[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 145 (Tuesday, October 13, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2144]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN

                              of louisiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, October 12, 1998

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, today, we bring to the floor H.R. 2281, the 
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. I am pleased that the 
Conference Report reflects the joint efforts of the Commerce and 
Judiciary Committees. The House played an extremely important role in 
the development of this balanced bill. We addressed some of the very 
tough issues that had yet to be resolved despite passage of the bill by 
the Senate. The substance of our work resulted in amendments which were 
ultimately incorporated into the bill which we consider today.
  Today, we take the final step toward passage of legislation which 
will implement the WIPO treaties. It is indeed an historic moment. By 
passing this legislation, the United States sets the standard for the 
rest of the world to meet. Our content industries are the world's 
finest, as well as one of this Nation's leading exporters. They must be 
protected from those pirates who in the blink of an eye--can steal 
these works and make hundreds if not thousands of copies to be sold 
around the world--leaving our own industries uncompensated. This theft 
cannot continue.
  By implementing the WIPO treaties this year, we ensure that authors 
and their works will be protected from pirates who pillage their way 
through cyberspace. As we send a signal to the rest of the world, 
however, it is important that we not undermine our commitment to 
becoming an information-rich society--right here in the United States . 
. . inside our own borders.
  The discussion generated by the House has been invaluable to finding 
the balance between copyright protection and the exchange of ideas in 
the free-market--two of the fundamental pillars upon which this nation 
was built. In drafting this legislation, we did not overlook the need 
to strike the correct balance between these two competing ideals. That 
is indeed the purpose of the legislative process--to debate, haggle, 
review and ultimately to hammer out what will be strong and lasting 
policy for the rest of the world to follow.
  A free market place for ideas is critical to America. It means that 
any man, woman or child--free of charge!!--can wander into any public 
library and use the materials in those libraries for free. He or she--
again, free of charge!!--can absorb the ideas and visions of mankind's 
greatest writers and thinkers.
  In this regard, the most important contribution that we made to this 
bill is section 1201(a)(1). That section authorizes the Librarian of 
Congress to wave the prohibition against the act of circumvention to 
prevent a reduction in the availability to individuals and institutions 
of a particular category of copyrighted works. As originally proposed 
by the Senate, this section would have established a flat prohibition 
on the circumvention of technological measures to gain access to works 
for any purpose. This raised the possibility of our society becoming 
one in which pay-per-use access was the rule, a development profoundly 
antithetical to our long tradition of the exchange of free ideas and 
information. Under the compromise embodied in the Conference Report, 
the Librarian will have the authority to address the concerns of 
Libraries, educational institutions, and other information consumers 
threatened with a denial of access to work in circumstances that would 
be lawful today. I trust the Librarian, in consultation with the 
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, 
will ensure that information consumers may continue to exercise their 
centuries-old fair use privilege.
  We also sought to ensure that consumers could apply their centuries-
old fair use rights in the digital age. Sections 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1) 
make it illegal to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, 
or to otherwise traffic in ``black boxes.'' These provisions are not 
aimed at staple articles of commerce, such as video cassette recorders, 
telecommunications switches, and personal computers widely used today 
by businesses and consumers for legitimate purposes. As a result of the 
efforts of the Commerce Committee, legitimate concerns about how these 
provisions might be interpreted by a court to negatively affect 
consumers have been addressed to the satisfaction of consumer 
electronics and other product managers.

  Section 1201(c)(3), the ``no mandate'' provision, makes clear that 
neither of these sections 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 section 1201. Members of my Subcommittee included an 
unambiguous no mandate provision out of concern that someone might try 
to use this bill as a basis for filing a lawsuit to stop legitimate new 
products from coming to market. It was our strong belief that product 
manufacturers should remain free to design and produce digital consumer 
electronics, telecommunications, and computing products without the 
threat of incurring liability for their design decisions. Had the bill 
been read to require that new digital products respond to any 
technological protection measure that any copyright owners chose to 
deploy, manufacturers would have been confronted with difficult, 
perhaps even impossible, design choices. They could have been forced to 
choose, for example, between implementing one of two incompatible 
digital technological measures. It was the wrong thing to do for 
consumers and thus, we fixed the problem.
  In our Committee report, we also sought to address the concerns of 
manufacturers and consumers about the potential for ``playability'' 
problems when new technological measures are introduced in the market. 
I was pleased to see that the conferees also recognized the seriousness 
of the problem and agreed to include explicit conference report 
language setting forth our shared respective on how the bill should be 
interpreted in this respect.
  With regard to the issue of encryption research, the Commerce 
Committee again made an invaluable contribution to this important 
legislation. The amendment provided for an exception to the 
circumvention provisions contained in the bill for legal encryption 
research and reverse engineering. In particular, these exceptions would 
ensure that companies and individuals engaged in what is presently 
lawful encryption research and security testing and those who legally 
provide these services could continue to engage in these important and 
necessary activities which will strengthen our ability to keep our 
nation's computer systems, digital networks and systems applications 
private, protected and secure.
  Finally, I want to commend my colleagues, Dan Schaefer and Rick White 
for their efforts in reaching agreement on a provision which has been 
included in this bill to address the concerns of webcasters. Webcasting 
is a new use of the digital works this bill deals with. Under current 
law, it is difficult for webcasters and record companies to know their 
rights and responsibilities and to negotiate for licenses. This 
provision makes clear the rights of each party and sets up a statutory 
licensing program to make it as easy as possible to comply with. It is 
a worthy change to the bill and again, my thanks to Mr. White and Mr. 
Schaefer and their staffs--Peter Schalestock and Luke Rose.
  I can't emphasize enough to my colleagues the importance of not only 
this legislation, but also the timing of this legislation. An 
international copyright treaty convention is a rare and infrequent 
event. We thus stand on the brink of implementing this most recent 
treaty--the WIPO copyright treaty--knowing full well that it may be 
another 20 years before we can re-visit this subject. This bill strikes 
the right balance. Copyright protection is important and must be 
encouraged here. But in pursuing that goal we must remain faithful to 
our legacy, and our commitment to promoting the free exchange of ideas 
and thoughts. Digital technology should be embraced as a means to 
enrich and enlighten all of us.
  Finally, I want to thank Chairman Bliley and Ranking Member Dingell 
as well as my colleagues Mr. Markey, Mr. Klug, Mr. Boucher, and Mr. 
Stearns. Also, I would like to thank Chairman Hyde, Ranking Member 
Conyers, Chairman Coble, Mr. Goodlatte, and Mr. Berman, as well as 
Senators Hatch, Leahy, and Thurmond for their excellent work on this 
legislation. And finally, a special thanks to the staffs of these 
Members--Justiin Lilley, Mike O'Reilly, Andy Levin, Colin Crowell, 
Kathy Hahn, Ann Morton, Peter Krug, Mitch Galzier, Debbie Laman, Robert 
Rabin, David Lehman, Bari Schwartz, Manus Cooney, Ed Damich, Troy Dow, 
Garry Malphrus, Marla Grossman, Bruce Cohen, and Beryl Howell.




                          ____________________