 And Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Jordan, the rest of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on this important topic. More than 229 million American adults use the Internet each day. It is not just a delivery mechanism for copyrighted content. It is the lifeline by which they work, worship, connect with their families and communities, seek and receive health care, stay informed, organize debate and exercise political speech every single day. And yet, despite the scale and importance of this constituency, they are conspicuously absent. Absent from the Copyright Office's Section 512 report, absent from the oversight mechanisms governing their speech, and absent from the debate on Capitol Hill. This is the constituency on whose path I speak today, the forgotten 229 million users in this debate. My written testimony gets into some detail, but I wanted to use my time to touch on three major issues. Section 512's outdated stance on broadband access, the powerful nature and attendant abuse of takedown notices, and the difficult realities of automated enforcement. First Section 512 governs the way in which I am speaking to you right now through a broadband connection. The Supreme Court has held the cutting of individuals off even after being convicted for child sex offenses raises grave constitutional concerns. However we cannot, as a society, accept a law which allows unvetted accusations from private parties of a civil offense to disconnect an entire household from modern society. Yet lower courts have interpreted Section 512 to mean exactly that, that ISPs must shut off household's internet access upon receiving unproven allegations of copyright infringement. A bright spot by partisanship currently is the push to expand broadband access represented by you fewer than 30 bills currently before Congress in both chambers and across the political spectrum. Yet major content companies insist that this tower they wield is not only appropriate, but insufficient for their purposes. Historical context is important. When the DMCA was passed in 1998, ISPs were software providers that operated over the telephone network. As a user, if your AOL account was terminated, you instead subscribe to any of the dozens of AOL competitors. In 2020, ISPs such as Comcast or Verizon controlled both the software and physical connection into your home. For the more than 100 million Americans living in homes serviced by only one broadband provider, an account termination means losing access to the internet in its entirety. Shifting ISP business models as well as the rising importance of broadband to modern life have rendered this punishment wildly disproportionate to the alleged offense. Secondly, most acknowledge the systemic problem of bad DMCA notices and their impact on everyday speech. A DMCA takedown has a power which is unparalleled in the online ecosystem. It can erase speech from the internet for up to two weeks. Takedowns are rarely contested, and there's no meaningful oversight of these notices or disincentive against abuse, but the result is a long and thoroughly documented history of weaponization, with experts estimating that nearly one-third of notices are problematic. Although bad notices stem from everything from algorithmic defects to deliberate abuse, their aggregate impact is undeniable. Senders can use takedowns to censor legitimate content. Incomplete or error-filled notices can make it impossible for platforms to identify the works involved, and search and notice robots can and have disrupted live streams and news broadcasts. Those stakeholders, however, still insist that they need faster takedowns with fewer user safeguards and greater potential liability for any platform that attempts to filter out defective or malicious notices. Finally, we must understand the limits of private, technologically-based enforcement solutions. These often sound good in theory, but the reality is far messier. Because they operate automatically, these algorithms are prone to removing speech that is otherwise political, educational, or newsworthy. And policymakers must grapple with what users and artists alike have understood for ages, that the balance of equities in practice is not determined by the law, but by the financial incentives, design choices, and technological limitations of those who design the algorithms. We are at a historic inflection point, politically, economically, and socially. On the streets, at the polls, and in their homes, Americans are online. We are registering to vote, testifying before Congress, organizing political action, and attending weddings and funerals all online. We are debating and documenting our lives, our surroundings, and our realities across ideological and geographic divides. The Internet is how we bear witness. It is how the work of community activists and organizers is amplified, and how we see ourselves and how we are seen by the eyes of the world. If we are to strike any sort of new balance, it must keep the needs of 229 million voices and their ability to speak freely at the front of mind. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.