|
|||||||
| Cryptome DVDs are offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome 12-and-a-half-years collection of 47,000 files from June 1996 to January 2009 (~6.9 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. The collection includes all files of cryptome.org, cryptome.info, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org, and 23,100 (updated) pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985.The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost. | |||||||
22 March 2002
Source: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aaces002.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Congressional Record: March 21, 2002 (Senate)]
[Page S2262-S2288]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr21mr02-197]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
[Excerpt]
By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Inouye, Mr.
Breaux, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 2048. A bill to regulate interstate commerce in certain devices by
providing for private sector development of technological protection
measures to be implemented and enforced by Federal regulations to
protect digital content and promote broadband as well as the transition
to digital television, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise along with Senators Stevens,
Inouye, Breaux, Nelson, and Feinstein to introduce the Consumer
Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act of 2002, legislation
that will promote broadband and the digital television transition by
securing content on the Internet and over the Nation's airwaves.
For several years the private sector has attempted to secure a safe
haven for copyrighted digital products, unfortunately with little to
show for its efforts. The result has been an absence of robust,
ubiquitous protections of digital media which has lead to a lack of
content on the Internet and over the airwaves. And who has suffered the
most? Consumers, as they are denied access to high quality digital
content in the home.
The reality is that a lack of security has enabled significant
copyright privacy which drains America's content industries to the tune
of billions of dollars every year. For example, the movie studios
estimate that they lose over $3 billion annually by way of analog
piracy. In order to pirate copyrighted movies via analog formats, an
individual makes an illegal copy of the movie, sometimes by taping it
in a movie theater with a personal video recorder, and then distributes
it, in analog form, at discount. However, because subsequent copies of
analog movies degrade over time, there is a limit to the success of
this type of piracy.
In a digital age, however, the privacy threat is exponentially
magnified. So on the Internet, copyright content, be it a movie, a
book, music, or software, travels in a digital language of 1s and 0s,
and every copy of that content, from the 1st to the 1000th is as
pristine as the original. Also, unlike an analog pirated movie, which
must be physically packaged and transported, a digital copy can be sent
around the world on the Internet with a single click of a mouse. The
copyright industries are justifiably worried about distributing their
content on the Internet absent strong copyright protection measures. As
Internet access becomes increasingly available over high-speed,
broadband connections, these worries will only heighten.
It should be noted, however, that the Internet is not the only threat
to unprotected digital content. Digital video programming is also
subject to a large privacy threat. Rapid advances in consumer
electronics make it easier to steal copyright content. Newly developed
digital compression and memory technologies make it possible to store
two complete movies on a device the size of a postage stamp. Today,
digital media can be transmitted over wired or wireless channels and
played and stored on a host of consumer electronics devices. By and
large, these are positive developments for consumers.
But any device that can legitimately play, copy, or electronically
transmit one or more categories of media also can be misused for
illegal copyright infringement, unless special protection technologies
are incorporated into such a device. Unfortunately, as technology has
advanced, copy protection schemes have not kept pace, fostering a set
of consumer expectations that at times actually promote illegal
activity on the Internet. For example, according to a Jupiter
Media Matrix report, over 7 million Americans use technology on the
Internet to swap music and other digital media files. More recent news
reports place this number at over 11 million. While some of this
activity is legal, much of it is not.
Every week a major magazine or newspaper reports on the thousands of
illegal pirated works that are available for copying and redistribution
online. Academy award winning motion pictures, platinum records, and
Emmy award winning television shows--all for free, all illegal. Piracy
is growing exponentially on college campuses and among tech savvy
consumers. Such lawlessness contributes to the studios and record
labels' reluctance to place their digital content on the Internet or
over the airwaves.
At the same time, millions of law abiding consumers find little
reason to spend discretionary dollars on consumer electronics products
whose value depends on their ability to receive, display and copy high
quality digital content like popular movies, music, and video games.
Accordingly, only early adopters have purchased high definition
television sets or broadband Internet access, as these products remain
priced too high for the average consumer. The facts are clear in this
regard. Only two million Americans have purchased HDTV sets. As for
broadband, rural and underserved areas aside, there is not an
availability problem. There is a demand problem. Roughly 85 percent of
Americans are offered broadband in the marketplace but only 10-12
percent have signed up. The fact is that most Americans are averse to
paying $50 a month for faster access to email, or $2,000 for a fancy
HDTV set that plays analog movies. But if more high-quality content
were available, consumers might come.
By unleashing an avalanche of digital content on broadband Internet
connections as well as over the digital broadcast airwaves, we can
change this dynamic and give consumers a reason to buy new consumer
electronics and information technology products. To do so requires the
development of a secure, protected environment to foster the widespread
dissemination of digital content in these exciting new mediums.
Although, it is technologically feasible to provide such a protected
environment, the solution has not been forthcoming through voluntary
private sector negotiations involving the industries with stakes in
this matter. This is not to say, however, that those industries do not
recognize the tremendous economic potential to be derived from a
proliferation of top notch digital content to consumers in the home.
The movie studios, and the rest of the copyright industries, for
example, are tremendously excited about the possibility of providing
their products to consumers over the Internet and the digital airwaves,
provided they can be assured that those products' copyrights are not
infringed in the process.
Although marketplace negotiations have not provided such an
assurance, a solution is at hand. Leaders in the consumer electronics,
information technology, and content industries are America's best and
brightest. They can solve this problem. The consumer electronics and
high tech industries claim they are ready to do just that. America's
top high-tech executives sent me a letter three weeks ago to that
effect. While, I want to believe them, industry negotiations have been
lagging. Both sides share some blame in this area. But the blame games
need to end. It's time for results, not recriminations.
I believe the private sector is capable, through marketplace
negotiations--of adopting standards that will ensure the secure
transmission of copyrighted content on the Internet and over the
airwaves. But given the pace of private talks so far, the private
sector needs a nudge. The government can provide that nudge, and in
doing so continue the government's longstanding role in promoting, and
sometimes requiring, the implementation of
[[Page S2270]]
technological standards in electronics equipment to benefit consumers.
We debated the merits of such an approach in the Commerce Committee on
February 28, 2002 when the leaders of the copyright, consumer
electronics, and information technology industries testified as to
their distinct views on this issue. At that hearing, every Senator and
every witness agreed that the problem of digital piracy requires
resolution.
Specifically, our hearing demonstrated that there are three discrete
problem areas that merit government intervention. First, is the piracy
threat presented toward unprotected digital broadcast television. Over
the air broadcast digital signals cannot be encrypted because the
millions of Americans who receive their signal via antennas cannot
decrypt the signal. As a result, digital broadcast signals are
delivered in unprotected format and are subject to illegal copying or
redistribution over the Internet upon transmission. The technology
exists today to solve this problem. It has been referred to as a
``broadcast flag'' which would instruct digital devices to prevent
illegal copying and Internet retransmission of digital broadcast
television. Consumer electronic devices would respond to the technology
and prevent copyright infringement. However, because not every device
would be required to respond to the technology, ubiquitous response
requires a mandate by government.
The second problem is commonly referred to as the ``Analog hole.'' As
protected digital programming, usually delivered over satellite or
cable, but also available on the Internet, is decrypted for viewing by
consumers, most frequently on television sets, the programming is
temporarily ``in the clear.'' At this point, pirates may have the
opportunity to take advantage of an ``Analog hole'' by copying the
content into a digital format, i.e. re-digitizing it, and then
illegally copying and/or retransmitting the content. The technology to
solve this problem either exists today, or will be available shortly.
Regardless, the solution is technologically feasible. As with the
``broadcast flag'' the solution to the ``Analog hole'' will require a
government mandate to ensure its ubiquitous adoption across consumer
devices.
The final problem poses the greatest threat. Literally millions of
digital files of music and videos are illegally copied, downloaded, and
transmitted over the Internet on a regular basis. Current digital
rights management solutions are insufficient to rectify this problem.
Some consumers resorting to illegal behavior do so unknowingly. Many
others do so willingly. Regardless, consumers desire high-quality
digital content on the Internet and it is not being provided in any
widespread, legal fashion. Fortunately, a solution to this problem is
also technologically feasible. It too will require government action,
including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
While industries are at odds as to how to solve these critical
content protection problems, the legislation we introduce today
provides us with the tools to break the logjam. Specifically, the
legislation requires the content, consumer electronics, and information
technology industries to come together with representatives of consumer
groups to develop standards, technologies, and encoding rules to
safeguard digital content so that it will be made more readily
available to consumers without being subject to piracy. The affected
parties would have one year to reach agreement. The technologies would
then be incorporated into all digital media devices to ensure universal
protection for digital content and universal access to such content for
consumers. The deadline on industry would work in the following
fashion: if they come together to solve these problems in private
sector talks, we will empower government enforcement so that all
consumer devices comply. If they don't, the government, in consultation
with the private sector, will have to step in.
America's creative artists deserve our protection. Our copyright
industries are among our greatest economic and creative assets. The
framers recognized that innovation and creativity was instrumental to
our country's economic health when they empowered Congress in the
Constitution to protect copyrighted products. Now, however, copyrighted
media products are delivered digitally, and copyright infringement is
more difficult to detect and prevent. That is why strong technological
protections need to be layered on top of the copyright laws, to
complement the law as it exists today. Along those lines, I want to
emphasize that this legislation does not alter existing copyright law.
Copyright law rests squarely within the jurisdiction of the Senate
Judiciary Committee. I hope to work closely with Chairman Leahy and
Ranking Member Hatch to stop copyright piracy in a digital age.
Some have said that legislation is unwieldy in this area. But our
legislation would not be the first time Congress imposed technological
requirements to benefit consumers. And it won't be the last. We have
been here before. In 1962, under the All Channel Receiver Act, Congress
mandated that all television receivers include the capability to tune
all channels, UHF and VHF, allocated to the television broadcast
service. More recently, in 1998, Congress required that all analog VCRs
recognize a standard copy control technology, know as ``Macrovision''.
In the former case, the Federal Government and the Federal
Communications Commission took the lead. In the latter case, industry
first agreed to the `Macrovision' standard which Congress later
codified by legislation. So, whether Congress or industry has led the
way, the results have benefitted consumers and industry, by providing
Americans with wider access to programming and content.
Pursuant to the bill we introduce today, the standards, technologies,
and encoding rule would work in the following manner. Digital content
delivered over the Internet and over the broadcast airwaves would
include instructions as to consumers' ability to copy available content
and would prevent the illegal retransmission of that content over the
Internet. Digital media devices such as televisions sets, cable boxes,
and personal computers, would be manufactured to recognize and respond
to those instructions to prevent illegal copying or redistribution.
I want to stress, however, in the strongest terms possible, that the
standards agreed to by industry would not be permitted to thwart
legitimate consumer copying of programming in the home, for time
shifting purposes, for example. Similarly, the technologies and
encoding rules would be required to take into account the need to
preserve fair use of otherwise protected content, for educational and
research purposes for example. Specifically, our bill requires that
encoding rules ``take into account limitations on exclusive rights of
copyright holders, including the fair use doctrine.'' In addition, the
legislation specifies that no copy protection technology may prevent
consumers from ``making a personal copy for lawful use in the home'' of
non pay-per-view television programming. I want to be clear on this
point, no legislation can or should pass Congress in this area that
does not seek to protect legitimate consumer copying and fair use
practices.
Critics of earlier drafts of our legislation painted it as heavy
handed and awkward government selection of technologies. I want to
respond. We have listened to their arguments delivered in dozens of
meetings with my staff, and the bill we introduce today does nothing of
the sort. Under the new legislation, if the required private sector
negotiations fail, the FCC will begin a process, in consultation with
those same private sector representatives, to implement technologically
feasible solutions. So, in practice, the private sector, even in the
event of a government initiated approach, will have every incentive and
opportunity to guide a solution largely on its own.
Critics of earlier discussion drafts of our legislation also claimed
that it would freeze innovation and that any solutions would invariably
be out of date shortly after they are selected due to the rapid and
accelerated development of technology in the high tech sector. But here
too we have listened and responded. Pursuant to our legislation, if the
private sector determines that the selected technological solution
needs to be updated or modified, they may do so. Its as simple as that.
Such a change might be warranted because the technologies or encoding
rules in use have been compromised by hackers or pirates. Or,
technological improvements may be developed that
[[Page S2271]]
ensure greater security for content, or more readily take into account
consumers or researchers' fair use expectations.
Regardless, in any of these instances, at any time, the legislation
would allow the representatives of the content, consumer electronics,
and information technology industries to implement any necessary
modification of the agreed upon technologies. They could simply do so
on their own, and then notify the FCC of their actions.
At every stage in the process, the private sector, not the
government, has the opportunity and the incentive to grab the reins. To
date, however, this has not happened. The legislation we introduce
today seeks to change that.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, the
Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2048
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF SECTIONS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer
Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act''.
(b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of sections.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Adoption of security system standards and encoding rules.
Sec. 4. Preservation of the integrity of security.
Sec. 5. Prohibition on shipment in interstate commerce of nonconforming
digital media devices.
Sec. 6. Prohibition on removal or alteration of security technology;
violation of encoding rules.
Sec. 7. Enforcement.
Sec. 8. Federal Advisory Committee Act exemption.
Sec. 9. Definitions.
Sec. 10. Effective date.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The lack of high quality digital content continues to
hinder consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and
digital television products.
(2) Owners of digital programming and content are
increasingly reluctant to transmit their products unless
digital media devices incorporate technologies that recognize
and respond to content security measures designed to prevent
theft.
(3) Because digital content can be copied quickly, easily,
and without degradation, digital programmers and content
owners face an exponentially increasing piracy threat in a
digital age.
(4) Current agreements reached in the marketplace to
include security technologies in certain digital media
devices fail to provide a secure digital environment because
those agreements do not prevent the continued use and
manufacture of digital media devices that fail to incorporate
such security technologies.
(5) Other existing digital rights management schemes
represent proprietary, partial solutions that limit, rather
than promote, consumers' access to the greatest variety of
digital content possible.
(6) Technological solutions can be developed to protect
digital content on digital broadcast television and over the
Internet.
(7) Competing business interests have frustrated agreement
on the deployment of existing technology in digital media
devices to protect digital content on the Internet or on
digital broadcast television.
(8) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary
precondition to the dissemination, and on-line availability,
of high quality digital content, which will benefit consumers
and lead to the rapid growth of broadband networks.
(9) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary
precondition to facilitating and hastening the transition to
high-definition television, which will benefit consumers.
(10) Today, cable and satellite have a competitive
advantage over digital television because the closed nature
of cable and satellite systems permit encryption, which
provides some protection for digital content.
(11) Over-the-air broadcasts of digital television are not
encrypted for public policy reasons and thus lack those
protections afforded to programming delivered via cable or
satellite.
(12) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible
but will require government action, including a mandate to
ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(13) Consumers receive content such as video or programming
in analog form.
(14) When protected digital content is converted to analog
for consumers, it is no longer protected and is subject to
conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be
copied or redistributed illegally.
(15) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible
but will require government action, including a mandate to
ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(16) Unprotected digital content on the Internet is subject
to significant piracy, through illegal file sharing,
downloading, and redistribution over the Internet.
(17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading
television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by
using ``file-sharing'' technology. Much of this activity is
illegal, but demonstrates consumers' desire to access digital
content.
(18) This piracy poses a substantial economic threat to
America's content industries.
(19) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible
but will require government action, including a mandate to
ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(20) Providing a secure, protected environment for digital
content should be accompanied by a preservation of legitimate
consumer expectations regarding use of digital content in the
home.
(21) Secure technological protections should enable content
owners to disseminate digital content over the Internet
without frustrating consumers' legitimate expectations to use
that content in a legal manner.
(22) Technologies used to protect digital content should
facilitate legitimate home use of digital content.
(23) Technologies used to protect digital content should
facilitate individuals' ability to engage in legitimate use
of digital content for educational or research purposes.
SEC. 3. ADOPTION OF SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS AND ENCODING
RULES.
(a) Private Sector Efforts.--
(1) In general.--The Federal Communications Commission, in
consultation with the Register of Copyrights, shall make a
determination, not more than 12 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, as to whether--
(A) representatives of digital media device manufacturers,
consumer groups, and copyright owners have reached agreement
on security system standards for use in digital media devices
and encoding rules; and
(B) the standards and encoding rules conform to the
requirements of subsections (d) and (e).
(2) Report to the Commerce and Judiciary Committees.--
Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Commission shall report to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation, the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, the House of Representatives Committee on
Commerce, and the House of Representatives Committee on the
Judiciary as to whether--
(A) substantial progress has been made toward the
development of security system standards and encoding rules
that will conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and
(e);
(B) private sector negotiations are continuing in good
faith;
(C) there is a reasonable expectation that final agreement
will be reached within 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act; and
(D) if it is unlikely that such a final agreement will be
reached by the end of that year, the deadline should be
extended.
(b) Affirmative Determination.--If the Commission makes a
determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on
security system standards and encoding rules that conform to
the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has been reached,
then the Commission shall--
(1) initiate a rulemaking, within 30 days after the date on
which the determination is made, to adopt those standards and
encoding rules; and
(2) publish a final rule pursuant to that rulemaking, not
later than 180 days after initiating the rulemaking, that
will take effect 1 year after its publication.
(c) Negative Determination.--If the Commission makes a
determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on
security system standards and encoding rules that conform to
the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has not been
reached, then the Commission--
(1) in consultation with representatives described in
subsection (a)(1)(A) and the Register of Copyrights, shall
initiate a rulemaking, within 30 days after the date on which
the determination is made, to adopt security system standards
and encoding rules that conform to the requirements of
subsections (d) and (e); and
(2) shall publish a final rule pursuant to that rulemaking,
not later than 1 year after initiating the rulemaking, that
will take effect 1 year after its publication.
(d) Security System Standards.--In achieving the goals of
setting open security system standards that will provide
effective security for copyrighted works, the security system
standards shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that--
(1) the standard security technologies are--
(A) reliable;
(B) renewable;
(C) resistant to attack;
(D) readily implemented;
(E) modular;
(F) applicable to multiple technology platforms;
(G) extensible;
(H) upgradable;
(I) not cost prohibitive; and
(2) any software portion of such standards is based on open
source code.
(e) Encoding Rules.--
(1) Limitations on the exclusive rights of copyright
owners.--In achieving the goal of promoting as many lawful
uses of copyrighted works as possible, while preventing
[[Page S2272]]
as much infringement as possible, the encoding rules shall
take into account the limitations on the exclusive rights of
copyright owners, including the fair use doctrine.
(2) Personal use copies.--No person may apply a security
measure that uses a standard security technology to prevent a
lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use
in the home of programming at the time it is lawfully
performed, on an over-the-air broadcast, premium or non-
premium cable channel, or premium or non-premium satellite
channel, by a television broadcast station (as defined in
section 122(j)(5)(A) of title 17, United States Code), a
cable system (as defined in section 111(f) of such title), or
a satellite carrier (as defined in section 119(d)(6) of such
title).
(f) Means of Implementing Standards.--The security system
standards adopted under subsection (b), (c), or (g) shall
provide for secure technical means of implementing directions
of copyright owners for copyrighted works.
(g) Commission May Revise Standards and Rules Through
Rulemaking.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may conduct subsequent
rulemakings to modify any security system standards or
encoding rules established under subsection (b) or (c) or to
adopt new security system standards that conform to the
requirements of subsections (d) and (e).
(2) Consultation required.--The Commission shall conduct
any such subsequent rulemaking in consultation with
representatives of digital media device manufacturers,
consumer groups, and copyright owners described in subsection
(a)(1)(A) and with the Register of Copyrights.
(3) Implementation.--Any final rule published in such a
subsequent rulemaking shall--
(A) apply prospectively only; and
(B) take into consideration the effect of adoption of the
modified or new security system standards and encoding rules
on consumers' ability to utilize digital media devices
manufactured before the modified or new standards take
effect.
(h) Modification of Technology by Private Sector.--
(1) In general.--After security system standards have been
established under subsection (b), (c), or (g) of this
section, representatives of digital media device
manufacturers, consumer groups, and copyright owners
described in subsection (a)(1)(A) may modify the standard
security technology that adheres to the security system
standards rules established under this section if those
representatives determine that a change in the technology is
necessary because--
(A) the technology in use has been compromised; or
(B) technological improvements warrant upgrading the
technology in use.
(2) Implementation notification.--The representatives
described in paragraph (1) shall notify the Commission of any
such modification before it is implemented or, if immediate
implementation is determined by the representatives to be
necessary, as soon thereafter as possible.
(3) Compliance with subsection (d) requirements.--The
Commission shall ensure that any modification of standard
security technology under this subsection conforms to the
requirements of subsection (d).
SEC. 4. PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY OF SECURITY.
An interactive computer service shall store and transmit
with integrity any security measure associated with standard
security technologies that is used in connection with
copyrighted material such service transmits or stores.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF
NONCONFORMING DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICES.
(a) In General.--A manufacturer, importer, or seller of
digital media devices may not--
(1) sell, or offer for sale, in interstate commerce, or
(2) cause to be transported in, or in a manner affecting,
interstate commerce,
a digital media device unless the device includes and
utilizes standard security technologies that adhere to the
security system standards adopted under section 3.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the sale,
offer for sale, or transportation of a digital media device
that was legally manufactured or imported, and sold to the
consumer, prior to the effective date of regulations adopted
under section 3 and not subsequently modified in violation of
section 6(a).
SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SECURITY
TECHNOLOGY; VIOLATION OF ENCODING RULES.
(a) Removal or Alteration of Security Technology.--No
person may--
(1) knowingly remove or alter any standard security
technology in a digital media device lawfully transported in
interstate commerce; or
(2) knowingly transmit or make available to the public any
copyrighted material where the security measure associated
with a standard security technology has been removed or
altered, without the authority of the copyright owner.
(b) Compliance with Encoding Rules.--No person may
knowingly apply to a copyrighted work, that has been
distributed to the public, a security measure that uses a
standard security technology in violation of the encoding
rules adopted under section 3.
SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) In General.--The provisions of section 1203 and 1204 of
title 17, United States Code, shall apply to any violation of
this Act as if--
(1) a violation of section 5 or 6(a)(1) of this Act were a
violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code;
and
(2) a violation of section 4 or section 6(a)(2) of this Act
were a violation of section 1202 of that title.
(b) Statutory Damages.--A court may award damages for each
violation of section 6(b) of not less than $200 and not more
than $2,500, as the court considers just.
SEC. 8. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT EXEMPTION.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not
apply to any committee, board, commission, council,
conference, panel, task force, or other similar group of
representatives of digital media devices and representatives
of copyright owners convened for the purpose of developing
the security system standards and encoding rules described in
section 3.
SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Standard security technology.--The term ``standard
security technology'' means a security technology that
adheres to the security system standards adopted under
section 3.
(2) Interactive computer service.--The term ``interactive
computer service'' has the meaning given that term in section
230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)).
(3) Digital media device.--The term ``digital media
device'' means any hardware or software that--
(A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form;
(B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form
whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or
(C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form
and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to
hardware or software described in subparagraph (B).
(4) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this
Act, except that sections 4, 5, and 6 shall take effect on
the day on which the final rule published under section 3(b)
or (c) takes effect.
______
------------------------------------------------------------------