H.Hrg.119

1[House Hearing, 119 Congress]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                           A MIDLIFE CRISIS?5                      IP AND THE INTERNET AFTER 406=======================================================================78                                HEARING910                               BEFORE THE1112                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL13                 PROPERTY, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, AND14                              THE INTERNET1516                                 OF THE1718                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY1920                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES2122                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2324                             SECOND SESSION2526                               __________2728                         TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 20262930                               __________3132                           Serial No. 119-753334                               __________3536         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary3738[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]3940               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov4142                                __________4344                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4564-158                    WASHINGTON : 202646=======================================================================4748                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY4950                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair5152DARRELL ISSA, California             JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland, Ranking53ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                      Member54TOM McCLINTOCK, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York55THOMAS P. TIFFANY, Wisconsin         ZOE LOFGREN, California56THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              STEVE COHEN, Tennessee57CHIP ROY, Texas                      HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,58SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia59BEN CLINE, Virginia                  TED LIEU, California60LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington61JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       J. LUIS CORREA, California62TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania63BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 JOE NEGUSE, Colorado64HARRIET M. HAGEMAN, Wyoming          LUCY McBATH, Georgia65LAUREL M. LEE, Florida               DEBORAH K. ROSS, North Carolina66WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   BECCA BALINT, Vermont67RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois68KEVIN KILEY, California              SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California69GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida70BRAD KNOTT, North Carolina           DANIEL S. GOLDMAN, New York71MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas72ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       SUMMER LEE, Pennsylvania73DEREK SCHMIDT, Kansas74BRANDON GILL, Texas75MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington76                                 ------7778             SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,79               ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, AND THE INTERNET8081                    DARRELL ISSA, California, Chair8283THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,84SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin              Georgia, Ranking Member85BEN CLINE, Virginia                  ZOE LOFGREN, California86LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  TED LIEU, California87LAUREL LEE, Florida                  JOE NEGUSE, Colorado88RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina89KEVIN KILEY, California              SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California90MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      Vacancy9192               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director93                ARTHUR EWENCZYK, Minority Staff Director9495                           C O N T E N T S9697                              ----------9899                         Tuesday, June 30, 2026100101                           OPENING STATEMENTS102103                                                                   Page104The Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the Subcommittee on Courts,105  Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the106  Internet from the State of California..........................     1107The Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Ranking Member of108  the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial109  Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of Georgia.......     4110The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary111  from the State of Ohio.........................................     5112The Honorable Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on113  the Judiciary from the State of Maryland.......................     5114115                               WITNESSES116117Sean Astin, President, Screen Actors Guild--American Federation118  of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA)119  Oral Testimony.................................................     9120  Prepared Testimony.............................................    11121Chris Floyd, Counsel, Amblin Entertainment122  Oral Testimony.................................................    14123  Prepared Testimony.............................................    16124Steve K. Francis, Executive Chair, IP House125  Oral Testimony.................................................    20126  Prepared Testimony.............................................    22127Christopher A. Mohr, President, Software and Information Industry128  Association (SIIA)129  Oral Testimony.................................................    31130  Prepared Testimony.............................................    33131Bhamati Viswanathan, Visiting Assistant Professor, Suffolk132  University Law School133  Oral Testimony.................................................    51134  Prepared Testimony.............................................    53135136          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING137138All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on139  Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the140  Internet are listed below......................................    79141142Materials submitted by the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the143  Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial144  Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of California,145  for the record146    A letter to the Honorable Chuck Grassley and the Honorable147        Dick Durbin, from the Entertainment Software Association,148        Jun. 9, 2026149    An Appeal Case, Vetter Communications Corporation v. Resnik150        Music Group, United States District Court, Middle151        District of Louisiana, United States Court of Appeals152        Fifth Circuit, Jan. 12, 2026153A statement from the Motion Picture Association, Inc., Jun. 30,154  2026, submitted by the Honorable Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a Member155  of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property,156  Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of157  California, for the record158A letter to the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the Subcommittee159  on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and160  the Internet from the State of California, and submitted by the161  Honorable Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Ranking Member of the162  Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial163  Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of Georgia, from164  Frank Cullen, Executive Director of Council for Innovation165  Promotion (C4IP), Jun. 29, 2026, submitted by the Honorable166  Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Ranking Member of the167  Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial168  Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of Georgia, for169  the record170171                                APPENDIX172173Materials submitted by the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the174  Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial175  Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of California,176  for the record177    A letter to the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the178        Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial179        Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of180        California, and submitted by the Honorable Henry C.181        ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Ranking Member of the Subcommittee182        on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial183        Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of Georgia,184        from Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP), June 29,185        2026186    An article entitled, ``In Graphic Detail: New data shows187        publishers face growing AI bot, third-party scraper188        activity,'' Apr. 13, 2026, Digiday189    A letter to the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the190        Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial191        Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of192        California, and submitted by the Honorable Henry C.193        ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Ranking Member of the Subcommittee194        on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial195        Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of Georgia,196        from Stanley Pierre-Louis, President & CEO, Entertainment197        Software Association, Jun. 29, 2026198    A letter to the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the199        Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial200        Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of201        California, and the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Member of202        the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New203        York, from several manufacturers, businesses, and other204        organizations205    A report entitled, ``Unboxing Fake Fashion Unleashing Real206        Dangers,'' Feb. 2026, American Apparel & Footwear207        Association208209                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD210211Questions submitted by the Honorable Darrell Issa, Chair of the212  Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial213  Intelligence, and the Internet from the State of California,214  for the record215  Questions for Sean Astin, President, Screen Actors Guild--216      American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-217      AFTRA)218    Response to question from Sean Astin, President, Screen219        Actors Guild--American Federation of Television and Radio220        Artists (SAG-AFTRA)221  Questions for Chris Floyd, Counsel, Amblin Entertainment222    Response to question from Chris Floyd, Counsel, Amblin223        Entertainment224  Questions for Steve K. Francis, Executive Chair, IP House225    Response to question from Steve K. Francis, Executive Chair,226        IP House227  Questions for Christopher A. Mohr, President, Software and228      Information Industry Association (SIIA)229    Response to question from Christopher A. Mohr, President,230        Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA)231  Questions for Bhamati Viswanathan, Visiting Assistant232      Professor, Suffolk University Law School233    Response to question from Bhamati Viswanathan, Visiting234        Assistant Professor, Suffolk University Law School235236                           A MIDLIFE CRISIS?237                      IP AND THE INTERNET AFTER 40238239                              ----------240241                         Tuesday, June 30, 2026242243                        House of Representatives244245           Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and246247               Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet248249                       Committee on the Judiciary250251                             Washington, DC252253    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room2542141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Darrell Issa255[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.256    Members present: Representatives Issa, Fitzgerald, Cline,257Gooden, Kiley, Lee, Fry, Johnson, Lofgren, Ross, and Kamlager-258Dove.259    Mr. Issa. The Committee will come to order. Today, the260Subcommittee, without objection, will be authorized to declare261a recess at any time. We welcome everyone here today for the262Intellectual Property and Internet Subcommittee hearing which263will cover a broad range of current, but important, issues.264    Candidly, we in Congress often wait until there is a crisis265to move. We are known for the expression what we do is nothing266at all or overreact. We cannot afford to do it either at this267time. The growth of various types of theft of intellectual268property through counterfeiting and piracy, in fact, has become269an epidemic. Most of the rest of the world has at least made270efforts to deal with these problems. This hearing will271establish once and for all that the various pieces of272legislation need to move and need to move quickly. That means273that this Committee must come together, along with the Senate,274to deal with economic crimes around the world, but particularly275those who come to our shores and take advantage of a weaker276enforcement. Additionally, the growth of AI means that in the277near future, what we see as a growing epidemic will rise even278further.279    I want to particularly to focus on something here today. It280is not just the money that is stolen from people whose creative281works are being taken. It is, in fact, the funding of criminal282networks, whether it is Hamas and Hezbollah, ISIS, Al Qaeda, or283others, almost all these groups in addition to the conventional284drug cartels, are operating criminal syndicates that include285various forms of intellectual property theft. That means that,286in fact, not doing something in a timely fashion is causing287people to die. It is causing countries to live in terror. It is288costing countless amount of dollars that U.S. citizens pay in289addition to the loss of revenue to those who create290intellectual property.291    I want to make it clear. We all know that there are people292who innocently think that watching on a bootleg channel293something they would otherwise pay for, the cost is simply they294are getting a deal of free. If that money is, in fact, going to295syndicates that are involved in other illegal activities, you296are funding criminals. You are funding people who hurt people.297    Four decades ago, the Advanced Research Project Agency,298ARPANET, adopted a communications protocol. I was a young299lieutenant in those days and we used it. We used it in a very300limited fashion. One day, somebody came up with the idea of a301way to communicate that became known as email. In those302decades, half a century or so, we have gone from a connection303of military bases and universities for purposes of furthering304research to the internet as we know today. In addition, the305advantage of Moore's Law, in fact, has made almost anything306that you have seen in science fiction all the way back to Jules307Verne and all the way through to the Terminator, a reality308today or in the near future.309    Decades ago, we passed the Internet Freedom Act and the310DMCA laws to protect fostering and nascent technology. They311were good. They worked some. They have, in fact, been modified312over time, and the notice and takedown orders have, in fact,313made them more effective. The cooperation of all parties,314including the internet providers for whom this is simply315overhead, in fact, has been appreciated. It has come without a316cost.317    Recently, the Supreme Court made decisions that provide318certainty as to, in fact, whether there is liability for319various actions or inactions. We are not here to talk about320that today. We are, in fact, recognizing that we have to all321work together if we are going to stop copyright piracy over the322internet.323    Only a few days ago, I was honored to be at the White House324to watch a UFC fight. It was amazing. The problem is all over325the world people are watching those fights for free. The cost326of that fight included $3 million of set up and take down there327at the White House. Somebody has to recognize that this is not328without a cost. In addition, those who took the blows deserved329to be compensated. To do so requires that, in fact, the330purveyors be able to put that out in a streaming format and331have it, in fact, only go to those who pay the small amount to332get it.333    Digital video piracy includes illegal downloads, streaming334of films and television and has resulted in an estimate that of335loss of over 230,000 jobs and conservatively $47.5 billion336reduced to our GDP. That is the economic cost. I have already337covered, in fact, the cost that I am not overreacting to say338people have died as a result of the money that is gained from339that piracy.340    While millions of listings for copyright-infringing content341are removed every day under notice and takedown process set342forth in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, right holders343have raised concerns with the speed. Today, our witnesses come344prepared to answer the major question, what is the reasonable345speed? Can we do it at the speed of sound? Can we do it at the346speed of light? More importantly, in a 45 minute or sometimes a347fraction of that live sports broadcast, can we do it soon348enough to make it no longer profitable for those who pop up and349sell their clandestine wares.350    The internet is open to substantial news sales revenues for351brands. That is enabling the trafficking of fake brands, and I352want to make it very clear. I live on the Mexican border. My353district covers 80 miles of the Mexican border. In my district,354we have a holding facility that holds up to 40,000 square feet,355racked three and four high of illicit drugs. Those drugs often356look like the real drug. They are in similar packaging. The357pill or other container always seems to look very legitimate.358It even has the right letters on it. When it is fentanyl, it359has led to people dying.360    Counterfeiting is not simply a matter of getting a purse361that looks cool that you can take to a party and maybe no one362will know or even you may even brag that it is a fake, it also363includes the counterfeiting of pharmaceuticals that, in fact,364once again lead to people dying.365    The patchwork of laws in many of these cases, State by366State, asks the question, should we continue to have States367make decisions that make honest, law-abiding purveyors of368products life difficult, while in fact, not effectively369stopping the clandestine work? We made this decision in 1972370through both legislation and court that we were not going to do371it with copyright for music. It has been a long time since and372there has needed to be some additional items done. We have373profited as a Nation from having not just one standard, but374having the Federal Government being able to aid States in the375enforcement of copyright protection. The same needs to happen376relative to AI. We all know it has to happen and more377importantly, if we are going to protect the law-abiding378citizen, we can't have it be simply an additional law on top of379hodge-podge laws that, in fact, can create conflicts or greater380regulatory requirements.381    There needs to be a congressional act targeted in a382measured way, meaning don't overreact. Any Federal legislation383must balance three goals to avoid hobbling American innovation384in online services and AI technology which will, in fact,385ensure the continued leadership around the globe of U.S.386technology. Let us make sure, in closing, that there is one387thing beyond all that I have mentioned that is at stake and388that is global leadership. America leads the world in high389tech. We do so because we welcome people from around the world390to join us through immigration. Our universities are the envy391of the world for both those who come and stay and those who392come and go back. That leadership is challenged by many others,393but particularly by a China that, in fact, does not respect394intellectual property, but does appreciate the innovation. They395appreciate it so much they steal it.396    It is Congress' responsibility thus to, in fact, make clear397that we are in a war, we are in a battle, we are in a398competition against China, and we are determined to win.399    Before I recognize the Ranking Member for his opening400statement, I would like to set a tone quickly with a short401video. If we could please run the video with audio.402    [Video shown.]403    Mr. Issa. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the404Subcommittee for his opening statement.405    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. When the modern internet406was born in January 1983, many considered it just another407Department of Defense project for the military. Thanks to408taxpayer funding, the United States was able to partner with409research universities and eventually private companies to410harness this innovation for use by the general public. Over its411first 10 years, the internet evolved from an application to412compete with the Soviets to a place where people could socially413connect, conduct business, and communicate with others, and414even through--it evolved into a medium for artistic expression.415    Today, it is hard for many of us to imagine a world without416new recipes at our fingertips, instant news updates, or417pictures of our friends and family on or social media news418feeds. Good or bad, it is no longer the question. The internet419is inescapable from modern society. This is quickly becoming420the same with generative artificial intelligence which has been421adopted by businesses and consumers alike in just a few short422years.423    Even with widespread adoption of transformative technology,424it is imperative that we continue to protect rights holders425when technology is used to steal intellectual property, defraud426consumers, and increase inequality. Products available online427from a trusted website can seem identical to those at brick-428and-mortar stores, but instead, are produced with harmful429chemicals or contain dangerous malware. These nearly identical430knockoffs can damage your favorite brand's reputation and harm431their ability to stay in business.432    Websites that miraculously have Project Hail Mary streaming433for free really are too good to be true. That product with Tom434Hanks in the commercial may not have actually been endorsed by435Tom Hanks, just a replica created with AI. Some of these may436seem harmless at first glance, but they matter to me and my437constituents.438    Film and TV spending in Georgia, the Hollywood of the439South, hit $4.4 billion in 2022 with 412 productions, but440increased costs have devastated our film and TV market.441Spending was down $2.3 billion in the last Fiscal Year with442just 245 productions. Our writers and actors need jobs to keep443creating and market changes have made that all the more444difficult to achieve. Across creative industries, innovators445from writers and software developers to musicians and painters446are watching their works used to train AI models for free,447while the barrier to entry gets higher and higher.448    If Congress' role today is to play armchair psychologist to449the internet's mid-life crisis, it is imperative we view harms450to creators as the symptom of a more pernicious disease. The451question we should be asking ourselves is: Are the innovations452before us serving the American people or do they exclusively453benefit a small handful of the wealthiest, most powerful454corporations and individuals in the world? Georgia's 11 million455plus residents have a median household income of just under456$82,000. Mark Zuckerberg is worth $220 billion as of December4572025. Groceries in Georgia were found to be the 11th highest in458the country earlier this month. Elon Musk just became the459world's first trillionaire. Homes in 79 percent of Georgia's460counties are considered unaffordable for the average worker.461Jeff Bezos just spent an estimated nearly $50 million on his462wedding. Americans are clearly facing an affordability crisis,463but those at the very top are doing well and getting wealthier464and wealthier every day.465    The price of everyday consumer devices such as your laptops466and computers have continued to climb, now to an estimated 15-46725 percent. Data centers are driving up utility costs,468straining the grid and degrading the quality of the everyday469appliances families depend on, like our air conditioning and470heating system. Senior citizens are having to choose between471paying their utility bills and their prescriptions and the rich472get richer. The middle class shrinks and the poor get poorer.473    The benefits from technological innovations, while474impressive, are minimized if everyone can't enjoy their475benefits. We can do this by meaningfully deploying technology476in a way that uplifts us all. This means acknowledging creators477as a key part of the ecosystem that is building AI and478compensating them as such. This means enacting protections for479American workers, building responsibility, and deploying480equitably.481    I look forward to hearing from the witnesses how we can482better protect America's artists, innovators, and the creative483fields. I thank Chair Issa for holding this important hearing484and I yield back the balance of my time.485    Mr. Issa. The gentleman yields back. Thank you. We now486recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. Jordan, for his487opening statement.488    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be brief. I just489want to thank you for your work for now over two decades on490trying to stop copyright piracy and harmful uses of AI while491not harming choice, innovation, and maybe most importantly492First Amendment liberties. We appreciate your tireless work,493and I know this is your last session in Congress. We will494probably have a few more hearings, but I did want to take the495time to thank you for this issue and so many others that you496have worked so hard on and I thank our witnesses for being here497and look forwarding to hearing from today's panel. With that, I498yield back.499    Mr. Issa. I thank the Chair. I profusely thank the Chair.500We now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr.501Raskin, for his opening statement.502    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly, Mr. Chair. Welcome to our503witnesses.504    A couple of months ago, I got a postcard in my mailbox505which let me know that three books I have written over the506course of my career had been used to train Anthropic's Claude507AI large language models, and because of this I was entitled to508be part of the settlement in the Bartz v. Anthropic case. Now,509this surprised me because first it reminded me that I used to510write books. Now, I just post 280 characters every day. It also511surprised me because I didn't know anything about the512litigation, much less did I know anything about the fact that513Anthropic had essentially swallowed up the contents of three of514my books, apparently rejecting the relevance and utility of515several books I had written.516    Anthropic had never called to ask me to use my books, but a517judge found that Anthropic's ingestion and digestion of my518books without payment was fair use. Claude AI may not be519allowed to simply reprint my book and regurgitate line for line520and sell it, but it may profit off my word choice, my cadence,521my style such as it is, my conceptualizations, and my research,522among other attributes of my writing for free.523    Now, if I finally get around to filling out the form which524means I have to finally get around to finding the postcard, I525may get a de minimis check in the mail because the judge did526find Anthropic had used pirated versions of the books that it527used to train its large language model and the parties,528including apparently me, settled shortly after this holding.529Now, it would be cavalier to write these training episodes off530as a random or minor incidence. AI companies intentionally531select works with which to train their large language models,532often with zero intention of paying the creators any royalties533for use of their creative intellectual labor.534    Bartz v. Anthropic is just one ominous decision floating in535a sea of developing case law in this brave new world to engage536in a fair use vernacular borrowing of H.G. Wells famous work of537science fiction, but it is illustrative of the proliferating538tensions between existing law and social values that have539materialized as we live through this time of astonishing540technological transformation. The advent of the internet and541the explosive emergence of AI have fundamentally changed the542way that we interact with each other, the way we conduct543business, the way we think about human thought and human544feelings and human work, and the way we create and consume545books, songs, and other creative works.546    Now, I tend much more to the heady enthusiast side of such547changes over the brute and Luddite side when it comes to548technological innovation, but that is only because I have a549profound faith in democracy and our capacity to manage550technological change when we put our minds to it. Now, is the551time to pose and grapple with urgent and searching questions552about the moment.553    How do we integrate titanic new technological changes in a554way that supports, rather than undermines, the basic needs and555values of our society? We know from experience that innovations556mean little if they are left to create inequality and557domination, joblessness, and poverty.558    How do we prevent the concentration of power and wealth,559but instead work to fairly distribute the benefits of new560technologies so they become part of our common life and561inheritance? In this new era, we must ask ourselves what is562fair, what is just, and what will secure the greatest good to563the greatest number of people. That is what I hope we will be564doing today.565    When the DMCA became governing copyright law nearly 30566years ago, dangerous products and merchandise that infringed on567intellectual property rights overwhelmingly had to be bought in568person. Movie and music pirates created physical copies of569recordings and literally sold them on the street corners. Our570laws did not contemplate the spread of streaming where content571piracy occurs on a daily basis all over the world as far away572as Vietnam, the Philippines, and the pirates can create a new573infringing site the moment one gets taken down. Consumer574products used to be bought almost exclusively in stores with575the occasionally counterfeit handbag on the street.576    Today, harmful counterfeit products like exploding577batteries, toxic baby cream, and asbestos-laden crayons can be578bought often, usually unwittingly, by consumers online and they579arrive at their doorsteps in a matter of hours. Even our music580laws were designed for a world where listeners discovered music581through their stereos, which is why we are left with laws that582prevent performers from being paid when their music is being583played on the radio. These issues affect not just the two584million employees of the movie industry or the nearly $12585billion in revenue from the music industry, but also the586consumers who end up paying the cost of counterfeit goods that587break or cause harm or just drive up the price of the real588product.589    The laws on the books may no longer be fair for these590affected industries, and they are almost certainly unfair to591consumers. I understand there are many proposals out there with592ideas for improving the current situation. I am a proud593cosponsor of one of them, the American Music Fairness Act,594which would ensure that performers are paid when their music is595actually played on the radio. In many ways, AI's supercharged596problems have been percolating since the advent of internet.597Generative AI models allow to use internet faster, more598accurately, and beyond our individual technological capacities,599but our laws have not kept pace with all the changes. Our600intellectual property laws were created at a time when it was601safe to presume that one must be human to have cognition and602intellect. Some would argue that is no longer the case. It is603long past time we considered how to protect the creative fields604and address the ramifications of the proliferation of deep605fakes, training AI models on copyrighted material, and other606areas where AI may be unfair to both consumers and creators.607    I know some of my colleagues want to do away with the608regulation of AI companies altogether, but we can protect609content creators and help businesses thrive at the same time.610We don't have to choose. Congress should help provide for the611safe adoption of generative AI models that take into account612the environmental labor and social consequences of such613technology and we should do so while allowing the States to614experiment with different approaches.615    I am dismayed by those who have caved to a small group of616billionaires and now a trillionaire, who own these AI models617and have proposed broad preemption of State common law causes618of action and State legislative decisionmaking with no Federal619regulation at all. There is no reason we should do away with620common law tort claims that act as the basic national safety621net for fairness.622    The National Institute of Science and Technology should623absolutely be allowed to test frontier models and if AI models624are being built on the hard work of artists, writers, and625inventors, we should be thinking long term to ensure that there626are more artists, writers, and inventors a generation from now627creating material to sustainably train the next wave of628generative innovation to come.629    The rational next step for this Committee is to ask630ourselves how we can map a path forward for all Americans to631use technology while ensuring laws that protect consumers and632creators, workers, and families.633    Thank you, Mr. Chair, I yield back to you.634    Mr. Issa. The gentleman yields back. Without objection, all635other opening statements will be included in the record. We now636go to our distinguished panel of witnesses.637    Mr. Sean Astin. Mr. Astin is the President of the Screen638Actors Guild. By the way, one of the few things I haven't done639and I continue to say, I am available for a bit part. Am I640allowed to do that?641    Anyhow, the American Federation of Television and Radio642Artists, commonly known as SAG-AFTRA, he is himself an actor643and a long-distinguished career in film and television. To name644just a few, he has appeared in the ``Goonies,'' ``Rudy''--by645the way, we are going to talk about ``Rudy.'' That is going to646happen. How can we not? Even if you didn't go to the right647college, the ``Lord of the Rings'' trilogy, ``Stranger648Things,'' ``Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,'' and many more.649Thank you for being here as a well knowledgeable expert650witness, in addition to your current role.651    Mr. Chris Floyd. Mr. Floyd is a legal and business strategy652advisor to Amblin Entertainment, a film and television653production company, basically, he is Steven Spielberg's most654trusted advisor. He previously served as the Chief Operating655Officer and General Counsel at his partnership for a decade and656held various positions with Dreamworks Studios, Universal657Pictures, Paramount, and Walt Disney Productions. Welcome.658    Mr. Steve Francis. Mr. Francis is the Executive Chair and659President of IP House, a global intellectual property660enforcement company. He previously served as the acting661Executive Associate Director of Homeland Security662Investigations as the Director of National Intellectual663Property Rights Coordinator. Thank you very much and welcome.664    Mr. Christopher Mohr. Mr. Mohr is President and Chief665Executive Officer of the Software and Information Industry666Association, a collection of entertainment, consumer, and667business software companies. He previously served as a Senior668Vice President for Intellectual Property and General Counsel at669the same organization where he led the association's670intellectual property policy and antipiracy.671    Last, but not least by a long shot, Dr. Bhamati672Viswanathan, or close to it. The doctor is a nonresident fellow673at the Kemochan Center for Law, Media, and the Arts at Columbia674University. She is also a Visiting Assistant Professor at675Suffolk University Law School where she teaches courses in676contract and transactional law. The doctor is, in fact, the677author of a number of books including, ``How Creative678Industries Can Harness Intellectual Property to Survive in a679Digital Age.'' Welcome, and I apologize. As one left hander to680another, I said I am not going to mess this up and between my681hoarse throat and the other, I apologize.682    I want to thank all of you for being here. Pursuant to the683Committee rules, I would ask you to please rise, raise your684right hand, to take the oath.685    Do you solemnly swear or affirm under penalty of perjury686that the testimony that you are about to give is true and687correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief688so help you God?689    Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record reflect that690all witnesses answered in the affirmative.691    If you watch C-SPAN, you know I have to give this692admonishment, that you will have five minutes in your opening693statements, but 100 percent of all the material you brought694with you and your opening statement plus additional material695you may supplement with will be placed in the record, thus696leaving you completely free not to just read what you brought,697although some of you just might. With that, we begin, Mr.698Astin.699700                   STATEMENT OF SEAN K. ASTIN701702    Mr. Astin. Well, this is good stuff. You're going to want703to hear it. Chair Issa, Ranking Member Johnson, the Members of704the Committee, thank you very much for convening the hearing705and for your continued work modernizing American intellectual706property law.707    Thank you, Representative Lofgren, for your leadership on708combating foreign digital piracy, and Chair Issa, for all your709work and for your work on the American Music Fairness Act. The710issues therein matter to the livelihoods of the 160,000 union711performers and media professionals I represent as President of712SAG-AFTRA.713    Today, I would like to speak about the abuse of714nonconsensual digital replicas of our voices and likenesses.715For all of human history, if someone saw your face and knew it716was you, if they heard your voice and knew you had spoken, for717thousands of years that simple connection was enough, your718face, your voice, and your presence, reality itself was719affirmed and simply put we knew who we were to each other.720    Artificial intelligence has begun to intervene and break721that ancient connection. Today, someone can realistically make722you appear to say something you never said, to endorse723something you don't believe in, or even convincingly depict you724confessing to something you had no knowledge of. For the first725time in human history, the experiences we have always shared726are no longer secure. Our relationship with the community is727distorting thanks to a wave of technology made widely available728without much concern for public729safety.730    In my line of work, we deal with emotions, so on behalf of731our performers I am here to tell you what this moment feels732like. To begin, we make our livings by granting the use of our733voices and likenesses to our employers. That is what they pay734us for. Through every audition and with every career setback,735we know, we rely on the fact that when the jobs finally come,736we have something uniquely ours to offer. Now, imagine a737performer waking up one morning to discover on their phone a738version of themselves that never was, but they are watching it739and so is the rest of the world. The voice and the face are a740perfect match. For the performer, it is a moment of terror. Who741is seeing it? Will anyone ever hire them again? Will their742reputation that was built over a lifetime be destroyed in a743moment? Every casting director, every producer, every744executive, and every member of the public can see it. Even745their family may hesitate for a moment. They can reach for746something deeper. He would never say that. That is not who she747is, but who are we?748    Think about anyone you love. Your understanding of them is749built from memory. Imagine that memory being contaminated. The750thing that brings us back to the real person is our faith in751who they truly are. In the world of deep fakes, the damage is752done instantly and without mercy. The public has no obligation753to discover the truth about someone. They just keep scrolling.754Our members have no ability to protect themselves from this755kind of abuse, and neither does the teenager humiliated by a756fabricated image, neither do parents trying to protect their757children, neither does anyone whose reputation can be758threatened by a digital replica they never authorized.759    Artificial intelligence is changing the way human beings760experience life. We all know that this moment demands wisdom761and action. Technology is not our enemy. Throughout our762history, America has chosen both innovation and responsibility,763usually sadly, only after ordinary people have suffered some764calamity, but there is a right path. It is obvious that765civilization is in the throes of a technological whirlwind the766likes of which we have never seen and as of this moment,767Americans are being forced to surrender their basic768relationship to one another.769    We don't want to stop progress. We need to civilize it.770Many Americans may never own a home or accumulate significant771financial wealth, but every American does possess something of772immeasurable value, their identity. That God-given gift really773should belong to us and surely, we can all agree that no one774else should be permitted to commercially exploit our identity775without consent.776    In the world of entertainment, our image and likeness have777been the substance of our transactions, but in the wild, we do778not own them. We should, and you can make it so.779    Members of the Committee, what I am saying about this780moment and about who we are is that every human being should781remain the author of their own existence. Reality should remain782verifiable. Consent is not a nuisance. Reputation matters, and783truth is truth, and it is worth protecting. Thank you very784much.785    [The prepared statement of Mr. Astin follows:]786    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]787788    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Floyd.789790                    STATEMENT OF CHRIS FLOYD791792    Mr. Floyd. Chair Issa, Ranking Member Johnson, and the793distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for794inviting me here today. I am of counsel at Amblin795Entertainment, Steven Spielberg's film and television company.796I have worked in the Amblin family for 20 years, including a797decade as Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel. I have798overseen many business and legal functions including content799protection.800    Two weeks ago, Amblin and Universal released Steven's film801``Disclosure Day,'' adding to his legacy of films like ``War of802the Worlds'' and ``Minority Report.'' ``Disclosure Day'' fully803embodies Steven's beloved sci-fi genre, embracing modern804technology that makes transporting audiences to another world805even more thrilling. However, these technological advancements806also present challenges. Steven's prior sci-fi movies were807released in a drastically different marketplace, before the808internet super charged digital809piracy.810    When ``Minority Report'' was released in 2022, piracy was811still limited largely to hard goods, DVD bootlegs from812camcorders in a theater with muddle sound and shaky video, then813sold on street corners. They were poor knockoffs and customers814knew it. While the scale of piracy was reason for some concern815then, today, digital piracy costs the U.S. economy a staggering816amount at least $29 billion annually. We now expect each817release will be made available immediately in perfect digital818form from offshore pirate sites with global reach. This819substantial increase in quality, coupled with wide and820immediate availability on any device, makes this an urgent821economic and consumer safety problem.822    Together with our studio distribution partners, we spend823hours seeking removal of these infringing videos. Additionally,824all the studios and streamers created the Alliance for825Creativity and Entertainment to work with global law826enforcement to combat piracy, but even with these extensive827efforts, representing tens of millions of dollars and countless828work hours, price still inflicts huge harm on the market for829our films.830    When we find ``Disclosure Day'' online, we have limited831recourse, primarily because most pirate sites are operated by832overseas criminal enterprises. We have laws that enable us to833go after pirate sites in the U.S., but Bulgaria, Vietnam, the834Philippines, these jurisdictions sit outside the practical835reach of U.S. law enforcement, but easily reach U.S. consumers836online.837    The global revenues from U.S. films are shared with cast838and crew in residuals and pension, health, and welfare839payments. Profits are poured into new productions in every840State of the union, including with local businesses. Shooting a841one-hour television episode generates around $475,000 per day842locally, while a feature film generates $670,000 per day. The843billions siphoned from our economy by these overseas criminals844should be available for these future productions and payments845to industry workers, but they are not.846    Today, piracy detrimentally impacts millions of creators in847the U.S. entertainment industry and the economy as a whole848while funding a global network of crime. According to Digital849Citizens Alliance, European authorities dismantled a piracy850operation across 11 countries in 2024 that generated $3.5851billion yearly seizing drugs, weapons, and millions in crypto852currency. In Spain, Operation Fake exposed another site that853also dealt in drug trafficking and money laundering, resulting854in 30 arrests and millions in frozen assets.855    What is to be done? Well, I ask you today for the tool856proven effective in nearly 60 countries globally, but still857lacking in the U.S, judicial site blocking. Under these laws,858when a court determines there was full and transparent process859that an off-shore site is dedicated to piracy, it can direct860internet providers to block local access. Studies prove site861blocking results in fewer visits to piracy sites and an862increase to legitimate sites. Portugal witnessed a 70 percent863drop in traffic. Australia saw a 25 percent decrease. The U.K.864experienced a 10 percent surge to legal services. This would be865a game changer for our industry's 2.3 million workers and866America's creative economy.867    Historically, the U.S. led the world in IP enforcement, but868we have lagged behind for the past decade. Other countries have869shown us how to do this without impacting speech, due process,870or the internet. It is time the U.S. reasserts its leadership871role in antipiracy.872    Finally, allow me to turn briefly to artificial873intelligence where the U.S. is the leader in innovation as it874should be. As a tool, AI can further empower us to tell875compelling stories and reach audiences, but as we consider how876to maintain America's competitive advantage against China and877other countries, we must also remain the global leader in both878the innovation and creative industries. How these AI companies879win the AI race and how they treat copyrighted work will affect880the course of human creativity in the future. We will never881maintain America's lead by lowering our IP standards to match882those of the Chinese. That is why our industry supports the NO883FAKES Act, which combats dissemination of unauthorized AI-884generated deep fakes while safeguarding protected expression885such as parody, news, and biopics.886    I would like to thank the Subcommittee for your dedication,887as we look forward to working together rebuilding a vibrant888U.S. entertainment industry. Thank you.889    [The prepared statement of Mr. Floyd follows:]890    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]891892    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Francis.893894                 STATEMENT OF STEVE K. FRANCIS895896    Mr. Francis. Chair Issa, Ranking Member Johnson, and the897distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the898opportunity to testify today.899    I spent over 25 years in Federal law enforcement, including900as the Director of the National IPR Center, working alongside901colleagues from Homeland Security investigations, U.S. Customs902and Border Protection, the Department of Justice, and law903enforcement partners across more than 30 countries. I have seen904IP enforcement from multiple angles. I know where the905government excels and where prioritization creates challenges906for enforcement.907    I appear today on behalf of IP House, a global IP908protection enforcement company I cofounded, after recognizing909critical gaps in the enforcement landscape. IP House operates910across every major jurisdiction because IP crime is truly911global. We detect and disrupt infringement networks at scale,912bringing global intelligence and operational visibility that913complements the work of governments and rights holders914worldwide.915    IP House confirms what I witnessed throughout my career. As916commerce has moved online, IP crime has grown more917sophisticated, more organized, and harder to disrupt. Criminal918networks now exploit the speed, scale, and anonymity of the919internet to steal IP and endanger consumers on a global scale.920Today's hearing is incredibly timely.921    Counterfeiters operate through anonymous digital922storefronts on the trust, online marketplace that American923consumers use every day. They rapidly cycle through the924seller's identities, domains, and payment processors to evade925enforcement, often moving illicit proceeds long before926traditional legal remedies can take effect. That is why IP927House focuses on following the networks and the money, not just928removing individual listings. It dismantles criminal929organizations rather than chasing one product at a time. They930are not harmless knockoffs. They include counterfeit931pharmaceuticals, automotive parts, electronics, children's932toys, and household products that threaten the health and933safety of the American consumers.934    One of the most effective U.S. civil tools against935counterfeiting is what practitioners call Schedule A936litigation. It allows rights holders to bring a single action937against multiple, anonymous foreign sellers engaged in the same938infringing conduct. Just as importantly, it allows the courts939to quickly freeze the seller accounts and related assets before940these proceeds disappear beyond the reach of U.S. jurisdiction.941That changes the economics of infringement. Without this tool,942rights holders are forced to file dozens or even hundreds of943nearly identical lawsuits against anonymous defendants who have944moved assets and simply reappear under new identities faster945than the courts can reach a judgment.946    Schedule A is one of the few law enforcement tools capable947of matching the speed, scale, and anonymity of today's online948infringers while preserving judicial efficiency and due949process.950    Online piracy presents an equally sophisticated challenge.951Our recent organized piracy crime report published with the952Digital Citizens Alliance demonstrates that many of today's953piracy operations have evolved in the criminal enterprises,954built on a systematic theft of American intellectual property.955A single network we examined reached more than 22 million956subscribers and generated roughly $288 million a month. When957law enforcement dismantled that operation, they uncovered958drugs, weapons, and crypto currency, evidence that these959organizations are engaged in far more copyright infringement.960Large scale piracy networks view IP theft as low risk, high961reward criminal enterprise and changing the calculation is what962IP House is built to do.963    The enforcement gap is real and measurable. Rights holders964are stuck with reactive platform tools that provide relief965measured in just hours. More than 40 peer Nations now use court966ordered site blocking to cutoff foreign, fully infringing967content sites and services at the stores. The results have been968significant. In the U.K., traffic to the targeted piracy fell969nearly 89 percent after blocking orders took effect. The United970States has not kept pace with its international partners,971leaving creators, consumers, and businesses at a competitive972disadvantage.973    Meanwhile, criminal organizations are now using generative974AI to accelerate infringement to an unprecedented scale. These975include mass produced counterfeit listings and brand976presentation to synthetic media as well the name, image, and977likeness violation. While the technology is new, the underlying978challenge is not. Bad actors continue to exploit innovation979faster than our enforcement tools can adapt.980    I hope my testimony today provides the Subcommittee with an981operational perspective on how today's online infringement982networks actually function, where the current enforcement tools983are succeeding and where meaningful gaps remain. IP House is984committed to working with Congress to ensure American985innovators, creators, consumers, and businesses are protected986in the digital age. Thank you.987    [The prepared statement of Mr. Francis follows:]988    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]989990    Mr. Issa. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Mohr.991992                   STATEMENT OF CHRIS A. MOHR993994    Mr. Mohr. Chair Issa, Ranking Member Johnson, and the995Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to996appear here today.997    Before I get into the substance, I just want to take a998moment to thank you, Mr. Chair, on behalf of our Members. You999have been a genuine ally to us on patents and a straight1000shooter even when we have disagreed. That leadership shows up1001here, too, convening round tables on foreign piracy, advancing1002thoughtful, site-blocking discussions, and choosing an1003educational hearing over a rush to markup. It has been a1004privilege to work with you, and we are grateful for the way1005that you have sought to both protect and advance American1006innovation.1007    SIIA represents more than 350 companies in the business of1008information, AI developers, publishers, financial data firms,1009and software creators. Unusually for a technology trade1010association, our members sit on both sides of many IP issues.1011We have platforms that distribute works and their rights1012holders. Some of our members have both functions.1013    Over the course of our 40-year existence, we have seen a1014lot of technological changes that have affected member1015operations, some of which caused them to bring competing world1016views. When examining new IP and other policy proposals, we1017tend to ask the same questions every time. Does existing law1018already address the harm? What new risks does the technology1019create? What limits make a statute both effective and1020constitutional?1021    I am going to briefly highlight two areas. Two years ago,1022SIIA testified in front of this Committee about unauthorized1023digital replicas. On digital replicas, the harm that these1024unauthorized uses cause is real. These AI-generated voices and1025likenesses are already defrauding consumers and exploiting1026performers. We support the creation of a Federal right here and1027we supported the TAKE IT DOWN Act last year as proof Congress1028can build precise, targeted tools for AI-enabled harms.1029    In terms of vehicles that have recently moved, the NO FAKES1030Act has received a lot of attention. From our perspective there1031are four problems that remain and each one is fixable.1032    First, the preemption clause grandfathers in existing State1033law and only displaces State regimes for expressive works. The1034bill doesn't really deliver on the promise of a national1035standard.1036    Second, the counter notification safeguard against wrongful1037takedowns only exists inside the bill's safe harbor framework,1038statutory damages up to $750,000 per work and a life plus 701039terms, no company will risk staying outside that framework. In1040practice, this isn't a narrow opt-in category. It is close to1041the entire digital ecosystem operating under a takedown regime1042with no guarantee necessarily to put wrongly removed content1043back up. That raises concerns over speech at scale.1044    Third, there is no general intent requirement risking1045liability for general-purpose AI tools and inadvertent look-1046alikes alongside the actual bad actors.1047    Fourth, again, this goes to scope. The bill's frame is1048touching user-content platforms, but it reaches deep into the1049broader digital economy and shifts Section 230 treatment along1050the way. We don't have a problem with that resolution, but it1051emphasizes the importance of getting the details right.1052    Now, we have supplied red-line language on these issues.1053These are fixes, not objections to the bill's premise, and we1054are ready to keep working on it until we handle these problems1055correctly.1056    The second topic that I am going to address is foreign1057piracy and site blocking specifically. This is a different1058question, and our members are generally split onsite blocking1059as a remedy and my goal here is not to advocate a specific1060solution, but to present the equities that Congress has already1061begun to consider.1062    First, the underlying problem is real. These pirate sites1063sit outside U.S. courts' reach, and they keep operating through1064mirror domains and offshore hosting, no matter how many times1065they are shut down. The concerns over how blocking gets1066implemented are just as real. Blocking is a level of DNS1067resolvers, doesn't respect borders. Targets increasingly share1068cloud infrastructure with thousands of unrelated lawful sites,1069so a narrow order can have overbroad effects. Foreign1070experience shows that legitimate services can get swept up by1071mistake. We are not here to endorse or oppose a specific1072proposal. We are here to say that if Congress moves forward,1073four guardrails should be nonnegotiable: Real judicial process1074with some adversarial testing, not rubber-stamp petitions;1075targeting precise enough to protect shared infrastructure and1076lawful content; strong, good-faith safe harbors for the1077providers required to comply; and no mandate for a single1078government-prescribed technical method.1079    On both issues, our position is the same: Get the goal1080right, get the mechanism right, and we all win. Our members are1081going to have to operate under whatever regime Congress1082creates.1083    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I1084welcome your questions.1085    [The prepared statement of Mr. Mohr follows:]1086    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]10871088    Mr. Issa. Thank you. Dr. Viswanathan.10891090                STATEMENT OF BHAMATI VISWANATHAN10911092    Ms. Viswanathan. Chair Issa, Ranking Member Johnson,1093Ranking Member Raskin, thank you--pardon me, it is catching.1094    Thank you so much for having me. My name is Bhamati1095Viswanathan. I teach at Suffolk Law School where I teach1096copyright law, constitutional law, contracts, and Artificial1097Intelligence and the Law. Happily, for all of us, I am here1098today to talk about contracts and copyright, both, and not1099constitutional law.1100    I want to frame this with three thoughts quickly, and then1101I am going to move onto three potential solutions that I see.1102    The frame is--I am going to take it from the title of this1103hearing, which struck me--the ``Mid-Life Crisis'' question.1104Those of us who sit around thinking about our mid-life1105sometimes, think of mid-life as both a crisis sometimes, but1106also an opportunity. It is an opportunity to rethink. It is a1107very strategic moment for us to think.1108    Disruption, and since there was no internet 40 years ago,1109which is how we framed this hearing, begins with opportunity,1110and it begins with innovation. It also begins with disruption.1111We are at another moment and another inflection point.1112    I want to frame this by saying we are not talking about one1113industry, we are talking about two, two critical industries.1114    Mr. Issa, you said that America leads the world in high1115tech. Yes. We also lead the world in arts and entertainment, in1116culture. A $2 billion industry for tech. Many people are1117surprised to hear $3.3 trillion and more in 2024 was the1118estimate that was given. Two robust industries. We cannot kill1119the goose that lays the golden eggs. We need the goose to be1120alive, and we need the eggs to be gold; right? We need both1121sides.1122    Second, we believe in our IP system. We have a strong and1123robust IP system. It's the pride and joy of our country, and it1124is in our Constitution. Sorry. I said I wasn't going to talk1125about con law, and I just did.1126    We believe in the patent system. The patent system is1127strong and robust. We need to make sure that the copyright side1128is strong and robust, too. We can't just throw it off and scrap1129it at the behest of a few tech companies that say, ``oh, we are1130going to lose the arms race.'' There are multiple arms races1131going on here.1132    Our arts and culture, no one compares to it. K-pop,1133Bollywood, and Eurovision? Sorry. Nothing is as great as our1134export of IT in both areas of technology and culture.1135    For the new times we need new rights and, importantly, we1136need new enforcement mechanisms. Let me get to my three1137solutions that I think are strong on the table, and that we1138should really consecrate right now as urgent.1139    First, as you have heard my, my fellow panelists speak1140about, judicial site blocking. For those of you who don't know1141what that is, it's a process through which you ask a court to1142stop an infringing website. You know already that it exists1143almost exclusively to disseminate infringing material. You are1144worried about a bad actor here.1145    There are due process steps in place to say, OK, we need to1146make sure that is true. Once we've made sure that is true, what1147can we do?1148    We can ask a court to say, through a no-fault process,1149without seeking damages, you need to shut this down because we1150can't. We can't go after these bad actors.1151    They are often extraterritorial. We really have no other1152recourse. Over 50 countries have, have adopted it, as you have1153heard. The U.S. Copyright Office has written a letter of1154support to you in Congress about it. It is timely. It is a fair1155and reasonable, balanced solution.1156    Second, I am going to talk very quickly about digital1157replicas because I know you have heard about them a lot. They1158are a problem. They affect people. Because we are people, we1159have personal property rights in our identity and in our1160autonomy.1161    Let's not forget why this exists. It is rights in1162ourselves. As Mr. Astin said, ``we have human rights.'' Those1163rights deserve to be Federalized. They deserve to be made into1164a Federal property right. This needs to be made something that1165occurs across the country.1166    We can carve out First Amendment concerns. We can carve out1167the scope of it, but it is something that needs to be addressed1168now.1169    Third, perhaps nearest and dearest to my heart, is the1170question of the treatment of the ingestion of copyrighted1171materials by large language models (LLMs).1172    What does that mean? We use this word a lot. We say LLMs1173train themselves on copyrighted material. Well, they can train,1174but just like the rest of us who train, they have to pay for1175the training.1176    Licensing agreements need to flourish. They are beginning1177to happen. We need to make sure that creators, creators who1178create the stuff that we consume, are compensated--small1179creators, too, not just large intermediaries. We need to do1180that now.1181    There's a lot of court cases pending, as Mr. Raskin said,1182various cases. We also need to make sure that there are1183licensing and market-based solutions that make it fair for all1184of us.1185    Thank you so much for giving me the time to hear.1186    [The prepared statement of Ms. Viswanathan follows:]1187    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]11881189    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Doctor. We will now proceed under the1190five-minute rule for questions. By mutual agreement, we will go1191to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline, first.1192    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your1193leadership on this issue. You have given us a historical1194perspective that dates back many decades. I know many here and1195watching have been a large part of that history.1196    As you said in your opening remarks, it is important to1197remember that history, but also to be cautious in any movement1198that we take moving forward. Recognizing that the DMCA, notice1199and takedown, all these things that were put in place 20 years1200ago, may need updating, but don't need wholesale replacement.1201We are not going to throw out the baby with the bath water, or1202the goose that laid the golden eggs, whatever metaphor we want1203to use.1204    Mr. Mohr, in Cox v. Sony, this spring the Supreme Court1205held 9-0 that an internet service provider is not1206contributorily liable for its user's piracy unless it induced1207the infringement or tailored its service to it, which retired1208the older knowledge plus material contribution theory.1209    With that route against intermediates now narrowed, does a1210no-fault judicial remedy to restrict access to foreign piracy1211sites become both the cleaner legal tool and the more realistic1212one, since it turns on blocking rather than on anyone's fault?1213    Mr. Mohr. Certainly, from the rights' holder side of our1214constituency that this is exactly how they view the1215significance of the Cox decision.1216    I will say that for the platforms that we represent, that1217there the problem, however, of these offshore sites existed1218well before the Cox decision was decided. The folks that are,1219the folks like Sci-Hub or that I mentioned in my testimony, and1220the other sites that are ripping off the other folks on this1221panel don't care about Cox.1222    That is really the reason for the, from the copyright1223owner's side, the push for site blocking orders, because they1224need a way to get at websites that U.S. courts can't reach.1225Because if these websites existed in the United States, they1226would not last long.1227    Mr. Cline. You are absolutely right. The Chair led a1228delegation of Members on a visit to the U.K. and other1229countries more than year ago and to see firsthand how their1230site blocking regimes are working. What we saw very clearly was1231that these remedies can work to reduce traffic on pirate sites1232and to increase traffic to legitimate sites, while safeguarding1233speech, due process, and legitimate internet activities, all1234without imposing undue burden and liability risks on the ISPs1235that are directed to implement the court orders.1236    My understanding is that liability concerns on the part of1237domestic ISPs has been the most significant impediment to1238advancing legislation in the U.S. I am also told that the1239proposals offered to date in the House and Senate all include1240provisions to address that concern. My questions are these:1241    First, do we now know enough from the experience with the1242many foreign jurisdictions that have implemented this remedy1243successfully over the last 15 years that we can confidently1244move forward with the U.S. legislation and avoid any unintended1245consequences?1246    Second, in light of the Cox decision is the concern about1247ISP liability now a moot issue?1248    Mr. Mohr. I am not sure I understand the second part of1249that question.1250    With respect to the first part, as my testimony makes1251clear, I am not in a position where I can say a bill is good or1252a bill is bad. What I can say is that a bill that contains the1253guardrails is one that I believe Congress can advance. Those1254guardrails I mentioned in the opening by adversarial testing,1255the targeting is the biggest concern.1256    Because of the internet architecture, again, from the kind1257of infrastructure/internet side of our membership, right, the1258architecture of the internet is designed to efficiently1259distribute, not necessarily it is not designed to throttle. The1260risk, then, of over-blocking because of that architecture and1261liability for over-blocking from the standpoint of those1262providers, is real.1263    With respect to the guardrails, if the safe harbor isn't1264there, if there is no tech mandate, and if the targeting is1265precise and the process is fair, that is a roadmap for a1266successful site blocking bill.1267    Again, the devil's in the details. I am not in a position1268where I can give you those.1269    Mr. Cline. Thank you. I yield back.1270    Mr. Issa. The gentleman yields back. We now go to the1271Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Johnson for his five1272minutes.1273    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Professor Viswanathan,1274AI systems require massive amounts of data for their training1275and development. The AI companies are continuing to train on1276copyrighted material to release better and better models.1277    Should AI developers be required to disclose the dataset1278used to train their models?1279    Ms. Viswanathan. Thank you so much for asking me that1280question, Mr. Johnson.1281    I want to start by saying we use the word ``training,'' but1282I am not sure that this is always the right word. They do1283ingest enormous amounts of material to generate what they1284generate. When we train, when you and I train, when we learn,1285when we go use things, we pay for those materials. We license1286them or we buy them.1287    I buy a book in the bookstore, I use it in the library1288which has already paid a licensing fee, I am training in1289respect, but that is not the same thing that the AI companies1290are doing. What they are doing is: They are gobbling up huge1291amounts of material.1292    Do they need to disclose their datasets? That is one part1293of it.That in the various cases I have been talking about that1294Mr. Raskin was just referring to the one where his books were1295ingested. Right? What happens there? I don't think they ever1296paid you for those books. You will be paid, you will find that1297postcard in the settlement, because it is the point is, right,1298it is not just disclosing what they trained on.1299    By the say, in Bartz, in the Bartz case we found they were,1300in fact, training on pirate sites as well; right? We are1301learning what they are training on, and it is not good.1302    They should also be made to realize that you can't just1303take it. It is not a get-out-of-jail-free card to say, ``oh, it1304is expensive to license.'' They need to license the materials1305that they are using, as one does.1306    It needs market-based solutions are the preferred solutions1307because parties come to them. We can't--we need to monitor1308what, in fact, they are doing. I think disclosure is a part of1309that but not the entire story. It is an important part of it.1310    Most of all, I think we need to recognize that harm is1311being done to the markets, the actual and potential markets of1312copyright holders. That is not what fair use in the copyright1313fair use term was ever legally or in the spirit meant to have1314happen; right?1315    It was not meant to be a, oh, it is beneficial and so you1316get to use it for free. It is beneficial, but it is also1317valuable. The value needs to be paid.1318    Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Floyd, how has the1319proliferation of internet piracy changed the way that movies1320are made?1321    Mr. Floyd. It has had a direct impact on the number of1322movies that we make and which movies we make. When we are1323making a decision as to go forward with a film, we do a profit1324and loss analysis. We look at the history of the movies in the1325last few years, and we look and see what kind of revenues have1326been generated.1327    As piracy cuts down on the revenues, the legitimate1328revenues that we are getting, we determine that our next movie1329is going to make fewer dollars and that impacts maybe our1330ability to spend a certain amount of money on a movie or make1331that movie at all.1332    What you end up with are fewer movies being made, fewer1333people being employed along the way, and more risk being taken1334by the studies on the movies that they do go forward on.1335    Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Mr. Astin, you have made a career1336off your name, image, likeness, and voice, everything we talk1337about when we examine digital replica legislation.1338    What about individuals whose names or likenesses are not a1339commercial business, do you think those individuals need to be1340protected as well?1341    Mr. Astin. Absolutely. They need it as much, if not more.1342    There, yes, if you are--I mentioned in my testimony that if1343you are a teenager somewhere, in your district for example, and1344for whatever reason, with very little difficulty someone is1345able to depict you, as you--not you, this imagined teenager--1346saying they are doing something--1347    Mr. Johnson. I get it.1348    Mr. Astin. You, too. We all, everyone in here.1349    Mr. Johnson. Yes.1350    Mr. Astin. We traffic in our identity and our reputations1351all the time. Well, so does a 14-year-old kid. Yet, these big1352platforms benefit financially from when some horrible depiction1353is done of them. They have no ability to do anything about it.1354    Yes, they should have their identity protected as a right.1355Thanks.1356    Mr. Issa. Thank you. I yield back.1357    Mr. Issa. The gentleman yields back. We now go to the1358gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald.1359    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Chair. I just want to go back to1360February 2024 for a moment because that is when our Committee1361first began discussing the issue of AI and digital replicas. I1362see a lot of familiar faces on the witness stand as well, and1363in the audience where were also in Los Angeles for that field1364hearing.1365    Mr. Mohr, in fact, you testified at that hearing, if I1366remember correctly. It was also the first time Mr. Astin was1367there as well, that first time we met.1368    Mr. Mohr, let me start with you. When you testified in 20241369at that field hearing, you mentioned that there are already a1370number of State and Federal laws that address many of the1371concerns with digital replicas. If Congress were to act, and it1372should act in areas where AI poses a particular risk of harm1373left unaddressed by current Federal and State laws, so is that1374still kind of your testimony today, or has anything changed in1375the past two years since we last debated kind of the issue of1376AI?1377    Mr. Mohr. What I would say is that it is true that a number1378of the harms that occur from the unauthorized use of digital1379replicas are covered by, in many instances, will be covered by1380existing State laws and remedies. There is no Federal remedy.1381    That presents an opportunity for Congress to present a1382uniform rule and uniform protection which will benefit both the1383folks who are injured and the businesses that actually have to1384implement this by a uniform set of rules and a clear standard1385of what is allowed and what is not allowed.1386    To do that, there are a number of equities that this body1387will have to balance.1388    Our members view the current State of digital replica law1389as an opportunity to legislate constructively.1390    Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Astin, let me come to you. I remember1391that we were able to visit in L.A. I know this is kind of1392general and wide open, but why is the Federal digital replica1393right, why is it important to you and those that are in the1394entertainment industry right now? What is prompting people to1395kind of move in one direction or another?1396    Mr. Astin. Well, every day we have our images, our voices,1397our faces, and us created fictitiously in ways that people1398don't, can't tell the difference. It looks like I am saying or1399doing things. It is happening all the time.1400    I had one friend, a colleague, I saw a video image of him.1401He is really upset in this image. He was talking in great1402detail about some problem that happened.1403    I called him up and I said, ``Hey, man, are you OK?'' He1404goes, ``Yes. What are you talking about?'' I said, ``Well, I1405saw you were so upset about this thing.'' He said, ``No, I1406wasn't.'' I said, ``You were sitting in this room and there was1407a thing behind you.'' He said, ``No, I wasn't.'' His wife walks1408in and says, ``I can't believe you would fall for that fake.''1409    I am thinking. I went back and looked at it. I opened it up1410and I couldn't tell the difference between him and this1411creation.1412    You know what? It is, ``could you please take this down,1413YouTube? Could you please pull this off your site?''1414    They need this law to have the instruction that it is OK to1415take it down.1416    Mr. Fitzgerald. The process to do that is tedious.1417    Mr. Astin. No. They just have to know it is OK. Let them1418work out the tech. These guys back here have it worked out1419pretty good. Right? They have got a system for how to take it1420down; right? Yes.1421    Mr. Fitzgerald. Good.1422    Mr. Astin. It is working. They have to know that it is OK,1423that we have got our First Amendment that we love and we have1424to protect. The First Amendment is implicated in this NO FAKES1425Act in both directions.1426    You have to be able to do satire, tell the news. You have1427to be able to tell historical things. You have to be able to do1428all these things.1429    You also can't rob someone else of their First Amendment1430right by having it misrepresented as them. It needs to be1431clarified for these companies where this country stands in1432Federal law on the nature of intellectual property, individual1433intellectual property.1434    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very well said.1435    Mr. Astin. Thank you for asking.1436    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very well said. I will yield back.1437    Mr. Issa. Would the gentleman yield?1438    Mr. Fitzgerald. I do yield.1439    Mr. Issa. I just want to cover one thing. Doctor, you said1440you are not going to do Constitution. Since you are here, I am1441going to pinch you a little bit.1442    Is it true that States under the Constitution don't have1443international reach? In other words, they, by definition, might1444be able to pass a law, but to enforce against countries outside1445the U.S. is completely limited in the Constitution to the1446Federal Government?1447    Ms. Viswanathan. I invite you to my Con Law class next year1448and we will talk.1449    It is still to a certain extent an open question. Yes, what1450you are saying is essentially true. There is a case called1451Vetter right now that is pending that is asking about1452international reach of certain copyrights that we have. That1453case is in the Fifth Circuit. It is--and going up, hopefully.1454    It is unclear. That one thing that Federalizing laws like1455the digital replicas law does is it gives us a level of1456security that we are playing at a national level and that we1457are not getting into the morass of States' rights versus1458international rights.1459    Site blocking, too, this is something that is so agreed on1460so many countries in the developed world, it is relatively1461uncontroversial at this point. It is fair to say that. Digital1462replicas are going to be a problem worldwide.1463    We can get not just bipartisan support, but international1464support behind this, which it is a rare opportunity. We should1465grab it.1466    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Doctor. I would tease it up for our1467constitutional scholar here on the dais, the gentleman, the1468Ranking Member Mr. Raskin.1469    Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you for that, Mr. Chair. I have to1470get you a copy of some of my books.1471    Mr. Issa. I downloaded them already. What are you talking1472about?1473    Ms. Viswanathan. Not piratable.1474    Mr. Raskin. Professor Viswanathan, the Northern District1475Court in California held in Bartz v. Anthropic that the use of1476copyrighted works for AI training constitutes fair use. You1477just voiced your skepticism about thinking that it is training.1478According to the court, Anthropic is permitted to purchase a1479copy of a book and then use that work to train the model on1480language, writing, and story.1481    Do you agree with the court's conclusion? Is that the right1482analysis?1483    Ms. Viswanathan. That is not constitutional, that is a1484leading question.1485    Mr. Raskin. Yes.1486    Ms. Viswanathan. That the court is, that courts are1487struggling. They are struggling for the same reason we are. The1488court said, to be accurate, that it was transformative.1489    It is still a question about fair use. Well, for those of1490you who are not copyright people, I am sorry for you but there1491is still time and I will help you through this. Right?1492    I say to you, you infringed. You say, well, you are right,1493I did, but I did it for good reason. It is an affirmative1494defense. It has four prongs to it. The biggest ones are, did1495you do something really important, transformative? Did you1496change it in some meaningful way that makes it important that1497we preserve that?1498    The fourth factor is, does it affect the market? I want to1499point this out: Actual or potential market, right, for the1500work, for the original work?1501    The courts are confused and they are concerned, because1502they see the effect on potential markets. At least the Bartz1503court does; right?1504    Mr. Raskin. Right.1505    Ms. Viswanathan. What is the potential market? You could1506license that work otherwise. Right?1507    Mr. Raskin. All right, are there licensing regimes in1508copyright law that can serve as a model?1509    Ms. Viswanathan. Absolutely there are. There are licensing1510regimes that exist right now.1511    You just asked someone a couple of months ago, how are1512movies made? They license and cross-license all the time. That1513is how movies get made. When you embed a piece of song into a1514movie, you license it. You cross-license it. There are regimes1515that exist. Fair use is not an open and shut case. There are1516over 100 cases that are pending right now.1517    Mr. Raskin. All right. Let me just ask you, are we going to1518be able to get to the solution within the existing contours of1519copyright law, or do we need to legislate to address the brave1520new world we are in?1521    Ms. Viswanathan. It is hard because we are at a moment1522right now where we want to go with a light hand because we1523don't want to hamper innovation. We would like to encourage1524licensing regimes.1525    The thing I am concerned about, Mr. Raskin, is the small1526creator who can't go up against the big tech company and say,1527``Help me here.''1528    There are also, by the way, schemes to help pay small1529creators. We have BMI and ASCAP standing as examples of1530collective rights, collective rights organizations that clear1531rights for people so that they can get their royalties. What1532exists right now? There is a lot that exist right now that we1533need to tap into.1534    Mr. Raskin. OK. Thank you. Mr. Astin, I know that digital1535replicas are a big issue for SAG-AFTRA. You negotiated hundreds1536of pages of a four-year deal with the Motion Picture1537Association that would prevent studios from creating fake1538actors, as I understand it, absent some compelling reason for1539doing so, or replicating real ones. That seems to be more1540categorical; you can't do that. To get out of using living,1541breathing individuals on screen. Could you explain why1542collective bargaining agreements with provisions like those are1543necessary?1544    Then, answer whether they are sufficient to protect1545creators from individuals using AI to replicate name, image,1546likeness, voice, intonation, and so on?1547    Mr. Astin. Yes, absolutely. They are absolutely necessary1548because the relationship between workers and their bosses is1549often fraught with being taken advantage of. We are very1550grateful that the companies in the previous cycle when we had1551our big strike, but in this cycle were willing to work with us1552to try and figure out how to manage the fairness when it comes1553to digital replication and what you were talking about with1554synthetics.1555    When it comes to digital replication, we are able in1556bargaining to achieve an understanding about how much we should1557be compensated.1558    Mr. Raskin. Is that sufficient in your field? Does it cover1559all the people in the workforce?1560    Mr. Astin. Well, our collective bargaining agreement is our1561labor.1562    Mr. Raskin. Yes.1563    Mr. Astin. So, no. Each different union, the writers, the1564directors, and the IATSE, everybody has to make their own deal.1565    Mr. Raskin. Is everybody represented such that they could1566come up with a similar agreement?1567    Mr. Astin. Everybody has to try to accomplish what we did1568first, which is to get meaningful artificial intelligence1569protections language in our bargaining. We are respected.1570    SAG-AFTRA and our policy writers, our contract negotiating1571team have really been in the vanguard on this.1572    To me, for this moment, the important thing is that it is1573only good for contracts that we are working with people who are1574signatory to our union. This NO FAKES Act and the digital1575replication we are talking about exists everywhere else.1576    That is where nobody other than this body can offer the1577protections that we required, which is why we really appreciate1578you all working so hard on the piracy but on this NO FAKES Act.1579    Mr. Raskin. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I yield back.1580    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. We now go to the gentleman1581from Texas, Mr. Gooden, for five minutes.1582    Mr. Gooden. Thank you. I am impressed with the Ranking1583Member who can turn a Republican witness into a collective1584bargaining chat. Not surprised, but impressed. I actually have1585a question--1586    Mr. Issa. You do know that Ronald Reagan once sat in a1587similar position. It can happen.1588    Mr. Gooden. It can happen, yes. No, we are not surprised.1589    Professor, I was so fascinated with some of the things I1590have heard. These long, these LLMs, how do they ingest all this1591material, like these, the books we are talking about, the1592things you are talking about they should have paid in, so to1593speak, for? How do they, how do they consume all this1594information?1595    Ms. Viswanathan. Think of them as the giant Hoover. They1596suck them up. Where do they get them? They get them, they troll1597the internet. They get them from various websites. As I said,1598it has come out in some discovery in some of the cases that1599they get them from pirate websites as well.1600    In the Anthropic case, interestingly, they bought tons of1601books and ripped the covers off of them and copied them. It is1602essentially disambiguating and copying.1603    Mr. Gooden. What are you saying--and I am not trying to be1604combative, I am genuinely into this--what do you say when1605someone, because you said you and I have to pay for these books1606before we read them, what would you say if I said, ``well, yes,1607but what if I pay for the book and give it to you?'' You are1608not going to then go write a check to the author, you are just1609going to read the book I gave you. How is that any different1610than me just giving a book to an LLM?1611    Ms. Viswanathan. It is not. Who is giving it to them? I1612don't give them my book. I wrote a book called ``Cultivating1613Copyright,'' and it was uploaded to ResearchGate, a pirate1614website in about three minutes. I know I don't get a lot of1615royalties on my book, OK, but that is 200 buck--1616    Mr. Gooden. I am sure it was interesting, too.1617    Ms. Viswanathan. Two hundred bucks. No, it wasn't, but it1618was 200 bucks. That could have been a couple Starbucks, you1619know.1620    That it is a little false to say that they are--it is just1621like receiving a book. Sure, the first sale doctrine would say1622that you could receive a book. They are not receiving it. They1623are trawling the internet, they are finding it, and they are1624taking it.1625    They are actually claiming fair use. Again I will just say,1626fair use means you are saying I infringed. You are not saying,1627I have the right to this. You are saying, I infringed but I did1628this for a good reason.1629    There is an admission there that they are in fact taking1630stuff that is under copyright.1631    The whole point of copyright law, y'all, is to make sure1632that creators get incentivized, but also that they get paid so1633that they keep doing what they do. Right? We all work because1634we love what we do, but we also need to put food on the table.1635    Mr. Gooden. Do you think there is a solution that they1636would go for? Do you believe, is it your impression that they1637are just against any and all, no matter what?1638    Ms. Viswanathan. No, that there have been some licensing1639agreements, especially in music lessons, things, for example,1640that have been emerging. I just think they think it is very1641expensive. They think that in terms of the arms race against1642China it might grind, put grind, put salt in the gears, and1643that it might slow things down.1644    Again, I want to just emphasize that it is two industries1645here. We can't just talk about the cost to the tech industry;1646we should talk about the cost to the copyright industries.1647    Mr. Gooden. Thank you. I enjoy hearing you. I would love to1648take one of your classes someday. I yield back.1649    Mr. Issa. Would the gentleman yield?1650    Ms. Viswanathan. Always welcome.1651    Mr. Gooden. Take my time, sir, please.1652    Mr. Issa. I thank you. I want to follow on the question of1653fair use and so on.1654    As you see it, Doctor, clearly the right to input, in other1655words the right to read a book, isn't in controversy. The right1656to read or to learn from what is on the internet is not in1657controversy.1658    The part that I want to ask all our panelists for a moment1659is, as we look at the absolute right to read, it would seem1660that we have two questions:1661    Do you pay for which is copyrighted, similar to the way you1662would buy a book? That is a fairly straightforward. The cost of1663your books is on the cover of it, so to speak.1664    The question, though, that I have for all of you is, once1665somebody has learned from, should this Committee look to the1666nature of the output? Because I want to go back to fair use1667that you cited very accurately--Shaquille O'Neal took my very1668words and put it in one of his rap songs, literally my voice,1669not my likeness but my voice.1670    When I asked him about it one day, he looked down at me and1671said, ``fair use.'' I have never forgotten that I never1672followed up after he said it.1673    The question, though, is should we be looking at output1674more than input? Meaning, some input is the result of1675education, meaning it doesn't look like the original input in1676any way, shape, or form. It is a result of learning. Some have1677a similarity, and some, as Rudy would say, if you will, is him,1678his likeness.1679    Should that be a standard that is not in any of the current1680legislation, per se, relative to the injusters? I will let you1681quickly answer.1682    Ms. Viswanathan. Quickly. It is tough.1683    Mr. Issa. Each of you.1684    Ms. Viswanathan. It is quickly, it is tough. It is1685complicated. Law professors' favorite answer: It is1686complicated. This is why I take exception to the word1687``training''--when I, as the creator artist, train, I train so1688that I can learn things, so that I can make something new.1689    Mr. Issa. Right.1690    Ms. Viswanathan. Some people use AI, right, and these large1691language files to create new things. We should encourage that.1692    I also think we should be restrained in saying you took1693something in my style. We don't want to start copyrighting1694style, because style is something that we want to see developed1695and grow. It is not something that is copyrightable, in fact. I1696don't think it should be.1697    Your exact words? Boy. Maybe a short phrase was not1698copyrightable. If he took a paragraph from your book, that1699would be less likely to be fair use.1700    Mr. Issa. It wasn't my book.1701    Ms. Viswanathan. I know. It was you saying something.1702    Mr. Issa. It was me saying, ``Protected by Viper. Stand1703back.''1704    Ms. Viswanathan. OK. Well, that is a tough one; right? It1705was a short phrase.1706    The point stands, right, we should be able to use short1707phrases from each other, unless it is a trademark violation,1708which is another question altogether.1709    The question about outputs is tough; right? When they are1710exact copies, we already have copyright to protect against that1711kind of infringement. It gets squishier and more difficult.1712    The other question is, as those outputs get more and more1713created by prompts and less and less created by humans, do we1714want to copyright that stuff at all?1715    Well, if there is some human authorship, the Copyright1716Office has drawn a hard line and said there needs to be an1717author behind that. That is the right line to draw.1718    Mr. Issa. OK. On that note, one answer is going to have to1719be sufficient. We now go to the gentlelady, my friend, and1720indulgent to my question, Ms. Lofgren.1721    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mohr, in your1722testimony you note that copyright holders currently lack a1723targeted judicial remedy against foreign pirate sites operating1724beyond the reach of U.S. courts. The current law isn't1725effectively reaching many of the worst foreign piracy sites.1726    That is exactly the gap that the Foreign Anti-Digital1727Piracy Act is intended to address. The bill is bipartisan and1728bicameral, and it was crafted really very carefully for more1729than two years, actually. I engaged with copyright holders,1730technology experts, service providers, and public interest1731advocates. After two years of sorting through various issues,1732it resulted in that bill, commonly known by the unlovely1733sounding FADPA.1734    It is grounded in simple principle that Congress can fight1735online piracy without sacrificing due process, re-expression,1736privacy, or the open internet.1737    Now, I have continued working with colleagues, both in the1738Senate and here, on discussion graphs. We are working and1739dialoging, trying to find a viable path forward.1740    I would just like to mention, people have understandably1741raised the role that I played in SOPA so many years ago. As1742many of you know, I played a central role in stopping that1743adoption. That is not because I support piracy. I don't. It was1744because those proposals raised real risks to the open internet,1745free expression, and due process.1746    I am hopeful that we will be able to make progress even in1747this Congress or, if necessary, in the next in getting1748something like FADPA adopted.1749    Professor, your testimony describes judicial site blocking1750as kind of a no-fault process, no damages, no blame assigned,1751and no effort to hold providers liable for infringement. Given1752that, is it fair to say that Congress can provide strong1753liability protections for service providers that comply with1754the court order without also codifying broader, secondary1755liability rules from Cox? What do you think of that?1756    Ms. Viswanathan. Yes, if you are asking me whether there1757are sufficient protections built into judicial site blocking,1758absolutely there are.1759    We have been talking about it for a while now and we have1760seen it implemented in various countries. Yes, I think1761legitimate, noninfringing uses will still flourish. The1762question is really the bad actors, the pirate sites that we1763can't go after. It's whack-a-mole.1764    Ms. Lofgren. Yes.1765    Ms. Viswanathan. That is what we are trying to solve.1766    Ms. Lofgren. I am interested as we noted, Congress is not1767usually quick to act. We have discussed the ruling in1768California, fair use, essentially finding that data for1769training models is transformative, nonexpressive and,1770therefore, protected. Reasonable argument can be made on the1771other side. Meanwhile, we are not doing much here.1772    Now, I am wondering if anybody can address the1773technological protections that could be available to1774individuals? There can be digital watermarking. It is possible1775to make sites unavailable to, to AI scoping up.1776    The question is, would Congress by rule or could the1777Executive by rule, or do we need to by rule enhance that1778opportunity for people to take technological steps to protect1779themselves from the Hoovering up of data? Anybody got an idea?1780    Ms. Viswanathan. So far, it has been sort of leaky. There1781are watermarks and there is encryption and there are, there are1782ways. There are so many end runs, and that is part of the1783problem.1784    One of the things Ms. Lofgren, that we could do is perhaps1785in-1786centivize companies that are creating technology, possibly by1787subsidizing them somewhat.1788    The caution is fair and reasonable. We can't progress1789quickly. Again, we are concerned about stifling innovation. It1790is a very reasonable concern. The technological solutions have1791been--there is a will and, hopefully, where there is a will1792there is a way. So far, they haven't been perfect. Meanwhile,1793technology is moving so rapidly.1794    Ms. Lofgren. The Copyright Office was working on what is1795copyrightable. Their ultimate conclusion was you have to have a1796human author--1797    Ms. Viswanathan. Right.1798    Ms. Lofgren. --to have the protection. I agree with that.1799Here is the rub. If a human author is using AI to create, then1800they should have protection. Where do you draw the line between1801it is AI-generated and it is a human using AI as a tool?1802    Unfortunately, before they reached the end of that process,1803the President illegally fired the Registrar and then fired the1804Librarian, and they have not been refilled.1805    Do you think existing copyright law sufficiently addresses1806AI's role in creating? Do we need some more revision and1807guidance from experts in the Copyright Office, Professor?1808    Mr. Issa. You can briefly answer that, though, but we are1809out of time.1810    Ms. Viswanathan. Yes. At the moment, the Copyright Office1811is holding a fair line. It is basically saying to show us the1812human back here.1813    If you can show us what you did, how your project--I tell1814my students this: Show me your prompts and I better be able to1815do it by doing those prompts as well. That is copyrightable.1816    I think that is fair. It shows that the human, in fact,1817guided the AI. That is going to happen, like with any tool.1818Whether we can continue to do that or not remains to be seen.1819    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleladies. We go to the gentlelady1820from Florida, Ms. Lee.1821    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we hear today, the1822internet has created extraordinary opportunities for1823innovation. It has also made it easier to steal intellectual1824property and exploit identity through AI-generated content. As1825Congress considers whether our laws have kept pace, we have a1826responsibility to protect creators, innovators, and everyday1827Americans while preserving free expression and ensuring that1828the United States remains the global leader in AI innovation.1829    All of you for being here today to share your insights and1830your expertise in helping us strike that balance.1831    Mr. Floyd, I would like to start with you. You made the1832point that America should win the AI race, but not at the1833expense of lowering our intellectual property standards to1834match those of countries like China. That is exactly the right1835approach, that we shouldn't have to choose between innovation1836and protecting American creativity.1837    As counsel to Amblin Entertainment, you have seen firsthand1838how much investment, planning, and talent go into bringing a1839project from script to screen. It is important that we1840recognize that uncertainty surrounding AI-generated digital1841replicas affects not just actors but studios, production1842companies, and the thousands of people whose jobs depend on the1843success of the creative industries.1844    How would a clear Federal framework, like the NO FAKES Act,1845provide the certainty needed to continue investing in American1846storytelling while preserving our leadership in AI innovation?1847    Mr. Floyd. Thank you for that question. It is a good1848balance. We, as other witnesses have talked about, do need to1849balance the interests of AI and the interests of our creative1850industry. The rules do that.1851    Something like NO FAKES they carve out exceptions for bio1852pics, news, and documentaries, so we have a legal standard and1853balance so we know going in what can be used and what can't be1854used. We spend, a motion picture company will spend anywhere1855from $10-$200 million on a project. That is a huge investment.1856There are thousands of people who are working on it. On1857Disclosure they have 4,000 employees.1858    To spend that kind of money and to hire that amount of1859people we need to have ground rules to know that our investment1860is going to be protected along the way. Balancing those with a1861Federal law would help that.1862    Ms. Lee. Mr. Astin, you spoke about the impact that AI-1863generated digital replicas can have on performers, but also1864that these same technologies are increasingly being used to1865target everyday Americans as well.1866    Whether it is an actor whose performance is replicated1867without consent, or a teacher, a veteran, a small business1868owner, a teenager whose voice and likeness is cloned to commit1869fraud or damage their reputation, the underlying harm is the1870same: Someone is exploiting another person's identity without1871permission.1872    Would you speak to how protecting an individual's voice and1873likeness should be a right for all those people, but also, what1874you are hoping to see Congress do to make that a reality?1875    Mr. Astin. Absolutely. Thank you so much for that. It is1876easy and obvious when you look at performers, if something1877happens with their reputation, their identity, their likeness,1878and their voice, the impact of their, to our business is1879immediate.1880    Really what is at stake is you want to have some mechanism1881to stop someone from doing something harmful to you. The way1882you do that is Congress tells these companies you are not1883allowed to use a deep fake of some--to me, I don't know if it1884is because I have three daughters, I picture their--I guess1885they are getting older now. Sorry, guys. They are 29, 23, and188620. If somebody deep fakes them and there is nothing I can do1887about it feels so, it is so horrible.1888    The idea that you guys could pass a law that says I can go1889to YouTube and say, please take this down. My daughters on1890their own behalf can say, please take this down. They have a1891law that says, well, yes, that has been established in the deep1892fake. That is not your identity. They can take it down.1893    I just want to live in a world where they just can't abuse1894people like this. They just can't make you.1895    It should be an outlier that someone steals your identity,1896your credit card identity, whatever it should be an outlier1897that somebody bad, there is a bad actor out there, bad1898behavior; right?1899    This is so massively available to everybody to do without,1900just it is so simple. You just prompt a little bit. Make Sean1901look like he is doing this, or whatever, and it looks so1902realistic. Their creativity, their nefariousness can have me1903doing something, and we are just sitting here, that should not1904be allowed.1905    It is just as plain as the nose on your face. It should not1906be allowed to make somebody do something or say something they1907didn't do or they didn't say. That goes for every American. It1908goes for everybody around the world. I would appreciate it if1909you guys would fix that for us.1910    Ms. Lee. Mr. Astin, as a policymaker and as a parent, I1911agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. Thank you for your1912input. Mr. Chair, I yield back.1913    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentlelady. I might have noted that a1914generation ago, somebody once said, ``Where do I go to get my1915reputation back?'' Perhaps that is a lot of what we are talking1916about with deep fakes.1917    Mr. Astin. You want to hear a Shakespeare one, or it is1918sort of a paraphrase?1919    Mr. Issa. If the gentlelady from North Carolina will1920indulge.1921    Mr. Astin. I am sorry.1922    Ms. Ross. I will indulge if I don't use my time.1923    Mr. Issa. Exactly.1924    Mr. Astin. All right.1925    Mr. Issa. Please, sir.1926    Mr. Astin. This is a good one. You take away my life, you1927take that which is beastial, you take away my reputation, and1928you take the immortal part of my soul. That is a paraphrase,1929but it sounds good.1930    Mr. Issa. OK. You went back further than I could. With1931that, we go to the gentlelady from North Carolina.1932    Ms. Ross. We have gone from the constitutional to the1933biblical.1934    Mr. Francis, you haven't got much action. Many of my1935questions about AI have been taken. I am going to ask you the1936next question which, by the way, my secretary of State is very1937interested in because she ends up having to enforce counterfeit1938laws in North Carolina because there are not enough Federal1939resources to do it.1940    By the way, she used to get grants to do that from the1941Federal Government. About 20 years ago that dried up.1942    I want to ask you a few questions and then also ask you1943about who our partners should be in enforcing some of these1944trademark and copyright counterfeit laws.1945    You testified that counterfeits in our supply chain pose1946significant risk to Americans' health and safety. They range1947from unsafe counterfeit auto parts, dangerous technology1948knockoffs, poisonous prescription drugs, and toxic personal1949care products.1950    What happens when counterfeits steal the goodwill that1951legitimate companies have spent decades building, and use it to1952sell products that put customers' health and safety at risk?1953How would the SHOP Act help with that?1954    Mr. Francis. Well, I will start with the partnerships. The1955secretary of State in North Carolina, there are so many task1956forces at the State and local levels that do tremendous amount1957of work.1958    Yes, ma'am, you are right, the Bureau of Justice Assistance1959grants that were available for almost 25 years have essentially1960been stopped funding these task forces which have a significant1961impact on enforcing intellectual property. We would love to see1962the support of that, bringing these grants back, because we1963know the consequences without the Bureau of Justice Assistance1964grants.1965    Yes, these counterfeit goods remain to be an extreme1966problem, especially with the health and safety risks to the1967American consumers. It is very difficult to assess the entirety1968of the issue.1969    When we are looking at these marketplaces that have these1970anonymous foreign sellers that are just selling goods online,1971there's very few effective ways to take them down from State1972and local law enforcement.1973    Something we have seen as a very useful tool, our Schedule1974A litigation. This allows a rights holder to file a lawsuit and1975join all these anonymous foreign sellers online in an effort to1976recover some of the losses to them.1977    As it relates to the SHOP SAFE act, from a consumer's1978perspective I can answer it that way. I would, as a consumer,1979expect to understand where the origin of these products came1980from. Most consumers believe that there is a continuous1981monitoring of these sellers online. We would love to have and1982see continuous vetting of these sellers and where the products1983came from.1984    Ms. Ross. Right. Basically, there has not been effective1985enforcement, either at the Federal level or now it is pretty1986much unfunded at the State level. We are leaving it up to State1987legislatures to decide whether or not they are going to give1988State law enforcement the tools they need. Is that correct?1989    Mr. Francis. That is correct.1990    Ms. Ross. That is unfortunate. That is something Congress1991could do; right?1992    Mr. Francis. Yes. I will speak for the entire IP industry.1993The grants that are provided to State and locals are incredibly1994valuable. Today with the priorities of the Federal Government1995there is no one more important than State level law enforcement1996that are actually doing the work on the ground each and every1997day.1998    Ms. Ross. Great. Thank you so much. I do want to pick up on1999something that the Chair asked about the output. Because we2000have been focusing a lot on the input, and we have had this2001Anthropic lawsuit. I took copyright law when I was in--and I2002had David Lange at Duke University who taught me copyright law.2003It was so much fun. We started with Ansel Adams.2004    I want to talk about the output because I know that the2005Copyright Office is coming up with rules for what is produced2006and whether or not there is human content.2007    Professor, could you tell us a little bit about how we2008could apply copyright law from derivative works to this?2009Because it seems to me that if you are actually using something2010that somebody else had, you should have gotten the license in2011the first place. It wasn't fair use.2012    Then, it is considered a derivative work. A derivative work2013has to have the attribution and all those other things. I am2014going to ask for indulgence for the answer to that question.2015    Ms. Viswanathan. Great question. Definitely a product of2016Professor Lange's excellent instruction. It is a good question.2017Derivative works are works that come from other works; right?2018As a copyright holder you have rights in your own derivative2019works. For example, the translation of your book, right, you2020have that right.2021    If AI is being used to create a work that is clearly a2022derivative work, we have the copyright law now. We keep talking2023about how we want to amend the Copyright Act, now 50 years old.2024That is fair. There are new things that need to come into play.2025Let's use the tools we have now. The derivative rights--right2026is an important part of it. It is an important part of it. It2027is not the only part of it.2028    The tough question becomes what if somebody creates2029something that is close but not the same? We want to encourage2030that, but we also want to say you can't come too close; right?2031You can't take where the authorship is. What did I put into2032that thing that made me the author? Author, by the way, can2033talk about a musician or anybody else creative.2034    Copyright law exists and has been enforced for 50 years2035successfully. We can apply it to this space and the question of2036derivative works.2037    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much. I yield back.2038    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentlelady. I now ask for unanimous2039consent that a letter statement from the Entertainment Software2040Association be placed in the record.2041    Additionally, we will be placing in the record the Fifth2042Circuit decision in Vetter v. Resnik, since it has been2043included so much as a part of this hearing.2044    Without objection, so ordered. We now go to the gentleman2045from South Carolina for five minutes.2046    Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for having this hearing.2047Thank you, guys, for being here today. I appreciate your2048testimony.2049    Mr. Astin, the actors that you represent are generally not2050the copyright owners in the films and television shows in which2051they appear. Can you explain how piracy, however, impacts you2052or the members that you represent? Is the adoption of site2053blocking in the U.S. important to those members, and why?2054    Mr. Astin. We see our work exhibited in places like on2055YouTube and around the world where they have not made an2056agreement with the people who hold the copyrights. We are2057powerless in two directions.2058    We are powerless to go to those big companies and get them2059to compensate us according to our contracts. The people we have2060the contracts with, don't seem to be doing anything about it.2061That is actually true. Yesterday, a lawsuit was filed and so we2062are very--we are looking forward to it.2063    We are on the business end of a lot of this stuff, and we2064don't have a lot of control. We do the best we can to negotiate2065the best deals that we can. Then, we hope that the companies we2066are in business with advocate for the protection of their IP.2067We really want them to be good at that.2068    Mr. Fry. Would site blocking be something that you and your2069members would like to see and appreciate? Would that have an2070impact for your members?2071    Mr. Astin. Well, just as I said, the ability for our2072employers who we have our collective bargaining with to2073successfully impose the law or that copyright, to protect their2074copyright, if that mechanism, or that tool is going to help2075them, then we are all for it, absolutely.2076    Mr. Fry. From a global perspective, It has been testified2077today that we were a leader, and maybe still are in some2078aspects, but were a leader in establishing standards for strong2079IP. We have got some catching up to do. That if we were to do2080something, create a more robust system to target these offshore2081criminal actors, could you explain what this would mean for the2082U.S. generally, and our ability to maintain the status as that2083global leader in creativity and innovation?2084    Mr. Astin. My colleagues would probably speak to it better2085than I would. I was pretty moved by what I heard here today2086about the other 60 countries that are collaborators in other2087areas and are accomplishing in this space. I would rather hear2088their experts in that.2089    Mr. Fry. Mr. Francis, IP House and Digital Citizens2090Alliance issued a report in April exploring the growing2091connection between global organized crime and online piracy.2092What are some of your top line observations of that, to the2093U.S. economy and also to our citizens?2094    Mr. Francis. Yes, the joint publication, ``Organized Piracy2095and Crime'' just reiterated that. We are seeing a shift toward2096criminal organization syndicates.2097    When the profits are very high and the risks are very low2098we are seeing a significant amount of bad actors organized in2099many ways. We showed that these are criminal organizations2100because they have a structure, they have operators, they have2101supply chains, they have ways to finance the funds, and they2102have IT technology significantly impacting the way that these2103networks need to be looked at. Right?2104    The United Nations, INTERPOL, Europol all said that these2105types of behaviors are more toward indicators of organized2106crime syndicates.2107    Mr. Fry. How does it affect our citizens, though? How does2108that translates to the average person in South Carolina, or New2109York, or California that are not directly involved with these2110criminal syndicates, or in the film industries, T.V., or2111whatever? How does it affect normal Americans and citizens?2112    Mr. Francis. The effect is the malware that they are2113watching these unpaid or paid subscriptions that are illicit2114and piracy, that the malware that they are downloading impacts2115them because there is a significant amount of data that shows2116that they are also victims of identity theft.2117    It could also show that there is probably not enough2118education and awareness around this issue. This report with the2119Digital Citizens Alliance really highlights the importance of2120education around this area of digital piracy which has a2121significant economic impact really across all sectors and2122around the world.2123    Mr. Fry. Thank you for that. Mr. Floyd, really quick as we2124wrap up. What are the online effects or the effects of online2125piracy on the economics of film and television productions from2126the industry itself, to the workers, to the legitimate2127streaming sites, and even our citizens? What are the effects?2128    Mr. Floyd. The impact will hit both the company in deciding2129what movies to make and how often to make them. It will impacts2130their workers and how many people get hired and paid. It also2131impacts people like Mr. Astin's group who have already made a2132movie.2133    What happens is when someone streams it online and pays for2134it legitimately, we automatically share a portion of those2135revenues with the Screen Actors Guild, with the directors, and2136with all those people who worked on the movie. That gives them2137a buffer for when they are not working. It is sort of like a2138mini retirement plan.2139    If we are not receiving that money, we don't have the money2140to share. They end up making less money along the way for the2141work they have already done.2142    It impacts us and our ability to hire new people. It2143impacts them and their ability to make a living off the work2144they have already done.2145    Mr. Fry. In effect, a lot of starving actors in L.A., but2146the stereotype is that they are baristas first or bartenders.2147You are saying that we might actually see a scenario where they2148are making less as an actor than a barista or a bartender?2149    Mr. Floyd. Absolutely. When there are millions of dollars2150gone and then we are unable to share, they are losing a lot of2151money.2152    Mr. Fry. Thank you for that. Mr. Chair, I see my time has2153expired. I yield back.2154    Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman. We now go to the2155gentlelady from California for five minutes.2156    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start by2157saying that I am glad that we are finally having a hearing on2158the issue of IP. From my district's perspective, today is the2159day when we are actually talking about issues that the American2160people care about.2161    We have had 12 hearings in this Subcommittee, and this is2162the first one on this issue. The videos that were played at the2163beginning are a testament to the critical nature of this topic.2164I actually hope we have more hearings, because each of these2165topics deserve their own hearing.2166    This is personal to me. My district includes Los Angeles2167and Culver City. It is home to actors, and musicians, writers,2168journalists, content creators, video game developers, and2169everyday Americans. For these and more of my constituents their2170voice, their image, their likeness, and their performance, that2171is their livelihood.2172    AI we know can create opportunities, but it can also be2173used to profit off humans' identities, their voices, and their2174likeness.2175    I am also reminded of a theme in ``Anaconda'' between these2176two, Paul Rudd's character and Jack Black's character. Paul2177Rudd's character says, ``Who cares about IP?''2178    Black's response is, ``Literally everyone. That is what big2179movies are about. That is why we are here.''2180    I am also going to make a plug for my Republican colleagues2181to join on as a cosponsor to the NO FAKES Act.2182    The NO FAKES Act includes exclusions for documentaries,2183news, commentary, satire, parody, and fleeting uses as well as2184safe harbors for multipurpose creative tools, unless they are2185primarily designed to produce unauthorized digital replicas.2186    The video game industry has raised some good faith concerns2187that because games rely on fictional characters, background2188characters, and user-created avatars, that the bill could2189unintentionally capture lawful content or expose developers to2190claims based on incidental resemblance.2191    Mr. Floyd, how can Congress make sure that the bill doesn't2192sweep in fictional characters, incidental likenesses, or2193legitimate tools that are used in these interactive games?2194    Mr. Floyd. Well, as long as there are guidelines in the2195legislation to help guide where everyone moves forward on it,2196it would be helpful.2197    There are under the copyright laws now you could have2198incidental uses or uses that are similar. It is the2199substantiality of what goes on. The legislation talks about2200that, it will help give guidance to everybody as to know.2201    If there is one background actor that looks similar, maybe2202that is not enough. If it is an exact, one exact replica2203wouldn't be too much, but many that are similar might be too2204much. You have that balancing act with those guidelines.2205    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you for that.2206    This has come up about counterfeiters. Mr. Francis, I know2207you don't know this about me, but I support the resale2208marketplace in a very real way. Trusted resale marketplaces are2209incredibly important.2210    One problem is that bad actors use online spaces to traffic2211counterfeit goods. We talked about pharmaceuticals. It really2212harms consumers and legitimate businesses. We do need policies2213to crack down on counterfeiters while clearly distinguishing2214organized counterfeit trafficking from lawful resale.2215    Mr. Francis, how do counterfeiters exploit the ambiguity2216between legitimate resale and sale of infringing goods online?2217Why is consumer confusion so important to mitigate in this2218context?2219    Mr. Francis. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman, it is just2220deliberate deception. That confusion really is the goal of2221these counterfeiters. It is very challenging when you are a2222consumer and trying to distinguish between what is real, what2223is fake, the listings, the reviews. These are very extremely2224deliberate. Of course, extremely challenging for a consumer.2225    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Uh-huh.2226    Mr. Francis. Yes, we are very much in favor of the2227recommerce platforms. It is a growing market. It is one that2228really needs to pay particular attention what other2229marketplaces have been dealing with in the sense of they have2230also been deceived, these marketplaces by this resale market.2231    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Uh-huh.2232    Mr. Francis. Yes, it is very, especially with antiques and2233luxury brands and other products that I think are growing in2234this space.2235    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Right. Right. Mr. Floyd, in the2236remaining time I have left, about piracy. How much traffic do2237pirated websites receive?2238    Outside of copyrighted content being stolen, what are the2239harms that consumers face when they enter these sites and are2240asked to enter personal information to access the content?2241    Mr. Floyd. I don't have the exact numbers on the traffic.2242If I could get it, I will get back to you. It is massive2243though.2244    Because when you get on one of these sites you type in2245watch disclosure there, you think you are going to a regular2246site and then you end up on one of these pirate sites that has2247thousands of movies that are available.2248    What happens, then, is the consumer thinks it is a2249legitimate site. It looks like Netflix. It has thumbnail2250photographs of everything. It has the list of people who worked2251on the movie. You think you are on a legitimate site, and you2252type in your credit card. When you type in your credit card2253that money is now used for all kinds of nefarious purposes.2254    Also, there is malware that is on the ads. If you click on2255one of those you are now impacted that way.2256    Then, they steal your credit card information. You, as a2257regular, innocent consumer have now been detrimentally harmed2258for trying to watch one movie online.2259    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you for that. Mr. Chair, I would2260like to enter it. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the2261record a statement from the Motion Picture Association before2262this Subcommittee on this particular hearing topic.2263    Mr. Issa. Without objection, so ordered.2264    Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you so much.2265    Mr. Issa. I want to thank the gentlelady for her comments.2266The 12 hearings we have done, some have been clearly, many have2267been on IP, but the fact that this one focuses on piracy2268specifically, I take note that I, if I had it to do over again,2269would have done more and I would have done it sooner.2270    With that, I will recognize myself for my five minutes.2271Five minutes isn't enough to deal with all the issues were are2272dealing with. I think that is clear.2273    I am going to ask all of you to please revise, extend, give2274us your thoughts. Doctor, we will take it all, even though we2275couldn't have it all here. I want to focus on a couple of2276things.2277    First, it is clear that we have some laws that the courts2278have found they are unable to use effectively. Mr. Mohr, I am2279going to ask you a tough one, one that you may not have2280actually come prepared for.2281    In the ClearCorrect case, the Fed Circuit limited the ITC2282from enforcing essentially what we have been talking about2283here. They can't enforce that which comes in from outside the2284country which is intangible.2285    I am going to ask you and then the others, as we look to do2286site blocking and the other enforcements, including and2287notwithstanding States that try to enforce Federal law or2288contracts, should we be looking to empower organizations like2289the ITC, and any other existing body to, in fact, have the2290ability to deal in this growing thing of intangible or2291nonphysical property in a way that would allow for a broader2292enforcement of our laws?2293    I use that example because it is frustrating. Most of us2294didn't know until that case that the ITC can tell Customs to2295seize the fake DVD, but they can't seize the incoming, if you2296will, fake product. When we talk about site blocking, if the2297ITC had that authority perhaps they would have already done it.2298    I will start with you, Mr. Mohr.2299    Mr. Mohr. You weren't kidding about that being a tough2300question. What I would say is this: I think when you look at2301site, I think a couple of things.2302    First, putting aside the merits of the decision itself,2303right, if you are looking, my mind would go to what the remedy2304is. In that sense what would the ITC have to do to stop this?2305They couldn't issue an order in the abstract. They would have2306to find someone, an entity, and tell it, OK, you might not be2307doing this conduct, but you must cease enabling it.2308    That is, essentially, where site--that is site blocking.2309Right? The question then becomes for us, the questions would2310become what the guardrails are and whether they are2311appropriate.2312    Mr. Issa. Absolutely. I am not going to claim that Ways and2313Means and we wouldn't have a lot to do.2314    Mr. Francis, I am going to stay on this line because it is2315the one thing we didn't cover.2316    The ports of entry into America are Baltimore, Los Angeles,2317Seattle, et cetera. The port of entry for products that are2318worth countless billions, literally trillions of dollars, in2319fact, today is the internet.2320    Are we to a great extent looking at the customs process2321coming into the United States of product that has not been paid2322for, product that is, in fact, counterfeit, are we looking at2323customs in the broadest sense having to be expanded to include2324intangible? Should that be the work of this and the other2325Committees in the foreseeable future?2326    Mr. Francis. Yes, Mr. Chair, I do think that nontangible2327items have been a concern. When I was even the Director of the2328IPR Center, we didn't really focus our efforts there. I do2329think that there could be some legislative and enforcement2330frameworks that could be built around that to ensure that we2331can do something beyond just the tangible items that we are2332seizing at the ports of entry.2333    Mr. Issa. Quickly, Mr. Floyd, would you say that, in fact,2334the problem is bigger than today's hearing and bigger than this2335Committee's jurisdiction if we do that?2336    Mr. Floyd. Yes. It is a massive problem. We are very happy2337that this Committee is working on it, but it will go much2338beyond this. Yes.2339    Mr. Issa. Mr. Astin, you have been a superb witness. I am a2340fan of your work before you had this job.2341    You mentioned support for deep fakes. Mr. Mohr and others2342have shown us some areas where there could be some unintended2343problems.2344    Is it your position that if we can find the solutions that2345meet the goal of deep fakes that, in fact, you would be equally2346supportive as an organization to that, as long as we can get to2347it?2348    Mr. Astin. Well, I will do you one better. I have been2349watching for three years our team and the other incredible2350coalitions work hard to meet every single one of these2351potential concerns with openness and creativity. I mentioned2352YouTube. YouTube is part of this coalition. OpenAI is part of2353this coalition.2354    Is it complex? Yes, it is very, very complex. They know2355their--as far as I am concerned, the core, the essence of this2356NO FAKES Act is to protect people's identity. I have actually2357been reading, learning, and watching some podcasts about all2358your laws, all these kinds of enterprises. Phew, that is a2359different lifetime.2360    This sausage is coming together nice, from my point of2361view. I feel like the group that is here and the group that you2362are working with will do it. Of course, SAG-AFTRA stands2363foursquare behind getting NO FAKES passed into law.2364    Mr. Issa. Mr. Mohr, I would like you to be able to close on2365where you think we can get to the goal of deep fakes and other2366legislation, and where the challenges remain?2367    Mr. Mohr. The challenge, when we talk about the challenges,2368I list four. I am going to focus on two.2369    The first one is preemption. What we don't want is a2370situation where the rights are uneven. That leads to2371uncertainty both for individuals and for the developers of2372these tools, some of whom are now the subject of State statutes2373that would purport to create standards for them.2374    That should be in the domain of digital replicas, a matter2375of Federal law.2376    The second thing I would want to mention is that for us the2377counter-notification piece of this. Which is, I come back to2378something Mr. Astin said before in that there was a situation2379where a friend of his had a video and he simply couldn't tell2380who, whether it was real or not.2381    There are instances where there will be things that are2382real and we can't yet tell the difference. In those2383circumstances, we should take care to ensure that those2384particular instances of expression remain available as best we2385can.2386    Mr. Issa. Good, succinct. I understand that you have a2387unanimous consent. The gentleman is recognized.2388    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask unanimous consent2389to enter into the record a letter from the Council for2390Innovation Promotion supporting the NO FAKES Act, the SHOP SAFE2391Act, and judicial site blocking legislation.2392    Mr. Issa. Without objection, so ordered.2393    In closing, this is in fact not our last, and not this2394Committee's last hearing on this subject. Hopefully, though, it2395will be the last one before some of this legislation begins to2396move.2397    I think that, in fact, people you have seen on both sides2398of this hearing are close. The issues that Mr. Mohr mentioned2399are of great concern but they do seem to be surmountable. I am2400going to make one closing statement. Rights of the Chair, if2401you will.2402    This legislation is going to, if I have my way, move under2403my watch. It means that those who have said they are close,2404they are not opposed to it but they want to, we are going to2405test that. Which is that enough is known, language is being2406distributed on what we believe is final compromises to get to2407legislation.2408    It is going to be my intention, with the help of my Chair2409and old friend, Mr. Jordan, that we will move it out of this2410Committee. I say so today because I think all of you have made2411the case that allowing this continued damage is simply no2412longer possible.2413    I am going to further close by saying just one thing, which2414is I started in the era of protecting my trademarks. I2415certainly understood the standard for confusion as to source2416was all you really had to prove that you had it infringed.2417    It shocked me many years later--Professor, you know the2418history of this--but, that we didn't use that standard in the2419courts. Having said that, if the courts aren't willing to use2420trademarks for likeness, then we will have to give them2421authority and the mandate to do so. That will be the goal of2422this Committee.2423    The part I have to say at the close is simply that we will2424have five legislative days, which with our current schedule2425could give you a lot more than five days, to accept additional2426statements here, and questions for all of you, and then a2427reasonable time to respond.2428    Will all of you agree to take those questions and answer2429them to the best of your ability.2430    [Affirmative answers.]2431    Mr. Issa. Thank you all. You have been very generous with2432your time. This Committee, the Subcommittee stands adjourned.2433    [Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]24342435    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the2436Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet2437can2438be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent2439.aspx?EventID=119417.24402441                                 [all]