[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 140 (Thursday, October 8, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11887-S11892]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S11887]]
Senate
(Legislative day of Friday, October 2, 1998)
DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of
conference on the bill (H.R. 2281) amend title 17, United States Code,
to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright
Treaty and Performance and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes,
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
2281), have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their
respective Houses this report, signed by all of the
conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to
the consideration of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of October 8, 1998.)
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the
Conference Report on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (H.R. 2281).
In my view, we need this measure to stop an epidemic of illegal copying
of protected works--such as movies, books, musical recordings, and
software--and to limit, in a balanced and thoughtful way, the
infringement liability of online service providers. The copyright
industry is one of our most thriving businesses. But we still lose more
than $15 billion each year due to foreign copyright piracy, according
to some estimates.
And foreign piracy is just out of control. For example, one of my
staffers investigating video piracy on a trip to China walked into a
Hong Kong arcade and bought three bootlegged computer games--including
``Toy Story'' and ``NBA '97''--for just $10. These games, combined,
normally sell for about $100. Indeed, the manager was so brazen about
it, he even agreed to give out a receipt.
Illegal copying has been a longstanding concern to me. I introduced
one of the precursors to this bill, the Motion Picture Anti-Piracy Act
(in the 101st Congress), which in principle has been incorporated into
this measure. And I was one of the cosponsors of the original proposed
WIPO implementing legislation, the preliminary version of this
proposal.
In my opinion, this bill achieves a fair balance by taking steps to
effectively deter piracy, while still allowing fair use of protected
materials. It is the product of intensive negotiations between all of
the interested parties--including the copyright industry, telephone
companies, libraries, universities and device manufacturers. And
virtually every major concern raised during that process was addressed.
Unfortunately, however, the Conference dropped what I believe were
crucial protections for databases. It is my understanding, though, that
the Committee will be ``fast tracking'' consideration of database
protection next Congress. I look forward to working with Chairman Hatch
to move forward on this matter early next year.
In sum, Mr. President, I am confident that this bill will reduce
piracy and strengthen one of our biggest export industries. It deserves
our support and the President's signature.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference
report on H.R. 2281, a bill to implement the World Intellectual
Property Organization copyright treaties. I am pleased that the final
product of the many months of negotiations has produced a bill of
appropriate scope and balance, and reflects many of the priorities I
established through the introduction of my own bill to implement the
WIPO copyright treaties, to begin updating the Copyright Act for the
digital era, and to address the potential problem of on-line servicer
liability.
First, with respect to ``fair use,'' the conferees adopted an
alternative to section 1201(a)(1) that would authorize the Librarian of
Congress to selectively waive the prohibition against the act of
circumvention to prevent a diminution in the availability to individual
users (including institutions) of a particular category of copyrighted
materials. As originally proposed by the Administration and adopted by
the Senate, this section would have established a flat prohibition on
the circumvention of technological protection measures to gain access
to works for any purpose, and thus raised the specter of moving our
Nation towards a ``pay-per-use'' society. Under the compromise embodied
in the conference report, the Librarian of Congress would have
authority to address the concerns of libraries, educational
institutions, and other information consumers potentially threatened
with a denial of access to categories of works in circumstances that
otherwise would be lawful today. I trust that the Librarian of Congress
will implement this provision in a way that will ensure information
consumers may exercise their centuries-old fair use privilege to
continue to gain access to copyrighted works.
Second, the conferees made an important contribution by clarifying
the ``no mandate'' provision of the bill. Because the conference report
is silent, I thought that I should explain this provision in some
detail. As my colleagues may recall, I had been very concerned that S.
2037 could be interpreted as a mandate on product manufacturers to
design products so as to affirmatively
[[Page S11888]]
respond to or accommodate technological protection measures that
copyright owners might use to deny access to or the copying of their
works. To address this potential problem, I authored an amendment
providing that nothing in the bill required that the design of, or
design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer
electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a
response to any particular technological protection measure. The
amendment reflected my belief that product manufacturers should remain
free to design and produce the best, most advanced consumer
electronics, telecommunications, and computing products without the
threat of incurring liability for their design decisions. Creative
engineers--not risk-averse lawyers--should be principally responsible
for product design. As important, the amendment reflected the working
assumption of all of my colleagues that this bill is aimed
fundamentally at so-called ``black boxes'' and not at legitimate
products that have substantial noninfringing uses.
As my colleagues know, there had been some concern expressed that the
``so long as'' clause of section 1201(c)(3) made the provision appear
to be circular in its logic. In other words, there was concern that the
entire provision could be read to provide in essence that manufacturers
were not under any design mandate to respond to technological measures,
as long as they ``otherwise'' designed their devices to respond to
existing technological measures. I never shared that perspective. To
eliminate any uncertainty, the House Commerce Committee simply deleted
the ``so long as'' clause. As I explained on the floor in September,
that change merely confirmed my original conception of the amendment.
Now that the conferees have adopted a provision requiring certain
analog videocassette recorders to respond to certain existing analog
protection measures, the ``so long as'' clause has a meaning that all
should agree is logical: Manufacturers of consumer electronics,
telecommunications, and computer products are not under a design
mandate generally, but they are otherwise subject to a single, very
limited, and carefully defined mandate to design certain analog
videocassette recorders to respond to existing analog protection
measures. Quite importantly from my perspective, this provision is
limited so as not to impair the reasonable and accustomed home taping
practices of consumers recognized in the Supreme Court's Betamax
decision.
It thus should be about as clear as can be to a judge or jury that,
unless otherwise specified, nothing in this legislation should be
interpreted to limit manufacturers of legitimate products with
substantial noninfringing uses--such as VCRs and personal computers--in
making fundamental design decision or revisions, whether in selecting
certain components over others or in choosing particular combinations
of parts.
Third, I am pleased to see that the conferees have addressed the
device ``playability'' problem. As I pointed out in my floor speech
just prior to final passage of S. 2037, ``playability'' problems may
arise at two levels. Technological measures may cause noticeable and
recurring adverse effects on the normal operation of products, and thus
adjustments may be necessary at the factory levels to ensure consumers
get what they expect. In addition, adjustments to specific products may
be necessary after sale to a consumer to maintain their normal,
authorized functioning. Subsequently, I was pleased to see that the
Commerce Committee's report explicitly reaffirmed my interpretation.
I also was pleased that the conferees shared my perspective on
encouraging all interested parties to strive to work together through a
consultative approach before new technological measures are introduced
in the market. As the conferees pointed out, one of the benefits of
such consultations is to allow the testing of proposed technologies to
determine whether they create playability problems, and to have an
opportunity to take steps to eliminate or substantially mitigate such
adverse effects before new technologies are introduced. As the
conferees recognized, however, persons may choose to implement a new
technological measure (or copyright management information system)
without vetting it through an inter-industry consultative process, or
without regard to the input of the affected parties.
Whether introduced unilaterally or developed with the input of
experts in the field, a new protection technology coming to market
might materially degrade or otherwise cause recurring appreciable
adverse effects on the authorized performance or display of works.
Given the multiplicity of ways in which devices might be
interconnected, some playability problems may not be foreseeable. I was
thus pleased that the conference report unambiguously provides that
manufacturers and persons servicing popular consumer electronics,
telecommunications, or computing products who make product adjustments
solely to mitigate a playability problem--whether or not taken in
combination with other lawful product modifications--shall not be
deemed to have violated either section 1201(a) or section 1201(b).
Having heard directly from a major trade association representing
professional servicers, I am pleased we could include such strong
language so that they can go about their business without fear of
facing crippling liability.
Fourth, the conferees adopted specific provisions making it clear
that the bill is not intended to prohibit legitimate encryption
research or security systems testing. As my colleagues know, Senators
Burns, Leahy, and I have lead the effort in the Senate to ensure that
U.S. business can develop and export world-class encryption products.
by explicitly fashioning an affirmative encryption research defense,
the conferees made an important contribution to our overall efforts to
ensure that U.S. industry remains at the forefront in developing secure
encryption methods. In addition, by including a security system testing
amendment, the conferees have confirmed that professional consultants
and other well-established, responsible corporate citizens can survey
and test IT security systems for vulnerabilities.
Finally, the conferees built on my efforts to ensure that this
legislation would not harm the efforts of consumers to protect their
personal privacy by including two important amendments proposed by the
House Commerce Committee. The first amendment would create incentives
for website operators to disclose whenever they use technological
measures that have the capability to gather personal data, and to give
consumers a means of disabling them. The second amendment strengthened
section 1202 of this legislation by making explicit that the term
``copyright management information'' does not include ``any personally
identifying information about a user of a work or a copy, phonorecord,
performance, or display of a work.'' In my view, these amendments will
help preserve the critical balance that we must maintain between the
interests of copyright owners and the privacy interests of information
users.
We should all be gratified that so much has been done to
appropriately calibrate the WIPO copyright treaties implementing
legislation. Each of us, working alone, would undoubtedly have produced
a different bill. But we have a good bill, perhaps one more balanced
and limited in scope than might have been thought possible at times
throughout the debate. I therefore urge my colleagues to vote in favor
of the conference report.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for
the Conference Report to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. As one
of the conferees, I believe this bill represents a fair compromise
between the House and Senate versions of this most significant
legislation.
Intellectual property is an increasingly important part of the
American economy. This bill recognizes the significance of our
copyright laws as America and the world have become increasingly
computerized. The Internet is rapidly changing our lives, and our
copyright laws must keep pace.
This legislation implements the WIPO treaties to help protect the
property rights of the creative community in our global environment. It
also clarifies the liability of on-line and Internet service providers
regarding their liability for copyright infringement and permits fair
use of works. Together, these provisions do a great deal
[[Page S11889]]
to accommodate the interests of the owners of copyrighted works with
those who use or facilitate the use of those works in the digital age.
A final title of the bill is the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act.
Although it was not part of the Senate version of the legislation, it
was accepted at conference. I share Senator Hatch's concerns about this
controversial title. It contains not only industrial design protection,
which itself has created controversy in the past because of its impact
on consumers and others, but it protects functionality of vessel hulls
in addition to aesthetic aspects. It is my understanding that
functionality is protected from copying through patent, and this title
is a significant departure from that principle, although for a specific
narrow area.
Also, I wish to note that although data base protection is not
included in this bill, I think it is important that we make every
effort to address this significant issue next year.
In closing, I wish to thank the Chairman of the conference, Senator
Hatch, and all of the other members of the conference for their
cooperation in resolving this matter. I am very pleased with the
outcome.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the conference
report be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table,
and that any statements relating to the conference report be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in the wining days of a Congress, so many
important measures need attention that the significance of individual
bills is often not appreciated. This is even more true for a bill that
has copyright as its subject matter, such as the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, the conference report which passed the Senate today by
unanimous consent. But the DMCA is one of the most important bills
passed this session, as the distinguished majority leader stated
yesterday.
``Digital Millennium'' may seem grandiose, but in fact it accurately
describes the purpose of the bill--to set copyright law up to meet the
promise and the challenge of the digital world in the new millennium.
Digital ``world'' is appropriate here, because the Internet has made it
possible for information--including valuable American copyrighted
works--to flow around the globe in a matter of hours, and Internet end
users can receive copies of movies, music, software, video games and
literary and graphic works that are as good as the originals. Indeed,
the initial impetus for the DMCA was the implementation of the World
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties on copyright and on
performances and phonorecords.
The WIPO treaties and the DMCA will protect the property rights of
Americans in their work as they move in the global, digital
marketplace, and, by doing so, continue to encourage the creation of
new works to inspire and delight us and to improve the quality of our
lives.
In addition to securing copyright in the global, digital environment,
the DMCA also clarifies the liability of on-line and Internet service
providers--OSPs and ISPs--for copyright infringement liability. The
OSPs and ISPs needed more certainty in this area in order to attract
the substantial investments necessary to continue the expansion and
upgrading of the Internet.
The final component of the DMCA is the Vessel Hull Design Protection,
Act (VHDPA). This legislation was not part of the Senate-passed version
of the DMCA; rather, it was accepted by the Senate conferees in
deference to the House of Representatives. Although I support the idea
of industrial design protection as a legal regime outside of patent
law, I appreciate how controversial it is, and I think that the Senate
should act circumspectly. Furthermore, I am concerned that this bill is
not like traditional industrial design protection in that the VHDPA
protects the functionality of vessel hulls, not only its aesthetic
aspects.
But because the VHDPA is limited only to boat hulls, I felt that I
could acquiesce in including it in the conference report as a limited
experiment in design protection. In order to make it truly
experimental, I suggested, and the conferees adopted, modifications
that ``sunset'' the bill two years after enactment and that require two
studies of its effect. Therefore, in the future, we will be able to re-
evaluate the Act, and we will have the benefit of two studies--both of
them conducted jointly by the Register of Copyrights and the
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks--to help us make the right
decision.
In the nearer future--early in the next session--I intend to focus my
attention on database protection legislation. The House bill on this
issue, which was attached by the House to the WIPO implementation
legislation, was a good start toward tackling the problem of database
piracy. It was quite controversial, however, so I asked the parties to
sit down with me to work out a compromise bill, so that disagreements
on database protection would not jeopardize the DMCA. This effort
resulted in a bill draft that attempted to accommodate the diverging
interests. The scientific research community, in particular, favored my
approach because it allayed many of their fears that recognizing a
property right in databases would hamper scientific research.
Neither the House bill nor my proposal was accepted by the conferees,
but I am determined to work on this issue in the next Congress. Indeed,
I intend to introduce a bill based on my proposal, have a hearing on
database protection, and move database legislation as quickly as
possible. We need to encourage the substantial investment of money,
time and labor that it takes to gather and organize information and at
the same time address the reasonable concerns of information users. In
our global, high tech era, information will be the coin of the realm,
and I see database protection as the next step in moving the law into
the digital millennium.
In closing, I would like to recognize the many people who brought
this bill to a successful conclusion. First, I would like to thank my
colleague, Senator Patrick Leahy, the distinguished ranking member of
the Judiciary Committee, who was of invaluable assistance in getting
this important piece of legislation passed. Two other distinguished
colleagues, Senator Storm Thurmond and Senator John Ashcroft,
participated in the refining process that made the DMCA a better bill.
Second, I want to thank the House conferees, especially Congressman
Henry Hyde, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
Congressman Howard Coble, the distinguished chairman of the
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, and Congressman Tom
Bliley, the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee for their
willingness to consider the Senate's views objectively and
dispassionately. They too wanted to get this done, and it was the
spirit of cooperation on both sides that produced this admirable
result.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the hard work done by the Senate
and House staffs. There were so many who worked on this bill that it
would take a column of the Congressional Record to list them. But I
would like to mention just a few. Manus Cooney, the staff director and
chief counsel of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the staff pilot
for the DMCA. He was ably assisted by Edward Damich, Chief Intellectual
Property Counsel of the Committee, and Staff Assistant Troy Dow.
Senator Thurmond was ably assisted in the conference committee by his
Judiciary Committee Counsel, Garry Malphus.
Bruce Cohen, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director of the
Judiciary Committee, Beryl Howell, Minority General Counsel, and Marla
Grossman, Minority Counsel, provided invaluable assistance on all
levels. We had superb cooperation from the minority, and the DMCA is
truly a bipartisan bill.
Turning to the House side, I want to express my appreciation for the
contributions of Mitch Glazier, Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee on
Courts and Intellectual Property, Debra Laman, Counsel of the
Subcommittee, Robert Raben, Minority Counsel of the Subcommittee,
Justin Lilley, General Counsel of the Commerce Committee, and Andrew
Levin, Minority Counsel of that Committee.
[[Page S11890]]
Mr. President, this bill, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, is
one of the most important bills in this whole Congress. It has taken a
tremendous amount of effort from all of us to be able to put this
together. It is going to make a difference in so many ways--in the
protection of copyrighted works, in digital communication and
otherwise--throughout the world, that I feel very, very happy to be
able to say that this is being enacted into law at this particular
point.
I would like to state my agreement with certain important points that
Senator Leahy made in his remarks about Section 1201(k), ``Certain
Analog Devices and Certain Technological Measures.'' The Senator
emphasized that that section establishes requirements only for analog
videocassette recorders, analog videocassette camcorders and
professional analog videocassette recorders. It is also my
understanding that the intent of the conferees is that these provisions
apply only to analog video recording devices.
In addition, because innovation and technological development thrive
in unregulated environments, this section should not be misconstrued as
providing any impetus or precedent for regulating or otherwise
dictating to the computer software industry technological standards. I
agree fully with the assessment of the conferees that technology
develops best and most rapidly in response to marketplace forces. For
these reasons, this section applies to analog technologies only, and it
is entirely without prejudice to digital technologies.
Let me just say that I am disappointed that we were not able to
include database protection in this bill this year. There are so many
people who would like to have that done, on the floor and in the
business world and elsewhere, but we were unable to get it done because
of objections and because of some dissent. But I would like to put
everybody on notice that, shortly after we get back next year, I will
file a database protection bill. I believe my colleague from Vermont
will join me in this. That, hopefully, will be a bill that everybody
can support, because it is absolutely critical that we get this done.
It will be one of the highest orders of priority that we will have on
the Senate Judiciary Committee next year. It was one of the things that
I feel disappointed we were unable to get done on this particular bill.
It just could not be done at this time. I know there are people who are
disappointed, but we will get it done next year--we will do everything
we can to get it done, and I hope we can call upon industry and
everyone else interested in this issue throughout the country to help
us in this matter. I hope our colleagues will, because it is very, very
important.
Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, America's founders recognized and valued
the creativity of this nation's citizens to such an extent that
intellectual property rights are rooted in the Constitution. Article I,
Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution states that
The Congress shall have power . . . [t]o promote the
progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited
times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries.
The Continental Congress proclaimed,
Nothing is more properly a man's own than the fruit of his
study.''
Protecting intellectual property rights is just as important today as
it was when America was a fledgling nation.
It is for this reason I am pleased that the Senate has today passed
the Conference Report on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),
H.R. 2281.
Title I of the DMCA will implement the two World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) copyright treaties. These treaties will
fortify intellectual property rights around the world and will help
unleash the full potential of America's most creative industries,
including the computer software, publishing, movie, recording and other
copyrighted industries that are subject to online piracy. By insuring
better protection of the creative works available online, the DMCA will
also encourage the continued growth of the Internet and the global
information infrastructure. It will encourage the ingenuity of the
American people, and will send a powerful message to intellectual
property pirates that we will not tolerate theft.
I should note that there are provisions in Title I that address
certain technologies used to control copying of motion pictures in
analog form on video cassette recorders which were not part of either
the original Senate or House DMCA bills. These provisions establish
certain requirements only for analog videocassette recorders, analog
videocassette camcorders and professional analog videocassette
recorders. It is my understanding that these provisions do not
establish any obligations with respect to digital technologies,
including computers or software.
It is also my understanding that the intent of the conferees is that
these provisions neither establish, nor should 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.
Generally, Congress should not establish technology specific rules;
technology develops best and most rapidly in response to marketplace
forces.
Title II of the DMCA will limit the infringement liability of online
service providers. This title is intended to preserve incentives for
online service providers and copyright owners to cooperate to detect
and address copyright infringements that occur in the digital networked
environment.
Title III will provide a minor, yet important, clarification in
section 117 of the Copyright Act to ensure that the lawful owner or
lessee of a computer machine may authorize an independent service
provider, a person unaffiliated with either the owner or lessee of the
machine, to activate the machine for the sole purpose of servicing its
hardware components.
Title IV will begin to update our nation's copyright laws with
respect to library, archives, and educational uses of copyrighted works
in a digital environment. It includes provisions relating to the
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks and the Register of Copyrights,
and clarifies the role of the Copyright Office. It also addresses the
assumption of contractual obligations related to the transfer of rights
in motion pictures. Finally, this title creates a fair and efficient
licensing mechanism to address the complex issues facing copyright
owners and users of copyrighted materials as a result of the rapid
growth of digital audio services.
Title V, the ``Vessel Hull Design Protection Act,'' creates a new
form of sui generis intellectual property protection for vessel hull
designs. By adoption of this title, however, the Conferees wisely took
no position on the advisability or propriety of adopting broader design
protection for other useful articles. Indeed, when broad industrial
design legislation was considered by the Congress in the late 1980s and
early 1990s, a number of legitimate concerns were raised about the
effects such legislation would have, particularly on the cost of auto
repairs. Establishing narrow protection for vessel hulls in the
conference report should not be interpreted as signaling support, or
setting a precedent, for broader design protection that could
negatively affect the ability of consumers to obtain economical,
quality auto repairs.
The Senate today is passing a balanced and important package. Certain
issues that the House had included in the version it passed on August
4, 1998, were eliminated to allow consideration of the rest of the
package in a timely manner.
One of the issues dropped was that of database protection. Title V of
the House passed DMCA bill created a new federal prohibition against
the misappropriation of databases that are the product of substantial
investment, with both civil remedies and criminal penalties. The
argument for enhanced database protection is that legal rulings and
technological developments have eroded protections against database
theft. Companies may be able to copy significant portions of
established databases and sell them, avoiding the substantial cost of
creating and verifying the databases themselves. I appreciate that the
threat to U.S. databases has been magnified because database protection
laws recently implemented in European Union countries will not be
available to U.S. publishers unless comparable legislation is enacted
in the U.S.
[[Page S11891]]
I have therefore been and continue to be supportive of legislation to
provide database producers with adequate protection from database
piracy.
I am also sensitive, however, to the concerns about the House-passed
database bill that were raised by the Administration, the libraries,
certain educational institutions, and the scientific community. The
Department of Justice, in a memorandum dated July 28, 1998, concluded
that the House passed database bill, H.R. 2652, which was later
incorporated in Title V of the House DMCA, raised difficult and novel
constitutional questions.
The Department of Commerce has also advised me that while the
Administration supports legal protection against commercial
misappropriation of collections of information, the Administration has
a number of concerns with H.R. 2652, including that the Constitution
imposes significant constraints upon Congress' power to enact
legislation of this sort.
Just this week, the Department of Commerce told me in a letter that:
Given the critical importance of implementing the WIPO
treaties, and the short time remaining in the Session, we
urge the Conferees to focus on issues germane to these
treaties, rather than unrelated matters.
Although there was not enough time before the end of this Congress to
give this important issue due consideration, it is my hope that the
Senate Judiciary Committee will promptly commence hearings on the issue
and move expeditiously to enact further legislation on the matter at
the beginning of the 106th Congress. The work that the Committee did
this year on the issue should be viewed as a beginning, and we are
committed to making more progress as quickly as possible.
The legislation that the Senate passed today is the culmination of
several years' work, both domestically and internationally, to ensure
that the appropriate copyright protections are in place around the
world to foster the enormous growth of the Internet and other digital
computer networks.
Much of the credit for this legislation is due to the hard work and
dedication of the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator
Hatch. This is another example of when we work together, we get good
things done. It was also a pleasure to serve on the Conference with
Senator Thurmond, former Chairman the Senate Judiciary Committee and a
force in his own right.
The Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee--
Chairman Hyde and Congressman Conyers--and the Chairman and Ranking
Member of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property--
Chairman Coble and Congressman Frank--deserve particular recognition
and praise for their fine work. Although Congressman Frank was not on
the Conference Committee, his tremendous efforts on behalf of the WIPO
implementing language as well as on the other matters in the DMCA are
very much appreciated. Congressman Goodlatte and Berman also
contributed considerable time and talent to the benefit of all who
participated in the process.
Although I had not previously had the pleasure of working on WIPO
with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Commerce Committee--
Chairman Bliley and Congressman Dingell--or the Chairman of the
Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee,
Chairman Tauzin, I would like to acknowledge their significant
contributions to the final package.
The staff of all of the Conferees deserve special recognition. Manus
Cooney, Edward Damich, Troy Dow, Garry Malphrus, Mitch Glazier, Debbie
Laman, Robert Raben, Bari Schwartz, David Lehman, Ben Cline, Justin
Lilley, Andy Levin, Mike O'Rielly, and Whitney Fox spent countless
hours on this bill, when it was pending in Committee, on the floor and,
finally, in conference. Without their labor and talent, we would not be
here today considering the DMCA.
The DMCA also reflects the recommendations and hard work of the
Copyright Office. Specifically, Marybeth Peters, Shira Perlmutter,
David Carson, Jesse Feder, Carolina Saez, Sayuri Rajapakse, Rachel
Goslins and Jule Sigall were invaluable on this legislation. The
Copyright Office was there at every step along the way--from the
negotiation of the WIPO treaties to the negotiations and the drafting
of the implementing legislation and the other issues in the DMCA. Given
their expertise in copyright law, they will play a significant role in
the implementation of the legislation, particularly with regards to the
rulemaking on the circumvention of technological measures that
effectively control access to a copyrighted work and the studies
mandated by the bill.
The Clinton Administration deserves praise for the role it played in
making this legislation a reality. I would especially like to thank
Secretary Daley, Andy Pincus, Ellen Bloom, Jennifer Conovitz and Justin
Hughes of the Department of Commerce, as well as Brian Kahin and Thomas
Kalil for all of their hard work on the DMCA.
From my perspective, those who deserve the most thanks are my
Judiciary Committee staff who have assisted me during the hearings,
debates, negotiations, and conference on this bill. Bruce Cohen, Beryl
Howell and Marla Grossman have worked tirelessly to ensure that this
bill was well crafted and lived up to its promise.
This legislation is an important step for protecting American
ingenuity and creative expression. It addresses the needs of creators,
consumers and commerce in the digital age and well into the next
century. I am proud that the Senate has passed this legislation today.
Mr. President, so Senators will know, the distinguished senior
Senator from Utah and I spent enormous amounts of time on this piece of
legislation working to get us to this point. We both share great
concerns about the database part. We understood that we would not be
able to get the bill passed had that stayed in the bill.
The distinguished Senator from Utah and I will work between the time
we go out and the time we come back in January to put together database
legislation. There will be a strong effort, I know, on my side of the
aisle, as there will be on his. We hope the Senate will be able to vote
on that and the House, too, early next year. I say this because I do
not want anybody to think that this has now disappeared because the
rest of the legislation has gone through.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference
report to implement the WIPO treaties. I also strongly support the
copyright term extension legislation that we recently passed by voice
vote.
While I would like to congratulate the conferees and their staff for
working out a consensus on so many controversial provisions, I feel it
is necessary to express my disappointment that we are unable to pass
some form of database protection this year. It is unfortunate that a
consensus could not be reached on an issue that is so vital to so many
people in our country. Agricultural databases, for example, are relied
upon by our farmers and by others in our farming supply industry. While
computers and the Internet make access to information available at our
fingertips, we need to provide adequate protection for those who
compile that information in such a user friendly format. Such easy
access is essential to health care workers, for example, who need to
have fast access to accurate information about which drugs have adverse
reactions to other drugs or which antidotes are most effective in
counteracting certain poisons.
I see my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, is on the floor, and I would like to ask if he
would agree that Congress should pass database legislation as early as
possible next year to ensure that those who invest their time, money
and effort in compiling and updating databases are protected from
having their work pirated both domestically and internationally? Would
the Senator from Utah agree that without such protections, database
creators may decide that the risk of loss from piracy outweighs any
potential gains from creating or updating databases.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as my colleague well knows, I have
facilitated a number of meetings with interested parties from all sides
of this issue to try to work out a consensus bill. Obviously more work
needs to be done to pass a bill that is acceptable to all sides. This
is an important issue, and I
[[Page S11892]]
think everyone understands that. The Senator from Ohio has my assurance
that I will continue to work with him on this issue.
Mr. DeWINE. I again commend the Senator from Utah and the other WIPO
conferees and their staff, especially Senator Leahy, for their tireless
efforts to reach consensus on so many complex issues. I would simply
like to ask my friend from Utah to work with those of us on the
Judiciary Committee to introduce and seek passage of legislation early
next year that protects our databases.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me assure my friend from Ohio that I
have spoken to our colleagues on the House side, Congressmen Hyde and
Coble, and we have agreed to work together to introduce and seek
passage of database protection legislation early next year. I will
continue to work with the Senator from Ohio and our Senate and House
colleagues and address this issue early next year.
Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Senator from Utah for his comments.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. Without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. HATCH. As I understand, the conference report has been agreed to.
Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the conference
report was agreed to.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my friend, the Senator from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. HATCH. Will my colleague yield for 1 other minute? I promised I
would yield to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.
Mr. WARNER. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator
from Arizona, provided I do not lose my right of recognition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
____________________