[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 34 (Thursday, March 21, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2269-S2272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
        Breaux, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 2048. A bill to regulate interstate commerce in certain devices by 
providing for private sector development of technological protection 
measures to be implemented and enforced by Federal regulations to 
protect digital content and promote broadband as well as the transition 
to digital television, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise along with Senators Stevens, 
Inouye, Breaux, Nelson, and Feinstein to introduce the Consumer 
Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act of 2002, legislation 
that will promote broadband and the digital television transition by 
securing content on the Internet and over the Nation's airwaves.
  For several years the private sector has attempted to secure a safe 
haven for copyrighted digital products, unfortunately with little to 
show for its efforts. The result has been an absence of robust, 
ubiquitous protections of digital media which has lead to a lack of 
content on the Internet and over the airwaves. And who has suffered the 
most? Consumers, as they are denied access to high quality digital 
content in the home.
  The reality is that a lack of security has enabled significant 
copyright privacy which drains America's content industries to the tune 
of billions of dollars every year. For example, the movie studios 
estimate that they lose over $3 billion annually by way of analog 
piracy. In order to pirate copyrighted movies via analog formats, an 
individual makes an illegal copy of the movie, sometimes by taping it 
in a movie theater with a personal video recorder, and then distributes 
it, in analog form, at discount. However, because subsequent copies of 
analog movies degrade over time, there is a limit to the success of 
this type of piracy.
  In a digital age, however, the privacy threat is exponentially 
magnified. So on the Internet, copyright content, be it a movie, a 
book, music, or software, travels in a digital language of 1s and 0s, 
and every copy of that content, from the 1st to the 1000th is as 
pristine as the original. Also, unlike an analog pirated movie, which 
must be physically packaged and transported, a digital copy can be sent 
around the world on the Internet with a single click of a mouse. The 
copyright industries are justifiably worried about distributing their 
content on the Internet absent strong copyright protection measures. As 
Internet access becomes increasingly available over high-speed, 
broadband connections, these worries will only heighten.
  It should be noted, however, that the Internet is not the only threat 
to unprotected digital content. Digital video programming is also 
subject to a large privacy threat. Rapid advances in consumer 
electronics make it easier to steal copyright content. Newly developed 
digital compression and memory technologies make it possible to store 
two complete movies on a device the size of a postage stamp. Today, 
digital media can be transmitted over wired or wireless channels and 
played and stored on a host of consumer electronics devices. By and 
large, these are positive developments for consumers.
  But any device that can legitimately play, copy, or electronically 
transmit one or more categories of media also can be misused for 
illegal copyright infringement, unless special protection technologies 
are incorporated into such a device. Unfortunately, as technology has 
advanced, copy protection schemes have not kept pace, fostering a set 
of consumer expectations that at times actually promote illegal 
activity on the Internet. For example, according to a Jupiter 
Media Matrix report, over 7 million Americans use technology on the 
Internet to swap music and other digital media files. More recent news 
reports place this number at over 11 million. While some of this 
activity is legal, much of it is not.

  Every week a major magazine or newspaper reports on the thousands of 
illegal pirated works that are available for copying and redistribution 
online. Academy award winning motion pictures, platinum records, and 
Emmy award winning television shows--all for free, all illegal. Piracy 
is growing exponentially on college campuses and among tech savvy 
consumers. Such lawlessness contributes to the studios and record 
labels' reluctance to place their digital content on the Internet or 
over the airwaves.
  At the same time, millions of law abiding consumers find little 
reason to spend discretionary dollars on consumer electronics products 
whose value depends on their ability to receive, display and copy high 
quality digital content like popular movies, music, and video games. 
Accordingly, only early adopters have purchased high definition 
television sets or broadband Internet access, as these products remain 
priced too high for the average consumer. The facts are clear in this 
regard. Only two million Americans have purchased HDTV sets. As for 
broadband, rural and underserved areas aside, there is not an 
availability problem. There is a demand problem. Roughly 85 percent of 
Americans are offered broadband in the marketplace but only 10-12 
percent have signed up. The fact is that most Americans are averse to 
paying $50 a month for faster access to email, or $2,000 for a fancy 
HDTV set that plays analog movies. But if more high-quality content 
were available, consumers might come.
  By unleashing an avalanche of digital content on broadband Internet 
connections as well as over the digital broadcast airwaves, we can 
change this dynamic and give consumers a reason to buy new consumer 
electronics and information technology products. To do so requires the 
development of a secure, protected environment to foster the widespread 
dissemination of digital content in these exciting new mediums.
  Although, it is technologically feasible to provide such a protected 
environment, the solution has not been forthcoming through voluntary 
private sector negotiations involving the industries with stakes in 
this matter. This is not to say, however, that those industries do not 
recognize the tremendous economic potential to be derived from a 
proliferation of top notch digital content to consumers in the home. 
The movie studios, and the rest of the copyright industries, for 
example, are tremendously excited about the possibility of providing 
their products to consumers over the Internet and the digital airwaves, 
provided they can be assured that those products' copyrights are not 
infringed in the process.
  Although marketplace negotiations have not provided such an 
assurance, a solution is at hand. Leaders in the consumer electronics, 
information technology, and content industries are America's best and 
brightest. They can solve this problem. The consumer electronics and 
high tech industries claim they are ready to do just that. America's 
top high-tech executives sent me a letter three weeks ago to that 
effect. While, I want to believe them, industry negotiations have been 
lagging. Both sides share some blame in this area. But the blame games 
need to end. It's time for results, not recriminations.

  I believe the private sector is capable, through marketplace 
negotiations--of adopting standards that will ensure the secure 
transmission of copyrighted content on the Internet and over the 
airwaves. But given the pace of private talks so far, the private 
sector needs a nudge. The government can provide that nudge, and in 
doing so continue the government's longstanding role in promoting, and 
sometimes requiring, the implementation of

[[Page S2270]]

technological standards in electronics equipment to benefit consumers. 
We debated the merits of such an approach in the Commerce Committee on 
February 28, 2002 when the leaders of the copyright, consumer 
electronics, and information technology industries testified as to 
their distinct views on this issue. At that hearing, every Senator and 
every witness agreed that the problem of digital piracy requires 
resolution.
  Specifically, our hearing demonstrated that there are three discrete 
problem areas that merit government intervention. First, is the piracy 
threat presented toward unprotected digital broadcast television. Over 
the air broadcast digital signals cannot be encrypted because the 
millions of Americans who receive their signal via antennas cannot 
decrypt the signal. As a result, digital broadcast signals are 
delivered in unprotected format and are subject to illegal copying or 
redistribution over the Internet upon transmission. The technology 
exists today to solve this problem. It has been referred to as a 
``broadcast flag'' which would instruct digital devices to prevent 
illegal copying and Internet retransmission of digital broadcast 
television. Consumer electronic devices would respond to the technology 
and prevent copyright infringement. However, because not every device 
would be required to respond to the technology, ubiquitous response 
requires a mandate by government.
  The second problem is commonly referred to as the ``Analog hole.'' As 
protected digital programming, usually delivered over satellite or 
cable, but also available on the Internet, is decrypted for viewing by 
consumers, most frequently on television sets, the programming is 
temporarily ``in the clear.'' At this point, pirates may have the 
opportunity to take advantage of an ``Analog hole'' by copying the 
content into a digital format, i.e. re-digitizing it, and then 
illegally copying and/or retransmitting the content. The technology to 
solve this problem either exists today, or will be available shortly. 
Regardless, the solution is technologically feasible. As with the 
``broadcast flag'' the solution to the ``Analog hole'' will require a 
government mandate to ensure its ubiquitous adoption across consumer 
devices.
  The final problem poses the greatest threat. Literally millions of 
digital files of music and videos are illegally copied, downloaded, and 
transmitted over the Internet on a regular basis. Current digital 
rights management solutions are insufficient to rectify this problem. 
Some consumers resorting to illegal behavior do so unknowingly. Many 
others do so willingly. Regardless, consumers desire high-quality 
digital content on the Internet and it is not being provided in any 
widespread, legal fashion. Fortunately, a solution to this problem is 
also technologically feasible. It too will require government action, 
including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
  While industries are at odds as to how to solve these critical 
content protection problems, the legislation we introduce today 
provides us with the tools to break the logjam. Specifically, the 
legislation requires the content, consumer electronics, and information 
technology industries to come together with representatives of consumer 
groups to develop standards, technologies, and encoding rules to 
safeguard digital content so that it will be made more readily 
available to consumers without being subject to piracy. The affected 
parties would have one year to reach agreement. The technologies would 
then be incorporated into all digital media devices to ensure universal 
protection for digital content and universal access to such content for 
consumers. The deadline on industry would work in the following 
fashion: if they come together to solve these problems in private 
sector talks, we will empower government enforcement so that all 
consumer devices comply. If they don't, the government, in consultation 
with the private sector, will have to step in.
  America's creative artists deserve our protection. Our copyright 
industries are among our greatest economic and creative assets. The 
framers recognized that innovation and creativity was instrumental to 
our country's economic health when they empowered Congress in the 
Constitution to protect copyrighted products. Now, however, copyrighted 
media products are delivered digitally, and copyright infringement is 
more difficult to detect and prevent. That is why strong technological 
protections need to be layered on top of the copyright laws, to 
complement the law as it exists today. Along those lines, I want to 
emphasize that this legislation does not alter existing copyright law. 
Copyright law rests squarely within the jurisdiction of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. I hope to work closely with Chairman Leahy and 
Ranking Member Hatch to stop copyright piracy in a digital age.
  Some have said that legislation is unwieldy in this area. But our 
legislation would not be the first time Congress imposed technological 
requirements to benefit consumers. And it won't be the last. We have 
been here before. In 1962, under the All Channel Receiver Act, Congress 
mandated that all television receivers include the capability to tune 
all channels, UHF and VHF, allocated to the television broadcast 
service. More recently, in 1998, Congress required that all analog VCRs 
recognize a standard copy control technology, know as ``Macrovision''. 
In the former case, the Federal Government and the Federal 
Communications Commission took the lead. In the latter case, industry 
first agreed to the `Macrovision' standard which Congress later 
codified by legislation. So, whether Congress or industry has led the 
way, the results have benefitted consumers and industry, by providing 
Americans with wider access to programming and content.
  Pursuant to the bill we introduce today, the standards, technologies, 
and encoding rule would work in the following manner. Digital content 
delivered over the Internet and over the broadcast airwaves would 
include instructions as to consumers' ability to copy available content 
and would prevent the illegal retransmission of that content over the 
Internet. Digital media devices such as televisions sets, cable boxes, 
and personal computers, would be manufactured to recognize and respond 
to those instructions to prevent illegal copying or redistribution.
  I want to stress, however, in the strongest terms possible, that the 
standards agreed to by industry would not be permitted to thwart 
legitimate consumer copying of programming in the home, for time 
shifting purposes, for example. Similarly, the technologies and 
encoding rules would be required to take into account the need to 
preserve fair use of otherwise protected content, for educational and 
research purposes for example. Specifically, our bill requires that 
encoding rules ``take into account limitations on exclusive rights of 
copyright holders, including the fair use doctrine.'' In addition, the 
legislation specifies that no copy protection technology may prevent 
consumers from ``making a personal copy for lawful use in the home'' of 
non pay-per-view television programming. I want to be clear on this 
point, no legislation can or should pass Congress in this area that 
does not seek to protect legitimate consumer copying and fair use 
practices.

  Critics of earlier drafts of our legislation painted it as heavy 
handed and awkward government selection of technologies. I want to 
respond. We have listened to their arguments delivered in dozens of 
meetings with my staff, and the bill we introduce today does nothing of 
the sort. Under the new legislation, if the required private sector 
negotiations fail, the FCC will begin a process, in consultation with 
those same private sector representatives, to implement technologically 
feasible solutions. So, in practice, the private sector, even in the 
event of a government initiated approach, will have every incentive and 
opportunity to guide a solution largely on its own.
  Critics of earlier discussion drafts of our legislation also claimed 
that it would freeze innovation and that any solutions would invariably 
be out of date shortly after they are selected due to the rapid and 
accelerated development of technology in the high tech sector. But here 
too we have listened and responded. Pursuant to our legislation, if the 
private sector determines that the selected technological solution 
needs to be updated or modified, they may do so. Its as simple as that. 
Such a change might be warranted because the technologies or encoding 
rules in use have been compromised by hackers or pirates. Or, 
technological improvements may be developed that

[[Page S2271]]

ensure greater security for content, or more readily take into account 
consumers or researchers' fair use expectations.
  Regardless, in any of these instances, at any time, the legislation 
would allow the representatives of the content, consumer electronics, 
and information technology industries to implement any necessary 
modification of the agreed upon technologies. They could simply do so 
on their own, and then notify the FCC of their actions.
  At every stage in the process, the private sector, not the 
government, has the opportunity and the incentive to grab the reins. To 
date, however, this has not happened. The legislation we introduce 
today seeks to change that.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, the 
Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2048

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF SECTIONS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Consumer 
     Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act''.
       (b) Table of Sections.--The table of sections for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of sections.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Adoption of security system standards and encoding rules.
Sec. 4. Preservation of the integrity of security.
Sec. 5. Prohibition on shipment in interstate commerce of nonconforming 
              digital media devices.
Sec. 6. Prohibition on removal or alteration of security technology; 
              violation of encoding rules.
Sec. 7. Enforcement.
Sec. 8. Federal Advisory Committee Act exemption.
Sec. 9. Definitions.
Sec. 10. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The lack of high quality digital content continues to 
     hinder consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and 
     digital television products.
       (2) Owners of digital programming and content are 
     increasingly reluctant to transmit their products unless 
     digital media devices incorporate technologies that recognize 
     and respond to content security measures designed to prevent 
     theft.
       (3) Because digital content can be copied quickly, easily, 
     and without degradation, digital programmers and content 
     owners face an exponentially increasing piracy threat in a 
     digital age.
       (4) Current agreements reached in the marketplace to 
     include security technologies in certain digital media 
     devices fail to provide a secure digital environment because 
     those agreements do not prevent the continued use and 
     manufacture of digital media devices that fail to incorporate 
     such security technologies.
       (5) Other existing digital rights management schemes 
     represent proprietary, partial solutions that limit, rather 
     than promote, consumers' access to the greatest variety of 
     digital content possible.
       (6) Technological solutions can be developed to protect 
     digital content on digital broadcast television and over the 
     Internet.
       (7) Competing business interests have frustrated agreement 
     on the deployment of existing technology in digital media 
     devices to protect digital content on the Internet or on 
     digital broadcast television.
       (8) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary 
     precondition to the dissemination, and on-line availability, 
     of high quality digital content, which will benefit consumers 
     and lead to the rapid growth of broadband networks.
       (9) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary 
     precondition to facilitating and hastening the transition to 
     high-definition television, which will benefit consumers.
       (10) Today, cable and satellite have a competitive 
     advantage over digital television because the closed nature 
     of cable and satellite systems permit encryption, which 
     provides some protection for digital content.
       (11) Over-the-air broadcasts of digital television are not 
     encrypted for public policy reasons and thus lack those 
     protections afforded to programming delivered via cable or 
     satellite.
       (12) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible 
     but will require government action, including a mandate to 
     ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
       (13) Consumers receive content such as video or programming 
     in analog form.
       (14) When protected digital content is converted to analog 
     for consumers, it is no longer protected and is subject to 
     conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be 
     copied or redistributed illegally.
       (15) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible 
     but will require government action, including a mandate to 
     ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
       (16) Unprotected digital content on the Internet is subject 
     to significant piracy, through illegal file sharing, 
     downloading, and redistribution over the Internet.
       (17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading 
     television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by 
     using ``file-sharing'' technology. Much of this activity is 
     illegal, but demonstrates consumers' desire to access digital 
     content.
       (18) This piracy poses a substantial economic threat to 
     America's content industries.
       (19) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible 
     but will require government action, including a mandate to 
     ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
       (20) Providing a secure, protected environment for digital 
     content should be accompanied by a preservation of legitimate 
     consumer expectations regarding use of digital content in the 
     home.
       (21) Secure technological protections should enable content 
     owners to disseminate digital content over the Internet 
     without frustrating consumers' legitimate expectations to use 
     that content in a legal manner.
       (22) Technologies used to protect digital content should 
     facilitate legitimate home use of digital content.
       (23) Technologies used to protect digital content should 
     facilitate individuals' ability to engage in legitimate use 
     of digital content for educational or research purposes.

     SEC. 3. ADOPTION OF SECURITY SYSTEM STANDARDS AND ENCODING 
                   RULES.

       (a) Private Sector Efforts.--
       (1) In general.--The Federal Communications Commission, in 
     consultation with the Register of Copyrights, shall make a 
     determination, not more than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, as to whether--
       (A) representatives of digital media device manufacturers, 
     consumer groups, and copyright owners have reached agreement 
     on security system standards for use in digital media devices 
     and encoding rules; and
       (B) the standards and encoding rules conform to the 
     requirements of subsections (d) and (e).
       (2) Report to the Commerce and Judiciary Committees.--
     Within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Commission shall report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
     Science and Transportation, the Senate Committee on the 
     Judiciary, the House of Representatives Committee on 
     Commerce, and the House of Representatives Committee on the 
     Judiciary as to whether--
       (A) substantial progress has been made toward the 
     development of security system standards and encoding rules 
     that will conform to the requirements of subsections (d) and 
     (e);
       (B) private sector negotiations are continuing in good 
     faith;
       (C) there is a reasonable expectation that final agreement 
     will be reached within 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act; and
       (D) if it is unlikely that such a final agreement will be 
     reached by the end of that year, the deadline should be 
     extended.
       (b) Affirmative Determination.--If the Commission makes a 
     determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on 
     security system standards and encoding rules that conform to 
     the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has been reached, 
     then the Commission shall--
       (1) initiate a rulemaking, within 30 days after the date on 
     which the determination is made, to adopt those standards and 
     encoding rules; and
       (2) publish a final rule pursuant to that rulemaking, not 
     later than 180 days after initiating the rulemaking, that 
     will take effect 1 year after its publication.
       (c) Negative Determination.--If the Commission makes a 
     determination under subsection (a)(1) that an agreement on 
     security system standards and encoding rules that conform to 
     the requirements of subsections (d) and (e) has not been 
     reached, then the Commission--
       (1) in consultation with representatives described in 
     subsection (a)(1)(A) and the Register of Copyrights, shall 
     initiate a rulemaking, within 30 days after the date on which 
     the determination is made, to adopt security system standards 
     and encoding rules that conform to the requirements of 
     subsections (d) and (e); and
       (2) shall publish a final rule pursuant to that rulemaking, 
     not later than 1 year after initiating the rulemaking, that 
     will take effect 1 year after its publication.
       (d) Security System Standards.--In achieving the goals of 
     setting open security system standards that will provide 
     effective security for copyrighted works, the security system 
     standards shall ensure, to the extent practicable, that--
       (1) the standard security technologies are--
       (A) reliable;
       (B) renewable;
       (C) resistant to attack;
       (D) readily implemented;
       (E) modular;
       (F) applicable to multiple technology platforms;
       (G) extensible;
       (H) upgradable;
       (I) not cost prohibitive; and
       (2) any software portion of such standards is based on open 
     source code.
       (e) Encoding Rules.--
       (1) Limitations on the exclusive rights of copyright 
     owners.--In achieving the goal of promoting as many lawful 
     uses of copyrighted works as possible, while preventing

[[Page S2272]]

     as much infringement as possible, the encoding rules shall 
     take into account the limitations on the exclusive rights of 
     copyright owners, including the fair use doctrine.
       (2) Personal use copies.--No person may apply a security 
     measure that uses a standard security technology to prevent a 
     lawful recipient from making a personal copy for lawful use 
     in the home of programming at the time it is lawfully 
     performed, on an over-the-air broadcast, premium or non-
     premium cable channel, or premium or non-premium satellite 
     channel, by a television broadcast station (as defined in 
     section 122(j)(5)(A) of title 17, United States Code), a 
     cable system (as defined in section 111(f) of such title), or 
     a satellite carrier (as defined in section 119(d)(6) of such 
     title).
       (f) Means of Implementing Standards.--The security system 
     standards adopted under subsection (b), (c), or (g) shall 
     provide for secure technical means of implementing directions 
     of copyright owners for copyrighted works.
       (g) Commission May Revise Standards and Rules Through 
     Rulemaking.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission may conduct subsequent 
     rulemakings to modify any security system standards or 
     encoding rules established under subsection (b) or (c) or to 
     adopt new security system standards that conform to the 
     requirements of subsections (d) and (e).
       (2) Consultation required.--The Commission shall conduct 
     any such subsequent rulemaking in consultation with 
     representatives of digital media device manufacturers, 
     consumer groups, and copyright owners described in subsection 
     (a)(1)(A) and with the Register of Copyrights.
       (3) Implementation.--Any final rule published in such a 
     subsequent rulemaking shall--
       (A) apply prospectively only; and
       (B) take into consideration the effect of adoption of the 
     modified or new security system standards and encoding rules 
     on consumers' ability to utilize digital media devices 
     manufactured before the modified or new standards take 
     effect.
       (h) Modification of Technology by Private Sector.--
       (1) In general.--After security system standards have been 
     established under subsection (b), (c), or (g) of this 
     section, representatives of digital media device 
     manufacturers, consumer groups, and copyright owners 
     described in subsection (a)(1)(A) may modify the standard 
     security technology that adheres to the security system 
     standards rules established under this section if those 
     representatives determine that a change in the technology is 
     necessary because--
       (A) the technology in use has been compromised; or
       (B) technological improvements warrant upgrading the 
     technology in use.
       (2) Implementation notification.--The representatives 
     described in paragraph (1) shall notify the Commission of any 
     such modification before it is implemented or, if immediate 
     implementation is determined by the representatives to be 
     necessary, as soon thereafter as possible.
       (3) Compliance with subsection (d) requirements.--The 
     Commission shall ensure that any modification of standard 
     security technology under this subsection conforms to the 
     requirements of subsection (d).

     SEC. 4. PRESERVATION OF THE INTEGRITY OF SECURITY.

       An interactive computer service shall store and transmit 
     with integrity any security measure associated with standard 
     security technologies that is used in connection with 
     copyrighted material such service transmits or stores.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON SHIPMENT IN INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF 
                   NONCONFORMING DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICES.

       (a) In General.--A manufacturer, importer, or seller of 
     digital media devices may not--
       (1) sell, or offer for sale, in interstate commerce, or
       (2) cause to be transported in, or in a manner affecting, 
     interstate commerce,
     a digital media device unless the device includes and 
     utilizes standard security technologies that adhere to the 
     security system standards adopted under section 3.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to the sale, 
     offer for sale, or transportation of a digital media device 
     that was legally manufactured or imported, and sold to the 
     consumer, prior to the effective date of regulations adopted 
     under section 3 and not subsequently modified in violation of 
     section 6(a).

     SEC. 6. PROHIBITION ON REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF SECURITY 
                   TECHNOLOGY; VIOLATION OF ENCODING RULES.

       (a) Removal or Alteration of Security Technology.--No 
     person may--
       (1) knowingly remove or alter any standard security 
     technology in a digital media device lawfully transported in 
     interstate commerce; or
       (2) knowingly transmit or make available to the public any 
     copyrighted material where the security measure associated 
     with a standard security technology has been removed or 
     altered, without the authority of the copyright owner.
       (b) Compliance with Encoding Rules.--No person may 
     knowingly apply to a copyrighted work, that has been 
     distributed to the public, a security measure that uses a 
     standard security technology in violation of the encoding 
     rules adopted under section 3.

     SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--The provisions of section 1203 and 1204 of 
     title 17, United States Code, shall apply to any violation of 
     this Act as if--
       (1) a violation of section 5 or 6(a)(1) of this Act were a 
     violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; 
     and
       (2) a violation of section 4 or section 6(a)(2) of this Act 
     were a violation of section 1202 of that title.
       (b) Statutory Damages.--A court may award damages for each 
     violation of section 6(b) of not less than $200 and not more 
     than $2,500, as the court considers just.

     SEC. 8. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT EXEMPTION.

       The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) does not 
     apply to any committee, board, commission, council, 
     conference, panel, task force, or other similar group of 
     representatives of digital media devices and representatives 
     of copyright owners convened for the purpose of developing 
     the security system standards and encoding rules described in 
     section 3.

     SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Standard security technology.--The term ``standard 
     security technology'' means a security technology that 
     adheres to the security system standards adopted under 
     section 3.
       (2) Interactive computer service.--The term ``interactive 
     computer service'' has the meaning given that term in section 
     230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f)).
       (3) Digital media device.--The term ``digital media 
     device'' means any hardware or software that--
       (A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form;
       (B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form 
     whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or
       (C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form 
     and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to 
     hardware or software described in subparagraph (B).
       (4) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Communications Commission.

     SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, except that sections 4, 5, and 6 shall take effect on 
     the day on which the final rule published under section 3(b) 
     or (c) takes effect.
                                 ______