[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 144 (Monday, October 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H10615-H10621]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    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.

                          ____________________