state rules and certain areas of the u.s., and when we ran paypal we had to find ways to comply with money regulator rules in all 50 states and it was probably harder than if you had a single one so it's a complicated question of what's more efficient on every basis. >> this comes up with organizations. what happens is now another report i think it's by the ftc announcing private market failures so they want to basically get more government included in setting these things. i wrote with scott keefe and qualcomm was on the other side and i just mentioned to you one fact which is that his organizations and all of them in hundred of different standard organizations and that the number of breakdowns when you do it is very small and we said about the anti-trust laws, the one very good set of antitrust

rules are who can join a particular group and essentially what you do is you allow compliments and not substitutes to come together because that overcomes the double marginalization problem. so that's a classic illustration when they did it right in the 1990s and they're about to do it wrong in the next decade if the new ftc report takes over. >> one practical observation on some of the one-way ratchet issue and ever-increasing scope and the danger of harmonization, and i think technology can help push back. for example, as peter alludes, we seem to be operating -- we have users in so many different countries with many -- they do not embrace an american vision of free speech. they do not have the first amendment, so we're not just talking about pakistan, but countries like france, germany and others and since the yahoo days -- since the early yahoo

days in 2001 and 2002 of nazi content, for example. the rules were established then that yes, even though you service from the united states, if it's viewable in france then that's a violation, but the technological effects we avoided it by i.p. blocking. so now we block by i.p. address and it's illegal in pakistan. we can block that to pakistani users without letting pakistan impose its vision. >> just to underscore, so as with net neutrality there are many versions of harmonization, and it requires substantive harmonization and there are problems, with problems that require harmonization. i will say it's different than the national government, though, because of the ability to get harmonization at the

international level is a qualitative issue. >> hi. i'm dan lazaro, law student from the university of florida. with technology essentially being the last area without significantly broad regulation, in light of the failure or the current failure and controversies surrounding sopa and pipa and other proposed bills regulating the technology area, how do you feel that the technology sector will ultimately be regulated either through government, through market forces or through a combination of the two? >> mark? >> i have an answer. >> all right. >> let's let mark -- >> no, no. >> let's -- answer. >> this may be the last chance to disagree. >> okay. i'll try to disagree with you. i think the greatest protection that technology has against regulation is the pace of innovation. that is the more that you can constantly change or morph your product is for people from the

outside to take it over and is that when technology becomes stable like the electricity and telephones and so forth that you can start having impressive rate regulation systems such as those that developed between 19 or 1880 and 1940. i don't think you will ever get that in the technology business so i think it, affects, and when they slow down and try to regulate you'll never be able to speed up again. >> just one elaboration on that. my intuition is that the future is very sensitive to initial conditions. imagine this model where they escape velocity from politics and to get the positive feedback goes quickly enough the technology outpaces the political system and we continue to see excel raising and that's what's happened thus far in the computer area where you can imagine a case with the political system dampens down things and of course, you end up with monopolylike industries and

you have arguments like utilities that are regulated more heavily and that's what i submit has happened everywhere else. because you have this positive feedback and you're between technology and politics, whichever one goes faster will dominate, and you can imagine radically different equilibrium in the future and we can imagine a world that's completely static whe or we can have one where progress starts to re-excel. as one goose left, it's power frl enough to overrun everything else, but that's the question. >> and so it comes back to where i started which is is the idea of the mother may i regime, right? so the real question is do i have to seek forgiveness or do i have to seek permission? in the regulatory world in which i have to seek permission. if i can't rebuild until the government says yes, or if i

can't do x or y, you're not going outrun it. technology will not outrun politics in that world. in a world where i can build it and we can do a bunch of thing, then if we can run fast enough that the world starts to see the benefits, it turns out to be harder and harder to regulate those benefits away and we've seen that again and again in copyright and new media technology where if i can get my technology up to scale fast enough, the copyright owners who want to shut it down won't be able to, right? tivo makes it big enough, fast enough that even though the copyright owners really, really wanted not to be able to shut down tivo because it allows you to skip commercials and successfully sued a smaller company that can't sue fast enough, they can't sue tivo today. it's -- it's impossible as a matter of regulation, right? so -- whatio do is you embed the

commercial in the show so as to not go through. that's the adaptive response. >> or you make your commercials better. >> well, but in the super bowl people prefer it. >> last question. >> i'm a law student from georgetown, and i -- one of the things that some of my friends and i have been considering during this whole internet piracy debate has been the increasing globalization of media and, in particular, movies and television shows that have different distribution dates in different countries and so this question, i think is for the panel at large. i know -- i know that i have friends who, for example, downloaded donson abby, for example, that was shown in the

uk three months earlier than it was released here and there are programs that won't ever be released here from other countries. how can -- how can corporations work on that? how can regulations work on that? which is more effective in the marketplace? i mean, that's something -- i mean, if personally, if distribution is simplified, you know, we would be more -- wield be more than willing to pay to get those thingis. >> think this is critically important, right? >> so if hollywood's goal on the internet is make sure it doesn't interfere with our eight-tiered distribution model in which it can only go to hulu between week five and month three and then it's got to come back off and it's got to be in redbox only 28

days thereafter, that's all going away and it should go away, right? this is arbitrage via the internet and it's a good thing a and, you know, there's a piracy problem out there and you know, we need to think about how to solve that problem, but the way to solve that problem is not a bunch of new laws. we have a bunch of copyright laws and sopa and pipa is not the way to solve problems. it takes advantage of the digital world. the music industry is starting to get there. they spent a dozen years ago, their goal was stop the digital transition. no music in digital format and they fought and lost that battle for a while and then they started to kind of make -- figure out ways to make money in this digital world in part

because we allow lots of people to have lots more access to things they never would have seen because they were only released in the uk. the video industry is not there yet in part because for them the piracy problem is more recent as bandwidth has increased, but that's where they've got to go. >> i have a slight disagreement with this. i don't think we have to tell firms that they have an efficient business model because we can't enforce as a first order. there is a deep problem which carries over to this. the private right of action a gent the admitted wrongdoing is very difficult to enforce and what we want to do is to get another action to someone that is always overbroad. so, for example, if you're in an apartment house and somebody molests you and you can't find the victim you sue the apartment house owner for that. the tradeoffs are horrendously difficult and so what happens is what mark suggests is that when you see the writing on the wall after why you give up on the law and you go to self-help and the

point is we'd like to have as little of that shift as possible without having protection and that's a very hard problem to solve. >> just one quick point. if hollywood really were satisfied with private enforcement that would be one thing, but the move you're seeing now is yes, hollywood wants government and the taxpayers to pay the price for that enforcement and that's especially ironic when the windowing is actually helping drive the piracy problem because the firms are not responding to demand by giving users what they want and the price they're going to pay a fair price then the piracy will only get worse because you can't get it legally. >> the complication and the rule of this stuff is what they're saying is private enforcement isec broen down and this is the same argument people made in favor of consumer protection laws and we have all of these guys that are doing something wrong and so it's not just enough to say that these characters are completely wrong. you have to be much more specific in trying to figure out

the overbreadth and underbreadth, and it seems to me that the industry is not aware of the fact that there are other things on the other side of this so they always overclaim and they get themselves wildly discredited. >> they're aware now. >> what? >> they're aware now. >> they better be. >> that's okay. and i'll just tell you a quick story. i went to chicago and i taught there in the beginning of my career and one of the other chicagoans if you're dealing with richard, you go with any question that you have and then you get sort of the epstein version and then when he finishes and you'll go, yea, but and he'll spend the next 15 minutes arguing and you'll walk away how smart you are and i've done that on multiple occasions. thank you to the panelists for a

great panel and thank you all. [ applause ] >> when you log outside of the auditorium -- >> we have more live programming coming your way today across the c-span networks. coming up, a look at women in politics, business and media, this comes to us from the conservative women's group the clare booth foundation that gets under way at 2:00 on c-span2. and ted cruz and david dewhurst vying for the nomination and watch that live at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. we have more campaign coverage this week end. our road to the white house program features the obama for america campaign and their political and media strategy. campaign strategist david axelrod and campaign strategist ben labolt, and the effort to target key voters in battleground states. also the day-to-day political

operations and the social media and a tour of the chicago headquarters. that's sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. this past march witnesses on capitol hill said the federal government needs to put more resources into traumatic brain injury treatment and research. the house energy and commerce subcommittee health also heard from government officials who described efforts to coordinate tbi programs across various agencies. the centers for disease control and prevention says 1.7 million americans sustain a traumatic brain injury every year. this is just under 90 minutes. >> subcommittee will come to order. the chair recognizes himself for five minutes for an opening statement. as many of you know, march is brain injury awareness month. according to the cdc an estimated 1.7 million people sustained a traumatic brain

injury each year and of that figure, 1.365 million or 80% are treated and released from the emergency room. 275,000 are hospitalized and 52,000 will die. tbi affects everyone. not not restricted to one race, gender or socioeconomic group. while children age 4 and under and adults over the age of 75 are particularly at risk, brain injury affects soldiers, athletes and even members of congress like our former colleague gabby giffords. the annual cost of tbi is estimated at $48 billion, but dollars alone do not paint a complete picture of the scope of these injuries. it does not take into account the suffering of a person for a brain injury who may be disabled

for life or the strain of a loved one's -- loved ones that tbi places on family members who are so often the caregivers. federal efforts to address tbi began with the traumatic brain injury act of 1996. the act named to identify and increase awareness of tbi through new research and programs. the tbi amendments of 2001 am d amended the 1996 raw to for the brain injury education and awareness campaign, it reauthorized the program to conduct a study to examine the information gathered by hhs and assess appropriate interventions and develop practice guidelines. i look forward to the results of this study which will come out in november of this year.

the 2008 act also focused on the incidents and precedence of tbi, jump reporting and linking individuals with tb ito support services to conduct research. i would like to hear an assessment from each of our witnesses of these federal programs. what have we learned about the causes, the diagnosis, the treatment of tbi through hhs' efforts? how is that knowledge being applied in real world situations? and i would also like to hear their ideas about where we should go from here. i would like to say a special hello to dr. flora winston from the children's hospital in philadelphia. it has served many of my constituents and i would also like to welcome those with us today who have tbi as well as their families and caregivers who make enormous sacrifices every day and we're glad that you're all here.

i yield the balance of my time to the vice chairman. today's hearing is of vital importance that the center of disease control know cofirm that over 52,000 of them do not survive. of those that do survive 11,000 are children this makes pediatric brain injury the leading cause of death and injury to children. there exists no viable therapeutic option for patients and all of the interventions are designed to prevent progression of the injury or secondary injury. in order to successfully treat traumatic brain injuries you must equip health care professionals and researchers with the resources to improve outcomes and quality of life for those affected. although there are numerous research projects under way across the country including the university of texas and north

texas brain injury model system and the tbi center and the centralized, and coordinated approach is lacking and the government accountability office report released this january entitled coordinating authority needed for psychological health and dramatic brain injury activities that emphasized the need for coordination of care and coordination of services and traumatic brain injury in patients for the department of defense. they know in conducting their research there was no central location and they had to use a variety of resources in order to obtain their data. i believe we will not achieve our goals to better coordinate research and support services, if we don't get a grasp and this hearing is designed to do that on funding and projects that are meant to address traumatic brain injury. hr-2600 will lead state centers like the center for brain health at the university of brain center for dallas and the

country's lead category for pediatric-required brain injury to continue benefiting individuals with systems of care. additionally, the money will be allocated by the discretionary funds and will be on hand to advance our knowledge of the brain over the next several years and thank you, mr. chairman for the recognition and i yield back the remainder of the time. >> i yield back for opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today this committee will have the opportunity to hear from some of the leading experts in the traumatic brain injury community about an update on the current landscape of traumatic research and treatment. as we all know traumatic brain injuries are a spectrum of diseases that can have devastating outcomes. when i was chairman of the subcommittee we held a hearing regarding pad atrick concussions in new jersey and it takes a broader perspective on this critical issue. according to the cdc, over 1.7

million people are subjected to a traumatic brain injury, and they account for one-third of all injury-related deaths. these statistics it is unclear how many people are misdiagnosed or don't receive treatment after a traumatic brain injury. it also affects many sectors of our population. these injuries continue to plague primarily our young people and the elderly, some of the most vulnerable members of our society. traumatic brain injuries have a profound impact on the community and the sports injury. i would be remiss as my chairman said how a member of our own body gabby giffords was a victim of a brain injury while performing her duties. we must prioritize this issue in the prevention and research efforts. it is my understanding that the overwhelming majority of people that suffer a traumatic brain injury do not die from their injury, however, that also means these patients are at risk of

developing long-term complications that can develop from a mild traumatic brain injury. they can suffer from memory lost, impaired communication skills and mental illness, epilepsy and at risk of developing parkinson's disease or alzheimer's disease. this can create devastating disability and hinder an individual's productivity and they create a burden to families and society as a whole. they have innovative and vital treatments is a great challenge that we must all work together to achieve. since the passage of the traumatic brain injury act of 1996 and subsequent reauthorization, several agencies have led efforts to understand, prevent and treat traumatic brain injury. most recently these efforts have undergone formal coordination from the brain injury. this committee which includes hhs agencies and non-hhs

agencies will hopefully accelerate and coordinate developments in traumatic brain injury initiatives. i look forward to hearing more about the proposed plans and activities. i would like to highlight the importance of federal partnerships with addressing this important cause. i greatly appreciate the presence of mr. william who hails from the great state of new jersey. mr. ditto is a recently retired director of the brain injury program and represents the national association of head injury administrators. mr. ditto along with his colleagues have made great strides in limiting the federal and state funds to coordinate and provide services for individuals with traumatic brain injury. strengthening partnerships like these will improve the outcomes of the families and patients affected by traumatic brain injury. mr. chairman, i'd like to ask, as i think you know, congressman bill pascrell, has been a leader on this whole issue and i know

he's not a member of the committee and he asked if i could by unanimous consent to include his statement into the record? >> without object. so ordered. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i look forward to your testimony and i appreciate the fact that you held this hearing today. thank you. >> chair thanks the gentleman and i recognize mr. upton for five minutes for opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. according to a recent report from the cdc, at least 1.7 million folks sustain a traumatic brain injury every year. we don't have to look very far to see the profound effects of the tbi. children injured by care takers, and athletes by multiple concussions and soldiers disabled from war and one of our colleagues wounded at a constituent event in arizona last year. with efforts undertaken at the department of veterans affairs and the department of defense and several agencies at the department of hhs it is