SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
85–490 PDF
2003
PIRACY PREVENTION AND THE BROADCAST FLAG
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, THE INTERNET,
AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MARCH 6, 2003
Serial No. 5
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Wisconsin, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
LAMAR SMITH, Texas
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
RIC KELLER, Florida
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
STEVE KING, Iowa
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
TOM FEENEY, Florida
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
LINDA T. SÁNCHEZ, California
PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel
PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
RIC KELLER, Florida
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
ZOE LOFGREN, California
MAXINE WATERS, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
BLAINE MERRITT, Chief Counsel
DEBRA ROSE, Counsel
MELISSA L. MCDONALD, Full Committee Counsel
ALEC FRENCH, Minority Counsel
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
C O N T E N T S
MARCH 6, 2003
OPENING STATEMENT
The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress From the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property
WITNESSES
The Honorable Marybeth Peters, Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office of the United States, The Library of Congress
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Mr. W. Kenneth Ferree, Bureau Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Mr. Fritz E. Attaway, Executive Vice President Government Relations and Washington General Counsel, Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
Mr. Edward J. Black, President and Chief Executive Officer, Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA)
Oral Testimony
Prepared Statement
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Letter from John S. Orlando, Senior Vice President, External Relations, National Association of Broadcasters
Letter from Jonthan Zuck, President, Association for Competitive Technology
Chart made by Philips Electronics North America Corp. to the Federal Communications Commission
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
The Honorable John Conyers, a Representative in Congress From the State of Michigan
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress From the State of Virginia
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress From the State of California
The Honorable Robert Wexler, a Representative in Congress From the State of Florida
Letter from Gigi B. Sohn, President, Public Knowledge, and Christopher Murray, Legislative Counsel, Consumers Union with attachments
Prepared Statement of the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball
PIRACY PREVENTION AND THE
BROADCAST FLAG
THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet,
and Intellectual Property,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar S. Smith [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. SMITH. The Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property will come to order. It is nice to see how many people are interested in the subject at hand, and that includes, of course, Members who are here at the hearing, as well.
We will begin with opening statements and then move immediately to hear from our witnesses, and I will recognize myself for an opening statement.
Today, the Subcommittee will explore the complexity of the broadcast flag issue and also how it is connected to copyright law and the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee. On one level, we are ensuring that new technologies designed to prevent piracy do not limit the public's ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. On another level, we are continuing our efforts to support private industry efforts to curb piracy of their products.
We are in the midst of a transition to DTV. As early as 2006, all broadcasts must be aired in digital format. This presents opportunities for American consumers, businesses, and copyright owners. As with many technological advantages, the DTV transition has been frustrated by both technological and legal hurdles. There is a great danger of massive piracy of unprotected broadcasts once the transition to DTV is complete. Pirates can easily copy and redistribute millions of digital files in a matter of seconds. In the absence of protection against unauthorized redistribution, it is unlikely that content owners will make high-value programming available to broadcasters.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The broadcast flag is one solution supported by copyright owners and broadcasters. The broadcast flag is a sequence of digital bits embedded in a television program that signals that the program must be protected from unauthorized redistribution.
Since 1996, an inter-industry group called the Copy Protection Technical Working Group has been meeting regularly to discuss general copy protection issues. The Broadcast Protection Discussion Subgroup was formed specifically to address digital broadcast copy protection. Representatives from the consumer electronics, information technology, motion picture, cable, and broadcast industries participated. The group announced its consensus on the use of a broadcast flag standard for digital broadcast copy protection. Unfortunately, final agreement could not be reached on a set of compliance and robustness requirements.
Last August, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on digital broadcast copy protection. This Subcommittee has great interest in the FCC's action because the agency might issue rules that impact the Copyright Act and, therefore, involve this Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
Controversy continues over what the broadcast flag will and will not do and whether it will have an adverse effect on the ability of consumers to make fair use of copyrighted broadcast television. Fair use is a defense that may limit the copyright owner's exclusive rights. Section 107 of the Copyright Act states that fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research does not constitute infringement. Fair use, of course, is determined on a case-by-case basis. For example, in Sony Corporation v. Universal City Studios, the Supreme Court held that the practice of taping free television broadcasting for later viewing was a fair use.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is important that the transition to DTV and any implementation of rules requiring the use of the broadcast flag technology does not have an adverse impact on how consumers may legitimately use lawfully acquired entertainment products. At some point, this Subcommittee will decide whether to salute the broadcast flag or whether to lower it. For the time being, we are going to leave it at half mast.
That concludes my opening statement, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, is recognized for his.
Mr. BERMAN. What about pledging allegiance to it? [Laughter.]
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for your calling this hearing today. This is an issue that has some clear implications for copyright law and I think it is appropriate that the Subcommittee scrutinize the issue.
I understand that as part of its broadcast flag rulemaking, the FCC is currently deciding whether it even has statutory authority to implement the broadcast flag. I am absolutely no expert on FCC jurisdictional statutes and precedent and I don't presume to tell the FCC whether it has authority to implement a broadcast flag through a rulemaking and I don't intend to try and lecture the FCC about the appropriate parameters of a broadcast flag technology.
I have no problem with the FCC on a policy basis mandating use of the broadcast flag technology. While I am generally opposed to broad Government mandates on technology, I have long considered it appropriate in limited circumstances for the Government to order the use of certain technologies around which a marketplace consensus has emerged.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For instance, I supported the Macrovision mandate codified in section 1201(k) of the Copyright Act. I authored a bill to do that 10 years before it finally passed. Through 1201(k), Congress required the use of Macrovision's copy prevention technologies in certain videocassette recorders, camcorders, and other devices. I supported provisions of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 that required digital audio recording devices to utilize the serial copy management system.
So I don't object to the concept that the FCC might require incorporation of broadcast flag technology into appropriate hardware technologies and devices. That being said, I do have some concerns about the broadcast flag rulemaking, in particular, what some parties are asking the FCC to do.
Numerous comments have been filed asking the FCC to ensure that any broadcast flag technology allows consumers to make various uses of the digital TV programming it protects. These commentators purport to cite various copyright law doctrines, including first use, as the Chairman discussed, and first sale, as guaranteeing consumer utilization of copyrighted TV programming in the ways they hope to protect.
It is these claims about copyright law and the role of the FCC in analyzing them that gives me pause about the broadcast flag rulemaking. I am unaware of any precedent for the FCC interpreting the Copyright Act as part of an FCC rulemaking or in any other capacity, nor am I aware, for that matter, of the FCC ever mandating that copyright owners surrender any of their exclusive rights to consumers.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Congress itself has limited the rights of copyright owners when mandating the uses of technologies to protect copyright owners. In mandating use of the Macrovision technology, Congress ensured that it could not be used to prohibit the copying of most analog over-the-air television broadcasts. In mandating the use of the serial copy management system, Congress ensured that it could only be used to prohibit copying from copies, but not to prohibit copying an original video digital audio recording.
At least in part, Congress decided to limit these technology mandates in these ways so as to protect the traditional ability of consumers to make certain uses of the copyrighted works at issue. When Congress itself has placed limitations on the exclusive rights of copyright owners in the course of mandating certain technologies, I am unaware of any precedent for a Federal agency doing so.
About the closest precedent involves the Copyright Office, not the FCC. In the course of its triennial rulemaking under sections 1201(a)(1)(c), the Copyright Office is empowered to analyze whether the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA are adversely affecting non-infringing uses of copyrighted works. If the Copyright Office finds such adverse effects, it is empowered to create limited exemptions from the anti-circumvention provisions to protect the adversely-affected non-infringing uses.
But the Copyright Office has expertise in this whole area. The FCC doesn't have expertise in this particular area, and so I am opposed to the FCC attempting to interpret, regulate, or otherwise limit the exclusive rights of copyright owners in the course of its broadcast flag rulemaking.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As I stated before, the FCC may well have jurisdiction to mandate a broadcast flag technology, to establish rules regarding the implementation of that technology as part of its authority to facilitate the digital television transition. Under the same authority, the FCC may be able to mandate that the broadcast flag technology provides only limited protection to digital television broadcasts. My point is simply that the FCC should not attempt to interpret copyright law in the course of its rulemaking, nor to encapsulate copyright law doctrines in any technology it mandates. That, I think, is a prerogative of the Congress, and to the extent it delegates it, to the Copyright Office.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
Without objection, other Members' opening statements will be made a part of the record, as will all the witnesses' complete statements, as will two items that I have been given, one from the National Association of Broadcasters and one from the Association for Competitive Technology. All that will be made a part of the record.
[The material referred to follows:]
CTech1.eps
CTech2.eps
Mr. SMITH. Let me introduce our witnesses, and our first witness is the Honorable Marybeth Peters, the Register of Copyrights for the United States. She also has served as Acting General Counsel of the Copyright Office and as Chief of both the Examining and Information and Reference Divisions. She authored the ''General Guide to the Copyright Office of 1976.''
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The next witness is W. Kenneth Ferree, who was appointed Chief of the Cable Service Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission in May 2002. The Cable Service Bureau was combined with the Mass Media Bureau, and Mr. Ferree was named Chief of the newly created Media Bureau. He provides legal, policy, and regulatory advice to the FCC Chairman as well as the other FCC Commissioners.
Our next witness is Fritz Attaway, Executive Vice President for Congressional Relations and General Counsel of the Motion Picture Association of America. Before joining MPAA, Mr. Attaway served as attorney advisor in the Cable Television Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission.
Our last witness is Edward J. Black, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Computer and Communications Industry Association. He has overall responsibility for the Association, which includes leading the effort on a wide range of legislative, policy, and regulatory areas for CCIA and its member companies.
Before we begin, I understand the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, would like to say something about one of the witnesses.
Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to especially thank Mr. Black for being here. I know that it was not easy for him to appear before the Subcommittee. He has served his country well as the Chairman of the State Department's Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy and is an expert in international law and copyright matters and I just thank him for making the extra effort to be here today.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
Let me remind our witnesses that we do have a 5-minute rule and we would like for you to summarize your complete testimony so that we can stay within that limit, and we will begin, Ms. Peters, with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARYBETH PETERS, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, COPYRIGHT OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES, THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Ms. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Berman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the copyright issues raised by the broadcast flag proposal.
Let me begin by offering my congratulations to you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you on this and many other copyright-related issues. You are off to a strong start, and those in the copyright field are really encouraged.
As you know, the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking solicited comments on whether it was desirable to adopt a regulatory protection regime as part of the transition to digital broadcast television, and if so, how such a regime should be put in place. While the subject matter of the broadcast flag is technological, many of the comments arguing both for and against its adoption are rooted in copyright law.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The purpose of my testimony is twofold. First, I want to explain the relationship between the broadcast flag proposal and important principles of copyright law. Second, I hope to provide some clarity on the fair use and first sale doctrines and their role in the broadcast flag discussions.
While I have no positions on the merits of the broadcast proposal at this time, I do believe that producers of television programming have ample ground to feel that the transition to digital broadcasting may make them subject to massive piracy in much the same way that music copyright owners have suffered from the phenomena of Napster and its progeny. Thus, they have good reason to insist that something be done to prevent such infringement.
I also don't take a position with regard to what users ought to be allowed to do in a broadcast flag regime. However, a number of FCC comments recommend that broad uses of copyrighted works be accommodated within the broadcast flag, some of which go beyond fair use. If copyright owners all agree to these broad uses, I see no problem. If there is no agreement and if instead it is determined that what is to be allowed is any activity that falls within fair use in the first sale doctrine, then it is important that there is an accurate and complete understanding of these copyright doctrines.
My concern is that many of the comments are predicated on various interpretations and applications of the 1984 Supreme Court's five-four decision in Sony Corporation v. Universal Studios. In Sony, motion picture copyright owners brought an infringement action against the manufacturer of the Betamax VCR. The claim was asserted under theory of secondary liability based on consumers' use of the VCR to record free over-the-air television broadcasts.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Court held that making reproductions of free over-the-air television programs for the purposes of time shifting, in other words, watching the show at a later time, is a fair use. That finding was largely based on the Court's analysis of the fourth factor in section 107, namely whether time shifting adversely affects the market for or value of the copyrighted works at issue. The Court concluded, among other things, that the copyright owners had not provided sufficient evidence that time shifting would cause any likelihood of non-minimal harm to the potential market for or value of their copyrighted works.
Due to the nature of today's technologies, application of fair use to digital broadcasts would be significantly different than the Sony analysis. Some comments submitted to the FCC suggest that the Sony decision requires that fair use must vindicate consumer expectations as to the functionality of their home electronics devices. This claim with regard to consumer expectations misstates the nature of fair use. Consumer expectations are typically asserted and vindicated in the marketplace, not through fair use. The Sony decision is not based on whether time shifting met consumer expectations about what they could do with their VCRs, but rather it met the criteria for fair use codified in section 107.
The proper fair use inquiry would include an assessment of whether the consumer's activities, if permitted on a widespread basis, would provide benefits to the public without undermining the incentive for the creation and distribution of copyrighted works, that is, the ability of authors to receive compensation for dissemination of their works. Consumer expectations are not particularly relevant to this question.
To be clear, I don't disagree that legitimate consumer expectations should play an important role in consideration of the broadcast flag proposal. My concern is that the important policy goals of copyright should not be undermined in the costs of adopting any regulatory framework that purports to be accommodating fair use when, in reality, it permits far more than fair use.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Additionally, some have suggested that the first sale doctrine, a limitation on copyright owners' distribution rights, requires that the broadcast flag permit certain retransmissions of copies of digital broadcasts. The Copyright Office in its DMCA section 104 report to Congress engaged in a thorough analysis of this issue, especially as it related to emerging technologies. Many who participated in that study had argued that first sale principles should apply to digital transmissions. We concluded then and continue to believe that there are fundamental differences between digital copies transmitted in a network environment and the physical copies covered by the existing first sale doctrine, and those differences argued against recognizing a new form of first sale for digital transmissions.
In closing, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today. As always, the Copyright Office would be pleased to assist the Subcommittee in its consideration of these important issues and we will continue our analysis of the broadcast flag proposal.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Peters.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Peters follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARYBETH PETERS
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Berman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear before the Subcommittee today to discuss the copyright issues raised by measures for the protection of digital broadcast television signals, commonly referred to as the ''broadcast flag'' proposal. Let me offer my congratulations to you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you on this and many other copyright-related issues. You are off to a strong start and it is very encouraging to those of us in the copyright field.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you know, in August 2002 the Federal Communications Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking soliciting comments from interested parties on whether it was desirable to adopt a regulatory protection regime as part of the transition to digital broadcast television, and if so, how such a regime should be put into place.(see footnote 1) While the subject matter of the broadcast flag proposal is technological, many of the comments submitted to the FCC arguing both for and against its adoption are rooted in copyright law.(see footnote 2) As Congress has recognized, the Copyright Office has a long history of providing expert advice and assistance on these types of issues.(see footnote 3)
The purpose of my testimony is twofold. First, I want to explain the relationship between the broadcast flag proposal and important principles of copyright law, such as the reproduction right, the distribution right and the doctrines of ''fair use'' and ''first sale.'' I believe that as consideration of the broadcast flag proposal moves forward, a clear understanding of copyright law is necessary so that important copyright principles and policy are not undermined by the establishment of any regulatory scheme. Second, to this end, I hope to provide some clarity on the ''fair use'' and ''first sale'' doctrines and their role in the broadcast flag discussions.
While I have no position on the broadcast flag proposal at this time, I believe that producers of television programming have ample ground to fear that in the transition to digital broadcasting and with the advent of new consumer electronic devices that permit recipients of broadcasts to reproduce television programs and retransmit them on the Internet, they may encounter massive piracy in much the same way that record companies, recording artists, composers and musicians have suffered from phenomena such as Napster and its progeny. They have good reason to insist that something must be done to prevent such infringement. It may well be that the broadcast flag proposal is the best available solution. I do not have sufficient mastery of the technical details to venture an opinion at this time.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also do not take a position with regard to what uses ought to be allowed by a broadcast flag, should that proposal be adopted. It is my understanding that many of the commenters in the FCC proceeding have insisted that implementation of the broadcast flag be done in a way that permits consumers to engage in acts of fair use. It is also my understanding that some proponents of the broadcast flag have taken the position that any technological measures that are adopted as part of the broadcast flag proposal should or at least could permit a number of practices that consumers desire to engage in even though they are beyond the scope of fair use. Copyright owners of broadcast programming may simply be willing to forego having technological measures prohibit those uses, while retaining their right to assert that some or all of those uses are infringing.
If there is consensus among copyright owners of broadcast programming that implementation of the broadcast flag should permit conduct by consumers that goes beyond fair use, I see no reason why such conduct should not be permitted. In other words, the conduct permitted by the broadcast flag need not necessarily be coextensive with fair use. If, on the other hand, the ultimate determination is to permit acts beyond those permitted by fair use and beyond those for which there is a consensus among the pertinent copyright owners, then there will be serious copyright implications which this Subcommittee will want to examine.
In any event, the fact remains that the FCC has been presented with a number of arguments asserting that the broadcast flag proposal must accommodate fair use and the first sale doctrine, and that the people making those arguments have asserted that certain kinds of conduct must be accommodated because it falls within those doctrines. If these arguments are to be made and considered, it is important that they be done so with an accurate understanding of the fair use and first sale doctrines.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
THE BROADCAST FLAG DEBATE RAISES IMPORTANT ISSUES RELATED TO COPYRIGHT
As the first paragraph of the FCC's notice indicates, digital broadcast copy protection has been offered as a way to address the concern that ''[i]n the absence of a copy protection scheme for digital broadcast television, content providers have asserted that they will not permit high quality programming to be broadcast digitally.''(see footnote 4) The reason for this reticence is concern about infringing downstream uses of digital broadcasts. This Subcommittee has become quite familiar with the characteristics of digital technology and the Internet. While those technologies provide enhanced quality of content and expanded opportunities for marketing, they also dramatically increase the ease and reach of copyright piracy.(see footnote 5)
As we understand it, the ''broadcast flag'' is one solution for placing certain limits on how digital broadcasts can be redistributed after receipt by a consumer, so as to prevent harm to the economic value of that programming. In many ways, this dilemma is simply a specific example of the problem addressed by copyright law generally—how much protection is necessary to provide an incentive for authors to create and disseminate works to public for their use and enjoyment. Not surprisingly, therefore, many of the comments submitted to the FCC focus on questions of copyright law, such as to what extent personal copying and distribution of broadcast programming are governed by the fair use or first sale doctrines in copyright law, and how the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. should be applied in creating a regulatory regime like the broadcast flag.
In addition, implementation of the broadcast flag may provide some precedent for how other activity involving digital technology and copyrighted works will be addressed under fair use and other provisions of the Copyright Act. As a result, the broadcast flag proposal cannot be considered in a vacuum, without regard to important aspects of copyright law and the use of copyrighted works. Moreover, the issues involved in the broadcast flag debate may have ramifications in the international copyright system.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FAIR USE AND THE SONY Betamax Decision
In the next part of my testimony I hope to provide background on the fair use doctrine, the Sony decision and the first sale doctrine, and how they might relate to the broadcast flag. As I noted, many of the comments submitted on the broadcast flag proposal raised important questions of copyright law, such as the doctrine of ''fair use.''(see footnote 6) A correct and complete understanding of fair use will assist in an evaluation of those comments. My testimony today is intended in part to provide a concise explanation of the fair use doctrine, and its application by the Supreme Court in the Sony case (often referred to as the Betamax decision)(see footnote 7)—the central case around which much of this debate revolves.
Fair use is often described as an ''equitable rule of reason,'' for which ''no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts.''(see footnote 8) It was a common law doctrine until 1976, when Congress first codified it in Section 107 of the Copyright Act as part of the general revision to copyright law it enacted that year.(see footnote 9) The statutory text does not define fair use—rather, it provides guidelines for such a determination in the form of a list of four nonexclusive factors that must be applied to the entire circumstances of a particular case. In addition, the preamble to the section sets forth examples of uses that traditionally have been found to be fair uses, such as criticism, comment, news reporting and teaching. While this list is not determinative of the fair use issue, it was intended to provide additional guidance to courts as to the types of uses that had been ruled fair prior to the 1976 Act.(see footnote 10)
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
There is no question that fair use is a fundamental component of U.S. copyright law, as it provides an essential safeguard to ensure that copyright does not stifle uses of works that enrich the public, such as ''criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching—scholarship, or research.''(see footnote 11) Along with other doctrines like the first sale doctrine (which I discuss below) and the idea/expression dichotomy, fair use provides necessary ''breathing room'' in copyright and helps achieve the proper balance between protection of copyrighted works and their use and enjoyment. As the Supreme Court recently explained in the Eldred case, fair use is also one of copyright law's important First Amendment accommodations.(see footnote 12)
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many of the comments in the FCC proceeding, however, misstate the nature of fair use and its role in our copyright system. Much of this confusion stems from a misreading of the Supreme Court's opinion in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios,(see footnote 13) the first opinion in which the Supreme Court addressed fair use.(see footnote 14)
In Sony, motion picture copyright owners brought a copyright infringement action against the manufacturer of the Betamax VCR. The claim was asserted under a theory of secondary liability, based on the consumers' use of the VCR to record television programs broadcast free over the air. The Court's 5–4 opinion addressed two issues: first, borrowing from the ''staple article of commerce'' doctrine in patent law, it ruled that secondary copyright liability could not be imposed based solely on the manufacture of copying equipment like the VCR where the device at issue ''is capable of substantial noninfringing uses.''(see footnote 15) Second, it found that the VCR had ''substantial non-infringing uses,'' including making reproductions of broadcast television programs for purposes of ''time-shifting,'' that is, watching a show at a time later than when it is broadcast.(see footnote 16)
The Court's finding that ''time-shifting'' of broadcast television programs was fair use was based predominantly on its analysis of the first and fourth factors in Section 107—namely, whether time-shifting adversely affects the market for or value of the copyrighted works at issue. The court concluded that ''time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to see free of charge'' and that therefore it was a ''non-commercial'' use.(see footnote 17) It also found that the copyright owners had not provided sufficient evidence ''that time-shifting would cause any likelihood of nonminimal harm to the potential market for, or the value of, their copyrighted works.''(see footnote 18)
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Having found that ''time-shifting'' was a ''substantial non-infringing use'' of the VCR, the Court did not consider whether other activity related to home taping of broadcasts—such as creating a library of recorded shows, making further copies from the initial recording or distributing recorded shows to friends or others—would qualify as fair use. Nor did the Court rule, as one commenter suggests, that recognizing ''time-shifting'' as fair use was based on First Amendment concerns.(see footnote 19) Thus, the suggestion that the Sony decision established a fair use ''right'' for individuals to engage in a wide variety of reproduction and distribution activities is simply incorrect.(see footnote 20)
74 F.3d 1512 (6th Cir. 1996).
Moreover, because fair use is a case-by-case, fact-specific determination, one must consider the circumstances of the Sony case when attempting to apply it to today's environment. In the early 1980s, there was very little the typical consumer could do with the analog tape recording of a television show made with a VCR—further reproduction and distribution were subject to substantial physical constraints. The 1980s consumer did not have access to personal computers with hard drives, recordable DVD players, wireless home networks, websites, peer-to-peer software applications and high-speed Internet connections, all of which make acquisition, reproduction and distribution of recorded broadcasts (in high-quality digital form) easy and inexpensive.
In today's digital world, the ''private'' and ''non-commercial'' use of works can quickly and easily become public distribution of copies that has a substantial harmful effect on the commercial value of copyrighted works. As my predecessor as Register of Copyrights observed nearly 40 years ago, ''a particular use which may seem to have little or no economic impact on the author's rights today can assume tremendous importance in times to come.''(see footnote 21) We have all watched over the past few years as Napster and other peer-to-peer software applications transformed private hard drives and individual, person-to-person exchanges of digital files into a major distribution network of unauthorized copies of works. Indeed, this Subcommittee held a hearing on precisely that topic last week. That activity has undercut the ability of legitimate, revenue-generating distribution services on the Internet to develop and flourish. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized this situation in the Napster case when it distinguished Sony in analyzing the potential market harm caused by individuals' distribution of copyrighted music files over the Napster service.(see footnote 22)
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CONG., 1ST SESS., SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS ON THE GENERAL REVISION OF THE U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW, PART 6, AT 14 (COMM. PRINT 1965). SEE ALSO S. REP. 94–473, 94TH CONG., 1ST SESS., AT 65 (1975) (''ISOLATED INSTANCES OF MINOR INFRINGEMENTS BECOME IN THE AGGREGATE A MAJOR INROAD ON COPYRIGHT THAT MUST BE PREVENTED.'').
Other commenters suggest that the Sony decision requires that fair use must vindicate ''consumer expectations'' as to the functionality of their home electronics devices. This claim, too, misstates the nature of fair use. Consumer expectations are typically asserted and vindicated in the marketplace, not through fair use. Recent history shows that to the extent copyright owners offer a product in a format that consumers find unattractive and limiting, it will be rejected.(see footnote 23) The Sony decision is not based on whether time-shifting met ''consumer expectations'' about what they could do with their VCRs, but rather whether it met the criteria for fair use in Section 107, including principally whether the activity harmed the market for copyrighted works.(see footnote 24)
The proper fair use inquiry would include an assessment of whether the consumer's activity, if permitted on a widespread basis, will provide benefits to the public without undermining the incentive for the creation and distribution of works—that is, the ability of authors to receive compensation for the dissemination of their works. Consumer expectations in and of themselves are not particularly relevant to this question. Indeed, users of peer-to-peer services like Napster are becoming accustomed to the notion that creative works should be provided free without any restrictions on further copying and distribution. Such ''consumer expectations'' are not only inconsistent with traditional fair use jurisprudence, they are destructive to copyright's principles and purpose.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To be clear, we do not disagree that legitimate consumer expectations should play an important role in consideration of the broadcast flag proposal. It appears that consumer expectations have been a driving force behind the proposal, as the proposed regime would permit unlimited copies for personal use, largely unrestricted use in the home network environment, and the potential for use outside a home network environment. Many broadcasters and copyright owners apparently recognize that even a mandated solution like the broadcast flag must meet the needs and desires of consumers or they will not embrace digital television.(see footnote 25) Our concern is that the important policy goals of copyright should not be undermined in the course of adopting any regulatory framework that purports to be protecting fair use, when in reality it permits far more than fair use.
THE FIRST SALE DOCTRINE AND DIGITAL CONTENT
Some have also suggested that the ''first sale'' doctrine of copyright law requires that the broadcast flag proposal permit certain activity with respect to copies of digital broadcasts.(see footnote 26) As this Subcommittee knows, the Copyright Office, pursuant to Section 104 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (''DMCA'') of 1998, recently engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between the first sale doctrine and existing and emergent technology.(see footnote 27) The Copyright Office issued its report in August 2001 and I testified before this Subcommittee at the end of that year about our findings and recommendations in that report.
The ''first sale'' issues raised with respect to the broadcast flag appear very similar to those raised in the DMCA Section 104 Report: whether the first sale doctrine as it currently exists would permit certain activities related to digital transmission of copyrighted works. Some have suggested that the first sale doctrine requires that individuals be permitted to transmit digital copies of broadcasts to a circle of family or friends and inside and outside the home. As with the fair use issue, the Copyright Office believes that consideration of the broadcast flag should not be made based upon an incorrect or incomplete understanding of the first sale doctrine. I would like to provide a brief description of that doctrine and our conclusions from the DMCA study, which remain unchanged today.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The common-law roots of the first sale doctrine allowed the legitimate owner of a particular copy of a work to dispose of that copy. This judicial doctrine was grounded in the common-law principle that restraints on the alienation of tangible property are to be avoided in the absence of clear congressional intent to abrogate this principle. This doctrine was first codified as section 27 of the Copyright Act of 1909 and now appears in section 109 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Section 109(a) specifies that notwithstanding a copyright owner's exclusive distribution right under section 106, the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord that was lawfully made under Title 17 is entitled to sell or further dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
The first sale doctrine is a limitation on the copyright owner's exclusive right of distribution. It does not limit the exclusive right of reproduction. While the sale or other disposition of a purchased VHS tape or book would only implicate the distribution right, the transmission of an electronic copy of the same work from one device to another would typically result in the making of a reproduction. This activity therefore entails an exercise of an exclusive right that is not covered by section 109. In other words, there is nothing in the first sale doctrine as it currently exists which would authorize the type of activity that some have proposed that the broadcast flag should permit.
In the deliberations leading up to the DMCA Section 104 Report, several participants argued that first sale principles should apply to digital transmissions, notwithstanding that such transmissions typically involve the reproduction right.(see footnote 28) It appears that a similar suggestion is being made in the broadcast flag proceeding. We concluded then, and continue to believe, that there are fundamental differences between digital copies transmitted in a networked environment and the physical copies covered by the existing first sale doctrine, and that those differences argue against recognizing a new form of first sale for digital copies.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CONCLUSION
In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Copyright Office has only begun its analysis of the broadcast flag proposal, and therefore at this time is taking no position on whether the broadcast flag proposal should be adopted or whether it should be changed in any way to reflect any aspect of existing copyright law, such as the fair use or the first sale doctrines. Let me be clear though, the appropriate balance between copyright owners, broadcasters, equipment manufacturers and consumers is fundamental to our support of any effort to devise a regulatory scheme governing digital broadcasts. Such a compromise, and the debate leading to it, should not be based on an incorrect understanding of copyright law and policy.
I want to thank the Subcommittee again for giving me the opportunity to testify today. The Copyright Office would be pleased to assist the Subcommittee in its consideration of these important issues and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Ferree?
STATEMENT OF W. KENNETH FERREE, BUREAU CHIEF, MEDIA BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Mr. FERREE. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Congressman Berman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Ken Ferree, Chief of the FCC's Media Bureau, and I am pleased to be here today to talk to you about our proceeding on broadcast copy protection.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The digital television transition, which is part of a larger technological revolution affecting every industry the FCC regulates, is a complex undertaking. It will affect virtually every segment of the television industry and every American who watches television. Unlike some technology advances, however, the DTV transition is not purely a marketplace phenomenon. Congress and the FCC have been involved in the transition from the beginning. We now are entering into a critical stage of that transition. It is apparent that our efforts over the next 2 years may well set the course for television broadcasting in the 21st century.
Perhaps the key piece of the DTV puzzle is content. Consumers will invest in digital television only when they see content that is significantly better than that which is available in analog. The content could be high-definition, it could be multicasting, it could be interactive, but it must be significantly better than analog and there must be enough of it to make their investment worthwhile.
Over the last year, the amount of high-definition programming has grown dramatically. Indeed, the amount of HD programming during broadcast prime time is up about 50 percent over a year ago. Many sporting events now are broadcast in high definition, and this year, the NBA finals and ''Monday Night Football'' will be added to the mix.
Content providers, however, say that we are living on borrowed time. When there are enough DTV receivers and fast broadband connections to permit unauthorized redistribution of broadcast DTV content over the Internet, they argue, high-value content will be made available only on protected platforms like cable or satellite.
This is how the Commission became involved in these issues. We have no desire to duplicate the work of the Copyright Office, but the Commission does have an interest in keeping the DTV transition on track. So when content providers, Members of Congress, and others warn that we may be on the verge of losing compelling broadcast content, these claims are taken seriously.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In late 2001, an inter-industry working group attempted to develop a technical solution to the problem, specifically focusing on the broadcast flag. The working group did not, however, reach consensus on all issues, and in August of 2002, the FCC issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on digital broadcast copy protection.
The notice takes nothing for granted. Indeed, the first issue raised is whether a DTV copy protection regime is even necessary, that is, whether piracy concerns will cause content providers to withhold certain content from broadcast channels and whether the lack of such content will impair the DTV transition. If a problem does exist, we ask whether the FCC should adopt a copy protection mechanism, how such a system would work, how it would be enforced, whether compliance and robustness rules would be required, and how such a system might impact consumers.
Importantly, the Commission also sought comment on its authority in this area.
The comment period is now closed and our staff is reviewing the record and beginning the process of developing a recommendation for the full Commission's consideration. At this point, we have drawn no conclusions as to whether a broadcast flag system is necessary or appropriate or whether the Commission has jurisdiction to adopt such a system. Nevertheless, it is entirely fitting and proper that the Commission undertake this examination. The transition to digital television is a national priority. If content protection concerns could be impeding that transition, the Commission is obliged to examine the issue. We will, of course, keep this Committee apprised of important developments as we proceed.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Ferree.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferree follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF W. KENNETH FERREE
Ferr10.eps
Ferr11.eps
Ferr12.eps
Ferr13.eps
Ferr14.eps
Ferr15.eps
Ferr16.eps
Ferr17.eps
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ferr18.eps
Ferr19.eps
Ferr20.eps
Ferr21.eps
Ferr22.eps
Ferr23.eps
Ferr24.eps
Ferr25.eps
Ferr26.eps
Ferr27.eps
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Attaway?
STATEMENT OF FRITZ E. ATTAWAY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND WASHINGTON GENERAL COUNSEL, MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (MPAA)
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ATTAWAY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Berman, Members of the Committee, thank you very much for allowing me to appear before you today.
I am incapable of describing the issue of the broadcast flag and certainly in 5 minutes, so we have a visual demonstration for you today that I will try to run through very quickly. This is something we did yesterday on the Internet. I have seen Bill Gates try to do a live Internet demonstration and fail, so I wasn't about to risk that today. But this is something that we did yesterday to demonstrate the broadcast flag issue.
You can find unauthorized copies of all your favorite television shows even today by simply going to one of the many popular so-called P2P file trading networks, like KaAaA in this case. KaZaA boasts 195 million users worldwide. In this particular search, we found that 4.2 million users were online at the moment that we were online and they were trading 875 million files.
To begin the search, we simply clicked the ''search'' button. We selected video files of the type that we are looking for. If we want episodes of ''The Simpsons,'' we simply type in ''The Simpsons'' in the search field, click the ''search now'' button, and wait a minute. In this case, 197 files became available on the first pass. Now, we could have done other passes and found additional files of ''The Simpsons,'' but there were 197 files available on the first pass, some of them in non-English versions, particularly the French. [Laughter.]
Mr. ATTAWAY. The French seem to like ''The Simpsons.''
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also, if you want to access the popular ABC program ''Alias,'' you simply type in ''Alias'' in the search field, click the ''search'' button, and wait a minute, and we found 139 files available for download, again, on the first pass.
If you are interested in the Fox popular program ''24,'' you can also easily find that. In our session yesterday, we had to search through a great deal of hard-core pornography and advertisements for free condoms before we could get to ''24,'' but we eventually found it.
To download it, you simply click the ''download'' button and you will see in a second what you get.
Now, these are shows that do not recoup their production cost on network exhibition. They have to go into syndication. They have to go into the foreign marketplace in order to recoup their cost and for the studio to make a profit. What you are seeing is activity that preempts those sequential markets and makes it—eventually will make it impossible for these shows to break even, much less make a profit.
Well, that is the show. In the few seconds I have left, let me make three very brief points. First of all, as you have just seen, there is a problem. This is not a theoretical issue. This is not something that we are worried about in the future. This is something that exists today. As band width gets larger, as compression technology improves, this problem will get much worse.
The second point is that the broadcast flag that we are talking about does one thing and one thing only: It prevents redistribution over wide-area networks like the Internet. It does not prevent copying in any way, manner, shape, or form. It will have absolutely no effect on non-protected content like home movies.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And finally, the flag's impact on technology will be negligible. Consumer devices already will have protected inputs and outputs to be able to render protected content on cable, satellite, Internet, and from other protected sources. What the broadcast flag really means is that digital television content will be directed through those protected inputs rather than unprotected inputs.
The issue here is not whether high-quality broadcast television will be available for redistribution. The issue is whether high-value broadcast television will be available at all over the air or whether it will be forced to migrate to protected distribution sources like cable and satellite. Thank you very much.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Attaway.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Attaway follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRITZ E. ATTAWAY
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for giving me this opportunity to appear at this very important hearing.
American consumers, and indeed consumers around the world, are entering a golden age of access to audiovisual content. Never before have consumers had so much choice in terms of the movies available to them, and the means by which they are delivered—theaters, VHS, DVD, cable, satellite, broadcast TV, Internet, advertiser supported, subscription, pay-per-view, video-on-demand—the list is long and growing. The same is true with regard to television programming.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The engine that is driving us into this golden age of consumer choice is technology. The motion picture industry has embraced technology, as witnessed by the DVD, to create new markets and bring new choices to consumers. However, technology brings challenges as well as opportunities. The greatest challenge is to maintain control over the distribution of movies and TV shows in order to recoup the cost of production and spur investment in new projects.
Fortunately, technology itself is a big part of the solution to illegal distribution. Digital rights management technology is being developed that will enable secure delivery of movies and TV shows to consumers and exponentially expand consumer choice. The high-tech industry is our partner in this endeavor. Contrary to the perception of some, the high-tech and movie industries are not enemies. To the contrary, we share a common interest in providing consumers new viewing opportunities, which will create vast new markets for both consumer technology and content.
That is not to say that the movie and high-tech industries are always in total agreement. We have different perspectives, which often result in conflicting ideas on how to achieve common goals. We are working together on a number of fronts to develop consensus solutions to content protection problems, some of which may require legislative implementation.
The greatest challenge facing the motion picture industry today is the widespread trafficking of movies and television shows on the Internet, mostly through so-called peer-to-peer ''file sharing.'' The term ''file sharing'' is a popular euphemism for copying, which in the case of copyrighted motion pictures and TV programming, is stealing. The sound recording industry is being decimated by this insidious practice.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DRM technology is now being employed by movie distributors to prevent unauthorized reproduction and redistribution of digital works. However no DRM technology is available 100% of the time, or 100% effective when it is available. Some leakage is inevitable. And therein lies the problem. When movies leak out of a protected environment, whether through hacking of DRM measures, theft of unprotected copies, camcording off theater screens, or other means, they can be instantly made available to literally tens of millions of people over the Internet, instantaneously and with little or no degradation of quality.
Movie studios are actively engaged in finding ways to stem this leakage, such as by providing greater security for prints and promotional screeners, and use of more sophisticated DRM measures. They are also heavily involved in enforcement of their rights under the copyright law, not only through infringement actions, but through consumer education and working with colleges and universities to develop codes of conduct for students using digital networks.
One source of leakage that will continue to grow if not addressed is digital broadcast television. Because it is transmitted in the clear, digital broadcast television programming is subject to an extraordinarily high risk of unauthorized redistribution over digital networks such as the Internet. The threat of such wide-scale piracy, will lead content creators to cease making their high-value programming available for distribution over digital broadcast television. Because the DTV transition would be seriously threatened by such a development, with consequent harm to consumers, the Federal Communications Commission has initiated a proceeding aimed at adopting narrowly-targeted regulations mandating protection of digital broadcast television. These proposed regulations are based upon a cross-industry consensus developed by the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group, an informal, open forum created for the purpose of finding a solution to the broadcast redistribution problem.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The BPDG proposed implementation of a Broadcast Flag as the most appropriate and efficient solution for the protection of digital broadcast television. Use of the Flag would allow broadcasters to offer content creators the same protection against Internet redistribution that conditional access systems like cable and satellite can provide. The Broadcast Flag would not be required to be embedded in content, in the event that a content provider wishes to make its broadcast content available for wide redistribution.
The Broadcast Flag solution regulates a minimum number of products. Only consumer products containing modulators or demodulators would be directly subject to FCC requirements necessary for the protection of unencrypted digital terrestrial broadcast content against unauthorized redistribution. These devices include DTV receivers and demodulator cards for PCs. Other ''downstream'' devices would have to substantially comply with the terms of license agreements with authorized digital output technology. Demodulators are the most appropriate gateway to commence protection, because prior to demodulation the content is not in usable form; after demodulation, the content may be in usable form. Regulation of modulators is necessary in order to prevent other content protection systems from being undermined by the very rules necessary to protect digital broadcast television content. The FCC would also regulate a limited number of products that are capable of receiving protected but unprocessed content, or digital broadcast content passed in a certain way within a computer. Equipment used by satellite, cable, and other professional retransmitters of digital broadcast content would be exempt from the requirements. However, such retransmitters would be required to ensure that retransmitted digital broadcast content is protected once received by the consumer's set-top box.
The Commission would authorize a list of specified protection technologies, known as ''Table A,'' for use with digital broadcast content. Without such a list, manufacturers would lack guidance concerning implementation of the requirements and disputes over their implementation would inevitably arise. Given the ever-changing nature of technology, narrow criteria drafted today specifying certain features for protection technologies may quickly become obsolete. Thus, we have asked the Commission to adopt flexible, market-based criteria for Table A technologies, to be administered by the Commission.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Contrary to what has been argued by some Broadcast Flag opponents, the Broadcast Flag solution will not prevent consumers from making an unlimited number of physical recordings of DTV programs, or from distributing protected digital broadcast content within the personal digital network environment, defined as the home or similar local environment. And the Flag WILL NOT intrude in any way on consumer privacy. Furthermore, implementation of the Broadcast Flag solution will have no impact on existing consumer equipment. The cost impact on affected equipment going forward will be insignificant.
Given the fact that protection of digital broadcast content is necessary to implement a robust DTV transition, the Commission has ample authority to act under existing legislation. The Commission has express statutory authority under 47 U.S.C. §336 to adopt rules to prevent unauthorized redistribution of digital terrestrial broadcast television programming. Furthermore, the Commission has ancillary jurisdiction to adopt such rules under Titles I and III of the Communications Act.
Although there is a high level of consensus within the content, consumer electronics and information technology (computer) industries on the need for a Broadcast Flag, there are disagreements on the details of its implementation and in a few cases opposition to the Flag in principle. Much of the opposition to the Flag in principle is based on misconceptions of what it would do, like restrict home copying. (As stated earlier, the Flag would not hinder physical copying and enjoyment in the home in any way.) Other concerns address such issues as timing and standards for implementation. MPAA and a host of other Broadcast Flag supporters, including broadcasters, labor and professional organizations, advertisers and sports interests, recently addressed these concerns in reply comments to the FCC, pointing out that:
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1. The current availability of the highest quality programming for free over-the-air broadcast is not sustainable if adequate protections are not adopted in parallel with the rapid expansion in broadband connections and DTV equipment.
2. Without the Broadcast Flag, the market will respond to the increasing threat of unauthorized redistribution by migrating high-quality programming away from broadcast television to other, protected distribution channels.
3. Illegal file trafficking in audiovisual works is currently like illegal trafficking in music was six years ago; but as technology improves, television programming will be as susceptible to piracy as music is now, unless a solution is already in place.
4. The threat of unauthorized redistribution over wide area networks is qualitatively different from that of any other previous technology, such as the VCR; networks such as the Internet allow the instantaneous, effortless, and costless worldwide distribution of copies with none of the restrictions or effort that applied to VCRs or other, physical recording technologies.
5. Those who are interested in negotiating a solution on this particular topic have already done so, and further delay is unnecessary; indeed, delay will allow device manufacturers to create a huge legacy of non-compliant products that may stymie the Broadcast Flag.
6. The Broadcast Flag is the only solution that preserves high-quality programming on broadcast television.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
7. Existing equipment in consumer's homes will not be affected by the implementation of the Broadcast Flag.
8. Adopting the Broadcast Flag would not inaugurate a new regime of content protection, but rather would afford digital broadcaster the same ability to protect content that other distribution channels enjoy.
9. The criteria for Table A in the Joint Proposal are more objective than those proposed by any other party.
10. The Broadcast Flag does not at all restrict the number of copies a consumer may make of broadcast television.
11. Claims that the Broadcast Flag would prevent such uses as the transfer of content within the home, or the incorporation of broadcast content into a school project, or would require content owner approval for any such actions, are simply mistaken.
12. The Broadcast Flag does not apply to every device, and does not apply to the equipment of Internet Service Providers; it applies only to DTV receivers, DTV modulators, and a very limited number of related DTV consumer products.
13. The Broadcast Flag achieves the minimum level of restrictions necessary to prevent worldwide unauthorized redistribution of broadcast content.
14. The Broadcast Flag regulation would not pose any challenge to open source developers not already posed by the very concept of secure applications generally.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Implementation of the Broadcast Flag is a necessary, but by no means complete, solution to the problem of Internet trafficking in infringing movies and other copyrighted material. Another key component of this problem is analog reconversion, which refers to the conversion of protected digital content to analog, and its reconversion to digital, which wipes out all known digital rights management technologies.
As stated earlier, we are working with the high tech community to find mutually agreeable solutions, and some of these solutions, like analog reconversion, will probably require legislative implementation. However time is of the essence. Consumers are anxious to take advantage of new viewing opportunities that require very substantial investment by content suppliers in new business models that cannot succeed in an environment of unbridled piracy. We urge the Congress to take an active interest in solving these problems, to encourage all parties to find practical solutions, and where purely marketplace solutions are not effective or cannot be implemented, to adopt such legislation as is necessary to achieve a golden age of consumer choice.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity to present the views of the motion picture industry.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Black?
STATEMENT OF EDWARD J. BLACK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (CCIA)
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Berman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to working with you in the future on these very many important issues that are important to our industry that are the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee.
CCIA represents a diverse group of companies, including hardware, software services companies from many parts of the computer, communications and Internet sectors. Our member companies have annual revenues of approximately $300 billion a year. Intellectual property and copyright have played an integral role in the development and success of our industry. Our members support strong copyright protection.
Copyright is a useful, but not sufficient, tool to accomplish one of our industry's more fundamental goals, preserving the vitality of a dynamic, innovative industry capable of providing the public with great products and services. CCIA has long understood that the greatest benefits flow from a balanced copyright system that ensures that the legitimate interests of all parties in our techno-ecosystem are respected, including the customer and end user.
We recognize that many different parts of industry also have diverse interests and needs. We recognize that all of us who are content creators face challenges and opportunities in the rapidly changing world in which we live. We believe very real problems of illegal copying exist and need to be addressed.
Looking at piracy alone, however, and especially at one aspect of it reminds us of the parable of the wise man and the elephant. We have come to realize that some of our copyright and piracy problems are subsets of the larger challenge facing us all: The recalibration of our systems, laws, business models, and thinking to ensure that in a very rapidly changing digital world, legitimate interests of all relevant interests and parties receive a reasonable and fair place in a new equilibrium. In trying to reach this new equilibrium, a few of the other values that must be considered along with copyright and the First Amendment are the preservation of competition, the innovative process, efficiency, deregulation, cost-benefit equity, consumer welfare, and productivity.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of these values is embodied in DMCA section 12(c)(3). That section reflects a policy and decision by the Congress that consumer electronics and computer products not be required to respond to particular technological measures. This was a correct decision by the Congress and one that should not be overturned. It should certainly not be overturned by a grant of jurisdiction to the FCC and then subsequently, in essence, a retransfer of jurisdiction from the FCC to a small group of industry players.
We believe strongly in the value of the marketplace as a determinant of which technology and which business models will succeed. We believe in an open private sector consensus standards process. We do not think creating a whole new regime is necessary or desirable, and we do not think centralized planning in the area of technology is the preferred course. We fear not just the growth of industrial policy in this area per se, but of a lopsided industrial policy that gives control over a large innovative industry to a smaller, important, but vulnerable, one in the name of hypothetical benefits.
We are concerned that under the guise of piracy protection, this power may be used for anti-competitive purposes. The proponents of the broadcast flag argue that because the flag is intended to limit retransmission rather than copying, the flag does not implicate fair use. Fair use, however, is not only limitation of the copyright owner's reproduction right, it is a limitation on all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights under section 106, including the distribution right, the performance right, and the display right. Thus, fair use could be implemented when the consumer is technologically prevented from retransmitting digital content.
In short, there is more to fair use than time shifting. There also is space shifting and a host of transformative uses that involve both time shifting and space shifting. At CCIA, we are particularly concerned about preserving these transformed abuses. One of the great virtues of digital technology is the ability it gives consumers to become content providers and content distributors, and just like the established entertainment companies, these consumers incorporate elements of preexisting works in their content. This creativity by consumers should be welcomed and encouraged by Congress. It makes the populus more literate and computer savvy. Unfortunately, the broadcast flag restricts this creativity.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The entertainment industry has already conceded that the broadcast flag by itself will not stop retransmission of digital television over the Internet. Accordingly, they have initiated industry discussions concerning the so-called analog hole, which presumably will lead to even more proposed legislation.
Moreover, the broadcast protection discussion group itself has already demonstrated mission creep. It was formed to address the protection of feature film and broadcast on television, yet now, it is concerned with protecting revenue streams and syndication rights for regular television programs.
Significantly, fair use has a First Amendment dimension. Less than 2 months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that fair use was one of the copyright law's ''built in First Amendment accommodations.'' Thus, any statute or regulation that has the effect of limiting fair use treads on constitutionally suspect ground.
We believe that in addition to the enormous technological and competitive issues raised, the BPDG proposal would create huge costs, both economically and otherwise, for consumers and for the technology industry. We, therefore, urge the FCC to reject this proposal. We would urge the Congress to proceed very carefully in this area.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Black.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD J. BLACK
INTRODUCTION
The Computer & Communications Industry Association is a group of large, small and mid-sized technology companies committed to the proposition that open markets, open systems and open networks are critical to an efficient marketplace.
Over the years, we have been strong supporters of pro-competitive measures such as the Federal Communications Commission's Computer II ruling. From our beginnings as active participants in proceedings against AT&T and IBM, through our current role as an appellant in U.S. v. Microsoft and intervenor in the case against Microsoft at the European Commission, we have recognized that technical regulation can be the monopolist's favorite cudgel. The ability to control industry standards—especially those mandated by government—assures that those who cannot otherwise prevail in the marketplace can capture and maintain a dominant position. We therefore have profound concerns over the proceeding at the FCC, which implicates standards setting processes, technology development, and copyright.
Copyright is, by definition, a balance of the rights of creators and freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment. Copyrights and patents are state grants of limited monopoly. They are justified under U.S. law only so long as they ''promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.'' (emphasis added) Copyright and its limitations—traditionally matters beyond the purview of the Federal Communications Commission—are the very heart of the matter now before the Commission.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Copyright, patent and trademark law are central to the computer and telecommunications industry. Our members retain countless intellectual property rights, and benefit from the creativity and inventions of others. Thus, we have participated in a large number of proceedings at the intersection of information technology and copyright, including the seminal Sega Enterprises v. Accolade, which affirmed the right of software makers to reverse engineer others' works for the purposes of developing interoperable products. In more recent years, we have remained deeply enmeshed in issues surrounding intellectual property. We, along with a handful of other industry organizations, helped negotiate key sections of the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaty on online copyright in Geneva, as well as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), which implemented the treaty in the United States. In addition to our work in copyright, we recently helped fight for—and win—the elimination of virtually all controls over the export of encryption technology. Encryption is vital to all widely deployed copy-control technologies in current use, including those technologies that make up the broadcast-flag proposal now before the Commission.
Given the knowledge we have gained from past and present endeavors, we oppose any attempt to enshrine into law the broadcast flag proposal, including any effort to promulgate the proposed Compliance and Robustness rules, which have been proposed to govern the flag's implementation. As we outline below, the proposed rules will distort the professed purpose of the marker, frustrate consumer rights and expectations and further delay an already troubled transition to digital broadcast television. Worse still, the proposal will fail to prevent the illegal copying its backers say it can stop.
THE BROADCAST FLAG
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Origins of the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group's broadcast flag proposal
Content providers claim to have put forth this controversial proposal chiefly to avoid indiscriminate copying and redistribution of their works over the Internet. That remains part of the report's goals. Unfortunately, the co-chairs, together with certain members of the content industry, have permitted many other objectives to creep into this proposal. In reality, the proposals found in the Compliance and Robustness Requirements document would effectively ban any retransmission not approved by the major motion picture studios. While the studios might desire such a regime, this unprecedented degree of control is a denial of consumers' rights and expectations, in conflict with fundamental First Amendment rights, and ultimately a futile endeavor.
What the Flag Does
The ''broadcast flag'' as such is no more than a few bytes of information appended to a digital-television signal. It performs no work, contains no ''intelligence.'' It is simply notice that tells a compliant device that the broadcast is copyrighted. The flag indicates the creator's wishes as to whether it may be copied, and how it may be used. There is no controversy as to the form or essential function of this flag, and the flag is already part of the ATSC standards for digital television. The controversy, rather, revolves around over the controls Hollywood wishes to assert over devices and content through this flag, and how these controls will function
In discussions before the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group, Hollywood's representatives argued that all devices capable of receiving content containing the flag should be restricted so that leakage to the Internet would be impossible, or nearly so. Content owners assert, via analogy to current controversies over file sharing, that piracy of free, over-the-air digital television programs will be sufficiently rampant as to justify the reworking of essentially all consumer electronics that can handle a digital-television signal or convert analog to digital. We outline below why this analogy is inappropriate, and why such a proposal makes little sense from the viewpoint of law, technology or economics.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LEGAL IMPEDIMENTS TO ADOPTION OF THE BROADCAST FLAG PROPOSAL
The proposed broadcast flag abridges First Amendment rights
The proponents of the broadcast flag argue that because the flag is intended to limit retransmission rather than copying, the flag does not implicate Fair Use. Fair Use, however, is not only a limitation on the copyright owner's reproduction right. It is a limitation on all of the copyright owner's exclusive rights under Section 106, including the distribution right, the performance right, and the display right. Thus, Fair Use could be implicated when a consumer is technologically prevented from retransmitting digital content.
Many high school students, for example, have been taught in their schools how to put together very sophisticated power point presentations, including video clips. Their homework assignments sometimes require them to create such presentations at home or in the school library, and then to present them in class to the teacher and their fellow students. Imagine that a student wanted to create a presentation on how television situation comedies portray the relationship between parents and children, including clips from popular situation comedies and television dramas. The broadcast flag would not interfere with the creation of such a presentation on a home computer. But how would the student get the presentation to school? The broadcast flag presumably would prevent her from e-mailing it to her teacher, or burning a CD. If she had a laptop she might be able to bring the laptop to school, but this option would not be available if she only had a desktop.
In short, there is more to Fair Use than time shifting. There also is space shifting, and a host of transformative uses that involve both time shifting and space shifting. At CCIA, we are particularly concerned about preserving these transformative uses, like the student project described above. One of the great virtues of digital technology is the ability it gives consumers to become content providers and content distributors. And just like the established entertainment companies, these consumers incorporate elements of pre-existing works in their content. This creativity by consumers should be welcomed and encouraged by Congress. It makes the populace more literate and computer savvy. Unfortunately, the broadcast flag restricts this creativity.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Proponents of the broadcast flag assert that their proposal is so limited that it will not unduly restrict consumer creativity. But the history of intellectual property laws in general, and copyright law in particular, teach us that this is just the first step. Today the entertainment companies seek restrictions on retransmission outside the home network. Tomorrow they will seek limitations on retransmission within the home network. And the day after tomorrow they will demand prohibitions on fast-forwarding through commercials on taped TV shows. Indeed, the entertainment industry has already conceded that the broadcast flag by itself will not stop retransmission of digital television over the Internet. Accordingly, they have initiated industry discussions concerning the so-called ''analog hole,'' which presumably will lead to more proposed legislation. Moreover, the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group itself has already demonstrated ''mission creep.'' It was formed to address the protection of feature films broadcast on television, yet now it is concerned with protecting the revenue stream from syndication rights for regular television programs.
Fair Use is often disparaged in these chambers as either a quaint legacy of a bygone era, or a form of disguised piracy. It is neither. To be sure, many infringers claim that their copying was permitted under the Fair Use doctrine, but courts have quickly dismissed these frivolous arguments. In fact, Fair Use is as important today as it was before the advent of the computer, and it is as important to businesses as it is to consumers. Congress itself couldn't function without Fair Use. Everyday, Congressional offices make thousands of photocopies of newspaper articles. Fair Use permits this. Everyday, Congressional offices download copyrighted material from the Internet. Once again, Fair Use permits this. Indeed, the simple act of replying to an email could be an infringement, but for Fair Use.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Significantly, Fair Use has a First Amendment dimension. Less than two months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that Fair Use was one of the copyright law's ''built-in First Amendment accommodations.'' Thus, any statute or regulation that has the effect of limiting fair use treads on constitutionally suspect ground.
The American tradition, innovation and common sense argue against heavy-handed regulation of the Internet
For years, the Commission, the White House, Congress, and even the Supreme Court have noted that information technology and the Internet are simply too young—and fast moving—to be tied down by strict government regulation. Time and time again, federal officials have rejected the idea that the Internet can be closely regulated. Yet, this is precisely the direction in which some would have the FCC and Congress head.
CCIA, therefore, has urged the FCC to act with caution during their proceeding on the broadcast flag, and would urge the Subcommittee and Congress to proceed in a similar fashion. The mere existence or even approval of the multi-bit signal known as the broadcast flag is not at issue before the FCC or Congress. Rather, the Commission is being asked to decide what, if anything, devices must do when confronted with such a flag.
If the FCC or Congress decides to act on the proposal, we believe it should limit its action to recognizing the ATSC flag as a national standard for signaling a work's status under copyright law, but no more. Were the policymakers to follow the wishes of the content community's most extreme proponents and require certain technologies to respond to this flag in a certain way, it would severely skew a nascent marketplace. Such a broadcast flag standard would freeze innovation, and grant control of a vital standard to a handful of companies in the content industry. Such an action would be anticonsumer, antibusiness, anticompetitive and fundamentally at odds with the policy objectives set forth by Congress in promoting the advancement of HDTV.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We believe the FCC and Congress should uphold the most basic tenets of the Constitution, and trust the market to produce solutions at least as good as those that a handful of motion picture studios would seek to impose upon the rest of society.
The Broadcast Flag violates the balance that Congress has struck
The Broadcast Flag is merely the beginning of Hollywood's efforts to unravel the careful balance achieved by Congress just four years ago in the DMCA. This legislation was the highest priority of the content industry during the 105th Congress, and Hollywood executives and lobbyists exerted tremendous pressure to push the legislation through. CCIA and others in the technology and consumer electronics industry were reluctant to grant such broad new powers to copyright owners, but entered into good-faith negotiations to seek a workable balance of interests.
A key compromise reached during DMCA negotiations was §1201(c)(3) of the Act, the ''no mandate'' provision, which specifies that equipment manufacturers are not required to design new digital telecommunications equipment, consumer electronics and computing products to respond to any particular copy protection technology. Implementation of the BPDG co-chairs' proposal would renege on this critical agreement, and fundamentally alter the balance Congress sought in the DMCA. The BPDG co-chairs' report would require a broad mandate upon demodulators, modulators, and, through the mandatory license agreements of the ''approved technologies'' all electronic devices, computer hardware, components and software used to process, record and view high-definition television content. Any such mandate should be based on a genuine, broad consensus achieved following a careful examination of all of the practical consequences and public policy repercussions. The current proposal fails to satisfy any of these requirements.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Government action must be fair and equitable
Over the years, various interest groups have attempted to control the Internet. From those who would seek to ban from the network anything someone could call ''indecent,'' to overreaching law enforcement agencies that have tried to limit online privacy and anonymity, more than a few groups have determined that their parochial interests outweighed the interests of society as a whole.
The Supreme Court cited just such interests in its groundbreaking ruling in Reno vs. ACLU. Confronting a section of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that attempted to ban all public display of indecency from the Internet, the Court ruled swiftly and surely. Congress, the Court found, could not convert the entirety of the World Wide Web into something suitable for children. The First Amendment, the Court found, forbade such restrictions on the rights of the rest of society.
The threat to free speech is not as sweeping in this instance, but nonetheless, questions of balance are vital. As we note above, the Robustness and Compliance Requirements of the Co-Chairs proposal have failed to protect Fair Use and invite only more interference with it via futile attempts to ''fix'' the so-called analog hole and constraints on peer-to-peer technologies.
HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE OF COPY CONTROLS
The music industry's experience is largely irrelevant to HDTV
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Proponents of the Co-Chairs' report assert that DTV will soon be ''Napsterized,'' or plagued with the same problems of widespread copying now faced by record companies. While it is simple to find some parallels between MP3 files and HDTV broadcasts, the analogy breaks down under examination. The basic properties of MP3s vs. those of High-Definition television govern basic laws of the marketplace and consumer behavior.
MP3 files, like the music one buys on a Compact Disc at a record store, are digital. But those same files occupy a tiny proportion of the space needed by conventional CD recordings. Even the highest-quality (and thus least compact) MP3 files average a mere four megabytes per three-minute song, or roughly 60 megabytes per 15-song album. A conventional audio CD, by contrast, consumes roughly 10 times as much space, or 600 megabytes per album. The difference between the two capacities is fundamental and grounded in a basic reality: the vast majority of consumers have neither time, opportunity, hard-disk space nor bandwidth to download music—legally or not—when a full album would take up nearly a half a gigabyte. Thus, they must use MP3 file formats to compress the data into a manageable size.
But as with all compression, this ease of use comes at a price. MP3 sound quality is significantly lower than that of full-fidelity CDs. Thus, we believe it is misleading to assert that digital technology offers ''perfect'' reproduction of audio and video works. Rather, digital technology offers perfect reproduction only of the version of the recording that is placed on the network in the first place.
The 10-to-1 compression of MP3 is impressive, but ultimately results in significant loss of sound quality readily apparent to anyone with a stereo of even middling quality. For this reason, MP3 players now available on the market are overwhelmingly aimed at portable devices and not at the home stereo market; the sound quality is simply too low for more serious uses. The low quality of MP3 recordings puts into jeopardy the proposition that widespread file sharing poses an immediate threat to all recordings sold at retail. Likewise, the laborious chore of downloading files from peer-to-peer networks (connections often fail), checking their quality (''pirate'' MP3s are often badly compressed, or compressed far beyond the limits of good sound quality), assembling those files and then burning them to disk (the process can take an hour or more) puts a real limit on the number of people who would rather undertake this onerous task than buy the recording.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We know that the record industry asserts that illegal copying of their wares accounts for their falling sales. Others suggest that there are other possible causes, including the current economic slowdown, the industry's release of far fewer titles and their elimination of singles, the end of cassette production, broadcast media consolidation, and less grooming of new talent. A full examination of the recording industry's woes is beyond the scope of this hearing. Nonetheless, the supposed causes of the record studios' financial slump—MP3 reproduction—is only partially relevant in the face of staggering bandwidth requirements of digital television. Thus, we question in the first place the aptness of comparing the real problems of the slumping record industry to the supposed difficulties of movie studios that are recently concluded their largest and most profitable sales year in history.
The Broadcast Flag proposal ignores our industry's 25-year history of combating illegal copying.
Finally—and perhaps most importantly—we would like to refer to the decades of experience our industry has had with illegal duplication of software. We learned long ago that we can create some impediments to unauthorized copying. But we also learned that modern DRM technology is mostly successful in keeping honest people honest. We also have learned that the more we restrict how our customers can use our products, the more likely they are to be annoyed. Indeed, our earlier attempts at copy control chiefly taught hackers how to crack inherently insecure systems. The result was an ''arms race'' of software developer vs. hacker.
That arms race at first did little more than deny users the ability to make back-up copies or perform other innocuous tasks. Later, it taught good hackers how to be better ones. With time, there arose a particularly corrosive attitude among consumers. Some users began to think that stealing software was somehow permissible, since—in their mind—producers treated customers poorly and interfered with their expected use of the products. It is small wonder, then, that the vast majority of software makers dropped the fight.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today, software developers and their representatives routinely pursue, litigate against and assist in the prosecution of commercial infringers. Although illegal copying imposes costs on all software users, swift legal action puts a damper on such activity. At the same time, we know that illegal copying is largely a crime of opportunity. When given the chance to buy software at reasonable prices through convenient online kiosks or stores, consumers will generally purchase software products through legal, authorized distribution channels. The software business, like all businesses, eventually comes down to trusting the vast majority of customers.
The co-chairs and those who agree with them—Hollywood, in particular—have chosen not to trust consumers. They now threaten not to make their goods generally available without onerous copy protection measures. The record companies, in particular, have refused to make their goods available online at prices that reflect the vastly lower costs of online distribution, or in places consumers find convenient. They have also refused to ''unbundle'' their content to allow consumers to purchase a single song at a proportionate price rather than an entire album. Consumers are now also faced with purchasing music and visual media embedded with draconian DRM technology that, threatens to become obsolete, and restrict their rights and expectations with regards to time- and space-shifting. As a result, many otherwise honest consumers have gravitated towards the flexible reproduction and distribution offered by online file-sharing networks.
Now, alarmed by the record industry's own, predictable failure to stop unauthorized copying, Hollywood comes to the FCC and Congress for the blessing of still another ill-conceived copy-control scheme. The studios believe that, all evidence to the contrary, the broadcast flag will stop copyright infringement from occurring this time around. The Commission and Congress should reject this argument as a basis for implementation of the Broadcast Flag proposal, notwithstanding the many adverse consequences that would clearly result from the plan.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SHORTCOMINGS OF THE BROADCAST FLAG PROPOSAL AS A TECHNOLOGY STANDARD
Compounding this tension is another problem: The BPDG, despite its long efforts, produced no actual technology standard for the implementation of the broadcast flag. The prospect of adapting technologies approved by the MPAA and a handful of others to devices outside the local-area-network topology, for instance, remains only a dream. The FCC, therefore, is being told it must treat a mere wish list as though it were technological fact.
The Fair Use that was so crucial in Sega and other forms of lawful use of copyrighted works cannot be regulated by a mathematical algorithm or technological device. Fair Use is that use which is not authorized by the creator but it nonetheless legal as determined by the courts. These determinations are inherently subjective, and often controversial, and must normally be resolved on a case-by-case basis. Any solution that does not allow for consumers' continued enjoyment of the full range of uses permitted under existing precedent—as well as those uses that come to fall under the protection of copyright law—will diminish the rights of copyright users and upset the careful balance that has existed for hundreds of years.
This matter is obviously important for consumers, and their need to access legally the body of other works for personal use is clear. Ph.D. candidates who need to use copyrighted HDTV footage for a thesis on popular culture, proud parents who want to e-mail digital video of their child's soccer game, or corporate executives who want to watch video stored on an office computer while traveling, consumers, governments, and businesses alike need access to these works for their personal, non-commercial use. None of these things would be possible under the Co-Chairs proposal. And while proponents will argue that none of these things is expressly forbidden, the reality is we see no viable technology that can both allow these actions and comply with the proposal.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fair Use is not just a right enjoyed by consumers. Neither is it limited to rival software developers who want to produce game cartridges for other companies' players. Fair Use is intended to benefit the entirety of society. Fair Use, far from being a plaything of the ivory tower, is a concept that has run through our entire system of copyright since the time that it was established by the Founders. The more we limit fair use, the less likely we will enjoy the benefits of the creativity and innovation that are now possible under our intellectual property system. The more we dictate standards, the less room we have for broad accommodation and market-based solutions. Indeed, the broadcast flag proposal seems destined to create a cartel of content and technology producers that will decide who may prosper and who will not.
CONCLUSION
As representatives of some of America's largest producers of copyrighted material, we know first hand the importance of protecting what one owns. But our experience and knowledge of the law tell us that there are limits to the control we may expect over copyrighted materials. As a matter of technology and law, the Broadcast Flag proposal is fatally flawed.
The digitization of increasing amounts of our cultural heritage follows precisely the revolution through which the rest of society has passed. We as a society have responded to that change by creating new ways of doing business, of governing and living, of buying and selling copyrighted materials.
Not all are happy with this change. Like so many established powers, they now want to enlist the government in fighting a rear-guard action against the future. We urge the Members of the Subcommittee to reject this call to arms.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Ms. Peters, let me direct my first question to you, but on the way there, say that I felt like your written testimony read like it was written by a judge, and I actually mean that as a compliment. [Laughter.]
Mr. SMITH. It was a very good analysis of the case at hand.
Ms. PETERS. Thank you very much.
Mr. SMITH. You obviously believe, as a lot of people do, that content providers have a legitimate concern. You also think we need to accommodate fair use, and I don't disagree with that. But you spoke generally a few minutes ago, as well as in your written statement, about generalities. Can you be more specific? Can you give us examples of, for instance, some unauthorized redistribution activities that you feel would go beyond fair use?
Ms. PETERS. I just want to correct one thing. I really didn't say that the broadcast flag proposal had to accommodate fair use. What I said is——
Mr. SMITH. You said the solutions need to accommodate fair use.
Ms. PETERS. Right. If the solution was there, then you have to make sure you get it right.
Mr. SMITH. Right.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. PETERS. The problem with fair use is there is no exact answer, and that is actually the beauty of it. Usually, when you know the limits of what is going to be an exception, for example, performance of a work in a classroom, you actually exempt that out. What fair use does is on a case-by-case basis that may change over time, you apply the factors. So I actually think it is very difficult to build fair use——
Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you, then, a specific question. Suppose a consumer made a copy of a TV broadcast and physically mailed it to a friend. That would be permissible, I assume?
Ms. PETERS. Technically, under the Sony decision, the making of a copy for time shifting purposes is okay. What you seem to be going to is a personal copy, but then the personal copy goes to the friend.
Mr. SMITH. Right.
Ms. PETERS. I would say that it is not that clear that it is, in fact, fair. It is probably clear that copyright owners would not challenge that with regard to a particular——
Mr. SMITH. What if it was e-mailed to a friend?
Ms. PETERS. E-mailed to a friend, one friend? The bottom line for me is I think it is technically an infringement, but it is one that would not be enforced.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Not be enforced, okay. Fair enough. Thank you, Ms. Peters.
Mr. Ferree, let me ask you a technical question, and it is this. Do you think it is possible for the FCC to arrive at a limited broadcast flag solution that does not impact copyright law and that takes into consideration concerns of consumer electronics industries that a broadcast flag will stifle competition?
Mr. FERREE. Yes.
Mr. SMITH. Okay, that is fairly reassuring. [Laughter.]
Mr. SMITH. I am not going to ask you any more. I am glad for the short answer.
Mr. FERREE. No, I——
Mr. SMITH. Really, I am serious.
Mr. FERREE. Okay.
Mr. SMITH. That was a good answer. The comment period ended a couple of weeks ago, a little over 2 weeks ago. When do you expect—I am not going to presume you are issuing rules, but when do you expect to reach a decision whether or not to make a ruling?
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FERREE. Well, that is hard to predict, Mr. Chairman. We have just begun to go through the record. It is quite an extensive record. We received something over 6,000 comments in that proceeding alone, and they do—the comments——
Mr. SMITH. What is the average period of time you generally wait between when the comment period is closed and when you would decide whether to issue a ruling or not?
Mr. FERREE. Oh, that can vary greatly.
Mr. SMITH. You are just going to give a specific answer.
Mr. FERREE. I will give you as specific answer as I can get. I would think if the FCC decided to go forward with a flag implementation of some sort, without commenting on what that might look like, I would think it would be done this year.
Mr. SMITH. Okay. How about the next 3 months? Six months? You can't even be that specific?
Mr. FERREE. I—I would not hazard a guess. I am sorry.
Mr. SMITH. If you can't, you can't. Thank you, Mr. Ferree.
Mr. Attaway, do you think that there are other options besides the broadcast flag, watermarking and encryption at the source that might work or work as well? Do you believe the broadcast flag is the only practical solution, then, or——
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ATTAWAY. We believe it is the only practical solution. The only other way of dealing with this problem that we are aware of is for broadcasts to encrypt their signals, which has enormous legacy problems for consumers, legacy equipment problem. The broadcast flag solution that we have recommended eliminates any legacy equipment problems for consumers. The legacy risk is all placed on us, and that is why it is so important that the FCC act quickly, because every day, more legacy devices are coming into the marketplace that will not recognize the flag, and so the retransmission problem will continue until those legacy devices transition out of the marketplace.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Attaway and Mr. Black, I have some additional questions in a few minutes and we will get to those a little bit later on.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, is recognized for his questions.
Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attaway, Mr. Black's testimony as well as the CCIA's FCC submission keeps talking about Hollywood and Hollywood and I thought they were going to break out into song in a moment. But you seem to think that only the Hollywood studios support the broadcast flag, that this notion of trying to develop some form of a consensus is not present in the effect to get the broadcast flag. Is that true or do you have allies on this?
Mr. ATTAWAY. It is not true, and if you see the comments filed with the FCC, you see that everyone involved in the free over-the-air broadcast business, from content suppliers to television stations to advertisers to guilds, everyone involved in this activity supports the broadcast flag because everyone realizes that without the flag, high-value content is going to migrate to protected delivery systems like cable and satellite and free over-the-air television as we know it today will be a thing of the past.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BERMAN. In your written testimony, you state that the broadcast flag wouldn't prevent the incorporation of broadcast content into a school project. Mr. Black seems to disagree with you. He states that the broadcast flag would effectively prevent a child from using clips of DTV programming in a school project because it would prevent the child from e-mailing that project or burning it onto a CD. Could you reconcile your comments with his?
Mr. ATTAWAY. Well, the broadcast flag would certainly not prevent Mr. Black's child from burning a copy of the project containing elements of television shows onto a CD. The broadcast flag does not prevent copying at all, as I stated earlier.
With today's technology, it would prevent the student from e-mailing that project because a secure system does not yet exist for e-mailing. But as soon as that technology is developed, and I believe it will be, then that would be made possible, as well. The only thing that the flag is designed to do is to prevent the mass redistribution of television programs on wide-area networks like the Internet.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Black, you note that many of your members have strong IP interests of their own and support IP protection. One of CCIA's members is Streamcast Networks, the corporate owner of the peer-to-peer file trafficking service Morpheus. Streamcast Networks is clearly concerned about protecting its own IP, as it copyrights its website and it has many trademarks, including one on the Morpheus logo.
At the same time, Morpheus software has enabled and continues to enable its users to commit literally billions of copyright infringements, including massive copyright infringement of TV programming. Even though Morpheus could reengineer its software to disable copyright infringements, it has refused to do so. So while your members protect their own IP, it appears that at least a couple of them actually profit from the infringement of copyrights and TV programming. Doesn't this lead to the conclusion that some of your members are not really concerned about protecting copyrighted DTV programming?
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BLACK. Mr. Berman, if any members of mine are found in a judicial process—and there is a lawsuit going on right now—to have as a core part of their business practice the violation of law, they will not be members of mine. As a matter of fact, Microsoft at the moment is not a member of mine, given their anti-competitive behavior across a wide range. We will not——
Mr. BERMAN. Do they want to be?
Mr. BLACK. Probably not at the moment. [Laughter.]
Mr. BLACK. But we basically—I stand by our statement. Our companies are a wide range of companies. If—you are making presumptions about conduct which will be—is being litigated. When it is litigated, we will respond accordingly. We do not try to look at every company and every practice, and I think there are a lot of companies in various parts of the entertainment industry that at times have been found in violation of some aspect of law or are under consent decrees, et cetera. So a trade association does not try to do that. However, like I say, if there was a formal finding, we would act.
Mr. BERMAN. My point wasn't about who or who shouldn't be in your association, nor was I trying to be the jailer. I was simply trying to point out that some people who talk about desiring to protect IP, at least as the facts appear to me, live by trying to violate intellectual property protections. That was my only point.
Mr. BLACK. I am sure that is right, and I think some people who talk a lot about fair use aren't very committed to helping fair use along, either.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BERMAN. I am sure that is true.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Berman.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller, is recognized for his questions.
Mr. KELLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.