Digital Copyright Piracy: Protecting American Consumers, Workers, and Creators (U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet)

Hearing	Digital Copyright Piracy: Protecting American Consumers, Workers, and Creators
Committee	U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet
Date	December 13, 2023

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Digital Copyright Piracy: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed concerns over the prevalence of digital copyright piracy. Subcommittee Ranking Member Hank Johnson (D-GA) highlighted how there had been 141.7 billion visits to piracy websites worldwide between January 2022 and August 2022. Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses also discussed how copyright-related industries create jobs and drive economic activity. They lamented how digital copyright piracy costs the U.S. many jobs and a significant amount of economic output and asserted that digital copyright piracy is not a victimless crime. Subcommittee Members and Ms. Temple further noted how consumers accessing copyright infringing content are often made vulnerable to credit card fraud, identity theft, and malware.
  • Foreign Digital Copyright Piracy: Subcommittee Members, Mr. Gladstein, and Ms. Temple expressed particular concerns over how many websites that offer copyright infringing content are hosted on servers located outside of the U.S. that are beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement agencies. They specifically criticized the piracy website FMovies, which has its operations based in Vietnam and its servers located in Bulgaira. Ms. Temple testified that she had personally traveled to Vietnam to request that Vietnamese law enforcement agencies take action against FMovies. She indicated however that Vietnamese law enforcement agencies have not yet taken action against FMovies.
  • Collaboration Between Digital Service Providers and Copyright Holders to Combat Digital Copyright Piracy: Ms. Temple testified that the members of her organization, the Motion Picture Association (MPA), spend millions of dollars to develop notice and takedown systems and to send notices to user-generated content (UGC) websites. Mr. Schruers testified that the member companies of his organization, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), regularly engage with intellectual property (IP) rights holders to identify and enforce against copyright infringement. He stated that these companies spend “extraordinary amounts” on both takedown notice processing and the development of technologies to combat digital copyright piracy. He estimated that these expenses total tens of millions of dollars. He further noted how these technologies often enable copyright holders to monetize infringing uses of their works if they choose. He indicated that copyright holders are increasingly choosing to take a portion of the advertising revenue generated from infringing uses of their works. He described this situation as a “win-win” for content platform operators and copyright holders.
  • Impact on Films Being Produced: Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) and Ms. Temple raised concerns that digital copyright piracy may dissuade film studios from pursing riskier films and cause film studios to instead focus on producing films that are more likely to recoup their production costs. Ms. Temple lamented how this dynamic disproportionately impacts minority and independent filmmakers. She further highlighted how smaller film studios are less equipped to combat digital copyright piracy as compared to larger movie studios.
  • Piracy of Scientific Journal Articles: Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC) expressed concerns that scientific journal articles are being illegally pirated to train artificial intelligence (AI) systems. She specifically discussed how Sci-Hub (which is an active private website based in Russia) has amassed over 80 million scientific journal articles and noted how Sci-Hub often illegally targets university websites in the U.S.
• Solutions and Considerations for Addressing Digital Copyright Piracy: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses proposed and debated several policy and technological solutions for addressing digital copyright piracy. 
  • Site Blocking: Mr. Gladstein, Mr. McKnight, and Ms. Temple expressed interest in the possibility of having the U.S. adopt site blocking policies to combat digital copyright piracy. Site blocking refers to a policy where a network administrator, an internet service provider (ISP), or a government prevents access to a particular website or piece of content. Site blocking can be executed at the domain name system (DNS), Internet Protocol address (IP address), or Uniform Resource Locator (URL) level. These witnesses noted how over 40 countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), Australia, India, and South Korea, have adopted such policies to combat digital copyright piracy and stated that these policies have proven effective. Ms. Temple further asserted that site blocking is the only effective means for addressing foreign piracy websites because these websites will not respond to takedown requests under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and are outside the reach of U.S. law enforcement agencies. Mr. Schruers expressed concerns however that a site blocking law could be used against any online content with allegations of copyright infringement. He warned that this type of law could undermine free speech (including political speech) as parties could merely allege copyright infringement in order to silence people and groups that they disagree with. He also stated that the European Union’s (EU) site blocking system is “littered” with false positives. However, Mr. Gladstein called it specious to assert that blocking such piracy websites would pose free speech problems. He emphasized that piracy websites traffic stolen content and commented that the U.S. would not permit a business in another sector to advertise their sale of stolen goods. Ms. Temple also stated that examples of overblocking (which refers to the blocking of non-infringing content, the stifling of free expression, or the deprivation of due process) have been rare “to the point of non-existent.”
  • Existing Remedies for Digital Copyright Piracy: Mr. Schruers discussed how existing copyright law provides various remedies for copyright infringement, including statutory damages, actual damages, and extra-judicial relief under Sec. 512 of the DMCA. He stated that CCIA is narrowly concerned over DNS-level site blocking proposals.
  • Automated Content Filtering: Subcommittee Members, Mr. McKnight, and Ms. Temple expressed interest in leveraging automated content filtering technologies to combat digital copyright piracy. These technologies can quickly detect illegal video streaming so that platforms can immediately remove the illegal video. Mr. Schruers stated however that automated content filtering is not always effective at preventing copyright infringing content. He discussed how this filtering relies upon third party input and granular information, can be misused, and can result in over removal and over enforcement against non-infringing content and content permissible under the fair use doctrine. He asserted that automated content filtering systems therefore require human oversight and targeting to ensure their proper functioning. He further stated that these tools cannot necessarily prevent the posting of hyperlinks that provide access to the infringing content on another website.
  • Restricting the Ability of Piracy Websites to Receive Payments: Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) remarked that piracy websites would not exist if they were not lucrative. She asserted that these piracy websites will cease to exist if credit card companies are barred from processing payments for these websites. Mr. Gladstein stated however that the effectiveness of denying piracy websites the ability to receive payments may be limited because many of these websites do not charge customers to view copyright infringing content. He explained that many piracy websites make money through advertising and selling malware from those that use their websites. He further mentioned how many of these piracy websites use Bitcoin as a means of payment (which would limit the effectives of credit card processing bans). Rep. Lofgren commented that the U.S. would also need to pursue the advertisers on piracy websites.
  • Enforcement of Existing Digital Copyright Piracy Laws: Subcommittee Members and Mr. McKnight expressed interest in ensuring that the U.S. enforces its existing digital copyright piracy laws. These laws include the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act of 2020 and the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020. Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA) noted how the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) had only pursued 12 criminal copyright cases between 2020 and 2022. He called for the Subcommittee to hold a special hearing focused on the DoJ’s lack of copyright-related prosecutions.
  • Live Event Considerations: Subcommittee Members and Mr. McKnight remarked that live events pose unique piracy challenges. They explained that live events (such as sporting events) often derive their value from brief and impactful moments and have diminishing appeal after these moments have occurred. They stated that delayed enforcement of copyright infringements for live events can render takedowns meaningless. Mr. Schruers remarked that a digital service’s ability to respond to takedown requests will depend on the nature of the work and the scope of the takedown. He mentioned how copyright holders will often flag millions of URL addresses to digital services for takedown and indicated that some of these flagged URL addresses may not contain copyright infringing content. He also warned that there are consequences associated with improper takedowns.
  • Clarification of What Constitutes Expeditious Removal under the DMCA: Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Mr. McKnight called on Congress to clarify what constitutes an expeditious takedown under Sec. 512 of the DMCA. Under this provision, online service providers (OSPs) can obtain a safe harbor from liability for the copyright infirming activities of their users so long as they work to expeditiously remove infringing content from their platforms. Subcommittee Chairman Issa and Mr. McKnight expressed concerns that there does not exist sufficient clarity surrounding what constitutes an expeditious removal of infringing content. Mr. McKnight stated that this lack of clarity can especially harm broadcasters of live events. He also stated that video providers have a natural incentive to maximize their number of users, which can lead these providers to not fully police illegal livestreams.
  • Repeat Copyright Infringer Detection: Mr. McKnight stated that many OSPs have not adopted an effective process for identifying and terminating repeat copyright infringers. He noted how the adoption of such a process is required for these OSPs to receive a safe harbor under the DMCA. He testified that the UFC has frequently observed that users terminated for repeat copyright infringement will create new accounts that are obviously connected to the previous account. He asserted that clarification is needed that a reasonable repeat infringer policy will (among other things) involve account verification measures that will prevent the creation of new accounts by parties with histories of copyright infringement and limitations on the ability of very newly created accounts to livestream for a certain period of time or reach a widespread audience of viewers.
  • Hold Harmless Protections: Subcommittee Chairman Issa stated that the Committee would need to address the issue of hold harmless protections in its efforts to address digital copyright piracy. These provisions relate to the extent to which a platform may be held liable for hosting copyright infringing content.
  • Request for Follow-Up Hearings with ISP Stakeholders: Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) requested that the Subcommittee hold a hearing with ISP stakeholder participation that would consider the failure of ISPs to block FMovies. Subcommittee Chairman Issa expressed interest in having the Subcommittee receive input from ISP stakeholders regarding the technical feasibility of proposed solutions to digital copyright piracy.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Ms. Karyn Temple, Senior Executive Vice President and Global General Counsel, Motion Picture Association; former Register of Copyrights and Director, U.S. Copyright Office
2. Mr. Matthew Schruers, President, Computer and Communications Industry Association; Co-Founder and Board Chair, Digital Trust and Safety Partnership 
3. Mr. Richard Gladstein, Academy Award-nominated Producer; Executive Director, Brooklyn College Feirstein Graduate School of Cinema; President and Founder, FilmColony 
4. Mr. Riché McKnight, General Counsel, Ultimate Fighting Championship; Executive Vice President, Deputy General Counsel, and Co-Head of Litigation, Endeavor

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA):

• He discussed how emerging technologies and emerging threats have caused Congress to revisit digital copyright piracy challenges.
• He mentioned how copyright-related industries in 2019 had employed nearly 9 million people and had contributed at least $1.3 trillion to the U.S. economy.
• He noted however that online piracy is estimated to cost over 200,000 jobs and approximately $50 billion in terms of the U.S.’s gross domestic product (GDP).
  • He emphasized that the money and jobs taken from this online piracy tend to go to foreign countries and individuals that will never pay taxes.
• He discussed how digital copyright piracy now involves vast amounts of copyright infringing content made widely available on the internet.
• He noted that while much of this copyright infringing content is given away for free, he asserted that there are costs associated with this infringing content.
  • He highlighted how infringing content often includes spyware and noted how piracy websites often run side advertising against the infringing content.
• He lamented how many websites that offer copyright infringing content are hosted on servers located outside of the U.S., which creates unique challenges for enforcement against these websites.
  • He highlighted how foreign governments (such as Russia) are sometimes hosting these piracy websites.
• He remarked that there exists an important difference between websites that happen to have copyright infringing content, websites that host copyright infringing content that do not respect IP, and criminal websites that exist for the sole purpose of giving away copyright infringing content.
• He stated that one potential solution to addressing the problem of websites hosting copyright infringing content could involve requiring ISPs to permanently block piracy websites that host only or a substantial amount of copyright infringing content.
  • He also suggested that Congress might want to explore dynamic site blocking to address the piracy of live sports and entertainment for set periods of time.
• He expressed interest in having the U.S. work with online platforms to remove pirated content as soon as possible to better meet the needs of live sports entertainment.
  • He commented that while a notice and takedown approach may work for content that does not need to be immediately removed, he asserted that this approach would be insufficient for addressing live events (which tend to be short by nature).
• He remarked that the Committee must work to protect IP producers and warned that Committee inaction on digital copyright piracy issues could harm U.S. content-related industries.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Hank Johnson (D-GA):

• He discussed how industries that are reliant on the exclusive authority to reproduce and distribute copyrighted works, create derivative versions of copyrighted works, and publicly perform copyrighted works had contributed $1.29 trillion to the U.S.’s GDP in 2019.
  • He also highlighted how it takes a myriad of professionals across various job fields to produce a copyrighted work (such as a movie).
• He mentioned how copyright-intensive industries in 2019 had employed 6.6 million Americans directly and 2 million additional Americans indirectly. 
  • He commented that copyright law should therefore not be viewed as solely supporting the profitability of businesses and that policymakers should be cognizant of the workers whose jobs depend on copyright protections.
• He then discussed how digital piracy of film and television has increased since 2020 and mentioned how there had been 141.7 billion visits to piracy websites worldwide between January 2022 and August 2022.
• He noted that digital copyright piracy has caused estimated annual losses of between 230,000 and 560,000 jobs in the U.S. and between $47.5 billion and $115.3 billion in reduced GDP.
  • He further lamented how digital copyright piracy often deters prospective workers from entering copyright-related industries because these industries are unable to offer competitive salaries.
• He discussed how digital copyright piracy is not a new problem and noted how over 80 percent of digital video piracy is now conducted via video streaming.
  • He highlighted how Congress had passed Sec. 512 of the DMCA to protect copyrighted works on the internet.
• He expressed interest in exploring the current functioning of the notice and takedown system for copyright-infringing works, the challenges associated with removing pirated content from websites, and how changes in technology (and the internet itself) have impacted overall attitudes toward copyright protections.

Witness Opening Statements:

Mr. Richard Gladstein (Academy Award-nominated Producer; Brooklyn College Feirstein Graduate School of Cinema; FilmColony):

• He discussed how film and television production benefits many U.S. cities and states and noted how approximately $250,000 is contributed to local economies for each day of a film shoot.
  • He indicated that small films generally shoot for about 24 days while large films generally shoot for over 70 days.
  • He also mentioned how the U.S. film and television industries employ approximately 2.4 million Americans.
• He remarked that digital copyright piracy has “besieged” the U.S. film and television industries since the inception of the internet.
  • He asserted that the U.S. film and television industries have been limited in their abilities to respond to this piracy.
• He stated that his testimony would focus on the wholesale theft and distribution of movies and television programs by criminal enterprises.
  • He emphasized that these thefts and distributions involve the entire film or television program (rather than facsimiles, parts, or replicas of the film or television program).
• He discussed how large-scale piracy operations are criminal enterprises that create websites that look “deceptively similar” to legitimate video streaming services.
  • He mentioned how a recent study had found that as many as 30 million Americans use these illegal video streaming services.
  • He added that many of these Americans using these illegal video streaming services do not realize the services are illegal.
• He noted how a report had estimated that the losses caused by digital copyright piracy are between $29 billion and $71 billion annually.
  • He also indicated that digital copyright piracy costs the U.S. economy between 230,000 and 560,000 jobs every year.
• He stated that most of these revenue and job losses impact production staff, including production designers, customer designers, cinematographers, caterers, and various crew members.
  • He emphasized that these jobs are well-paying positions for craftspeople and often do not require four-year college degrees.
• He noted how production staff are mostly freelance workers and highlighted how 92 percent of film and television businesses employ fewer than ten people.
• He also mentioned how the pension and health plans for production staff are funded through residuals.
  • He explained that these residuals are derived from revenues and profits from movies and television programs and asserted that digital copyright piracy is “eviscerating” these profits.
• He remarked that most of the digital copyright piracy happening in the U.S. is occurring through illegal services that are based overseas.
  • He commented that these services are thus beyond the reach of U.S. law enforcement.
• He stated that while there are laws in place around the world that have proven to be effective against digital copyright piracy, he asserted that these tools are not yet available in the U.S.
• He remarked that one effective tool for combating digital copyright piracy involves permitting courts to issue no fault injunctive relief or site blocking.
  • He explained that this tool directs ISPs to block access to offshore websites that are found to be dedicated to piracy following a full judicial process.
• He stated that site blocking is effective in the more than 40 countries that have implemented the tool, including Canada, the UK, and Australia.
  • He commented that there exists a decade’s worth of evidence to support this tool’s effectiveness and noted how studies have found that this tool reduces traffic to piracy websites while increasing traffic to legitimate and legal websites.
• He recounted how early objections to site blocking had “erroneously” claimed that it could be abused, cause harm to free speech, and threaten the internet’s functionality.
  • He asserted that the creative community is a fierce advocate for free speech and would never call for harming the right of free speech.
• He remarked that film financiers and creatives will be able realize the revenues that they are entitled to when digital copyright piracy is diminished with effective laws.
• He called on Congress to pursue “reasonable solutions” (such as site blocking) to curtail the theft and distribution of copyrighted works.
  • He stated that parties engaged in illegal behavior and internet intermediaries that consistently aid and abet such theft should be stopped and face penalties.

Mr. Riché McKnight (Ultimate Fighting Championship; Endeavor):

• He remarked that his company, the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), appreciates its work with Congress to combat digital copyright piracy, including its work to enact the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020.
• He discussed how the UFC is a content creator that hosts and airs live mixed martial arts content, including through a pay-per-view (PPV) option in the U.S. in partnership with ESPN+.
  • He commented that these events are beloved and highly anticipated.
• He stated that a critical element of the UFC’s content is that the essence of the event often involves “highly impactful, but very brief moments in time.”
  • He indicated that these brief moments could include a knockout or a well-executed move.
• He remarked that the UFC faces pervasive digital piracy of its live content because of the content’s popularity.
  • He explained that content pirates will record UFC events through holding phones up to record and livestream events, as well as through more sophisticated techniques that can provide high definition (HD) quality video.
• He also discussed how content pirates will “brazenly” advertise their stolen content on social media platforms to get viewers to come to their websites.
  • He commented that the ability of consumers to access stolen UFC content for free results in many consumers opting not to purchase UFC video streams via PPV.
• He remarked that these digital copyright piracy challenges are not unique to the UFC.
  • He mentioned how the UFC had recently submitted a joint-letter with the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the National Football League (NFL) to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that highlighted their common challenges related to the piracy of live sporting events.
• He noted how the financial impact of online piracy across the global sports industry is estimated to cost $28 billion in additional potential annual revenue.
• He also testified that the UFC estimates that online piracy diverts “multiple” millions of dollars from legitimate purchases of UFC’s content each year.
  • He commented that this results in a “substantial” loss of tax revenue and harms the ability of sports providers to host events that benefit local businesses and communities.
• He discussed how the UFC submits “thousands” of takedown requests to a variety of OSPs during and immediately after each of its events and how the UFC is engaged in outreach to individual platforms.
  • He commented however that the problem of digital copyright piracy persists, despite the UFC’s efforts to address the piracy.
• He expressed the UFC’s support for site blocking proposals and for additional policy measures that could help to address the piracy of live sporting events.
• He stated that OSPs do not remove copyright infringing livestreams and videos expeditiously as is required for them to obtain a safe harbor from liability for the infringement of their users under the DMCA.
  • He highlighted how copyright infringing livestreams often stay online for full UFC events.
• He asserted that OSPs are exploiting a lack of clarity in the DMCA’s provisions regarding what constitutes an expeditious removal of copyright infringing content.
  • He commented that the expeditious removal of copyright infringing content must account for whether the request is time sensitive.
• He testified that the UFC has sent thousands of takedown requests for each of its PPV events in 2022 and 2023.
  • He added that this total does not include the copyright infringing content that was automatically removed by certain OSPs.
• He noted how 26 percent of this copyright infringing content had been permitted to stay up for one hour after the UFC had made its takedown requests.
  • He further noted how 6 percent of this copyright infringing content had been permitted to stay up for longer than five hours after the UFC had made its takedown requests.
• He stated that it is not uncommon for illegal livestreams to collect hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of views while they are available.
• He remarked that Congress can and should clarify that expeditious removal means that copyright infringing content must be removed instantaneously or near instantaneously for time sensitive content (such as live sporting events).
  • He asserted that permitting a copyright infringing livestream to remain online until the end of an event is not acceptable.
• He also stated that many OSPs have not adopted an effective process for identifying and terminating repeat copyright infringers.
  • He noted how the adoption of such a process is required for these OSPs to receive a safe harbor under the DMCA.
• He testified that the UFC has frequently observed that users terminated for repeat copyright infringement will create new accounts that are obviously connected to a previous account.
  • He asserted that clarification is needed that a reasonable repeat infringer policy will (among other things) involve account verification measures that prevent the creation of new accounts by the same person and other measures that limit the ability of very newly created accounts to livestream for a certain period of time or reach a widespread audience of viewers.
• He expressed the UFC’s interest in continuing to work with the Subcommittee on efforts to combat digital copyright piracy.

Mr. Matthew Schruers (Computer and Communications Industry Association; Digital Trust and Safety Partnership):

• He noted how his organization, the CCIA, represents the interests of information, communications, and technology firms.
  • He asserted that the digital sector is a “proud and critical” partner to the creative industry.
• He remarked that the widespread adoption of technology products and services have created entirely new markets for the legal consumption of digital content.
  • He commented that these products permit users to lawfully enjoy digital media nearly anywhere and at anytime, which has created unprecedented revenue opportunities for content creators.
• He also highlighted how technology companies are themselves IP creators and have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on premium award-winning content.
  • He added that these technology companies have spent millions of additional dollars on licensing content from others for lawful distribution.
• He stated that technology companies therefore understand the value of content investments as leading providers of content (as well as content licensees).
• He remarked that a “small minority” of bad actors misuse digital tools to infringe upon IP rights and commented that the digital sector seeks to prevent this infringement.
  • He asserted however that the prevention of IP infringement must be pursued without interfering with legitimate online commerce, communication, and the U.S. Constitution.
• He stated that the most powerful tool for preventing IP infringement is ensuring that consumers can lawfully access content where they want it, when they want it, and on the device that they want it.
  • He commented that the products being provided by U.S. technology companies are making such access possible.
• He also discussed how CCIA members regularly engage with IP rights holders to identify and enforce against copyright infringers.
  • He indicated that these efforts involve extensive content moderation systems that go “above and beyond” the notice and takedown approach currently contemplated under federal law.
• He stated however that automated content filtering is not always effective at preventing copyright infringing content.
  • He discussed how this filtering relies upon third party input and granular information, can be misused, and can result in over removal and over enforcement against non-infringing content and content permissible under the fair use doctrine.
• He asserted that automated content filtering systems therefore require human oversight and targeting to ensure their proper functioning.
• He then remarked that policymakers should be wary of DNS-level site blocking proposals.
  • He commented that this approach involves interfering with the basic architecture of the internet to suppress content.
• He asserted that DNS-level site blocking constitutes a “blunt” instrument of architectural regulation that is inherently imprecise.
  • He warned that this approach would put speech at risk of suppression and stated that this approach is not technically or constitutionally possible to implement without “significant” collateral damage.
• He stated that his written testimony details how the EU’s website blocking system is “littered” with false positives and provides examples of the unintended consequences of these policies.
  • He commented that the EU’s system provides little transparency around blocking orders and few ways to determine when content is being withheld from the public by court order.
  • He noted how technical experts, including the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the Internet Society, have strongly advised against DNS-level blocking.
• He then discussed how political speech is frequently a target of wrongful copyright allegations.
  • He mentioned how multiple political candidates during the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election had been prevented from livestreaming their own speeches due to “dubious” copyright claims.
  • He also noted campaign advertisements are regularly accused of infringement.
• He asserted that this suppression of political speech (whether inadvertent or intentional) cannot be tolerated in a democracy.
• He remarked that blunter instruments for combating copyright infringement will pose greater risks to free expression.
  • He stated that the U.S. must therefore appropriately calibrate its proposed solutions for dealing with copyright infringement.
• He testified that CCIA’s members are committed to fighting copyright infringement through investing “significant” resources into new products that both create opportunities for content creators and create better responses to infringement.

Ms. Karyn Temple (Motion Picture Association; former Register of Copyrights and Director, U.S. Copyright Office):

• She discussed how the U.S. motion picture and television production industry distributes films and television shows in over 130 countries and noted how the U.S. movie industry had accounted for $14.4 billion in exports in 2021.
  • She also highlighted how the U.S. motion picture and television production industry had supported 2.4 million jobs and $186 billion in total wages in 2021.
• She remarked that IP piracy is not a victimless crime and indicated that piracy of filmed entertainment costs the U.S. economy $29.2 billion and over 230,000 jobs annually.
  • She noted how these costs and job losses impact many ancillary workers (including carpenters, electricians, and hair stylists) and many small businesses (including caterers, dry cleaners, and florists) that service entertainment businesses.
• She warned that piracy services can directly threaten the personal and financial security of Americans through exposing users to credit card fraud, identity theft, and malware.
• She discussed how the piracy website FMovies remains accessible to U.S. users (despite having been referred to U.S. law enforcement in 2019).
  • She highlighted how FMovies contains many popular movies (as well as some movies that have not yet been officially released) and advertisements for illegal businesses (such as foreign casinos).
  • She indicated that FMovies had 168 million visits in November 2023 and noted how the U.S. users account for 38 percent of this website’s traffic.
• She stated that FMovies is not a legitimate website and instead constitutes a commercial scale operation meant to steal copyrighted content and funnel the proceeds back to criminal organizations.
• She asserted that website traffic for FMovies would have plummeted had the U.S. maintained a site blocking regime.
  • She commented that this would have resulted in U.S. consumers and the U.S. creative sector being protected and would have removed the financial incentives for piracy.
• She called on Congress to revisit no-fault injunctive relief policies to combat blatant forms of digital copyright piracy.
  • She recounted how Congress had previously considered these policies and stated that Congress had declined to pursue these policies in response to “unfounded” claims that such policies would harm the internet.
• She noted however that more than 40 countries (including the UK, Canada, Australia, India, and South Korea) have enacted no-fault injunctive relief policies that expressly authorize courts or administrative agencies to issue orders to ISPs to block access to websites dedicated to digital copyright piracy.
• She asserted that no-fault injunctive relief policies have been effective in reducing traffic to piracy websites.
  • She further noted how these policies have driven internet traffic toward legal websites.
• She remarked that none of the “hyperbolic” predictions about the impacts of website blocking have come true in the jurisdictions that have enacted no-fault injunctive relief policies.
• She stated that examples of overblocking (which refers to the blocking of non-infringing content, the stifling of free expression, or the deprivation of due process) have been rare “to the point of non-existence.”
  • She also indicated that none of the purported examples of overblocking cited by CCIA had actually involved a blocking order to an ISP because of copyright infringement.
• She remarked that effective tools to combat digital copyright piracy do exist and that these tools have not resulted in undue harm or have impaired the functionality of the internet.
• She called on Congress to consider enacting express authority for a no-fault injunctive relief regime that will empower copyright holders to better respond to instances of digital copyright piracy.

Congressional Question Period:

Rep. Laurel Lee (R-FL):

• Rep. Lee noted how one proposed remedy to digital copyright piracy is site blocking. She explained that site blocking involves directing ISPs to block local access to websites dedicated to piracy. She asked Mr. Gladstein to elaborate on his view that site blocking does not infringe upon First Amendment rights to speech and expression.
  • Mr. Gladstein discussed how there are piracy websites dedicated to distributing illegal programming and emphasized that these websites do not possess the rights to carry this programming. He called it specious to assert that blocking such piracy websites would violate the First Amendment. He emphasized that piracy websites traffic stolen content and commented that the U.S. would not permit a business in another sector to advertise their sale of stolen goods.
• Rep. Lee asked Mr. Gladstein to explain how a takedown approach for copyright infringing websites differs from a site blocking approach for these websites.
  • Mr. Gladstein noted how U.S. law provides different levels of enforcement for U.S. websites and non-U.S. websites. He commented that Ms. Temple is better suited to answer Rep. Lee’s question.
  • Ms. Temple remarked that no-fault injunctive relief should be focused on websites that are exclusively dedicated to copyright infringement. She noted how these websites are not UGC websites and will not respond to takedown notices because their sole purpose is to host copyright infringing content. She highlighted how these copyright infringing websites are often located overseas, which means that the DMCA does not necessarily apply to the websites. She remarked that the only way that copyright holders and the U.S. can pursue these foreign copyright infringing websites is through civil enforcement and cooperation with foreign law enforcement agencies. She stated that site blocking constitutes the only remedy for addressing these illegal websites if foreign law enforcement agencies do not pursue these websites or if the website operators cannot be identified. She highlighted how the operators of FMovies are located in Vietnam and how the services for FMovies are located in Bulgaria. She testified that she had recently traveled to Vietnam and had made requests to Vietnamese law enforcement agencies to take actions against the operators of FMovies. She also mentioned how she had referred FMovies to U.S. law enforcement agencies. She indicated however that these efforts to takedown FMovies have been unsuccessful thus far. She commented that millions of U.S. consumers remain able to access the illegal content that is hosted on FMovies.
• Rep. Lee then commented the UFC has a unique perspective on the current takedown process for copyright infringing content. She asked Mr. McKnight to explain why this current takedown process is inadequate.
  • Mr. McKnight discussed how many of the UFC’s most popular events and moments can be very short and noted that these moments can last just seconds. He stated that the ability of copyright infringers to pirate the UFC’s livestreams for short periods of time can therefore eliminate any incentive for consumers to pay for UFC content. He also noted how many illegal livestreams of UFC content are HD, which further reduces incentives for consumers to pay for UFC content. He stated that the UFC is therefore focused on defining what constitutes an expeditious removal of copyright infringing content. He asserted that there exists empirical evidence that websites (such as social media platforms) can better police copyright infringing content. He commented however that these websites often possess a commercial incentive to not expeditiously remove the copyright infringing content. He warned that the absence of a clarification of what constitutes an expeditious removal of copyright infringing content would lead these websites to continue to not expeditiously remove the infringing content. He stated that expeditious removal should involve immediate or near immediate removal of the copyright infringing content.
• Rep. Lee yielded her time to Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA).

Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA):

• Chairman Issa asked Mr. McKinght to indicate the fastest time that the UFC has observed a website takedown occur following a takedown request.
  • Mr. McKnight testified that the fastest time that the UFC has observed a website takedown occur following a takedown request is “several minutes.” He noted however that these takedowns can take hours or days to occur following a takedown request. He commented that these fluctuations in response times indicate that many websites are not taking down copyright infringing materials in an expeditious manner. He mentioned how one online platform had provided the UFC with priority review access for their takedown requests and testified that this priority review access had resulted in a “dramatic improvement” in the execution of their takedown requests. He indicated however that this improvement had been temporary and that the platform’s execution of the UFC’s takedown requests eventually became slower.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Hank Johnson (D-GA):

• Ranking Member Johnson asked Mr. Gladstein to describe what copyright enforcement in the U.S. looks like for individuals or small group creators that do not have the same resources as larger organizations (such as the UFC).
  • Mr. Gladstein noted how there exist various guilds and unions that assist filmmakers of all types on copyright enforcement efforts and described these guilds and unions as helpful. He stated that filmmakers rely upon film distributors (who are often the financiers of the films) to make decisions about where their films go. He commented that film producers (like himself) generally cannot influence where their films go. He stated that film creators want more people to see their works and noted how there currently exist around 140 legal streaming sources. He asserted that there is thus not a lack of availability of legitimate avenues for film distribution and commented that film distributors seek to maximize the reach of their films. He noted how filmmakers rely upon their distributors to issue takedown notices and stated that filmmakers do not participate in the takedown process. He commented that filmmakers are more focused on working on their next projects than on pursuing copyright enforcement actions related to their previously completed projects.
• Ranking Member Johnson then discussed how a key development in recent years has been the shift away from illegal downloads and toward illegal streaming. He asked Ms. Temple to explain the implications of this shift.
  • Ms. Temple first expressed agreement with Mr. Gladstein’s previous response. She testified that MPA members spend millions of dollars to develop notice and takedown systems and to send notices to UGC websites. She commented that individual artists and content creators often lack the capabilities and the resources needed to issue takedown notices when their content is being infringed upon. She then discussed how streaming piracy now accounts for the vast majority of online piracy. She noted how most of these illegal streaming website operators are located outside of the U.S., which limits the ability of the content creators and the U.S. to pursue these illegal operations. She also noted how the operators of these illegal streaming websites, the servers hosting these illegal streaming websites, and the registries for the illegal content are often located in different countries. She commented that this dynamic makes it difficult for content creators and the U.S. to pursue these illegal streaming websites.
• Ranking Member Johnson then asked Mr. McKnight to explain why illegal streaming is especially significant for live events (such as UFC events).
  • Mr. McKnight called it important for online platforms to effectively police copyright infringements involving live events given the short timeframe in which material moments can occur at these events. He stated that delayed enforcement of copyright infringements for live events can render takedowns meaningless. He explained that the viewers of these illegal livestreams have already consumed the material moments of the events and are thus unlikely to pay for the content that is being provided through the illegal livestreams.
• Ranking Member Johnson then discussed how the U.S. had enacted the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020 to address certain legal gaps that have made the enforcement of copyright infringement challenging when conducted via digital streaming. He asked Mr. McKinght to comment on this law’s impact on internet piracy thus far.
  • Mr. McKnight called the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020 helpful and expressed interest in ensuring that this law is being enforced. He asserted that enforcement of this law will deter digital copyright piracy.

Rep. Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI):

• Rep. Fitzgerald asked Ms. Temple to discuss how digital copyright piracy impacts the types of films that might be financed or produced.
  • Ms. Temple stated that digital copyright piracy does impact the variety of films that may be produced. She noted how film production is very expensive and how film producers want to ensure that they can recoup their production costs. She stated that digital copyright piracy particularly impacts the willingness of filmmakers to produce niche and independent films because these films tend to be more financially risky than larger films and films that are part of broader franchises. She also lamented how digital copyright piracy disproportionately impacts minority and independent filmmakers. She further noted how smaller movie studios are less equipped to combat digital copyright piracy as compared to larger movie studios.
• Rep. Fitzgerald asked Ms. Temple to indicate whether movie studios would be less willing to pursue riskier film projects if they believe that such film projects face a greater likelihood of being pirated.
  • Ms. Temple answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Fitzgerald then asked Mr. McKnight to estimate the impact that digital copyright piracy has on the live sports industry.
  • Mr. McKnight acknowledged that it is difficult to project how many consumers that accessed a live event through a pirated livestream would have paid to access the event had the pirated livestream option not been made available. He estimated however that the financial losses associated with these pirated livestreams could total tens or hundreds of millions of dollars if just 20 percent of these consumers that had used a pirated livestream to access a live event had instead used a legal streaming option. He added that this 20 percent assumption is very conservative. He lamented how many consumers view digital copyright piracy as a victimless crime. He highlighted how production crews and other non-wealthy parties often bear the costs of digital copyright piracy.
• Rep. Fitzgerald also asked Mr. McKnight to address whether consumers are often aware that they might be accessing a livestreamed event via a pirated website.
  • Mr. McKnight remarked that people are generally aware whether they are accessing a livestreamed event via a pirated website. He asserted that the main problem is that people often view digital copyright piracy as a victimless crime. He commented that many people believe the wealthy sports organizations (such as the UFC) can afford for people to pirate their livestreams. He stated however that widespread digital copyright piracy can result in significant financial losses for sports organizations, which can harm all of the workers involved in producing a live sporting event. He also noted how many piracy websites will charge consumers discounted rates to access pirated livestreams of sporting events or provide the events for free and run advertising against the events. He commented that the consumers using these services are knowingly engaging in digital copyright piracy.
• Rep. Fitzgerald asked Mr. McKnight to indicate whether commercial businesses are using pirated livestreams of UFC events to attract customers.
  • Mr. McKnight mentioned how the UFC maintains commercial licensing agreements with many businesses that show UFC events (such as bars). He indicated that the UFC has ways to police businesses that are showing UFC events without paying the proper commercial fees. He stated that the improper commercial use of UFC events is less of a problem than individual consumers using social media platforms or piracy websites to improperly access UFC events.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA):

• Rep. Lieu asked Ms. Temple to indicate whether FMovies is available in Europe.
  • Ms. Temple noted how FMovies has been blocked in 16 European countries (including most of the EU).
• Rep. Lieu noted how FMovies remains accessible within the U.S. He asked Mr. Schruers to address why OSPs do not currently block FMovies.
  • Mr. Schruers first commented that FMovies may remain accessible within the U.S. due to a lack of action from federal law enforcement agencies. He then stated that there exist many remedies available under current federal law for addressing FMovies.
• Rep. Lieu interjected to comment that federal law enforcement agencies have likely not taken action against FMovies because the website is based out of Vietnam. He reiterated that FMovies remains accessible within the U.S.
  • Mr. Schruers stated that site blocking would simply prevent a domain name from resolving to an IP address.
• Rep. Lieu interjected to assert that preventing a domain name from resolving to an IP address is important. He requested that CCIA’s members remove FMovies from their platforms. He commented that FMovies is so popular that it has its own Wikipedia page and noted how FMovies had launched in 2016. He stated that FMovies is engaged in blatant digital copyright piracy and reiterated his request for CCIA’s members to block FMovies from their platforms.
  • Mr. Schruers noted that the broadband internet providers that actually resolve domain names to IP addresses are not present at the hearing.
• Rep. Lieu interjected to request that Mr. Schruers persuade broadband internet providers to block access to FMovies. He called the continued operation of FMovies indefensible and expressed frustration over how FMovies has been permitted to operate for seven years.
  • Mr. Schruers noted how the CCIA includes content creators among its membership and stated that these content creators are victims of piracy websites. He asserted that the best way to prevent copyright infringement is to make content as widely available as possible where and when consumers want it.
• Rep. Lieu interjected to ask Mr. Schruers to indicate whether consumers do not know how they can legally watch popular movies (such as Wonka). 
  • Mr. Schruers noted how the movie Wonka is not yet available in the U.S. market but has been released in other foreign markets. He stated that digital copyright pirates often arbitrage windowed movie releases to take advantage of content unavailability in certain markets. He noted how many audio-visual content producers have pursued worldwide releases for their content to prevent this arbitrage.
• Rep. Lieu interjected to ask Mr. Schruers to clarify whether he is suggesting that worldwide movie releases would solve digital copyright piracy problems for movies.
  • Mr. Schruers remarked that the best strategy for combating digital copyright piracy (among many strategies) is ensuring that consumers can access the content that they want to pay for. He stated that digital copyright piracy rates have fallen when lawful content services are launched because consumers generally want to pay for desired content. He noted how there are risks associated with using piracy websites and how most consumers want to support their favorite creators.
• Rep. Lieu reiterated his request that CCIA members work to block FMovies. He also requested that the Subcommittee hold a hearing that would include a witness from an organization whose members could block FMovies.

Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA):

• Chairman Issa stated that he would invite members of the ISP community to testify before the Subcommittee on proposed remedies to digital copyright piracy and the potential implementation of such remedies.

Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-OR):

• Rep. Bentz expressed interest in determining the extent to which the prevalence of digital copyright piracy is attributable to technology versus a lack of enforcement. He asked Ms. Temple to opine on this issue.
  • Ms. Temple remarked that the issue of digital copyright piracy is complex. She then questioned Mr. Schrurers’s assertion that access to legitimate content constitutes the best way to combat digital copyright piracy. She stated that this argument had been made 20 years ago and highlighted how there are now hundreds of ways for consumers to access movies legally online through streaming services. She commented however that the problem of digital copyright piracy persists (even with these legal streaming services). She remarked that digital copyright piracy is difficult to address because of evolving technologies. She asserted that the U.S. must keep its laws updated to account for these evolving technologies. She stated that streaming piracy has become one of the most prolific types of digital copyright piracy and noted how streaming piracy is cross-jurisdictional in nature (which can make enforcement difficult). She commented that U.S. law enforcement has likely not pursued FMovies for digital copyright infringement because the website operators of FMovies are located in Vietnam. She acknowledged that while the U.S. can work with its international law enforcement counterparts to address digital copyright piracy, she stated that these efforts may take years. She also mentioned how she had personally traveled to Vietnam to request that Vietnamese law enforcement agencies take action against FMovies. She indicated however that Vietnamese law enforcement agencies have not yet taken action against FMovies. She stated that while site blocking does not constitute the only solution for combating digital copyright piracy, she asserted that site blocking would be an effective tool for addressing this problem.
• Rep. Bentz asked Ms. Temple to project what the ISP community would say about their failure to block FMovies.
  • Ms. Temple mentioned how the MPA has worked collaboratively with ISPs in countries with site blocking laws to address piracy websites. She described this collaboration with foreign ISPs as successful and commented that these foreign ISPs do not view the site blocking process as “overly burdensome.” She expressed hope that U.S. ISPs would learn lessons from these foreign ISPs and realize that site blocking legislation is effective, provides sufficient guardrails, and ensures due process.
• Rep. Bentz asked Ms. Temple to explain the objections to site blocking policies.
  • Ms. Temple noted that while critics that are unfamiliar with site blocking policies may allege that these policies are clumsy and imprecise, she asserted that recent experience with site blocking policies has disproved these allegations. She stated that the countries that possess site blocking policies maintain specific processes for assessing whether a website is dedicated to hosting copyright infringing content.
• Rep. Bentz interjected to ask Ms. Temple to indicate whether these foreign site blocking regimes make mistakes.
  • Ms. Temple stated that no law is perfect. She testified however that the MPA has not observed instances of overblocking resulting from site blocking laws.
• Rep. Bentz interjected to ask Mr. Schruers to indicate whether foreign site blocking regimes make mistakes.
  • Mr. Schruers remarked that there have been many instances where architectural-level policy solutions to digital copyright piracy have failed. He expressed concerns that a site blocking law could be used against any online content with allegations of copyright infringement. He warned that this type of law could be weaponized against political campaign websites. He stated that policymakers must consider the constituencies that could be targeted via site blocking laws and the potential collateral damage of these laws. He recounted how Spotify had been mistakenly blocked within Congressional buildings ten years ago and commented that site blocking mistakes are possible. He asserted that policymakers must ensure that potential remedies for digital copyright piracy are properly designed to address the problem.

Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC):

• Rep. Ross remarked that artists and creators deserve the opportunity to profit from their works and asserted that digital copyright piracy constitutes a theft of this opportunity. She asked Ms. Temple to identify the countries that have most effectively executed site blocks while also respecting due process.
  • Ms. Temple stated that the UK has effectively implemented site blocks in a manner that recognizes and protects individual freedoms. She also commended Australia’s site blocking regime. She mentioned how Australia had reviewed its site blocking law in 2018 and had not found negative impacts stemming from the law.
• Rep. Ross mentioned how studies of Australia’s site blocking law had found that no fault injunctions would encourage consumers to access content through legal channels. She asked Ms. Temple to further discuss these findings and to address how no-fault injunctions impact consumer behaviors and choices.
  • Ms. Temple discussed how many countries maintain no fault injunctive relief regimes and stated that these regimes have been shown to reduce traffic to piracy websites in their jurisdictions. She also stated that these regimes have been shown to increase traffic to legal content websites by between 5 percent and 12 percent in their jurisdictions.
• Rep. Ross then mentioned how her Congressional District includes the Research Triangle area of North Carolina, which contains multiple research universities. She stated that digital copyright piracy impacts scientific journals and threatens the security of U.S. research. She discussed how Sci-Hub (which is an active private website based in Russia) has amassed over 80 million scientific journal articles and noted how Sci-Hub often illegally targets university websites in the U.S. She asked Mr. Schruers to indicate whether he is familiar with Sci-Hub. She also asked Mr. Schruers to indicate whether CCIA’s members, including AI developers, have systems in place to ensure that they do not obtain content from Sci-Hub or other piracy websites to train AI systems.
  • Mr. Schruers testified that he is familiar with Sci-Hub. He stated however that he does not know the answer to Rep. Ross’s second question and expressed his willingness to follow up on this question for the hearing’s record.
• Rep. Ross then asked the witnesses to indicate whether there exist any international policies that have been especially effective at protecting consumers from cyber fraud that can result in engagement with piracy websites.
  • Mr. McKnight remarked that site blocking has proven effective in certain countries (at least against professional digital copyright pirates). He commented however that he is not an expert on site blocking policies. He stated that the UFC is more focused on obtaining expeditious removals of online copyright infringements and the enforcement of copyrights within the U.S.
  • Ms. Temple remarked that site blocking has proven to be an effective tool for protecting consumers. She noted how consumers that use piracy websites are four times more likely to become the victims of credit card fraud, four times more likely to become the victims of malware, and 30 times more likely to experience computer viruses. She mentioned how the MPA had recently worked with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center) to issue a public service announcement (PSA) highlighting the harms that piracy websites can cause to consumers. She commented that site blocking would help to reduce these harms to consumers.

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA):

• Rep. Kiley stated that digital copyright piracy poses unique harms to live sporting events because these events derive much of their value from the fact that they are consumed live. He commented that even minor delays in piracy enforcement for live sporting events can be insufficient. He asked Mr. McKnight to explain how the UFC identifies the illegal livestreams of its events during the events and alerts ISPs of these illegal livestreams.
  • Mr. McKnight discussed how there exist several ways to identify illegal livestreams. He noted how some ISPs have technology that can automatically detect and take down certain illegal livestreams based on the quality of the livestreams. He indicated however that the UFC often must identify illegal livestreams and submit takedown requests. He commented that ISPs often do not promptly respond to these takedown requests. He stated that ISPs have demonstrated “uneven performance” in their responses to these takedown requests. He noted that while some ISPs and social media platforms will respond to these takedown requests within minutes, he commented that these takedown request responses may still be insufficient. He asserted that ISPs and social media platforms can provide better response times to takedown requests. He also stated that ISPs and social media platforms have demonstrated an ability to temporarily improve their response times to takedown requests and then have their response times worsen.
• Rep. Kiley asked Mr. McKnight to elaborate on how ISPs can automatically detect certain illegal livestreams just based on their quality.
  • Mr. McKnight noted how ISPs have technology that can identify low quality livestreams and automatically takedown the livestreams.
• Rep. Kiley asked Mr. McKnight to confirm that ISPs can remove certain illegal livestreams automatically through the use of technologies and do not require takedown requests to remove the illegal livestreams in these instances.
  • Mr. McKnight confirmed that technologies can enable ISPs to automatically illegal livestreams without the need for a takedown request in certain instances.
• Rep. Kiley asked Mr. McKnight to indicate whether the UFC could adopt these automatic illegal livestream detection technologies so that it can more promptly respond to illegal livestreams of its events.
  • Mr. McKnight noted how one video provider has offered to provide the UFC with access to its automatic illegal livestream detection technology. He indicated however that other video providers have not offered the UFC with access to their illegal livestream automatic detection technologies. He remarked that there already exist technology solutions for combating illegal livestreams and asserted that many video providers are not taking all possible actions to address the problem. He stated that video providers have a natural incentive to maximize their number of users, which can lead these providers to not fully police illegal livestreams. He also remarked that current federal law may deem that takedown requests that are executed within hours or days to be expeditious. He contended however that hours or days can be too long to wait to remove copyright infringing content of live sporting events. He commented that the commercial value of a live sporting event is effectively eliminated after its completion.
• Rep. Kiley stated that there may exist scrambling technologies that would achieve the same outcomes as takedown technologies. He asked Mr. Schruers to comment on this subject. He expressed interest in understanding the available technology options and commented that this understanding could inform better policy solutions.
  • Mr. Schruers stated that filtering technologies for assessing whether a livestream infringes upon a copyright are imperfect. He noted how there does not exist any metadata that can determine whether a livestream infringes upon a copyright. He stated that while humans may be able to use contextual clues to determine whether a livestream infringes upon a copyright, he asserted that humans can still make incorrect determinations.
• Rep. Kiley interjected to comment that any retransmission of an authorized transmission could be considered unauthorized by definition. He asked Mr. Schruers to explain how the unauthorized retransmission in this scenario could not be easily identified.
  • Mr. Schruers remarked that the key data in Rep. Kiley’s scenario is what is the authorized transmission. He stated that many leading digital services allow and invite live sporting events to pre-identify what content is lawful. He also noted how these services may furnish hashes that allow for real-time content filtering. He emphasized that this pre-identification requires data and inter-industry collaboration to ensure that the digital services have the tools to prevent the infringing content from being ingested into their systems. He also stated that these tools cannot necessarily prevent the posting of hyperlinks that provide access to the infringing content on another website.
• Rep. Kiley provided Mr. McKnight with an opportunity to provide further comments.
  • Mr. McKnight noted how the UFC only has one legitimate authorized partner to distribute its live sporting events, which is ESPN+. He stated that any showing of the UFC’s live events outside of ESPN+ would be unauthorized.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA):

• Rep. Lofgren recounted how the Committee had held a “tumultuous” markup 12 years ago and noted how technical experts, the Internet Society, and ICANN had strongly advised against DNS-level filtering or blocking. She indicated that these stakeholders had urged that content-level decisions be made at the network edge rather than at the internet’s infrastructure core. She expressed interest in identifying the best remedies for digital copyright piracy. She mentioned how Congress has passed several laws to address digital copyright piracy and expressed interest in how these laws are being implemented and enforced. She expressed interest in whether the U.S. Copyright Claims Board (CCB) is making use of its enforcement powers under the CASE Act of 2020, whether the DoJ is engaging in federal prosecution under the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020, and whether the IPR Center is supporting the implementation of the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020. She then remarked that piracy websites would not exist if they were not lucrative. She noted that while there exist problems and technical issues associated with attempting to block IP addresses, she stated that there are no technical challenges associated with preventing piracy websites from receiving payments. She asserted that these piracy websites will cease to exist if credit card companies are barred from processing payments for these websites. She acknowledged that there exists an international component to this problem and mentioned how she had supported the Online Protection & Enforcement of Digital Trade (OPEN) Act. She explained that this legislation would have made copyright trademark infringement an unfair trade practice and would have brought in the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) to police this issue abroad. She reiterated her assertion that eliminating the ability of piracy websites to receive money would prevent digital copyright piracy. She then noted how YouTube has the digital files for various pieces of content so that it can take action when a copyright infringement occurs. She commented however that one can make minor changes to a digital file to evade YouTube’s detection of copyright infringing content. She asked Mr. Schruers to indicate whether it is possible to provide access to digital files on a broader basis to support copyright infringement detection and removal efforts. She also asked Mr. Schruers to comment on the feasibility of this approach given how alterations could be made to digital files to evade detection. She further asked the witnesses to address the feasibility of eliminating the ability of piracy websites to receive money.
  • Mr. Schruers discussed how leading digital services and content providers have developed strategies to share content hashes (which he described as “digital fingerprints” for a piece of content). He noted how digital services will filter for content hashes to intercept copyright infringements at the point of ingestion. He acknowledged however that content filtering technology is expensive and must be implemented at each service differently. He also stated that this approach requires significant intersectoral cooperation.
• Rep. Lofgren requested that the witnesses comment on the concept of denying piracy websites the ability to receive money.
  • Mr. Gladstein remarked that the effectiveness of denying piracy websites the ability to receive money may be limited because many of these websites do not charge customers to view copyright infringing content. He explained that many piracy websites make money through advertising and selling malware from those that use their websites.
• Rep. Lofgren interjected to comment that the U.S. would also need to pursue the advertisers on piracy websites.
  • Mr. Gladstein emphasized that consumers are often not using their credit cards on piracy websites. He also noted how the copyright infringing content on these websites can be indistinguishable from legitimate content. He further mentioned how many of these piracy websites use Bitcoin as a means of payment. He concluded that eliminating credit card processing for these websites would not fully solve the problem of digital copyright piracy.
• Rep. Lofgren expressed interest in having the Subcommittee look at the federal government’s enforcement of its existing digital copyright piracy laws.

Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA):

• Chairman Issa expressed his commitment to invite all stakeholders to provide input on digital copyright piracy policy before the Subcommittee advances any legislation on the topic. He mentioned that he had successfully worked to defeat the enactment of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) 12 years ago. He stated however that content producers do not have a solution to digital copyright piracy and expressed interest in working to protect these content producers. He expressed his commitment that any such legislation on this topic would be pursued through an open and transparent process.

Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA):

• Rep. Cline first expressed agreement with Rep. Zoe Lofgren’s (D-CA) concerns that the DoJ is not sufficiently enforcing U.S. copyright laws. He noted how the DoJ had only pursued 12 criminal copyright cases between 2020 and 2022. He called for the Subcommittee to hold a special hearing focused on the DoJ’s lack of copyright-related prosecutions. He then stated that changes in technology over the previous 12 years that likely made site blocking more feasible, more effective, and more targeted. He asked Ms. Temple to comment on technological developments within this area.
  • Ms. Temple remarked that the main things that the MPA has learned through its work with ISPs on site blocking over the previous ten years are the importance of collaboration and technological flexibility. She noted how there exist site blocking approaches beyond DNS-level site blocking. She discussed how foreign ISPs have flexibility in their ability to use the most effective, most efficient, and least burdensome site blocking technology. She commented that this could involve DNS blocking, IP address blocking, or URL blocking.
• Rep. Cline provided Mr. Schruers with an opportunity to respond to Ms. Temple’s comments and to discuss potential site blocking technologies.
  • Mr. Schruers remarked that there exists a desire to combat digital copyright piracy throughout the digital sector. He noted how many piracy websites are dangerous and how many digital stakeholders are content producers themselves.
• Rep. Cline interjected to ask Mr. Schruers to specifically address potential site blocking technologies.
  • Mr. Schruers remarked that there are concerns associated with implementing site blocking technologies at the broadband service provider level. He emphasized that these broadband service providers are not members of the CCIA. He noted how the CCIA represents digital service providers that operate at the network edge and indicated that these providers are subject to the DMCA’s notice and takedown provisions. He added that many of these digital service providers allow for live events to pre-identify certain URLs to ensure that these URLs do not resolve.
• Rep. Cline asked Mr. Schruers to indicate the number of takedown notices that CCIA’s content platform operator members receive in a given year.
  • Mr. Schruers indicated that while he did not know the exact number of takedown notices that CCIA’s content operator members receive in a given year, he estimated that this number is in the “millions, if not the billions.”
• Rep. Cline asked Mr. Schruers to indicate the cost for CCIA’s content platform operator members to process takedown notices.
  • Mr. Schruers commented that while he did not know whether companies itemize their takedown notice processing expenses, he stated that companies spend “extraordinary amounts” on both takedown notice processing and the development of technologies to combat digital copyright piracy. He estimated that these expenses total tens of millions of dollars. He further noted how these technologies often enable copyright holders to monetize infringing uses of their works if they choose. He indicated that copyright holders are increasingly choosing to take a portion of the advertising revenues generated from infringing uses of their works. He described this situation as a “win-win” for content platform operators and copyright holders.
• Rep. Cline acknowledged that his question period time had expired. He noted that while the hearing is focused on audio-visual copyright infringement, he also highlighted how copyright infringement impacts the music, book, and publishing industries.

Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA):

• Chairman Issa noted that while he had not been a member of Congress during the DMCA’s enactment in 1998, he indicated that he had served as chairman of the Consumer Electronics Association at the time. He stated that he was thus involved in the policy debate surrounding the DMCA’s enactment.

Full Committee Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY):

• Ranking Member Nadler discussed how the creative arts support industries that contribute billions of dollars to the economy every year. He stated that these industries exist because of the audiences that purchase their final products. He remarked that IP laws (including copyright laws) exist to foster creativity and innovation. He stated however that the advent of the internet has made creative endeavors easier to steal (and thus less lucrative to produce). He asserted that copyright law is meaningless without the ability to enforce copyright ownership rights. He recounted how Congress had passed the DMCA to protect copyrighted works online. He commented however that digital copyright piracy poses a growing threat to the stability of industries and the livelihoods of artists, even with the existence of the DMCA. He discussed how digital copyright piracy now encompasses broad cybersecurity concerns, AI considerations, and distribution changes (such as streaming services). He stated that any action taken by Congress must be flexible enough to adapt to unforeseen technological changes. He thanked Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Ranking Member Hank Johnson (D-GA) for considering this topic. He then asked Ms. Temple to clarify the differences between IP address blocking, DNS blocking, and dynamic site blocking. He further asked Ms. Temple to address when and how each of these remedies are useful.
  • Ms. Temple noted how site blocking orders are flexible in most of the jurisdictions that the MPA operates within. She explained that ISPs are ordered to block access to a website upon receiving a site blocking order and have flexibility as to how they block the site. She noted how these ISPs may opt for DNS blocking, IP address blocking, or URL blocking. She indicated that ISPs opt for DNS blocking or IP address blocking in most cases. She explained that DNS blocking prevents an ISP from looking up an IP address for a website from a DNS resolver. She indicated that IP address blocking is similar to DNS blocking and simply prevents an ISP from accessing a specific IP address. She further indicated that URL blocking prevents a specific URL from being returned to a customer.
• Ranking Member Nadler then discussed how one of the primary challenges of enforcing anti-piracy laws is that the source of most pirated content is overseas. He asked Mr. McKnight to discuss the significance of this challenge and to indicate whether there exist policies that can improve the identification and enforcement of copyright piracy involving overseas actors.
  • Mr. McKnight indicated that many of the UFC’s copyright enforcement efforts take place domestically. He noted that while digital copyright piracy often originates overseas, he stated that many of the social media platforms that host pirated UFC livestreams are domestic companies (such as Facebook and Twitch). He commented that the UFC wants Congress to clarify the definition of “expeditious removal” under the DMCA to address this issue. He also thanked Congress for passing the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020 and stated that the law’s effectiveness will depend on its enforcement. He commented that career digital copyright pirates are unlikely to cease their illegal activities if they do not observe the shut down and arrest of other pirates.
• Ranking Member Nadler then discussed how websites hosting pirated content often endanger consumers through malware, cyberschemes, and insecure connections. He asked Mr. Schruers to address how the U.S. could keep consumers safe absent site blocking policies.
  • Mr. Schruers remarked that making content widely available through legal channels would constitute the most effective means for combating digital copyright piracy. He then stated that the U.S. should promote inter-industry collaboration to ensure that digital services possess the granular data and metadata about content. He commented that this collaboration would enable digital services to pre-identify content that may be infringed upon so that the services could proactively police potential infringements. He also stated that this collaboration could enable digital services to provide copyright holders with an opportunity to share in the revenues generated from the views of the infringing content. He further noted how existing copyright law provides various remedies for copyright infringement, including statutory damages, actual damages, and extra-judicial relief under Sec. 512 of the DMCA. He commented that existing copyright laws likely contain more protections than other IP laws. He concluded that there already exist many remedies for copyright infringement and stated that CCIA is narrowly concerned over DNS-level site blocking proposals.

Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA):

• Chairman Issa asked Mr. Schruers to indicate whether there exist any reasons that a takedown request should not be acted upon within minutes (or even faster) based on technology.
  • Mr. Schruers remarked that a digital service’s ability to respond to takedown requests will depend on the nature of the work and the scope of the takedown. He mentioned how copyright holders will often flag millions of URL addresses to digital services for takedown and indicated that some of these flagged URL addresses may not contain copyright infringing content. He stated that there are consequences associated with improper takedowns. He noted how many digital services offer instantaneous takedowns.
• Chairman Issa interjected to mention how there exist AI technologies that enable content creators to automatically detect and submit copyright infringements of their works to digital services. He commented that there should exist an ability to flag and takedown infringing content online without the need for human interaction. He stated that there may exist administrative reasons for why a digital service may refuse to takedown content flagged as being infringing. He asked Mr. Schruers to indicate whether there exists any reasons that Congress should not update a requirement that flagged infringing content be removed instantaneously (or nearly instantaneously) using existing technologies or that the copyright holder receive a response explaining why the content’s removal may be delayed.
  • Mr. Schruers remarked that expeditious responses to takedown requests for infringing content are appropriate, particularly when permitting the infringing content to remain available would have economic consequences. He highlighted how Sec. 512 of the DMCA already requires expeditious responses to takedown requests for infringing content and noted how there has occurred litigation surrounding what constitutes an expeditious response.
• Chairman Issa stated that Congressional clarification of what constitutes an expeditious response to a takedown request would help to eliminate this litigation. He then discussed how internet providers will use their protections under Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 to takedown infringing content without receiving complaints. He asked Ms. Temple to indicate whether there exists any reason that Congress should not encourage these providers to pursue these takedowns more often or “substantially all of the time.”
  • Ms. Temple expressed support for having internet providers pursue more automated takedowns of infringing content on UGC websites. She stated that however addressing infringing content on dedicated piracy websites is more difficult because these websites will ignore takedown requests.
• Chairman Issa then asked Ms. Temple to indicate whether U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has the authority to stop the importation of a tangible product that violates IP rights (including rights related to patent, trademark, and copyright).
  • Ms. Temple answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Issa asked Ms. Temple to indicate whether all federal agencies have the ability to use their powers to stop the importation of products when the USITC issues an exclusion order or a court issues an injunction for said projects.
  • Ms. Temple answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Issa asked Ms. Temple to indicate whether the Subcommittee is merely seeking to find an equivalent remedy for blocking the importation of copyright infringing digital content.
  • Ms. Temple answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Issa expressed interest in having the Subcommittee receive input from ISP stakeholders regarding the technical feasibility of proposed solutions to digital copyright piracy. He stated that the Subcommittee must work to prevent and intercept copyright infringing materials from entering the U.S. digitally. He lastly discussed how there have occurred non-public “good faith” negotiations to address digital copyright piracy. He indicated however that these negotiations have broken down because of hold harmless policy disagreements. He noted that the Committee has jurisdiction over hold harmless protections. He concluded by expressing the Subcommittee’s commitment to developing a policy solution to address digital copyright piracy.