[Congressional Record: October 12, 1998 (House)]
[Page H10615-H10621]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr12oc98-82]


                    DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT

  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2281) to amend title 17, United
States Code, to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization
Copyright Treaty and Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and for other
purposes.
  (For conference report, see proceedings of the House of Thursday,
October 8, 1998, at page H10048.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes of my time to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and ask unanimous consent that he
be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes of my
time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and ask unanimous
consent that he be allowed to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                             General Leave

  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2281, the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act. It is not uncommon on this Hill for many people to take
great pride in authorship and oftentimes refer to legislation that
comes from our respective committees as ``landmark legislation,'' but I
think that all who are familiar with this piece of legislation will
agree that this is truly landmark legislation.
  H.R. 2281 represents a monumental improvement to our copyright law
and will enable the United States to remain the world leader in the
protection of intellectual property.
  Madam Speaker, we could not have reached this point without the
collective efforts of many. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde), chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for his constant
support and guidance. I am also appreciative to the work of the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member of
the Committee on the Judiciary, and the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Courts and
Intellectual Property. I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman) who invested much time and effort in developing this
legislation.
  The valuable contributions of several members from the Committee on
Commerce must also be recognized: the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman
Bliley); and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), ranking member;
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Subcommittee
on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection; and the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), ranking member; as well as the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. White); and the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Dan Schaefer), who were also instrumental in facilitating
agreement on portions of the bill.
  I finally must thank several senators for their diligence in drafting
and moving H.R. 2281: the chairman of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, Senator Orrin Hatch; ranking member, Senator Patrick Leahy
of Vermont; as well as my friend from South Carolina, Senator Strom
Thurmond; all were instrumental in bringing about this important
achievement in the copyright law.
  H.R. 2281 is the most comprehensive copyright bill since 1976 and
adds substantial value to our copyright law. It will implement two
treaties which are extremely important to ensure adequate protection
for American works in countries around the world in the digital age. It
does this by making it unlawful to defeat technological protections
used by copyright owners to protect their works, including preventing
unlawful access and targeting devices made to circumvent encrypted
material. *****-*****- Payroll No.: -Name: -Folios: -Date: -Subformat:

                              {time}  1700

  It furthermore makes it unlawful to deliberately alter or delete
information provided by a copyright owner which identifies a work, its
owner and its permissible uses.
  H.R. 2281 furthermore addresses a number of other important copyright
issues. It clarifies the circumstances under which on-line and Internet
access providers could be liable when infringing material is
transmitted on-line through their services. It ensures that independent
service organizations do not inadvertently become liable for copyright
infringement merely because they have activated a machine in order to
service its hardware components. It also creates an efficient statutory
licensing system for certain performances and reproductions made by
webcasters which will benefit both the users of copyrighted works and
the copyright owners.
  Unfortunately, in arriving at the final agreement on what would be
included in H.R. 2281, title V of the House-passed version, which
provided for limited protection of databases, was removed. I am
pleased, however, that we were able to bring that issue so far this
session. It is important legislation that will benefit many industries
and businesses in the United States, and I intend to work diligently
next session to pass it.
  I appreciate and would be remiss if I did not mention at this time
statements by Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy made on the floor of the
other body that they pledge to take up a database protection bill early
in the next Congress.
  Madam Speaker, 2281 is necessary legislation to ensure the protection
of copyrighted works as the world moves into the digital environment.
This will ensure that American works will flourish as we move further
into the new millennium.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2281.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2281, the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, the passage of which many Members on both sides of the
issue doubted was one of the priorities of the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) and our committee this year in the Committee on the
Judiciary. And we are glad that the committee on which I serve as a
member and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) serves as a
ranking member has worked hard in a bipartisan fashion to get this
legislation to the President's desk.
  Madam Speaker, this is very important legislation, primarily because
we are part of a supertechnological society, and we have got to all get
along.

[[Page H10616]]

 WIPO implementation and the important explication of liability for
those service providers who knowingly transmit infringing material on-
line marks a critical achievement for those of us who support strong
copyright protections and fairness.
  When we started on this journey toward passage today, we pledged to
work with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Coble), and I thank them very much for their work,
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) to get this done; also
the good work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for
their good works and many others. Members said it could not be done.
Members said, do it this way, not that way. But we worked together,
cooperatively and successfully.
  I am very proud of the work that we have done. We are strengthening
domestic copyright law and providing leadership globally so that the
United States can continue to impress upon other nations the importance
of strong copyright protection.
  I am disappointed by some changes that we agreed to make to get this
bill into law. I wish we could have done more to strengthen the role of
the Patent and Trademark Office within its own agency. I would have
preferred to see a database protection bill in this legislation, but we
were not able to get that now. That means we will have to start again
early next year on that bill, and that is something that we will all
work on together. I believe it can be done.
  I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank) for their hard work, again, on this bill and for the
important role that the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) played
on the conference committee.
  I commend the important copyright industries, the telecommunications
industry, the Nation's libraries and importantly the guilds and unions
for working cooperatively with us to inform us of the needs they
confront in a digital environment. I am proud of the product we have
arrived at, and I am also pleased to support it and urge all of my
colleagues to be able to support this very important legislation for
this 105th Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R.
2281. I would like to express my admiration and appreciation for the
hard work of the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and his able subcommittee chairman,
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), in producing this
important legislation. Through their hard work we have been able to
reach consensus on historic legislation to implement the WIPO copyright
treaties.
  I also would like to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Klug) and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), who, through their hard
work, have substantially improved this legislation. As a result of
their steadfast commitment to the principle of fair use, we have
produced WIPO implementing legislation of appropriate scope and
balance.
  Mr. Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, I am pleased to report
that the final bill reflects the two most important changes proposed by
our committee. First, we have preserved a strong fair use provision for
the benefit of libraries, universities and consumers generally. Second,
we have ensured that manufacturers of popular telecommunications,
computer and consumer electronic products are not subject to a design
mandate in producing new products, and that they, retailers, and
professional services can make playability adjustments without fear of
liability.
  Through the able efforts of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin)
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), we also have
included strong provisions on security systems testing, encryption
research, and software interoperability development so that these vital
activities will continue. And we have included strong consumer
protection provisions. In short, we have produced a bill that should
help spur the growth of electronic commerce while protecting the
creative work of our Nation's content community.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I commend the distinguished gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Bliley), the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), my good
friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), ranking member of
the subcommittee, and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for
the fine work which they have done on this particular matter.
  I rise in strong support of the conference report, which I believe
will implement two World Intellectual Property Organization copyright
treaties.
  The bill was produced through the hard work and the cooperation of
two committees, and it is the conference committee that has largely
adopted the provisions which were added to the bill by the Committee on
Commerce.
  We are now considering WIPO implementing legislation that strikes a
proper balance between copyright owners and information consumers. It
is very clear to us that we need to have the protection of the fair use
provisions which had previously been in the law. This we have done. We
have included strong privacy protection for consumers. We have
permitted electronic manufacturers to make design adjustments to their
products to ensure that consumers will receive the best playback
quality without fear of liability. We have also added provisions
safeguarding encryption research, security systems testing and computer
interoperability. At the same time we gave content owners the tools to
discourage the production of illegal black boxes which open the door to
piracy. Thus the bill will continue faster innovation without stifling
the growth of electronic commerce.
  The bill is a good one. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), who has been very helpful and very supportive
in this matter.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Greensboro for
yielding me this time and for his great leadership, along with that of
my friend from Richmond, who has worked long and hard on this, and the
gentleman from Thibodaux, Louisiana, and my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle who have done a great job on this.
  Clearly, as we look at the problems that we face as a Nation, and as
we move rapidly towards this global economy, it is difficult to imagine
an issue that is much more important than theft of intellectual
property. Property rights are an issue which we talk about regularly,
and implementation of this WIPO treaty and our support of it is, I
believe, going to go a long way towards ensuring that the property of
individuals is not in any way jeopardized.
  If we look at figures, most recently in 1996, there are estimates
that $7.6 billion in theft of film, books, music and software has taken
place, and many of us believe that that figure has actually gotten
higher in the past 2 years. It is a problem which obviously continues
to be in the forefront and is going to be there unless we have full
implementation of this.
  We have U.S. industries involved in a wide range of areas, and we are
creating new ideas here in the United States and are in the forefront
as the world's greatest information exporter and importer. And as such,
these new ideas are creating opportunities for people who steal these
proposals. So that is why implementation of WIPO is so important.
  I want to say that as we look at not only the film and entertainment
industries, but the biotech industry and what I believe will be many
new industries that are developing in this country in the coming years,
WIPO is so important for that. I urge my colleagues

[[Page H10617]]

in a bipartisan way to support this measure.
  I again congratulate my colleagues who played such a key role in
working with us on it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
  I first wanted to thank my colleague and dean of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for sharing this legislative
product with us, he and the Committee on Commerce and the subcommittee
of the Committee on the Judiciary. I think everyone has heard that we
finally reached a conclusion that I think may satisfy nearly every
Member in the House of Representatives.
  This Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the legislation which was at
one time in a doubtful state of passage by many, has now come before
the floor. And as the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary,
I am proud to suggest that this is a bipartisan product, a work that
has been thoroughly reviewed by two committees and two subcommittees in
this House alone and is certainly worthy of being signed into law by
the President.
  The WIPO implementation and the important explication of the
liability for those service providers who knowingly transmit infringing
material on-line marks a critical achievement for those of us who
support strong copyright protection and the fairness that goes with it.
  When we started on the journey toward the passage that I think is in
front of us, I pledged to work with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), subcommittee
chairman, and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank), to make sure that this was done. Although it was thought not to
be possible at the time, I think this work exemplifies the kind of
bipartisanship that this Congress has and should continue to have as we
move forward in other matters.

                              {time}  1715

  We are strengthening domestic copyright law and providing global
leadership so that this great Nation can continue to impress upon other
nations the importance of strong copyright protection.
  Now, not all the provisions have reached a level of perfection. We
might have done more to strengthen the role of the Patent and Trademark
Office within its own agency. This Member would have preferred to see a
database protection bill included in the measure before us. But that
was not possible. Which means that we will begin again in the next
Congress, all of us who are so honored by our constituents to return.
We will have to start all over again in this area, and it is something
that I urge my colleagues in both committees to take seriously.
  I again commend the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and the
ranking member, and all of those in the Judiciary that worked on it.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Howard Berman) played an important
role in the conference committee. And so, too, of great assistance was
the copyright industry, the telecommunications people, the Nation's
libraries and librarians, the unions and the guilds who worked
cooperatively with us to inform us of the needs that they confront in
this digital environment.
  I am proud of the product, and like all the speakers before me, I
urge its favorable confirmation.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to emphasize that it was my decision to
share this time with Mr. Dingell, the Ranking member of the House
Commerce Committee. Under the rules, all of the time would have come to
the Judiciary Committee, but I am deciding to share the time for two
reasons.
  The first reason is the respect and fondness that I hold for the dean
of the House, Mr. Dingell. He asked that I share the time, and out of
respect for his leadership in the House, I was happy to oblige.
  Second the parliamentarian ruled that the House Commerce Committee
had some legitimate jurisdictional concerns over discrete aspects of
the bill. As such House Commerce Committee members were appointed
during the House-Senate conference, albeit in lesser numbers. Mr.
Dingell and his Commerce Committee colleagues played a constructive
role in bringing this measure to the floor.
  The sharing of the time should in no way imply that the two
committees are, in any way, on equal footing from a jurisdictional
perspective on this measure, but does recognize both my great fondness
for the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell and the very constructive
role that he played in bringing this matter to the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection of the Committee on
Commerce.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time. We all know, of course, that we have long ago entered the
information age, but what we are about to enter is the new information
digital age.
  This WIPO Treaty implementation bill is extremely important not just
to America and Americans but to citizens of the world. As we enter this
information digital age, it becomes increasingly easy for people to
make perfect copies of other people's works; their music, their books,
their videos, their movies. In short, the WIPO treaty is an attempt
worldwide to protect those intellectual properties from thievery, from
duplication, from piracy.
  How do we protect those works perfectly in a digital world and, at
the same time, respect something pretty critical to Americans: The free
exchange of ideas and information; the ability of any kid in America to
walk into a library and examine free of charge a work of fiction, a
book written by one of the masters, to see a video, or to hear some
music over the radio, or to operate a simple device like a VCR at home
to see a movie later that was played earlier in the day? How do we
protect the fair use of those works of art, those intellectual
properties and, at the same time, protect them in a digital age?
  This House dramatically improved this bill as it left the Senate. As
the Senate had produced the bill, there were no protections for
citizens for these fair uses of information in a library, in a
bookmobile, with a VCR. As this bill now comes back to the House and
Senate from conference, the work of the House Committee on the
Judiciary, and the Committee on Commerce, in particular, in making sure
that there was a balance between the free exchange of ideas and
protecting works in a digital age, were protected in this bill.
  The right to do encryption research. The right to be able to webcast
music on the internet. All of these issues now have been wrapped into
an excellent compromise that I think sets the stage for the rest of the
world to follow.
  This is a critical day. America provides more information to the
world than any other country of the world. Protecting those works in
commerce is critical. We set the mark today with a strong
implementation bill, but we do it carefully, respecting the right of
people to fair use in accessing information in a free society; in
making sure that libraries and schools of thought in universities can
still do research, and all of us can access information in a society
that so prides itself on free speech and the free exchange of
information.
  To all who have worked on it, the chairman of the full committees,
and to all the Members who have put in so many hours, this is a good
day, this is a good bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, might I be informed how much time remains
on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Coble) has 3 minutes remaining; and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Bliley) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, did I understand that I have 3 minutes
remaining, and that I have the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), who authored title III of this bill.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, and I

[[Page H10618]]

appreciate working with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
It seems like it has been months, but with the great effort put on by
both sides, we have done, I think, a marvelous job, and I am glad this
feature is included in the bill.
  This provision I introduced ensures that a computer owner may
authorize the activation of their computer by a third party for the
limited purpose of servicing computer hardware components. The specific
problem is when the computer is activated, the software is copied into
the ram, the random access memory. This copy is protected under section
117 of the copyright act, as interpreted by the 4th and 9th Circuit
Courts of Appeals. This technical correction is extremely important to
independent service organizations, or ISOs as they are known, who,
without this legislation, are prohibited from turning on a customer's
computer.
  A weight of litigation has plagued the computer repair market. The
detrimental effect is that ISOs are prevented from reading the
diagnostics software and, subsequently, cannot service the computer's
hardware.
  The financial reality is that the multibillion dollar nationwide ISO
industry is at risk. This bill provides language that authorizes third
parties to make such a copy for the limited use of servicing computer
hardware components.
  This provision does nothing to threaten the integrity of the
Copyright Act and maintains all other protections under the act. The
intent of the Copyright Act is to protect and encourage a free
marketplace of ideas. However, in this instance, it hurts the free
market by preventing ISOs from servicing computers. Furthermore, it
limits the consumer's choice of who can service their computer and how
competitive a fee can be charged.
  I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) for
working with me on this issue, and I urge support of the bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the
subcommittee, whose extraordinary leadership was key to working out the
complicated provisions that have been reflected.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for yielding, and I want to thank
my colleagues on that side for rescuing this very important bill from
the attempted mugging that some Members of the Republican leadership
had in mind. That was not one of the finest hours of this institution
when this bill got derailed because of a dispute about a job.
  Madam Speaker, I want to express my satisfaction with what we worked
out. As Members have mentioned, we have a tough situation here in which
we want to protect intellectual property rights but not interfere with
freedom of expression. In the Committee on the Judiciary, we worked
very hard in particular in trying to work out a formula that would
protect intellectual property rights and not give the online service
providers an excessive incentive to censor. That was the difficult
part. What I believe is a very important sign is that we were able to
do that.
  I want to take this time to contrast this with the failure to do a
similar reasonable compromise in the bill we passed recently dealing
with child pornography or, rather, pornography in general, because in
contrast to this very careful compromise, and we in the Committee on
the Judiciary were very focused on this because of our concern for free
speech, the House passed a bill which includes language which purports
to protect children against pornography which, in fact, goes way beyond
that. I am speaking now because I hope the President will be persuaded
to veto that bill.
  We had a bill which says if someone puts on to the Internet material
which is harmful to children, and children can see it, they are
criminally liable. In other words, we are not dealing with people who
are aiming at children. We also said, by the way, that that prohibition
applies to material which is not obscene.
  It is going to be stricken by the Supreme Court, but we should not
have to depend on the Supreme Court to defend us. So I do want to
contrast. It seems to me very important to note the care that we took
in the Committee on the Judiciary not to impede on free speech and the
lack of care that we have elsewhere.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, do the provisions in the bill that the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) refers to apply to government
offices that do the same thing?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. We had a conversation about the Starr
report, and I think it is an open question as to whether or not the
Starr report would have violated that provision.
  The problem is this, and here is what we worked on: We have in this
country the freest speech in the world, if it is oral, if it is
written, if it is printed, but we are developing a second line of law
which says electronically-transmitted speech is not as constitutionally
protected. We must reverse that trend or we will erode our own
freedoms.
  Mr. BLILEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I speak only to answer the last comments of the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank). The bill we passed on online
pornography did not make criminals out of anyone who puts something on
the Internet that may be harmful to minors. What it did was to say that
it is criminal for someone to commercially set up a pornography site
without establishing some way for parents to be able to say no to that
site in their homes. That is all we did.
  In fact, if a parent wants to allow his child into that
pornographer's site, it can. If the parent wants to look at it, it can.
It simply made criminal the act of commercially providing that kind of
material without giving parents the opportunity to say no to that
material coming into their house.
  I hope the President signs that bill. He ought to sign it. It is a
good bill that would give parents some control over what comes over the
Internet and is available to their children.
  Mr. BLILEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, a lot of people have complained today and
the last couple of days that Congress has not done anything. I think
this bill is a clear example of things we have done. It is probably one
of the most important bills that we have passed this Congress. It gives
our Nation's copyright holders legal protection internationally to
protect their copyright works.
  As the chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin),
mentioned, every year billions of dollars are stolen from American
companies from illegal piracy and theft. American companies can now
have the freedom to defend their intellectual property.
  As my colleagues may recall, the bill as reported out of the
Committee on the Judiciary did not contain a definition of,
``technological protection measure.'' Myself and other members of the
committee were concerned about this lack of such a definition. It was
very problematic.
  The committee agreed it was an important enough issue to state in its
report that those measures covered by the bill are those based upon
encryption, scrambling, authentication and some other measure which
requires the use of, quote, a key provided by a copyright holder.
  Another achievement of the conference was to include specific report
language addressing the playability concerns of product manufacturers.
  The report explicitly provides that manufacturers or professional
servicers of consumer electronics, telecommunications or computing
products who take steps solely to mitigate a playability problem may
not be deemed to have violated either section 1201 or section 1202.
  I would say to my colleagues, we have done something very important
today by passing, by recommending this bill to all our colleagues. I
urge all my colleagues to vote for it. It is another accomplishment in
this session of Congress.
  Madam Speaker, this Congress in my opinion has been unfairly maligned
about our work

[[Page H10619]]

product and our accomplishments. I think we have had two very
successful sessions and this bill is proof of our hard work.
  In fact, this may be the most important bill that we pass for this
entire Congress. This legislation will give our nation's copyright
holders legal protection internationally to protect their copyright
works.
  Every year, billions of dollars are stolen from American companies
from illegal piracy and theft. American companies can now have the
freedom to defend their intellectual property.
  As my colleagues can appreciate, it has been a long and hard process
to get us to this point. I am particularly pleased that the conference
report addressed issues that I had been concerned about. I would like
to comment in particular on some of the most important features of the
bill.
  As my colleagues may recall, the bill as reported by the Judiciary
Committee did not contain a definition of ``technological protection
measure.''
  I and other members of the Commerce Committee were concerned that the
lack of such a definition was very problematic. The Committee agreed it
was an important enough issue to state in its report that those
measures covered by the bill are those based on encryption, scrambling,
authentication, or some other measure which requires the use of a
``key'' provided by a copyright owner.
  Another achievement of the conference was to include specific report
language addressing the ``playability'' concerns of product
manufacturers.
  The report explicitly provides that manufacturers or professional
servicers of consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing
products who take steps solely to mitigate a playability problem may
not be deemed to have violated either section 1201 or section 1202.
  By eliminating uncertainty and establishing a clear set of rules
governing both analog and digital devices, product designers should
enjoy the freedom to innovate and bring ever-more exciting new products
to market.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. BLILEY. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), a member of the committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from New York
is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Madam Chairman, let me begin by thanking the
gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, and
the gentleman from Louisiana, the subcommittee chairman, and the
gentleman from North Carolina, who I have talked about many times at
the back rail about this piece of legislation over here, and certainly
the gentlemen from the other side.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this strong balanced bill
that we have before us today. The United States must lead the way on
copyright law because we have the most at stake. We are far and away
the world's largest creator, producer and exporter of copyrighted
works. Whether it is movies, music, computer innovation or school
textbooks, American ideas and creativity means jobs, exports and
economic vitality.
  Copyright law provides incentive to invest in intellectual property,
but without strong WIPO protections, this incentive will decline and
the Nation will be at a loss because of it.
  We must protect American copyright workers from the theft of their
property, while maintaining the permitted use of copyrighted works for
education, research, and criticism. That is what this bill does.
  As the undisputed leader in intellectual property, the U.S. has the
most to gain from strong international copyright laws. Our laws should
be, and will be, the model for the rest of the world to follow. We have
the privilege to set the stage and the responsibility to do it right.
  The copyright industry is growing nearly three times as fast as the
rest of the U.S. economy. The numbers are extraordinary. We are talking
about almost 3 percent of the U.S. work force, with exports of over $60
billion.
  I urge my colleagues to think about the extraordinary opportunities
that await us as consumers, as parents, and as officials concerned
about the U.S. economy. By providing the appropriate stimulus to
copyright owners, a stimulus first established in the Constitution, we
allow the electronic marketplace to be the great boon to America that
it promises to be.
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, it has been mentioned about the importance of data
base, the importance of patent and trademark. These are two areas,
Madam Speaker, that cry out to be addressed, and I regret that they
were not addressed in a proper and fitting way this session. I hope it
can be done next time, in the 106th session the Congress. I think, from
what I have heard today, it will be generously laced with
bipartisanship, and I feel optimistic about that.
  Having said that, I want to again thank everybody who placed their
oars into these waters and I urge the adoption of the conference report
on H.R. 2281.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, I strongly support passing this bill which
implements the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaty.
  As the digital revolution sweeps over industries and countries it
will provide new opportunities for market growth and innovation, easier
access to remote information, and new distribution channels for
products and services. The United States clearly leads the world in
software products such as computer programs, movies, music, books and
other multimedia products. In a post-GATT, post-NAFTA environment--in
which we have made an implicit national economic decision to
essentially let low-end jobs go and migrate to developing countries--we
have an obligation as policymakers to ensure that we establish the
climate in which America garners the lion's share of the high end,
knowledge-based jobs of the new global economy.
  Because digital technology facilitates an almost effortless ability
to transmit digitized software information across national borders and
also permits exact copies of such work to be made, it is vitally
important that the United States take steps to update existing laws by
cyberspace. There's no question that protecting the interests of
copyright holders will mean that the content community will feel more
secure in releasing their works into a digital environment. Because of
the worldwide nature of electronic commerce today, it also becomes
imperative that we establish treaties with other countries ensuring
that our intellectual property--in other words, our high tech jobs--are
not compromised overseas.
  In deliberating upon this legislation, this Commerce Committee sought
to better balance competing interests. This has not been an easy task.
Encryption research issues, privacy implications, fair use rights,
reverse engineering, and other issues are complicated but represent
meaningful public policy perspectives. I am pleased that the bill
before us has taken great strides to see that these issues are
addressed properly and fairly.
  In particular, I commend the conferees for retaining the language
that I offered in Committee protecting the individual privacy rights of
consumers. This language gives an incentive to the content community to
be above board with consumers with respect to personal information that
is gathered by technological protection measures or the content or
software that it contains or protects. If consumers are given notice of
these practices and an opportunity to prohibit or curtail such
information gathering then technological protection measures could not
be legally defeated. On the other hand, consumers are within their
legal rights to defeat such measures if their personal privacy is being
undermined without notice or the right to say ``no'' to such practices.
This is a good privacy provision that leaves to the industry the
question of whether they want to conspicuously provide notice to
consumers of their privacy rights, extending as well the opportunity
for a consumer to effectively object to any personal data gathering,
and in so doing prevent the defeat of technological protection measures
designed to protect the industry's products.
  I want to thank Chairman Bliley, Mr. Dingell, Chairman Tauzin, Mr.
Waxman, and many other members for the incredible amount of time and
effort that has been put into the effort of resolving outstanding
issues. And I want to thank the members of the Judiciary Committee,
Chairman Hyde, Chairman Coble, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Frank, Mr. Berman and
others for their excellent work on these issues. This is a good
conference report and I urge members to enthusiastically support it.
  Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I am very gratified that we finally have
before us today the conference report on H.R. 2281, the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act. Enactment of this legislation will make it
possible for the United States to adhere to the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty, and to the WIPO
Performances and Phonograms Treaty.
  These treaties, in turn will lead to better legal protections for
U.S. copyrighted materials--movies, recordings, music, computer
programs, videogames, and text materials--around the world, and thus
will contribute to increased U.S. exports and foreign sales of

[[Page H10620]]

this valuable intellectual property, and to a decrease in the
unacceptably large levels of piracy these products experience today in
far too many overseas markets. As the global market for copyrighted
materials increasingly becomes a digitized, networked market, there is
no step that Congress can take that is more important for the promotion
of global electronic commerce in the fruits of Americans creativity.
  This bill is the fruit of many long months of labor and I salute all
of those inside and outside this body who worked long and hard together
to achieve this goal.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, thank you for the
opportunity to speak on this important bill, H.R. 2281, which amends
title 17, of the United States Code. This Bill implements World
Intellectual Property Organization's sponsored copyright agreements
signed by the United States in Geneva, Switzerland. It also limits the
liability on-line and Internet service providers may incur as a result
of transmissions traveling through their networks and systems.
  Certainly, we all agree that the Internet, the information
superhighway, has enhanced and changed our medium of communication
forever. With this evolution in technology, the law must conform to
provide protection for copyrighted material that is transmitted through
this revolutionary tool.
  In December 1996, the World Intellectual Property Organization
convened to negotiate multilateral treaties to protect copyrighted
material in the digital environment and to provide stronger
international protection for American recording artists. This bill does
not require any substantive changes in the existing copyright laws.
  Also, this bill includes language intended to guard against
interference with privacy; permits institutions of higher education to
continue the fair use of copyrighted material; and a provision to
protect service providers from lawsuits when they act to assist
copyright owners in limiting and preventing infringement.
  H.R. 2281, provides substantial protection to prevent on-line theft
of copyrighted materials. This bill demonstrates our commitment to
protecting the personal rights and property of American citizens. More
importantly, it works to eradicate crime and protect the intellectual
property rights of America's corporations. Thus, I am compelled to
support this bill.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues on the Subcommittee
on Courts and Intellectual Property in support of the conference
agreement. This bill and the treaties it would implement are of vital
importance to America's copyright industries, and I congratulate the
conferees on reaching a hard-won agreement in time to send it to the
President this year.
  The purpose of the treaties is to help curb international piracy of
copyrighted works--which costs our country billions of dollars every
year--by raising the standards for international copyright protection.
  Few states are as seriously affected by software piracy as
Massachusetts, which is home to some of the world's leading publishing,
information technology and software companies. Last year, some 2,200
Massachusetts-based software companies had 130,000 employees and
combined revenues of $7.8 billion.
  Piracy has always been a problem for these companies, but with the
advent of the digital age, it has reached epidemic proportions. The
ability to make perfect digital copies at the click of a mouse--of CDs,
movies, and computer programs, has been a tremendous benefit to
consumers. But is has also created an enormous black market for pirated
copies of these works that are indistinguishable from the originals.
Indistinguishable except for the fact that the profits go to criminals
running underground operations in places like China and Thailand,
rather than to the American authors, composers, songwriters, filmmakers
and software developers whose livelihoods depend upon the royalties
they earn from sale of their works.
  The enactment of this legislation is a major milestone in the battle
to ensure that American creativity enjoys the same protection abroad
that we provide here at home.
  I must voice one regret regarding the failure of the conferees to
retain the House-passed provision incorporating H.R. 2652, the
Collections of Information Antipiracy Act. This measure would have
prohibited the misappropriation for commercial purposes of
``databases'' whose compilation has required the investment of
substantial time and resources.
  Like other digitized information, databases can be easily copied and
distributed by unscrupulous competitors. Yet the people who create and
maintain these compilations can do little to deter or punish this
behavior, because most databases are not protected under current
copyright law.
  H.R. 2652 would have amended the copyright law to provide effective
legal protection against database piracy. Without this protection,
companies will have little incentive to continue to invest their time
and money in database development, and the public will pay the price.
  I hope that the subcommittee will revisit this subject early in the
next Congress, and I intend to do all I can to see that this or similar
legislation is enacted into law.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2281,
the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. I would like to thank both
Chairman Coble and Chairman Hyde for their leadership on this issue.
Additionally, I would like to thank them again for asking me to lead
the negotiations between the various parties on the issue of on-line
service provider liability for copyright infringement, which is
included in this important bill.
  The issue of liability for on-line copyright infringement, especially
where it involves third parties, is difficult and complex. For me
personally, this issue is not a new one: during the 104th Congress,
then-Chairman Carlos Moorhead asked me to lead negotiations between the
parties. Although I held numerous meetings involving members of the
content community and members of the service provider community,
unfortunately we were not able to resolve this issue.
  At the beginning of the 105th Congress, Chairman Cobel asked me to
again lead the negotiations between the parties on this issue. After a
great deal of meetings and negotiation sessions, the copyright
community and the service provider community were able to successfully
reach agreement. That agreement is included in the bill we are
considering today. No one is happier, except maybe those in each
community who spent countless hours and a great deal of effort trying
to reach agreement, than I am with the agreement contained in this
bill.
  Madam Speaker, this is a critical issue to the development of the
Internet, and I believe that both sides in this debate need each other.
If America's creators do not believe that their works will be protected
when they put them on-line, then the Internet will lack the creative
content it needs to reach its true potential. And if America's service
providers are subject to litigation for the acts of third parties at
the drop of a hat, they will lack the incentive to provide quick and
efficient access to the Internet. The provisions of H.R. 2281 will
allow the Internet to flourish, and I believe will prove to be a win-
win not only for both sides, but for consumers, manufacturers, and
Internet users throughout the nation.
  I would also like to discuss the importance of the World Intellectual
Property Organization treaties, and this accompanying implementing
legislation, which are critical to protecting U.S. copyrights overseas.
The United States is the world leader in intellectual property. We
export billions of dollars worth of creative works every year in the
form of software, books, videotapes, and records. Our ability to create
so many quality products has become a bulwark of our national economy,
and it is vital that copyright protection for these products not stop
at our borders. International protection of U.S. copyrights will be of
tremendous benefit to our economy--but we need to ratify the WIPO
treaties for this to happen, and we need to pass this legislation to
ratify the treaties.
  I would also like to express my understanding of the intent behind
the provisions of H.R. 2281 that address certain technologies used to
control copying of motion pictures in analog form on videocassette
recorders, provisions that were not part of either the original House
or Senate bills. That section establishes certain requirements only for
analog videocassette recorders, analog videocassette camcorders, and
professional analog videocassette recorders.
  In other words, these requirements exist only in the ``analog''
world. The limitations, for instance, with respect to certain
transmissions apply only with respect to those transmissions in analog
form.
  The intent of the conferees is that these provisions do not establish
any obligations with respect to digital technologies, including
computers or software. Copyright owners are free to use these or any
other forms of copy control technology to protect their works in the
``digital'' world, including in any digital broadcasts, transmissions,
or copies.
  It is also my understanding that the intent of the conferees is that
this provision neither establishes, nor should it be interpreted as
establishing, a precedent for Congress to legislate specific standards
or specific technologies to be used as technological protection
measures, particularly with respect to computers and software. While it
is not the intent of the conferees to prejudice or affect ongoing
negotiations over digital video technology, it may become necessary in
the future for Congress to consider protections for audiovisual works
in the digital environment.
  The conferees understand that technology develops best and most
rapidly in response to marketplace forces, and believe that private
parties should be free to apply their ingenuity to develop even better
and more effective technologies.
  Finally, regulatory agencies should not involve themselves in
establishing specific

[[Page H10621]]

standards in the digital medium, in particular for software and
computers. The technology changes far too fast, much more rapidly than
regulatory standards. Therefore, regulation in this area is likely to
impede, or in some cases even discourage, the development of new
technologies.
  This bill is critical not only because it will allow the Internet to
flourish, but also because it ensures that America will remain the
world leader in the development of intellectual property. I urge each
of my colleagues to support the conference report to H.R. 2281.
  Mr. KLUG. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the
conference report on H.R. 2281, and to acknowledge my appreciation of
the efforts expended to create a rational, balanced bill for the 21st
Century.
  About two months ago, I stood on this floor and recognized that this
Congress faced a difficult balancing act. One the one hand, there is
concern for protecting the American creative community--those who make
movies and television shows and software and books. On the other hand,
in an era of exploding information, and where increasingly having
information is having power, we have a heightened obligation to ensure
access to that information. We should not be changing the rules of the
road in the middle of the game, creating a pay per view environment in
which the use of a library card always carries a fee and where the flow
of information comes with a meter that rings up a charge every time the
Internet is accessed.
  With the support of the House Commerce Committee, under the
leadership of Chairman Bliley, Representative Dingell, Representative
Tauzin, Representative Markey, and, most significantly, Representative
Boucher, we were able to implement two changes to the bill to instill
the balance envisioned by our constitutional architects and in the long
tradition of the Commerce Committee. The first change ensured that
information users will continue to utilize information on a ``fair
use'' basis, notwithstanding the prohibition on circumvention. The
second change allowed manufacturers of a wide array of consumer
products the certainty that design decisions could be made solely on
the basis of technological innovation and consumer demand, not the
dictates of the legal system.
  These critical provisions were regrettably not part of the Senate-
passed version of the legislation and, consequently, required
negotiation in conference. Although I was not a formal part of the
House-Senate conference, I am pleased to support the outcome of those
discussions, and to single out the dedicated efforts of Chairman
Bliley, Representative Tauzin, Representative Dingell, Justin Lilley,
Andy Levin, and Whitney Fox to preserve the important improvements
wrought by the House Commerce Committee.
  The conference report reflects a number of hard compromises, three of
which I would like to discuss. First, the conferees maintain the strong
fair use provision the Commerce Committee crafted, for the benefit of
libraries, universities, and consumers generally. Section 1201(c)(3)
explicitly provides a meaningful role, in determining whether fair use
rights are or are likely to be adversely affected, for the Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information in the
mandated rulemaking. I trust that the recommendations made by the
Assistant Secretary, given the increasing importance that new
communications devices have in information delivery, will be accorded a
central, deferential role in the formal rulemaking process.
  The second change the conferees insisted upon was a ``no mandate''
provision. This language ensures that manufacturers of future digital
telecommunications, computer, and consumer electronics products will
have the freedom to choose parts and components in designing new
equipment. Specifically, Section 1201(c)(3) provides that nothing in
the subsection requires that the design of, or design and selection of
parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications,
or computer product provide for a response to any particular
technological measure, so long as the device does not otherwise violate
the section. With my colleague from Virginia, Representative Boucher, I
originally persuaded the members of the Commerce Committee to delete
the ``so long as'' phrase of the original Senate version. Our thinking,
confirmed by committee counsel, was that this language was not just
circular, but created serious ambiguity and uncertainty for product
manufacturers because it was not clear whether a court, judging the
circumstances after the fact, would find that specific products fell
within the scope of this provision and thus had to be designed to
respond to protection measures. And, it is entirely possible that these
protective measures may require conflicting responses by the products.

  The conferees added back the language we struck, but in a context in
which the ``so long as'' clause had some clear, understandable meaning.
The language agreed to by the conferees mandates a response by
specified analog devices to two known analog protection measures,
thereby limiting the applicability of the ``so long as'' clause. In my
opinion, spelling out this single, specific limitation will provide
manufacturers, particularly those working on innovative digital
products, the certainty they need to design their products to respond
to market conditions, not the threat of lawsuits.
  Both of these changes share one other important characteristic. Given
the language contained in the Judiciary Committee's original bill,
specifically sections 1201(a)(1), (a)(2), and (b)(1), there was great
reason to believe that one of the fundamental laws of copyright was
about to be overruled. That law, known as Sony Corporation of America
v. Universal Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (198), reinforced the centuries-old
concept of fair use. It also validated the legitimacy of products if
capable of substantial non-infringing uses. The original version of the
legislation threatened this standard, imposing liability on device
manufacturers if the product is of limited commercial value.
  Now, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems irrational to me to change the
standard without at least some modest showing that such a change is
necessary. And, changing the standard, in a very real sense, threatens
the very innovation and ingenuity that have been the hallmark of
American products, both hardware and content-related. I'm very pleased
that the conferees have meaningfully clarified that the Sony decision
remains valid law. They have also successfully limited the
interpretation of Sections 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1), the ``device''
provisions, to outlaw only those products having no legitimate purpose.
As the conference report makes clear, these two sections now must be
read to support, not stifle, staple articles of commerce, such as
consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computer products used by
businesses and consumers everyday, for perfectly legitimate purposes.
  Finally, the conferees included specific language allowing product
manufacturers to adjust their products to accommodate adverse effects
caused by technological protection measures and copyright management
information systems. These measures could have the effect of materially
degrading authorized performances or displays of works, or causing
recurring appreciably adverse effects. But, there was real fear in the
manufacturing and retail communities of liability for circumvention if
they took steps to mitigate the problem. I also felt particularly
strong that consumers have the right to expect that the products they
purchase will live up to their expectations and the retailing hype. So,
the Commerce Committee faced another balancing act--preserving the
value of the creative community while also affording consumers some
basic protections and guarantees.
  We were only able to achieve directive report language on
``playability'' in the committee process. Using the base established by
the Commerce Committee, the conferees were able to craft explicit
language exempting makers and servicers of consumer electronics,
telecommunications, or computing products from liability if acting
solely to mitigate playability problems. With this absolute assurance
of freedom from suit under such circumstances, manufacturers should
feel free to make product adjustments, and retailers, and professional
services should not be burdened with the threat of litigation in
repairing products for their customers.
  In short, the conference report achieves the goal of implementing the
WIPO treaties. But we have done so in a thoughtful, balanced manner
that promotes product development and information usage, indeed the
very ``progress of Science and the useful arts'' set forth in the
Constitution. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation and
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the conference report on the bill, H.R. 2281.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the conference report was agreed
to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________
