Chairman Goodlatte’s Remarks to the Chamber of Commerce’s IP Summit
November 18, 2014
Washington, D.C. -- Today House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) spoke at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Intellectual Property Center’s 2014 IP Summit. Below are his remarks as delivered:
Chairman Goodlatte: Article I Section 8 of our Constitution lays the framework for our nation’s copyright and patent laws. It grants Congress the power to award inventors and creators, for limited amounts of time, exclusive rights to their inventions and works. Our Founding Fathers realized that this type of incentive was crucial to ensure that America would become the world’s leader in innovation and creativity. This truth is still applicable today.
As we continue our journey into the digital age, we must be sure to continue to reward our innovators with the exclusive rights to their works for limited periods of time. This incentive is still necessary to maintain America’s position as the world leader in innovation.
Because the United States has been the pioneer for intellectual property protections, it is no surprise that our IP industries are so successful, and are so crucial to our national economy. These industries have created millions of high-skilled, high-paying U.S. jobs and have contributed billions to our economy, However, the proliferation of IP theft in America is growing and is threatening to undermine the very protections our founding fathers envisioned.
As you may have heard, there has been more than a small amount of activity in the intellectual property policy area over the past several years. Patent legislation has led the way. The provisions of the America Invents Act have made it easier to challenge frivolous patents at the U.S. PTO. The Innovation Act that I authored addressed the growing problem of frivolous patent troll litigation.
Despite passing the House last December by a bipartisan vote of 325-91, the Innovation Act ran into the Washington DC version of quicksand known as the Senate. Fortunately, voters earlier this month made it clear that they are more interested in results than the latest filibuster. I look forward to working with incoming Chairman Grassley and Majority Leader McConnell to see patent legislation signed into law in the near future.
Moving beyond patent law, the Committee recently reported out legislation to create a uniform cause of action to address trade secrets theft. This comes at a time when so many of our nation’s trade secrets can so easily cross our borders at the cost of a one-way plane ticket.
I have been involved in protecting intellectual property since I joined Congress in 1993. As the co-Chair of the Congressional Internet Caucus, I have seen firsthand the merging of intellectual property policy issues with technology policy issues.
As a junior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I was tasked by then House Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde to resolve a key issue involving the intersection of copyright and the Internet – what is the responsibility of online intermediaries as it applies to infringing content?
The resolution of that policy issue was an important, but not an immediate, process. I spent hours in a Judiciary Committee hearing room negotiating with a variety of parties to develop the legislation that became the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
When the DMCA was enacted, approximately 3% of the world’s population used the Internet. Today, over 40% do. Companies that were then just beginning to explore digital business models are quickly focusing their entire businesses on the digital economy. However, the growth of digital business models has created new challenges to copyright. At a practical level, piracy that used to be one copy at a time theft is now one click to millions theft.
All of us should recognize that although federal courts have repeatedly urged Congress to resolve unclear or even missing statutory language, courts are essentially being forced to create new law when having to make rulings. In the spring of 2013 in response to concerns that copyright law was overdue for a comprehensive review, my Committee began holding a series of hearings to learn what is, and what is not, working in Title 17. The overall purpose of this review has been to ensure that copyright is still working in the 21st Century to reward creativity and protect the rights of authors, artists, and creators.
Since the beginning of our review, we have held over 15 hearings with several dozen witnesses. Hearing topics have ranged from broader themes such as the role of copyright and technology in American innovation to more specific topics such as fair use and the scope of copyright protection.
Members of my Committee have heard from a range of viewpoints. Some of the witnesses have testified about broader topics, while others have testified about very specific issues. For example, the Committee had not previously spent much, if any, time debating the proper scope of copyright protection for laws, standards, and building codes, but we did earlier this year at our hearing on the scope of copyright protections.
Copyright business models are now driven more by electronic access to copyrighted works than ownership of physical items. This electronic access typically spans multiple devices. Consumers fully expect to buy an app on their iPhone that they can then legally access on their iPad tied to the same account. The legal framework for this digital business model depends upon strong protections of licensing business models. Yet licensing was not a business model of the 1960’s when Title 17 was last revised.
The 13 chapters of today’s Title 17 have some obvious issues. I’m not sure how many of you ever owned a digital audio tape recorder, usually known as a DAT recorder, and I’m not even sure how many of us would even recognize one. Yet Chapter 10 of Title 17 is focused on DAT recorders. And references to outdated technology in Title 17 don’t stop with Chapter 10. Portions of Chapter 12 address technology such as VCRs, 8 millimeter players, and the ever popular Betamax player.
The copyright review has not yet concluded so it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions about the Committee’s next steps. However as our formal hearings draw to a close, the Committee will be seeking your input on what should, and what should not, be improved within our nation’s copyright laws.
The House Judiciary Committee has had a very productive session and advanced many priorities with the goal of protecting and promoting intellectual property rights -- a major driving force and job-creating engine of our economy.
As the 113th Congress draws to a close and we start looking to the 114th Congress, I can assure you that the strong work we have started will continue. The Committee will be focused on protecting American innovation and creativity in an effort to create jobs and restore economic prosperity to America. I look forward to working with all of you to achieve these goals.
Thank you for your time today and thank you for your numerous contributions to America’s intellectual property.
Chairman Goodlatte: Article I Section 8 of our Constitution lays the framework for our nation’s copyright and patent laws. It grants Congress the power to award inventors and creators, for limited amounts of time, exclusive rights to their inventions and works. Our Founding Fathers realized that this type of incentive was crucial to ensure that America would become the world’s leader in innovation and creativity. This truth is still applicable today.
As we continue our journey into the digital age, we must be sure to continue to reward our innovators with the exclusive rights to their works for limited periods of time. This incentive is still necessary to maintain America’s position as the world leader in innovation.
Because the United States has been the pioneer for intellectual property protections, it is no surprise that our IP industries are so successful, and are so crucial to our national economy. These industries have created millions of high-skilled, high-paying U.S. jobs and have contributed billions to our economy, However, the proliferation of IP theft in America is growing and is threatening to undermine the very protections our founding fathers envisioned.
As you may have heard, there has been more than a small amount of activity in the intellectual property policy area over the past several years. Patent legislation has led the way. The provisions of the America Invents Act have made it easier to challenge frivolous patents at the U.S. PTO. The Innovation Act that I authored addressed the growing problem of frivolous patent troll litigation.
Despite passing the House last December by a bipartisan vote of 325-91, the Innovation Act ran into the Washington DC version of quicksand known as the Senate. Fortunately, voters earlier this month made it clear that they are more interested in results than the latest filibuster. I look forward to working with incoming Chairman Grassley and Majority Leader McConnell to see patent legislation signed into law in the near future.
Moving beyond patent law, the Committee recently reported out legislation to create a uniform cause of action to address trade secrets theft. This comes at a time when so many of our nation’s trade secrets can so easily cross our borders at the cost of a one-way plane ticket.
I have been involved in protecting intellectual property since I joined Congress in 1993. As the co-Chair of the Congressional Internet Caucus, I have seen firsthand the merging of intellectual property policy issues with technology policy issues.
As a junior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, I was tasked by then House Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde to resolve a key issue involving the intersection of copyright and the Internet – what is the responsibility of online intermediaries as it applies to infringing content?
The resolution of that policy issue was an important, but not an immediate, process. I spent hours in a Judiciary Committee hearing room negotiating with a variety of parties to develop the legislation that became the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
When the DMCA was enacted, approximately 3% of the world’s population used the Internet. Today, over 40% do. Companies that were then just beginning to explore digital business models are quickly focusing their entire businesses on the digital economy. However, the growth of digital business models has created new challenges to copyright. At a practical level, piracy that used to be one copy at a time theft is now one click to millions theft.
All of us should recognize that although federal courts have repeatedly urged Congress to resolve unclear or even missing statutory language, courts are essentially being forced to create new law when having to make rulings. In the spring of 2013 in response to concerns that copyright law was overdue for a comprehensive review, my Committee began holding a series of hearings to learn what is, and what is not, working in Title 17. The overall purpose of this review has been to ensure that copyright is still working in the 21st Century to reward creativity and protect the rights of authors, artists, and creators.
Since the beginning of our review, we have held over 15 hearings with several dozen witnesses. Hearing topics have ranged from broader themes such as the role of copyright and technology in American innovation to more specific topics such as fair use and the scope of copyright protection.
Members of my Committee have heard from a range of viewpoints. Some of the witnesses have testified about broader topics, while others have testified about very specific issues. For example, the Committee had not previously spent much, if any, time debating the proper scope of copyright protection for laws, standards, and building codes, but we did earlier this year at our hearing on the scope of copyright protections.
Copyright business models are now driven more by electronic access to copyrighted works than ownership of physical items. This electronic access typically spans multiple devices. Consumers fully expect to buy an app on their iPhone that they can then legally access on their iPad tied to the same account. The legal framework for this digital business model depends upon strong protections of licensing business models. Yet licensing was not a business model of the 1960’s when Title 17 was last revised.
The 13 chapters of today’s Title 17 have some obvious issues. I’m not sure how many of you ever owned a digital audio tape recorder, usually known as a DAT recorder, and I’m not even sure how many of us would even recognize one. Yet Chapter 10 of Title 17 is focused on DAT recorders. And references to outdated technology in Title 17 don’t stop with Chapter 10. Portions of Chapter 12 address technology such as VCRs, 8 millimeter players, and the ever popular Betamax player.
The copyright review has not yet concluded so it is too early to draw any definitive conclusions about the Committee’s next steps. However as our formal hearings draw to a close, the Committee will be seeking your input on what should, and what should not, be improved within our nation’s copyright laws.
The House Judiciary Committee has had a very productive session and advanced many priorities with the goal of protecting and promoting intellectual property rights -- a major driving force and job-creating engine of our economy.
As the 113th Congress draws to a close and we start looking to the 114th Congress, I can assure you that the strong work we have started will continue. The Committee will be focused on protecting American innovation and creativity in an effort to create jobs and restore economic prosperity to America. I look forward to working with all of you to achieve these goals.
Thank you for your time today and thank you for your numerous contributions to America’s intellectual property.