[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 21]
[House]
[Pages 30785-30786]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 DIGITAL THEFT DETERRENCE AND COPYRIGHT DAMAGES IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 3456) to amend statutory damages provisions of title 17, U.S. 
Code, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), the chairman of the 
subcommittee, to just describe the legislation.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3456 is very similar to H.R. 1761, which was 
considered under suspension of the rules and agreed to by voice vote on 
August 2, 1999.
  It makes significant improvements in the ability of the Copyright Act 
to deter copyright infringement by amending it to increase the 
statutory penalties for infringement. Copyright piracy, Mr. Speaker, is 
flourishing in the world. With the advanced technologies available and 
the fact that many computer users are either ignorant of the copyright 
laws or simply believe that they will not be caught or punished, the 
piracy trend will continue.
  One way to combat this problem is to increase the statutory penalties 
for copyright infringement so that they will be an effective deterrent 
to this conduct.
  Another significant aspect of H.R. 3456 addresses a problem on 
regarding the difficulty of prosecuting crimes against intellectual 
property. It instructs that within 120 days on enactment of this act or 
within 120 days after there is a sufficient number of voting members to 
constitute a quorum, the United States Sentencing Commission shall 
promulgate emergency guideline amendments to implement the sentencing 
mandate in the No Electronic Theft, popularly known as the NET Act, 
which became law in the 105th Congress.
  It is vital that the United States recognizes intellectual property 
rights and provides strong protection and enforcement against violation 
of those rights.
  This legislation, Mr. Speaker, makes significant and necessary 
improvements to the Copyright Act. The Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual

[[Page 30786]]

Property and the Committee on the Judiciary support H.R. 3456 in a 
bipartisan manner, and I urge its adoption today.
  If I may, Mr. Speaker, at this time I have one more bill and possibly 
two more bills that are very brief, but I would be remiss as we 
conclude the first session of the 106th Congress if I did not convey my 
personal expressions of thanks to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member of the subcommittee; to 
each Democrat and Republican member of the subcommittee; to our very 
fine chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); and to the staff 
on both the Democrat and Republican side for the accomplishments.
  And pardon our immodesty, but I think we have realized 
accomplishments during this first session.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, 
first let me just respond to the last comment of my friend.
  As he knows, and I have discussed this privately, but it was a real 
pleasure to be his ranking member this past year. We did get a lot 
done. We did it, I think, on a bipartisan basis on almost every single 
issue we faced and accomplished quite a bit, probably not as much as 
the Transportation and Infrastructure committee, but a substantial work 
product, much of which was in the legislation that passed as part of 
the non-omnibus appropriations bill.
  I also want to express my appreciation to the staff both of the 
subcommittees and the full committees and to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) as 
well for all their support.
  On this particular legislation which is an important bill, it comes 
under our obligations under the intellectual property provisions of 
Article 1 of the Constitution to reassess the efficacy of our laws in 
protecting copyright. Toward that end, earlier this year the Committees 
on the Judiciary in both Houses resolved to address several concerns 
which have been brought to our attention regarding the deterrence of 
copyright infringement and penalties for such infringement in those 
instances when it, unfortunately, occurs.
  While I support the bill that we previously passed, I concur in the 
passage of the bill before us tonight.
  There are two key features in the legislation. First, it provides an 
inflation adjustment for copyright statutory damages. It has been well 
over a decade since we last adjusted statutory damages for inflation. 
Our purpose must be to provide meaningful disincentives for 
infringement, and to accomplish that, the cost of infringement must 
substantially exceed the cost of the compliance so that those who use 
or distribute intellectual property have incentive to comply with the 
law.
  Secondly, passage of this bill is important to expedite the 
Sentencing Commission's adoption of a revised Intellectual Property 
sentencing guidelines. The newly confirmed Sentencing Commissioners 
will have 120 days to revise the Intellectual Property guideline to 
increase the deterrence.
  In 1997, when we adopted the NET Act, we directed the Sentencing 
Commission to increase criminal penalties for Intellectual Property 
crimes. The current IP sentencing guidelines include perverse 
incentives that allow pirates to avoid significant prison terms. U.S. 
Attorneys refuse to bring copyright or trademark criminal cases because 
of the current weak guidelines. This bill will rectify that situation.
  The new Commissioners will be required to focus on this important 
problem immediately. The increasing threat of intellectual property 
theft both in the on-line and off-line world will thus be fought with 
all available weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue my reservation of objection, and I yield to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  While I was praising all my colleagues on the Judiciary and on the 
subcommittee and, of course, intellectual property, inevitably 
omissions are committed and I inadvertently failed to mention the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member 
of the full committee.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 3456

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Digital Theft Deterrence and 
     Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. STATUTORY DAMAGES ENHANCEMENT.

       Section 504(c) of title 17, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``$500'' and inserting ``$750''; and
       (B) by striking ``$20,000'' and inserting ``$30,000''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$100,000'' and 
     inserting ``$150,000''.

     SEC. 3. SENTENCING COMMISSION GUIDELINES.

       Within 120 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, or within 120 days after the first date on which there 
     is a sufficient number of voting members of the Sentencing 
     Commission to constitute a quorum, whichever is later, the 
     Commission shall promulgate emergency guideline amendments to 
     implement section 2(g) of the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act 
     (28 U.S.C. 994 note) in accordance with the procedures set 
     forth in section 21(a) of the Sentencing Act of 1987, as 
     though the authority under that Act had not expired.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by section 2 shall apply to any action 
     brought on or after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     regardless of the date on which the alleged activity that is 
     the basis of the action occurred.

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________