[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 64 (Tuesday, May 19, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3398-H3404]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1315
               COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION ANTIPIRACY ACT

  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 2652) to amend title 17, United States Code, to prevent the 
misappropriation of collections of information, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2652

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Collections of Information 
     Antipiracy Act''.

     SEC. 2. MISAPPROPRIATION OF COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION.

       Title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new chapter:

      ``CHAPTER 12--MISAPPROPRIATION OF COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION

``Sec.
``1201. Definitions.
``1202. Prohibition against misappropriation.
``1203. Permitted acts.
``1204. Exclusions.
``1205. Relationship to other laws.
``1206. Civil remedies.
``1207. Criminal offenses and penalties.
``1208. Limitations on actions.

     ``Sec. 1201. Definitions

       ``As used in this chapter:
       ``(1) Collection of information.--The term `collection of 
     information' means information that has been collected and 
     has been organized for the purpose of bringing discrete items 
     of information together in one place or through one source so 
     that users may access them.
       ``(2) Information.--The term `information' means facts, 
     data, works of authorship, or any other intangible material 
     capable of being collected and organized in a systematic way.
       ``(3) Potential market.--The term `potential market' means 
     any market that a person claiming protection under section 
     1202 has current and demonstrable plans to exploit or that is 
     commonly exploited by persons offering similar products or 
     services incorporating collections of information.

[[Page H3399]]

       ``(4) Commerce.--The term `commerce' means all commerce 
     which may be lawfully regulated by the Congress.
       ``(5) Product or service.--A product or service 
     incorporating a collection of information does not include a 
     product or service incorporating a collection of information 
     gathered, organized, or maintained to address, route, 
     forward, transmit, or store digital online communications or 
     provide or receive access to connections for digital online 
     communications.

     ``Sec. 1202. Prohibition against misappropriation

       ``Any person who extracts, or uses in commerce, all or a 
     substantial part, measured either quantitatively or 
     qualitatively, of a collection of information gathered, 
     organized, or maintained by another person through the 
     investment of substantial monetary or other resources, so as 
     to cause harm to the actual or potential market of that other 
     person, or a successor in interest of that other person, for 
     a product or service that incorporates that collection of 
     information and is offered or intended to be offered for sale 
     or otherwise in commerce by that other person, or a successor 
     in interest of that person, shall be liable to that person or 
     successor in interest for the remedies set forth in section 
     1206.

     ``Sec. 1203. Permitted acts

       ``(a) Individual Items of Information and Other 
     Insubstantial Parts.--Nothing in this chapter shall prevent 
     the extraction or use of an individual item of information, 
     or other insubstantial part of a collection of information, 
     in itself. An individual item of information, including a 
     work of authorship, shall not itself be considered a 
     substantial part of a collection of information under section 
     1202. Nothing in this subsection shall permit the repeated or 
     systematic extraction or use of individual items or 
     insubstantial parts of a collection of information so as to 
     circumvent the prohibition contained in section 1202.
       ``(b) Gathering or Use of Information Obtained Through 
     Other Means.--Nothing in this chapter shall restrict any 
     person from independently gathering information or using 
     information obtained by means other than extracting it from a 
     collection of information gathered, organized, or maintained 
     by another person through the investment of substantial 
     monetary or other resources.
       ``(c) Use of Information for Verification.--Nothing in this 
     chapter shall restrict any person from extracting 
     information, or from using information within any entity or 
     organization, for the sole purpose of verifying the accuracy 
     of information independently gathered, organized, or 
     maintained by that person. Under no circumstances shall the 
     information so extracted or used be made available to others 
     in a manner that harms the actual or potential market for the 
     collection of information from which it is extracted or used.
       ``(d) Nonprofit Educational, Scientific, or Research 
     Uses.--Nothing in this chapter shall restrict any person from 
     extracting or using information for nonprofit educational, 
     scientific, or research purposes in a manner that does not 
     harm the actual or potential market for the product or 
     service referred to in section 1202.
       ``(e) News Reporting.--Nothing in this chapter shall 
     restrict any person from extracting or using information for 
     the sole purpose of news reporting, including news gathering, 
     dissemination, and comment, unless the information so 
     extracted or used is time sensitive, has been gathered by a 
     news reporting entity for distribution to a particular 
     market, and has not yet been distributed to that market, and 
     the extraction or use is part of a consistent pattern engaged 
     in for the purpose of direct competition in that market.
       ``(f) Transfer of Copy.--Nothing in this chapter shall 
     restrict the owner of a particular lawfully made copy of all 
     or part of a collection of information from selling or 
     otherwise disposing of the possession of that copy.

     ``Sec. 1204. Exclusions

       ``(a) Government Collections of Information.--
       ``(1) Exclusion.--Protection under this chapter shall not 
     extend to collections of information gathered, organized, or 
     maintained by or for a government entity, whether Federal, 
     State, or local, including any employee or agent of such 
     entity, or any person exclusively licensed by such entity, 
     within the scope of the employment, agency, or license. 
     Nothing in this subsection shall preclude protection under 
     this chapter for information gathered, organized, or 
     maintained by such an agent or licensee that is not within 
     the scope of such agency or license, or by a Federal or State 
     educational institution in the course of engaging in 
     education or scholarship.
       ``(2) Exception.--The exclusion under paragraph (1) does 
     not apply to any information required to be collected and 
     disseminated--
       ``(A) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by a 
     national securities exchange, a registered securities 
     association, or a registered securities information 
     processor, subject to section 1205(g) of this title; or
       ``(B) under the Commodity Exchange Act by a contract 
     market, subject to section 1205(g) of this title.
       ``(b) Computer Programs.--
       ``(1) Protection not extended.--Subject to paragraph (2), 
     protection under this chapter shall not extend to computer 
     programs, including, but not limited to, any computer program 
     used in the manufacture, production, operation, or 
     maintenance of a collection of information, or any element of 
     a computer program necessary to its operation.
       ``(2) Incorporated collections of information.--A 
     collection of information that is otherwise subject to 
     protection under this chapter is not disqualified from such 
     protection solely because it is incorporated into a computer 
     program.

     ``Sec. 1205. Relationship to other laws

       ``(a) Other Rights Not Affected.--Subject to subsection 
     (b), nothing in this chapter shall affect rights, 
     limitations, or remedies concerning copyright, or any other 
     rights or obligations relating to information, including laws 
     with respect to patent, trademark, design rights, antitrust, 
     trade secrets, privacy, access to public documents, and the 
     law of contract.
       ``(b) Preemption of State Law.--On or after the effective 
     date of this chapter, all rights that are equivalent to the 
     rights specified in section 1202 with respect to the subject 
     matter of this chapter shall be governed exclusively by 
     Federal law, and no person is entitled to any equivalent 
     right in such subject matter under the common law or statutes 
     of any State. State laws with respect to trademark, design 
     rights, antitrust, trade secrets, privacy, access to public 
     documents, and the law of contract shall not be deemed to 
     provide equivalent rights for purposes of this subsection.
       ``(c) Relationship to Copyright.--Protection under this 
     chapter is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the 
     scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright 
     protection or limitation, including, but not limited to, fair 
     use, in any work of authorship that is contained in or 
     consists in whole or part of a collection of information. 
     This chapter does not provide any greater protection to a 
     work of authorship contained in a collection of information, 
     other than a work that is itself a collection of information, 
     than is available to that work under any other chapter of 
     this title.
       ``(d) Antitrust.--Nothing in this chapter shall limit in 
     any way the constraints on the manner in which products and 
     services may be provided to the public that are imposed by 
     Federal and State antitrust laws, including those regarding 
     single suppliers of products and services.
       ``(e) Licensing.--Nothing in this chapter shall restrict 
     the rights of parties freely to enter into licenses or any 
     other contracts with respect to the use of collections of 
     information.
       ``(f) Communications Act of 1934.--Nothing in this chapter 
     shall affect the operation of the provisions of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), or shall 
     restrict any person from extracting or using subscriber list 
     information, as such term is defined in section 222(f)(3) of 
     the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222(f)(3)), for the 
     purpose of publishing telephone directories in any format.
       ``(g) Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Commodity 
     Exchange Act.--Nothing in this chapter shall affect--
       ``(1) the operation of the provisions of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 58a et seq.) or the Commodity 
     Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.);
       ``(2) the public nature of information with respect to 
     quotations for and transactions in securities that is 
     collected, processed, distributed, or published pursuant to 
     the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
       ``(3) the obligations of national securities exchanges, 
     registered securities associations, or registered information 
     processors under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; or
       ``(4) the jurisdiction or authority of the Securities and 
     Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading 
     Commission.

     ``Sec. 1206. Civil remedies

       ``(a) Civil Actions.--Any person who is injured by a 
     violation of section 1202 may bring a civil action for such a 
     violation in an appropriate United States district court 
     without regard to the amount in controversy, except that any 
     action against a State governmental entity may be brought in 
     any court that has jurisdiction over claims against such 
     entity.
       ``(b) Temporary and Permanent Injunctions.--Any court 
     having jurisdiction of a civil action under this section 
     shall have the power to grant temporary and permanent 
     injunctions, according to the principles of equity and upon 
     such terms as the court may deem reasonable, to prevent a 
     violation of section 1202. Any such injunction may be served 
     anywhere in the United States on the person enjoined, and may 
     be enforced by proceedings in contempt or otherwise by any 
     United States district court having jurisdiction over that 
     person.
       ``(c) Impoundment.--At any time while an action under this 
     section is pending, the court may order the impounding, on 
     such terms as it deems reasonable, of all copies of contents 
     of a collection of information extracted or used in violation 
     of section 1202, and of all masters, tapes, disks, diskettes, 
     or other articles by means of which such copies may be 
     reproduced. The court may, as part of a final judgment or 
     decree finding a violation of section 1202, order the 
     remedial modification or destruction of all copies of 
     contents of a collection of information extracted or used in 
     violation of section 1202, and of all masters, tapes, disks, 
     diskettes, or other articles by means of which such copies 
     may be reproduced.
       ``(d) Monetary Relief.--When a violation of section 1202 
     has been established in any civil action arising under this 
     section, the

[[Page H3400]]

     plaintiff shall be entitled to recover any damages sustained 
     by the plaintiff and defendant's profits not taken into 
     account in computing the damages sustained by the plaintiff. 
     The court shall assess such profits or damages or cause the 
     same to be assessed under its direction. In assessing profits 
     the plaintiff shall be required to prove defendant's gross 
     revenue only; defendant must prove all elements of cost or 
     deduction claims. In assessing damages the court may enter 
     judgment, according to the circumstances of the case, for any 
     sum above the amount found as actual damages, not exceeding 
     three times such amount. The court in its discretion may 
     award reasonable costs and attorney's fees to the prevailing 
     party and shall award such costs and fees where it determines 
     that an action was brought under this chapter in bad faith 
     against a nonprofit educational, scientific, or research 
     institution, library, or archives, or an employee or agent of 
     such an entity, acting within the scope of his or her 
     employment.
       ``(e) Reduction or Remission of Monetary Relief for 
     Nonprofit Educational, Scientific, or Research 
     Institutions.--The court shall reduce or remit entirely 
     monetary relief under subsection (d) in any case in which a 
     defendant believed and had reasonable grounds for believing 
     that his or her conduct was permissible under this chapter, 
     if the defendant was an employee or agent of a nonprofit 
     educational, scientific, or research institution, library, or 
     archives acting within the scope of his or her employment.
       ``(f) Actions Against United States Government.--
     Subsections (b) and (c) shall not apply to any action against 
     the United States Government.
       ``(g) Relief Against State Entities.--The relief provided 
     under this section shall be available against a State 
     governmental entity to the extent permitted by applicable 
     law.

     ``Sec. 1207. Criminal offenses and penalties

       ``(a) Violation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any person who violates section 1202 
     willfully, and--
       ``(A) does so for direct or indirect commercial advantage 
     or financial gain, or
       ``(B) causes loss or damage aggregating $10,000 or more in 
     any 1-year period to the person who gathered, organized, or 
     maintained the information concerned,
     shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
       ``(2) Inapplicability.--This section shall not apply to an 
     employee or agent of a nonprofit educational, scientific, or 
     research institution, library, or archives acting within the 
     scope of his or her employment.
       ``(b) Penalties.--An offense under subsection (a) shall be 
     punishable by a fine of not more than $250,000 or 
     imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both. A second or 
     subsequent offense under subsection (a) shall be punishable 
     by a fine of not more than $500,000 or imprisonment for not 
     more than 10 years, or both.

     ``Sec. 1208. Limitations on actions

       ``(a) Criminal Proceedings.--No criminal proceeding shall 
     be maintained under this chapter unless it is commenced 
     within three years after the cause of action arises.
       ``(b) Civil Actions.--No civil action shall be maintained 
     under this chapter unless it is commenced within three years 
     after the cause of action arises or claim accrues.
       ``(c) Additional Limitation.--No criminal or civil action 
     shall be maintained under this chapter for the extraction or 
     use of all or a substantial part of a collection of 
     information that occurs more than 15 years after the 
     investment of resources that qualified the portion of the 
     collection of information for protection under this chapter 
     that is extracted or used.''.

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       The table of chapters for title 17, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``12. Misappropriation of Collections of Information........1201''.....

     SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES 
                   CODE.

       (a) District Court Jurisdiction.--Section 1338 of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the section heading by inserting ``misappropriations 
     of collections of information,'' after ``trade-marks,''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction 
     of any civil action arising under chapter 12 of title 17, 
     relating to misappropriation of collections of information. 
     Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the 
     States, except that any action against a State governmental 
     entity may be brought in any court that has jurisdiction over 
     claims against such entity.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The item relating to section 
     1338 in the table of sections for chapter 85 of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     ``misappropriations of collections of information,'' after 
     ``trade-marks,''.
       (c) Court of Federal Claims Jurisdiction.--Section 1498(e) 
     of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     ``and to protections afforded collections of information 
     under chapter 12 of title 17'' after ``chapter 9 of title 
     17''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--This Act and the amendments made by this 
     Act shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, and shall apply to acts committed on or after that date.
       (b) Prior Acts Not Affected.--No person shall be liable 
     under chapter 12 of title 17, United States Code, as added by 
     section 2 of this Act, for the use of information lawfully 
     extracted from a collection of information prior to the 
     effective date of this Act, by that person or by that 
     person's predecessor in interest.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).


                             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. 2652, the Collections of 
Information Antipiracy Act, and urge my colleagues to support this 
important bill. Developing, compiling, distributing, and maintaining 
commercially significant collections of information requires 
substantial investments of time, personnel, and money. Information 
companies, especially small businesses, must dedicate massive resources 
when gathering and verifying factual material, presenting it in a user-
friendly way, and keeping it current for and useful to customers.
  H.R. 2652, Madam Speaker, prohibits the misappropriation of valuable 
commercial collections by unscrupulous competitors who grab data 
collected by others, repackage it, and market a product that threatens 
competitive injury to the original collection.
  This protection is modeled in part on the Lanham Act, which already 
makes similar kinds of unfair competition a civil wrong under Federal 
law. Importantly, this bill maintains existing protection for 
collections of information afforded by copyright and contract rights. 
It is intended to supplement these legal rights, not to replace them.
  The Collections of Information Antipiracy Act is a balanced proposal. 
It is aimed at actual or threatened competitive injury for 
misappropriation of collections of information, not at noncompetitive 
uses. The goal is to stimulate the creation of even more collections 
and to encourage even more competition among them. The bill avoids 
conferring any monopoly on facts or taking any other steps that might 
be inconsistent with these goals.
  The version under consideration today contains several 
noncontroversial technical amendments. The legislation is necessary, in 
my opinion, and well-balanced, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not mention this. Much 
information has been disseminated about this bill, and I want to advise 
the Members of a couple facts that I think are pertinent.
  Last February, in fact, the afternoon of the hearing that was 
conducted, we met with representatives of the university community and 
asked them for specific instances where they would be concerned about 
this bill, that we might be able to correct some problems or concerns. 
None was forthcoming.
  As recently as yesterday, a representative from the university 
community made it clear that he could not give one specific instance 
where detriment would result, but that he felt that maybe some future 
unforeseen circumstance might crop up. Madam Speaker, that could happen 
with any legislation.
  I will be doggone if I am going to stand in the path of small 
businesses and perhaps encourage their bankruptcy ultimately in the 
fear of a prospective unforeseen circumstance. If that circumstance 
does arise, then we will repair it and correct it at the time.
  The libraries, we met with our friends from the American Library 
Association, again, last February, asking them, tell us what is wrong 
and we will fix it. A total of 10 amendments have been made a part of 
this bill, 10 amendments that were forthcoming from earlier opponents 
of the bill.

[[Page H3401]]

  I think we have done all we can do. I think we have a good piece of 
legislation here. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. The principle is very 
straightforward. The Supreme Court decided a while ago that people who 
put together the phone book could not have a property interest in the 
phone numbers. We do not actually deal with that decision here. That 
particular decision is not overturned.
  But it did leave at risk work that people do to collect information. 
Essentially the state of the law now, opponents to this bill want the 
state of the law to remain such that you can go through considerable 
work to compile data. People who have been in the data compilation 
business know that it is often not fun. It can be very hard work. It 
can be unexciting work. But it could give you a very useful work 
product.
  What we are being asked to do by those who simply want to defeat this 
bill is to leave that work totally unprotected legally as far as the 
Federal government is concerned. You do the work, you do all the 
research, and you come up with a significantly useful collection of 
information. This law says anybody else who wants to can go and take 
that and do whatever they want with it.
  We do in this bill, to the extent that we were capable of doing it, 
make a distinction. Nothing in this bill in any way retards the 
intellectual use of that data. A scoundrel who wants to do research and 
publish some of it as part of his or her study, if you want to go to 
the data collection and usurp from it so you can prove your point, you 
can do it. If you want to go to the data collection and reproduce it 
and get paid for reproducing somebody else's work, this bill says you 
cannot.
  So that is the distinction we have tried to draw between making the 
intellectual product here fully accessible but protecting it 
commercially. If in fact you leave it unprotected commercially, you 
will almost certainly have less work done.
  The notion that people should go and do this, do all this data 
collection, with their work product totally unprotected from anybody 
else who wants to use it for any purpose, including passing it on, 
selling it to somebody else, seems to me to be in error.
  One of the things we have done, we have had hearings, and we are 
told, Madam Speaker, that this is too quickly being done and we should 
pull this bill. Yes, the people who do not want to deal with it now 
argue to pull the bill.
  Why do people say, let us pull the bill? There are two circumstances 
in which those of us in the legislative body argue that a bill should 
be pulled. One, it really did come up too quickly, and we really have 
not had a chance to look at it.
  This bill had its first public hearing in October of last year and 
then a second public hearing in February of this year. It was voted on 
in subcommittee two months ago. The number of people who have been 
prevented from studying this bill by time is zero. People have had 
months to look at it.
  Since we have had two public hearings on the bill, a markup two 
months ago in subcommittee and then a markup in full committee, and 
then we were going to be on the calendar last week. One of those 
terrible legislative diseases known as turfitis, which is particularly 
virulent at the Subcommittee on Energy and Power; you have got to be 
careful when you are walking on the first floor past the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Power. You have got a vicious case of ``It is mine, and 
nobody else can look at it.'' That will break out. That held us off a 
week.
  At any rate, we have had a lot of time that people are aware of this 
bill. Still, what is their complaint? We have got to study this some 
more. They are lucky that this bill is not covered by the data 
collection, I suppose. They would have a long time to study it.

  The point is, Madam Speaker, that you say pull the bill when you do 
not have any substantive arguments. We all say let us delay it. We all 
say we are not sure what it does. That is when you do not have 
substantive arguments. I say that because we have asked for substantive 
arguments.
  I very much agree that full use should be there intellectually. I do 
not want to interfere with researchers who use those data collections.
  I have yet to hear a specific instance of how the legislation we are 
bringing forward prevents people from doing research, from reading the 
data and using it in that reasonable way.
  We have tried in various ways. People said, well, what about the 
concept of fair use? It does not technically apply, but it could 
interfere with figures. We said it does not. We have said this bill 
specifically allows you to do research, allows you to reproduce some 
parts of it to make your argument. It does not allow you to simply take 
other people's work product and sell it and get paid for it.
  We have had a series of cases, of meetings and hearings, and no one 
has come forward with specifics. Look at the literature that has been 
put out. Various organizations have said this is not a good bill, stop 
it. But I have not been able to find in any of this literature a 
specific example of how this legislation will interfere with legitimate 
intellectual activity.
  We make a distinction here in this bill between commercial use of 
someone else's property and the intellectual use. If people think we 
have not done the balance perfectly, I would be willing to listen, but 
they do not want to come forward with specifics.
  I want to talk also about my friends, the libraries. Some of my 
friends are librarians. My chief of staff in Massachusetts was the head 
of a library board and built a beautiful library building. I think 
libraries are very important.
  To the extent that librarians come and say to us, you are going to 
prevent our readers from being able to read this, do research with 
this, write a paper based on it, I would be opposed to the bill if it 
did that. That is not what they are saying. Essentially what they are 
saying is, some of the people who have done all this work might charge 
us more than we want to pay.
  We underfund libraries. I think we do. If I were in charge, we would 
give libraries more money than other places. The answer, however, to a 
public sector inadequately funding libraries is not to empower 
libraries to take other people's work product for nothing. The answer 
is further and better to fund libraries.
  So I will await the end of this debate, and thereafter I will still 
be waiting for specifics. I am available. If people will show myself, 
the chairman, our very able staffs how this interferes with free and 
open exchange of information, with intellectual use for this, we will 
try to change that.
  I do not think that is the problem. I think people have been able to 
get some of this information for free. I suppose, as between paying for 
it and getting it for free, most of us would rather get it for free, if 
you assume that there is an endless supply of it coming, and if you 
assume that people who have to give it to you for free and allow you to 
reuse it will not stop this kind of work.
  I think if we do not pass this, you will begin to see a diminution in 
the kind of data that is available. Nothing in this bill will interfere 
with the intellectual use of it, so I hope the bill is passed.
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I have no speaker, but I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
very distinguished but not infallible gentleman from California (Mr. 
Brown), the ranking member of the Committee on Science.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for allowing me to express myself on this bill. I acknowledge 
that I am distinguished but not infallible. Sometimes I even wonder if 
I am distinguished.
  But let me tell you that without pretending to understand all of the 
implications of this bill, I found out very quickly, when it was placed 
on the schedule, that there are a lot of extremely worried people out 
there who should know what they are talking about or who, on the other 
hand, may be totally paranoid. It may well be that there are a lot of 
paranoid people out there.
  I suspect that what has happened here is that those organizations, 
and I

[[Page H3402]]

have circulated a ``Dear Colleague'' letter which lists these, and they 
include some of the most distinguished organizations in this country, 
beginning with the library associations and the AAAS, American 
Association for the Advancement of Science, and many others are worried 
about this bill.
  They may be worried because they do not understand it, and I will 
confess that. Their tactics seem to be not necessarily to kill the 
bill, but to allow more time for these scholars and academics and so 
forth to see if they can find flaws in it and to present those flaws 
for protection.
  These individuals and organizations are notoriously slow in their 
ability to act promptly on legislation and sometimes other things, but 
that does not mean that they are wrong. When I see a compilation of 
organizations as broad as have taken a stand in opposition to this 
bill, I would like to alert a broader audience to the fact that there 
could be some flaws.
  Knowing the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and the 
ranking member and having heard their statements, as the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Coble) says, tell us what is wrong and we will fix 
it, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said the same thing, 
and similar language, and I have faith that we would do that.
  I would like to have my own little laundry list of the things that 
need to be done here; but, frankly, I do not have the competence to 
come up with that kind of a list. What I am trying to accomplish here, 
and I hope that my motives are understood, is to put on the record the 
concern of some of these groups which I have known and worked with for 
many, many years. They are all respectable. They all think they know 
what they are talking about. And put their concerns on the record so 
that we may get a broader analysis of this.
  I would have hoped that this could have been done in the normal 
legislative process, and that we could have considered this bill, not 
on suspension, but with an opportunity to debate it and amend it on the 
floor. Unfortunately, that is not a possibility at this point.

                              {time}  1330

  But it may be. If we defeat it on suspension, we may be able to bring 
it back, or we may be able to take corrective action in the Senate. 
This is my whole purpose, and I confess it quite willingly.
  It is my understanding that H.R. 2652 addresses only one aspect of 
the complex subject of adjusting intellectual property protection laws 
to meet the demands of the new digital age. Unfortunately, as I have 
indicated, it may be a flawed and controversial attempt, which should 
have not come up on the suspension calendar.
  The problem is that the bill has not found yet a proper balance 
between protecting original investments in data bases and the economic 
and social cost of unduly restricting and discouraging downstream 
application of these data bases, particularly in regard to uses for 
basic research or education.
  Some of these scientific data bases are extremely large and complex. 
For example, we are spending billions on an effort to characterize the 
human genome, and we have thousands of scientists working on it. A 
portion of that work only, and it may be a small portion, is either 
patentable or protected under copyright laws. The rest of it is going 
to be freely available. It may be that this legislation is going to 
cause considerable problem with that massive collection of research 
data. I hope that that is not the case, but I do not think anyone can 
tell you at this point whether it or is not.
  Progress in science requires full and open availability of scientific 
data. New knowledge is built on previous findings and unfettered access 
and use of factual information. This bill will impede research by 
restricting the ability of scientists to draw on data, facts and even 
mathematical formulas from previous scientific work for the production 
of new and innovative work.
  It is for this reason, Madam Speaker, that I ask that the bill be 
defeated on suspension, and, hopefully, brought back after further 
study.
  H.R. 2652 addresses one aspect of the complex subject of adjusting 
intellectual property protection laws to meet the demands of the 
digital age. Unfortunately it is a flawed and controversial attempt, 
which should not have come to the Floor on the Suspension Calendar.
  The problem is that the bill has not found a proper balance between 
protecting original investments in databases AND the economic and 
social costs of unduly restricting and discouraging downstream 
applications of these databases--particularly in regard to uses for 
basic research and education.
  Progress in science requires full and open availability of scientific 
data. New knowledge is built on previous findings and unfettered access 
and use of factual information.
  The bill will impede research by restricting the ability of 
scientists to draw on data, facts, and even mathematical formulas from 
previous scientific work for the production of new, innovative works. 
To date, these types of activities have not only been permissible, but 
expressly protected under copyright law and the fair use concept.
  By granting unprecedented rights to ownership of facts--not just 
rights to the expression of facts and information, as is the case for 
copyright--the bill will certainly increase the costs of research, but 
more importantly, reduce the openness of exchange of scientific data 
and information and also reduce collaboration among scientists.
  The provisions in the bill that purport to give exceptions for 
research and education uses are illusory--triggered only if users can 
show that the use will not harm actual or potential markets. This is 
far less ``fair use'' than under copyright law.
  Also, there is no language for mandatory legal licenses, or other 
limitations, that would require providers of sole source databases to 
make data available for research, education, and other public interest 
uses on fair and equitable terms.
  Many fields of inquiry that involve statistical compilations and 
analysis of raw data would be restricted by this bill, such as climate 
modeling and economic forecasting. Also, research activities involving 
collaborative sharing of large data bases, such as the sequencing of 
the human genome, would be adversely affected.
  The stated objective of the bill is to protect against individuals 
stealing non-copyrightable commercial databases, and then taking away 
the market of the original compiler of the data. The reach of the bill 
goes far beyond this goal.
  Alternative draft legislation that is narrowly based on 
misappropriation case law is being worked out by the communities with 
reservations about H.R. 2652. Such an approach would leave existing 
research and education uses of databases unchanged, while providing 
added protections for commercial, noncopyrightable databases.
  Any legislative action to protect the contents of databases should 
proceed using a cautious, minimalist approach that balances the 
interests of creators, publishers, and users, and of society as a 
whole.
  This is not the approach that was taken in developing H.R. 2652.
  Despite concerns raised by libraries, research and educational 
institutions, commercial database companies, and computer and 
telecommunications companies, the bill has been brought to the floor as 
a non-controversial measure under suspension of the rules.
  This procedure is inappropriate since it affords no opportunity for 
Members to offer amendments or present alternative approaches to 
address the many concerns that have been raised about the bill.
  The House should reject H.R. 2652 in its current form, and work 
toward a compromise, such as the alternative I referred to, that will 
balance the concerns of the various communities of interest.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume to make two points.
  First, with regard to the human genome, I am glad the gentleman 
brought that point up. Let me say, I fully respect the gentleman's 
motives. He performs a very useful service as the leading Democratic 
member on the Committee on Science, and it is entirely valid for him to 
be bringing these concerns forward.
  The point I would make, not to him, but to those on whose behalf he 
is quite legitimately speaking here, is that this has been pending 
business since hearings last October. We have had it before us. At 
various stages people say we have a problem; we say, fine, let us hear 
it. Two months ago we had a subcommittee markup. We had a subsequent 
committee markup. A week ago this bill was pulled off the floor, and 
tomorrow never comes.
  I think it will come, if we in fact vote this bill out of here. By 
the way, it will not go from here to the President's desk. It will go 
from here to that august wonderful chamber on the other

[[Page H3403]]

side of this building, which, under the House rules, is the beneficiary 
of all of our good comments, and they will have some time to work on 
it, and I do not think they are likely to speed it through.
  I do believe that if we do not get a bill over there, it is kind of 
late in the session, measured by the amount of time that has passed, 
not the amount of bills that have passed, but it is late in the 
session, and if we do not get it over there, they will never get to the 
point. And we look forward to the discussion.
  Just to give one example, by the way, on the human genome project, 
that is Federally funded, page 6 of the bill:

       Protection shall not extend to collections of information 
     gathered, organized or maintained by or for a government 
     entity, Federal, State or local, including any employee or 
     agent of such entity or any person exclusively licensed by 
     such entity within the scope of the employment agency 
     licensed.

  Indeed, one difference between our version and the European version 
is they do not exempt, as we do, government information.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentleman made 
this point. As the gentleman probably knows, there has been 
considerable publicity within the last few weeks about a private 
research organization which has stated it can do the remainder of the 
human genome project faster and quicker than the government-funded 
projects. I have no idea what the impact of this legislation will be.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will 
tell the gentleman what the impact is. If we go forward with the 
government funded proposal, and he has more to say about that than I 
do, and I have a suggestion, which is cancel that wasteful space 
station and do that instead with this money and do it quicker, with the 
shortfall from the Russians that you are going to have to make up, but 
if we go ahead and do this governmentally funded, that work will not be 
protectable and it will remain fully open. The fact that some other 
privately funded entity has chosen to do the work will have no negative 
effect on people's access to the work that is government funded.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Madam Speaker, I am glad for that assurance.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton)
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished 
ranking member, for yielding time to me, and I thank both the 
distinguished chair and the distinguished ranking member for pressing 
forward with such persistence in the wake of some considerable 
resistance, and not ``Waiting for Godot'' in the absence of anything 
concrete.
  Madam Speaker, I am very afraid that Federal copyright law is in 
danger of becoming a dinosaur if we do not learn to keep up with the 
technology. I would be the first, as a First Amendment lawyer in my 
early days, to stand on the other side if I thought there were a real 
danger here.
  But in fact there is another kind of danger, Madam Speaker; there is 
a new kind of plagiarism, much of it coming out of the new technology. 
The new plagiarism robs companies who, by the sweat of their proverbial 
brows, develop collections that we all need and use every day.
  These data base providers have no rights that pirates are bound to 
respect. Some of the victims, are familiar names, such as NASDAQ, based 
here in the district. Many more of them are small businesses like 
Warren Publishing, a company also located in this city. Georgia pirates 
copied Warren Publishing's unique and original cable system Factbook 
and sold it under their own name for very little because the pirates 
did not have to invest the hundreds of thousands of dollars in human, 
technical and financial resources that Warren Publishing put in to 
research, to update and to verify the product. Nevertheless, the 11th 
Circuit discarded Warren Publishing's original contributions altogether 
simply because the company had worked from a larger and less well-
defined listing.
  As one known for paying close attention to First Amendment issues, I 
have felt an obligation to inspect the bill carefully to make sure that 
educational institutions and researchers are not deterred in the 
marketplace of free exchange of information and ideas.
  I am still an academic, a tenured professor of law at Georgetown 
University law school who teaches a course there every year and who is 
working on a book. I would not want to be part and parcel of deterring 
other researchers. But in an age of instant communication, Federal 
copyright law must keep up with technology, or risk stifling the 
development of usable information and the creative entrepreneurship 
that the new technology allows, not to mention the increase in jobs 
that businesses like Warren Publishing and NASDAQ are creating every 
day.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I will sum up very briefly. My friend the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) have pretty well touched it.
  I say to my friend the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), I am 
not talking about you, but some people in this fray have inserted 
paranoia, deception and fear into this message, and then they are very 
cleverly targeting that message to a select group. Well, if you do 
that, chances are you are going to get some attention.
  But as the gentleman from Massachusetts said and as I said, this has 
been before us since last October. It has been on the table. We have 
begged people to come forward, and some did come forward, and we took 
their amendments and worked them into the bill.
  This is a good bill, Madam Speaker, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2652, 
the Collections of Information Antipiracy Act.
  Collections of information--``databases''--have become an 
indispensable feature of today's information society. By organizing 
billions of bits of raw data into retrievable form, databases enable 
medical researchers, travel writers, legal professionals, historians, 
business managers and consumers to navigate the expanding universe of 
human knowledge to find the information they need.
  The creation and maintenance of an electronic database is a labor-
intensive process that requires an enormous investment of time and 
resources. Yet thanks to digital technology, the end product can be 
copied and distributed by unscrupulous competitors with only a few 
clicks of a mouse.
  Under current law, there is little the creator of the database can do 
to prevent this. For many years, federal courts afforded copyright 
protection to compilations developed through significant investments of 
time and hard work--the ``sweat of the brow.'' But in a 1991 decision, 
Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Co., the Supreme Court 
discarded the ``sweat of the brow'' doctrine, and announced that 
compilations would henceforth merit copyright protection only if the 
arrangement of the information displays a sufficient degree of 
originality--a standard which, by their nature, few databases are 
likely to meet.
  Without effective legal protection against piracy, companies will 
have little incentive to continue to invest their time and money in 
database development. Should they fail to do so, it is the public that 
will be the poorer for it.
  The Collections of Information Antipiracy Act will address this 
problem by prohibiting the misappropriation for commercial purposes of 
collections of information whose compilation has required the 
investment of substantial time and resources.
  At the same time, the bill is drafted so as not to inhibit free 
access to information for non-profit, educational, scientific or 
research purposes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a balanced and sensible response to the problem 
of database piracy, and I urge my colleagues to give it their support.
  Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2652, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.

[[Page H3404]]

  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________