and i'm talking about the vppa. prevent companies from integrating into facebook or other social networking sites even if the viewer wants them to? >> no, it's not right, senator. the underlying existing statute the statute can be done because presumably you have to press a button. so here's a button to both play and share. you can post but just every time you -- >> so it's easy to say, i can share. >> that's right. >> mr. wolf talked about it would be really easy to disable the sharing but is there anything in the amendment that says how that would happen and netflix really have it hard? is there anything in the law that would prevent them from making it almost impossible to how to disable it? >> it says that you could enable consent until you took it away but there's nothing in the bill that says there are requirements about how that should be done. i think a scrupulous company would make it easy but it's not only going to apply to companies that we believe are going to do the right thing and it does not require -

i join the seidea that this wil not under mine the purpose of the vppa. people should as a matter of free expression be able to share as they choose and companies should not face legal penalties for providing them with that choice, as governments around the world including our own consider ways to improve the privacy frame works there are big decisions to be made as senator watt pointed out. starting a process in the name of privacy protection through which lawmakers decide case by case, what information can be shared seems terribly ill advis advised. thank you for the opportunity to appear here today, i look forward to your questions. >> thank you mr. wolfe for your testimony. let me ask, start with professor mcgevern because i want to make a few things clear about what this bill widoes and does not d. i talked about what the video privacy protection act does and i want to talk for a moment about what it does not do. a lot of people have been saying that the video privacy protection act actually prohibits people from sharing their viewing habits on socia

the vppa is there to support that. i want to address, the interest behind the bill and the fa fact that amendments are not necessary to keep up with technology and the problems with hr 24.71, it safeguards interests, why else would a reporter think that judge bork's rental history would be important in the first place. in my view the greatest flaw is it limitations to video which arises from the accident of it enactment. the disclosure of books and other websites can get in the way of exploring information effectively. protecting these rights was part of the california reader protection act that took effect in the beginning of the month. any work covered this copyright should be protected. not just movie. second, the vppa in its current form already allows video companies to put in place, strategies including integration with facebook. now it true that the vpa requires opt-in consent every time a video choice gets forwarded to a third party. it's actually easier to satisfy those requirements online than off. the statut

by declining to define what constitutes a videotape service provider, under the vppa, hr-2471 leaves open the possibility that accidents that provide video on demand over the internet with dual distribution platforms can avoid or delay compliance in copyright enfringement. second, the debate on hr-2471 centered on online experiences of consumers with social media like facebook. however, the bill as passed applies a physical and applies to physical and online videotape service providers alike and disclosures authorized to any person, not only friends on facebook. consequently, a consumer's private information is vulnerable to release to third parties like the news reporter who published the video rental history of judge robert bork that paved the way to enactment of the video privacy bill. third, despite claims that the video privacy protection act is outdated, only a sing patrol vision of the statute was updated, leaving consumer oriented provisions that should have been reviewed and strengthened unaltered. fourth and finally no, consideration was given to the effect that changes in