[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 21]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 31307]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 3194, CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS AND 
             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 18, 1999

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the measure before us includes the 
Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 
(IPCORA). This legislation, among other things, makes certain technical 
changes in several sections of the Copyright Act, including sections 
111 and 119. These two sections of current law provide compulsory 
copyright licenses, which enable cable systems and satellite carriers 
to retransmit copyrighted material from broadcast signals without 
obtaining the permission of the copyright owners.
  I rise to emphasize one change that this legislation does not make. 
Nothing in IPCORA changes the definitional provisions concerning who is 
entitled to claim a compulsory license. Section 111(f) contains a 
definition of ``cable system,'' and section 119(d)(6) contains a 
definition of ``satellite carrier.'' IPCORA does not change these 
definitions.
  In particular, neither definition encompasses digital online 
communications services, which may seek to retransmit broadcast 
material over the Internet. These services are not eligible for either 
of these compulsory licenses. It is clear that such services do not fit 
either definition I have referenced. Indeed, Internet and online 
services are profoundly different from the cable systems and satellite 
carriers which these provisions are intended to benefit. To cite just 
one crucial difference, cable systems and satellite carriers serve 
defined and delineated geographic areas within the United States, and 
their entitlement to retransmit under these compulsory licenses applies 
only within those areas. Internet and online services, by contrast, 
have worldwide reach, and can deliver programming to any spot on the 
globe thee Internet reaches. It is obvious that a compulsory license 
designed for a local, geographically limited service cannot fairly be 
applied to a worldwide distribution channel.
  An earlier version of IPCORA contained technical amendments spelling 
out that digital online communications services are not eligible for 
compulsory licenses under either section 111 or section 119. Because 
some objections were raised by some online services to these 
amendments, it has been decided to omit them. Some may ask whether this 
omission has any legal significance. The answer is no. To my knowledge, 
no court, no administrative agency, no authoritative commentator has 
ever stated or even implied that digital online services qualify as 
either ``cable systems'' for purposes of section 111, or as ``satellite 
carriers'' for purposes of section 119. In fact, the Register of 
Copyrights, whose agency administers both these licenses, has 
repeatedly stated the opposite. Since IPCORA does not change these 
definitions, it does not change that conclusion, with or without the 
amendments that caused a few online services such concern.

                          ____________________