To be honest, your question gives me almost a sense of déjà vu. I appeared before lots of committees when we were debating copyright for the better part of a decade. That question was essentially the same one that was being posed by the music industry or by the movie industry, something like, “Can't you do something about copyright to save us?”
It turned out that we did reform copyright, but in the successes that we've started to see in some of those sectors, whether on the video side or the streaming services—recognizing that there are still concerns about allocation—the fact that business models began to emerge ultimately had practically nothing to do with copyright.
There's been the suggestion that somehow copyright fixes a revenue problem in which the systemic problems are far deeper and have very little to do with control over your product. Some believe that is what copyright tries to do, although I think it's much more about balance. It isn't copyright that fixes these issues. There is the notion that if only we provided stronger protection for people who are writing, there would be new jobs. The systemic problems that I've tried to articulate and that this committee has heard for the last number of months that underlie what's taking place—more choice, more possibilities, and this disaggregation of revenue going out to so many places—that's not fixed by copyright. I think it is fixed, or at least addressed in part, through some of this experimentation when we begin to see some of the kind of journalism that you're talking about, though we don't necessarily associate it solely with a newspaper.