 Chairman Tillis, Ranking Member Coons, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today, albeit from an appropriate social distance, on this important topic. First, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge protesters currently out in the streets and to say but the smallest fraction of names that must be said, George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Almot Aubrey, Tony McDade, countless others, all of them victims of police violence. This debate that we are having right now cannot happen in a vacuum divorced from what is going on in America's streets. This is not about content versus tech. I am here to speak about how Section 512 impacts the more than 229 million American adults who use the internet as more than just a delivery mechanism for copyrighted content. They use it to pay bills, to learn, to work, to socialize, to receive healthcare. And yet they are missing from the Copyright Office's Section 512 report. They are missing from the systems and procedures that govern their rights, and too often they are missing from the debate on Capitol Hill. I am thankful to be here representing them today. Reforming the system requires that we acknowledge the ways in which it breaks down. In particular, I will address three problems for users' speech. Bad DMCA notices, shortcomings in algorithmic enforcement, and the inappropriateness of giving private third parties the power to, without any whiff of due process, remove a family's access to broadband. First, we must acknowledge that bad DMCA takedown notices are real, that they have a variety of causes, and that they happen at an enormous scale. A DMCA takedown erases speech from the internet for up to two weeks without any meaningful oversight even when contested. The extraordinary power of this provision means that it comes with a long and thoroughly documented history of weaponization. One exhaustive study looked at 108 million notices and concluded that nearly one-third of them were problematic, and that 4.5 million of them were fundamentally flawed. While the cause of these bad notices ranged from algorithmic defects to outright abuse, the scope of their impact remains staggering. 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 bots can and have disrupted live streams and news broadcasts. Some stakeholders, however, still insist on faster takedowns with fewer safeguards and more potential liability for any platform that attempts to filter out defective or malicious notices. Asking for greater power and fewer safeguards is akin to discarding a tank and asking for a nuke. Second, we must understand the private enforcement mechanisms, such as algorithmic content identification, that have grown up a top section 512. These private solutions sound good in theory, but the reality of their implementation is messy and full of difficult design choices. Because they operate automatically, these algorithms can instantaneously remove speech that may otherwise be political, educational, or newsworthy. Policymakers must grapple with what users and artists alike have understood for ages that the balance of equities in practice is determined less by the contours of law than by the aggregate result of technological limitations, financial incentives, and design choices with no clear right or wrong answers. Finally, I want to address the elephant in the room, and that is broadband access. We should not permit, let alone strengthen, provisions of law which allow third-party private actors to terminate a person's internet access unilaterally and without even a whiff of due process. There are several bills currently before Congress to expand broadband access, yet some stakeholders insist that they need more power, not less, to force an ISP to disconnect its customers based on pure accusations of copyright infringement. When the DMCA was passed in 1998, ISPs were software providers that operated over the telephone network. Being dropped by your ISP meant uninstalling America online and installing any of the hundreds of competitive options that were available. In 2020, ISPs controlled both the software layer and the physical connection into your home. And for more than 100 million Americans living in home service by only one broadband provider, being disconnected means losing access to the internet in its entirety. The punishment is now wildly disproportionate to the accused, not even adjudicated, offence. We are at a moment of political, economic, and social upheaval. Americans are in the streets, in their homes, and all of the time they are online. They are debating and documenting across ideological and geographic divides. The internet is how we bear witness. It is how we see with the hope of understanding those whose experiences, whose struggles are not our own. It is how many Americans were first exposed to the tangible reality of police brutality and systematic oppression. It is how the work of community activists and organizers is amplified and how injustice is brought before 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 at front of mind. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.