The following is the floor debate in the Senate before passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  It was reported in the Congressional Record on October 8, 2020.

DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

(Senate - October 08,1998)

                               [Page: S11887]

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference
on the bill (H.R. 2281) amend title 17, United States Code, to implement
the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and
Performance and Phonograms Treaty, and for other purposes, and ask for its
immediate consideration.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2281), have agreed to
recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed
by all of the conferees.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to the
consideration of the conference report.

(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of
October 8, 2020.)

Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the Conference
Report on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (H.R. 2281). In my view, we
need this measure to stop an epidemic of illegal copying of protected
works--such as movies, books, musical recordings, and software--and to
limit, in a balanced and thoughtful way, the infringement liability of
online service providers. The copyright industry is one of our most
thriving businesses. But we still lose more than $15 billion each year due
to foreign copyright piracy, according to some estimates.

And foreign piracy is just out of control. For example, one of my staffers
investigating video piracy on a trip to China walked into a Hong Kong
arcade and bought three bootlegged computer games--including `Toy Story'
and `NBA '97'--for just $10. These games, combined, normally sell for about
$100. Indeed, the manager was so brazen about it, he even agreed to give
out a receipt.

Illegal copying has been a longstanding concern to me. I introduced one of
the precursors to this bill, the Motion Picture Anti-Piracy Act (in the
101st Congress), which in principle has been incorporated into this
measure. And I was one of the cosponsors of the original proposed WIPO
implementing legislation, the preliminary version of this proposal.

In my opinion, this bill achieves a fair balance by taking steps to
effectively deter piracy, while still allowing fair use of protected
materials. It is the product of intensive negotiations between all of the
interested parties--including the copyright industry, telephone companies,
libraries, universities and device manufacturers. And virtually every major
concern raised during that process was addressed.

Unfortunately, however, the Conference dropped what I believe were crucial
protections for databases. It is my understanding, though, that the
Committee will be `fast tracking' consideration of database protection next
Congress. I look forward to working with Chairman Hatch to move forward on
this matter early next year.

In sum, Mr. President, I am confident that this bill will reduce piracy and
strengthen one of our biggest export industries. It deserves our support
and the President's signature.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise in support of the conference report on
H.R. 2281, a bill to implement the World Intellectual Property Organization
copyright treaties. I am pleased that the final product of the many months
of negotiations has produced a bill of appropriate scope and balance, and
reflects many of the priorities I established through the introduction of
my own bill to implement the WIPO copyright treaties, to begin updating the
Copyright Act for the digital era, and to address the potential problem of
on-line servicer liability.

First, with respect to `fair use,' the conferees adopted an alternative to
section 1201(a)(1) that would authorize the Librarian of Congress to
selectively waive the prohibition against the act of circumvention to
prevent a diminution in the availability to individual users (including
institutions) of a particular category of copyrighted materials. As
originally proposed by the Administration and adopted by the Senate, this
section would have established a flat prohibition on the circumvention of
technological protection measures to gain access to works for any purpose,
and thus raised the specter of moving our Nation towards a `pay-per-use'
society. Under the compromise embodied in the conference report, the
Librarian of Congress would have authority to address the concerns of
libraries, educational institutions, and other information consumers
potentially threatened with a denial of access to categories of works in
circumstances that otherwise would be lawful today. I trust that the
Librarian of Congress will implement this provision in a way that will
ensure information consumers may exercise their centuries-old fair use
privilege to continue to gain access to copyrighted works.

Second, the conferees made an important contribution by clarifying the `no
mandate' provision of the bill. Because the conference report is silent, I
thought that I should explain this provision in some detail. As my
colleagues may recall, I had been very concerned that S. 2037 could be
interpreted as a mandate on product manufacturers to design products so as
to affirmatively respond to or accommodate technological protection
measures that copyright owners might use to deny access to or the copying
of their works. To address this potential problem, I authored an amendment
providing that nothing in the bill required that the design of, or design
and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics,
telecommunications, or computing product

provide for a response to any particular technological protection measure.
The amendment reflected my belief that product manufacturers should remain
free to design and produce the best, most advanced consumer electronics,
telecommunications, and computing products without the threat of incurring
liability for their design decisions. Creative engineers--not risk-averse
lawyers--should be principally responsible for product design. As
important, the amendment reflected the working assumption of all of my
colleagues that this bill is aimed fundamentally at so-called `black boxes'
and not at legitimate products that have substantial noninfringing uses.

As my colleagues know, there had been some concern expressed that the `so
long as' clause of section 1201(c)(3) made the provision appear to be
circular in its logic. In other words, there was concern that the entire
provision could be read to provide in essence that manufacturers were not
under any design mandate to respond to technological measures, as long as
they `otherwise' designed their devices to respond to existing
technological measures. I never shared that perspective. To eliminate any
uncertainty, the House Commerce Committee simply deleted the `so long as'
clause. As I explained on the floor in September, that change merely
confirmed my original conception of the amendment. Now that the conferees
have adopted a provision requiring certain analog videocassette recorders
to respond to certain existing analog protection measures, the `so long as'
clause has a meaning that all should agree is logical: Manufacturers of
consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computer products are not
under a design mandate generally, but they are otherwise subject to a
single, very limited, and carefully defined mandate to design certain
analog videocassette recorders to respond to existing analog protection
measures. Quite importantly from my perspective, this provision is limited
so as not to impair the reasonable and accustomed home taping practices of
consumers recognized in the Supreme Court's Betamax decision.

It thus should be about as clear as can be to a judge or jury that, unless
otherwise specified, nothing in this legislation should be interpreted to
limit manufacturers of legitimate products with substantial noninfringing
uses--such as VCRs and personal computers--in making fundamental design
decision or revisions, whether in selecting certain components over others
or in choosing particular combinations of parts.

Third, I am pleased to see that the conferees have addressed the device
`playability' problem. As I pointed out in my floor speech just prior to
final passage of S. 2037, `playability' problems may arise at two levels.
Technological measures may cause noticeable and recurring adverse effects
on the normal operation of products, and thus adjustments may be

necessary at the factory levels to ensure consumers get what they expect.
In addition, adjustments to specific products may be necessary after sale
to a consumer to maintain their normal, authorized functioning.
Subsequently, I was pleased to see that the Commerce Committee's report
explicitly reaffirmed my interpretation.

I also was pleased that the conferees shared my perspective on encouraging
all interested parties to strive to work together through a consultative
approach before new technological measures are introduced in the market. As
the conferees pointed out, one of the benefits of such consultations is to
allow the testing of proposed technologies to determine whether they create
playability problems, and to have an opportunity to take steps to eliminate
or substantially mitigate such adverse effects before new technologies are
introduced. As the conferees recognized, however, persons may choose to
implement a new technological measure (or copyright management information
system) without vetting it through an inter-industry consultative process,
or without regard to the input of the affected parties.

Whether introduced unilaterally or developed with the input of experts in
the field, a new protection technology coming to market might materially
degrade or otherwise cause recurring appreciable adverse effects on the
authorized performance or display of works. Given the multiplicity of ways
in which devices might be interconnected, some playability problems may not
be foreseeable. I was thus pleased that the conference report unambiguously
provides that manufacturers and persons servicing popular consumer
electronics, telecommunications, or computing products who make product
adjustments solely to mitigate a playability problem--whether or not taken
in combination with other lawful product modifications--shall not be deemed
to have violated either section 1201(a) or section 1201(b). Having heard
directly from a major trade association representing professional
servicers, I am pleased we could include such strong language so that they
can go about their business without fear of facing crippling liability.

Fourth, the conferees adopted specific provisions making it clear that the
bill is not intended to prohibit legitimate encryption research or security
systems testing. As my colleagues know, Senators Burns, Leahy, and I have
lead the effort in the Senate to ensure that U.S. business can develop and
export world-class encryption products. by explicitly fashioning an
affirmative encryption research defense, the conferees made an important
contribution to our overall efforts to ensure that U.S. industry remains at
the forefront in developing secure encryption methods. In addition, by
including a security system testing amendment, the conferees have confirmed
that professional

consultants and other well-established, responsible corporate citizens can
survey and test IT security systems for vulnerabilities.

Finally, the conferees built on my efforts to ensure that this legislation
would not harm the efforts of consumers to protect their personal privacy
by including two important amendments proposed by the House Commerce
Committee. The first amendment would create incentives for website
operators to disclose whenever they use technological measures that have
the capability to gather personal data, and to give consumers a means of
disabling them. The second amendment strengthened section 1202 of this
legislation by making explicit that the term `copyright management
information' does not include `any personally identifying information about
a user of a work or a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a
work.' In my view, these amendments will help preserve the critical balance
that we must maintain between the interests of copyright owners and the
privacy interests of information users.

We should all be gratified that so much has been done to appropriately
calibrate the WIPO copyright treaties implementing legislation. Each of us,
working alone, would undoubtedly have produced a different bill. But we
have a good bill, perhaps one more balanced and limited in scope than might
have been thought possible at times throughout the debate. I therefore urge
my colleagues to vote in favor of the conference report.

                               [Page: S11888]

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I wish to express my strong support for the
Conference Report to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. As one of the
conferees, I believe this bill represents a fair compromise between the
House and Senate versions of this most significant legislation.

Intellectual property is an increasingly important part of the American
economy. This bill recognizes the significance of our copyright laws as
America and the world have become increasingly computerized. The Internet
is rapidly changing our lives, and our copyright laws must keep pace.

This legislation implements the WIPO treaties to help protect the property
rights of the creative community in our global environment. It also
clarifies the liability of on-line and Internet service providers regarding
their liability for copyright infringement and permits fair use of works.
Together, these provisions do a great deal to accommodate the interests of
the owners of copyrighted works with those who use or facilitate the use of
those works in the digital age.

A final title of the bill is the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act.
Although it was not part of the Senate version of the legislation, it was
accepted at conference. I share Senator Hatch's concerns about this
controversial title. It contains not only industrial design protection,
which itself has created controversy in the past because of its impact on
consumers and others, but it protects functionality of vessel hulls in
addition to aesthetic aspects. It is my understanding that functionality is
protected from copying through patent, and this title is a significant
departure from that principle, although for a specific narrow area.

Also, I wish to note that although data base protection is not included in
this bill, I think it is important that we make every effort to address
this significant issue next year.

In closing, I wish to thank the Chairman of the conference, Senator Hatch,
and all of the other members of the conference for their cooperation in
resolving this matter. I am very pleased with the outcome.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

                               [Page: S11889]

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the conference report be
agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any
statements relating to the conference report be printed in the Record.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The conference report was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, in the wining days of a Congress, so many
important measures need attention that the significance of individual bills
is often not appreciated. This is even more true for a bill that has
copyright as its subject matter, such as the Digital Millennium Copyright
Act, the conference report which passed the Senate today by unanimous
consent. But the DMCA is one of the most important bills passed this
session, as the distinguished majority leader stated yesterday.

`Digital Millennium' may seem grandiose, but in fact it accurately
describes the purpose of the bill--to set copyright law up to meet the
promise and the challenge of the digital world in the new millennium.
Digital `world' is appropriate here, because the Internet has made it
possible for information--including valuable American copyrighted works--to
flow around the globe in a matter of hours, and Internet end users can
receive copies of movies, music, software, video games and literary and
graphic works that are as good as the originals. Indeed, the initial
impetus for the DMCA was the implementation of the World Intellectual
Property Organization (WIPO) treaties on copyright and on performances and
phonorecords.

The WIPO treaties and the DMCA will protect the property rights of
Americans in their work as they move in the global, digital marketplace,
and, by doing so, continue to encourage the creation of new works to
inspire and delight us and to improve the quality of our lives.

In addition to securing copyright in the global, digital environment, the
DMCA also clarifies the liability of on-line and Internet service
providers--OSPs and ISPs--for copyright infringement liability. The OSPs
and ISPs needed more certainty in this area in order to attract the
substantial investments necessary to continue the expansion and upgrading
of the Internet.

The final component of the DMCA is the Vessel Hull Design Protection, Act
(VHDPA). This legislation was not part of the Senate-passed version of the
DMCA; rather, it was accepted by the Senate conferees in deference to the
House of Representatives. Although I support the idea of industrial design
protection as a legal regime outside of patent law, I appreciate how
controversial it is, and I think that the Senate should act circumspectly.
Furthermore, I am concerned that this bill is not like traditional
industrial design protection in that the VHDPA protects the functionality
of vessel hulls, not only its aesthetic aspects.

But because the VHDPA is limited only to boat hulls, I felt that I could
acquiesce in including it in the conference report as a limited experiment
in design protection. In order to make it truly experimental, I suggested,
and the conferees adopted, modifications that `sunset' the bill two years
after enactment and that require two studies of its effect. Therefore, in
the future, we will be able to re-evaluate the Act, and we will have the
benefit of two studies--both of them conducted jointly by the Register of
Copyrights and the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks--to help us make
the right decision.

In the nearer future--early in the next session--I intend to focus my
attention on database protection legislation. The House bill on this issue,
which was attached by the House to the WIPO implementation legislation, was
a good start toward tackling the problem of database piracy. It was quite
controversial, however, so I asked the parties to sit down with me to work
out a compromise bill, so that disagreements on database protection would
not jeopardize the DMCA. This effort resulted in a bill draft that
attempted to accommodate the diverging interests. The scientific research
community, in particular, favored my approach because it allayed many of
their fears that recognizing a property right in databases would hamper
scientific research.

Neither the House bill nor my proposal was accepted by the conferees, but I
am determined to work on this issue in the next Congress. Indeed, I intend
to introduce a bill based on my proposal, have a hearing on database
protection, and move database legislation as quickly as possible. We need
to encourage the substantial investment of money, time and labor that it
takes to gather and organize information and at the same time address the
reasonable concerns of information users. In our global, high tech era,
information will be the coin of the realm, and I see database protection as
the next step in moving the law into the digital millennium.

In closing, I would like to recognize the many people who brought this bill
to a successful conclusion. First, I would like to thank my colleague,
Senator Patrick Leahy, the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary
Committee, who was of invaluable assistance in getting this important piece
of legislation passed. Two other distinguished colleagues, Senator Storm
Thurmond and Senator John Ashcroft, participated in the refining process
that made the DMCA a better bill.

Second, I want to thank the House conferees, especially Congressman Henry
Hyde, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Congressman
Howard Coble, the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and
Intellectual Property, and Congressman Tom Bliley, the distinguished
chairman of the Commerce Committee for their willingness to consider the
Senate's views objectively and dispassionately. They too wanted to get this
done, and it was the spirit of cooperation on both sides that produced this
admirable result.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the hard work done by the Senate and
House staffs. There were so many who worked on this bill that it would take
a column of the Congressional Record to list them. But I would like to
mention just a few. Manus Cooney, the staff director and chief counsel of
the Senate Judiciary Committee, was the staff pilot for the DMCA. He was
ably assisted by Edward Damich, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel of the
Committee, and Staff Assistant Troy Dow. Senator Thurmond was ably assisted
in the conference committee by his Judiciary Committee Counsel, Garry
Malphus.

Bruce Cohen, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director of the Judiciary
Committee, Beryl Howell, Minority General Counsel, and Marla Grossman,
Minority Counsel, provided invaluable assistance on all levels. We had
superb cooperation from the minority, and the DMCA is truly a bipartisan
bill.

Turning to the House side, I want to express my appreciation for the
contributions of Mitch Glazier, Chief Counsel of the Subcommittee on Courts
and Intellectual Property, Debra Laman, Counsel of the Subcommittee, Robert
Raben, Minority Counsel of the Subcommittee, Justin Lilley, General Counsel
of the Commerce Committee, and Andrew Levin, Minority Counsel of that
Committee.

Mr. President, this bill, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, is one of
the most important bills in this whole Congress. It has taken a tremendous
amount of effort from all of us to be able to put this together. It is
going to make a difference in so many ways--in the protection of
copyrighted works, in digital communication and otherwise--throughout the
world, that I feel very, very happy to be able to say that this is being
enacted into law at this particular point.

I would like to state my agreement with certain important points that
Senator Leahy made in his remarks about Section 1201(k), `Certain Analog
Devices and Certain Technological Measures.' The Senator emphasized that
that section establishes requirements only for analog videocassette
recorders, analog videocassette camcorders and professional analog
videocassette recorders. It is also my understanding that the intent of the
conferees is that these provisions apply only to analog video recording
devices.

In addition, because innovation and technological development thrive in
unregulated environments, this section should not be misconstrued as
providing any impetus or precedent for regulating or otherwise dictating to
the computer software industry technological standards. I agree fully with
the assessment of the conferees that technology develops best and most
rapidly in response to marketplace forces. For these reasons, this section
applies to analog technologies only, and it is entirely without prejudice
to digital technologies.

Let me just say that I am disappointed that we were not able to include
database protection in this bill this year. There are so many people who
would like to have that done, on the floor and in the business world and
elsewhere, but we were unable to get it done because of objections and
because of some dissent. But I would like to put everybody on notice that,
shortly after we get back next year, I will file a database protection
bill. I believe my colleague from Vermont will join me in this. That,
hopefully, will be a bill that everybody can support, because it is
absolutely critical that we get this done.

It will be one of the highest orders of priority that we will have on the
Senate Judiciary Committee next year. It was one of the things that I feel
disappointed we were unable to get done on this particular bill. It just
could not be done at this time. I know there are people who are
disappointed, but we will get it done next year--we will do everything we
can to get it done, and I hope we can call upon industry and everyone else
interested in this issue throughout the country to help us in this matter.

I hope our colleagues will, because it is very, very important.

                               [Page: S11890]

Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Vermont.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, America's founders recognized and valued the
creativity of this nation's citizens to such an extent that intellectual
property rights are rooted in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8,
Clause 8 of the Constitution states that

The Congress shall have power . . . [t]o promote the progress of science
and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

The Continental Congress proclaimed,

Nothing is more properly a man's own than the fruit of his study.'

Protecting intellectual property rights is just as important today as it
was when America was a fledgling nation.

It is for this reason I am pleased that the Senate has today passed the
Conference Report on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), H.R.
2281.

Title I of the DMCA will implement the two World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO) copyright treaties. These treaties will fortify
intellectual property rights around the world and will help unleash the
full potential of America's most creative industries, including the
computer software, publishing, movie, recording and other copyrighted
industries that are subject to online piracy. By insuring better protection
of the creative works available online, the DMCA will also encourage the
continued growth of the Internet and the global information infrastructure.
It will encourage the ingenuity of the American people, and will send a
powerful message to intellectual property pirates that we will not tolerate
theft.

I should note that there are provisions in Title I that address certain
technologies used to control copying of motion pictures in analog form on
video cassette recorders which were not part of either the original Senate
or House DMCA bills. These provisions establish certain requirements only
for analog videocassette recorders, analog videocassette camcorders and
professional analog videocassette recorders. It is my understanding that
these provisions do not establish any obligations with respect to digital
technologies, including computers or software.

It is also my understanding that the intent of the conferees is that these
provisions neither establish, nor should 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. Generally, Congress should not
establish technology specific rules; technology develops best and most
rapidly in response to marketplace forces.

Title II of the DMCA will limit the infringement liability of online
service providers. This title is intended to preserve incentives for online
service providers and copyright owners to cooperate to detect and address
copyright infringements that occur in the digital networked environment.

Title III will provide a minor, yet important, clarification in section 117
of the Copyright Act to ensure that the lawful owner or lessee of a
computer machine may authorize an independent service provider, a person
unaffiliated with either the owner or lessee of the machine, to activate
the machine for the sole purpose of servicing its hardware components.

Title IV will begin to update our nation's copyright laws with respect to
library, archives, and educational uses of copyrighted works in a digital
environment. It includes provisions relating to the Commissioner of Patents
and Trademarks and the Register of Copyrights, and clarifies the role of
the Copyright Office. It also addresses the assumption of contractual
obligations related to the transfer of rights in motion pictures. Finally,
this title creates a fair and efficient licensing mechanism to address the
complex issues facing copyright owners and users of copyrighted materials
as a result of the rapid growth of digital audio services.

Title V, the `Vessel Hull Design Protection Act,' creates a new form of sui
generis intellectual property protection for vessel hull designs. By
adoption of this title, however, the Conferees wisely took no position on
the advisability or propriety of adopting broader design protection for
other useful articles. Indeed, when broad industrial design legislation was
considered by the Congress in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a number of
legitimate concerns were raised about the effects such legislation would
have, particularly on the cost of auto repairs. Establishing narrow
protection for vessel hulls in the conference report should not be
interpreted as signaling support, or setting a precedent, for broader
design protection that could negatively affect the ability of consumers to
obtain economical, quality auto repairs.

The Senate today is passing a balanced and important package. Certain
issues that the House had included in the version it passed on August 4,
1998, were eliminated to allow consideration of the rest of the package in
a timely manner.

One of the issues dropped was that of database protection. Title V of the
House passed DMCA bill created a new federal prohibition against the
misappropriation of databases that are the product of substantial
investment, with both civil remedies and criminal penalties. The argument
for enhanced database protection is that legal rulings and technological
developments have eroded protections against database theft. Companies may
be able to copy significant portions of established databases and sell
them, avoiding the substantial cost of creating and verifying the databases
themselves. I appreciate that the threat to U.S. databases has been
magnified because database protection laws recently implemented in European
Union countries will not be available to U.S. publishers unless comparable
legislation is enacted in the U.S.

I have therefore been and continue to be supportive of legislation to
provide database producers with adequate protection from database piracy.

I am also sensitive, however, to the concerns about the House-passed
database bill that were raised by the Administration, the libraries,
certain educational institutions, and the scientific community. The
Department of Justice, in a memorandum dated July 28, 2020, concluded that
the House passed database bill, H.R. 2652, which was later incorporated in
Title V of the House DMCA, raised difficult and novel constitutional
questions.

The Department of Commerce has also advised me that while the
Administration supports legal protection against commercial
misappropriation of collections of information, the Administration has a
number of concerns with H.R. 2652, including that the Constitution imposes
significant constraints upon Congress' power to enact legislation of this
sort.

Just this week, the Department of Commerce told me in a letter that:

                               [Page: S11891]

Given the critical importance of implementing the WIPO treaties, and the
short time remaining in the Session, we urge the Conferees to focus on
issues germane to these treaties, rather than unrelated matters.

Although there was not enough time before the end of this Congress to give
this important issue due consideration, it is my hope that the Senate
Judiciary Committee will promptly commence hearings on the issue and move
expeditiously to enact further legislation on the matter at the beginning
of the 106th Congress. The work that the Committee did this year on the
issue should be viewed as a beginning, and we are committed to making more
progress as quickly as possible.

The legislation that the Senate passed today is the culmination of several
years' work, both domestically and internationally, to ensure that the
appropriate copyright protections are in place around the world to foster
the enormous growth of the Internet and other digital computer networks.

Much of the credit for this legislation is due to the hard work and
dedication of the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator
Hatch. This is another example of when we work together, we get good things
done. It was also a pleasure to serve on the Conference with Senator
Thurmond, former Chairman the Senate Judiciary Committee and a force in his
own right.

The Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee--Chairman
Hyde and Congressman Conyers--and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property--Chairman Coble and
Congressman Frank--deserve particular recognition and praise for their fine
work. Although Congressman Frank was not on the Conference Committee, his
tremendous efforts on behalf of the WIPO implementing language as well as
on the other matters in the DMCA are very much appreciated. Congressman
Goodlatte and Berman also contributed considerable time and talent to the
benefit of all who participated in the process.

Although I had not previously had the pleasure of working on WIPO with the
Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Commerce Committee--Chairman
Bliley and Congressman Dingell--or the Chairman of the Telecommunications,
Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, Chairman Tauzin, I would like
to acknowledge their significant contributions to the final package.

The staff of all of the Conferees deserve special recognition. Manus
Cooney, Edward Damich, Troy Dow, Garry Malphrus, Mitch Glazier, Debbie
Laman, Robert Raben, Bari Schwartz, David Lehman, Ben Cline, Justin Lilley,
Andy Levin, Mike O'Rielly, and Whitney Fox spent countless hours on this
bill, when it was pending in Committee, on the floor and, finally, in
conference. Without their labor and talent, we would not be here today
considering the DMCA.

The DMCA also reflects the recommendations and hard work of the Copyright
Office. Specifically, Marybeth Peters, Shira Perlmutter, David Carson,
Jesse Feder, Carolina Saez, Sayuri Rajapakse, Rachel Goslins and Jule
Sigall were invaluable on this legislation. The Copyright Office was there
at every step along the way--from the negotiation of the WIPO treaties to
the negotiations and the drafting of the implementing legislation and the
other issues in the DMCA. Given their expertise in copyright law, they will
play a significant role in the implementation of the legislation,
particularly with regards to the rulemaking on the circumvention of
technological measures that effectively control access to a copyrighted
work and the studies mandated by the bill.

The Clinton Administration deserves praise for the role it played in making
this legislation a reality. I would especially like to thank Secretary
Daley, Andy Pincus, Ellen Bloom, Jennifer Conovitz and Justin Hughes of the
Department of Commerce, as well as Brian Kahin and Thomas Kalil for all of
their hard work on the DMCA.

From my perspective, those who deserve the most thanks are my Judiciary
Committee staff who have assisted me during the hearings, debates,
negotiations, and conference on this bill. Bruce Cohen, Beryl Howell and
Marla Grossman have worked tirelessly to ensure that this bill was well
crafted and lived up to its promise.

This legislation is an important step for protecting American ingenuity and
creative expression. It addresses the needs of creators, consumers and
commerce in the digital age and well into the next century. I am proud that
the Senate has passed this legislation today.

Mr. President, so Senators will know, the distinguished senior Senator from
Utah and I spent enormous amounts of time on this piece of legislation
working to get us to this point. We both share great concerns about the
database part. We understood that we would not be able to get the bill
passed had that stayed in the bill.

The distinguished Senator from Utah and I will work between the time we go
out and the time we come back in January to put together database
legislation. There will be a strong effort, I know, on my side of the
aisle, as there will be on his. We hope the Senate will be able to vote on
that and the House, too, early next year. I say this because I do not want
anybody to think that this has now disappeared because the rest of the
legislation has gone through.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference report
to implement the WIPO treaties. I also strongly support the copyright term
extension legislation that we recently passed by voice vote.

While I would like to congratulate the conferees and their staff for
working out a consensus on so many controversial provisions, I feel it is
necessary to express my disappointment that we are unable to pass some form
of database protection this year. It is unfortunate that a consensus could
not be reached on an issue that is so vital to so many people in our
country. Agricultural databases, for example, are relied upon by our
farmers and by others in our farming supply industry. While computers and
the Internet make access to information available at our fingertips, we
need to provide adequate protection for those who compile that information
in such a user friendly format. Such easy access is essential to health
care workers, for example, who need to have fast access to accurate
information about which drugs have adverse reactions to other drugs or
which antidotes are most effective in counteracting certain poisons.

I see my friend from Utah, Senator Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, is on the floor, and I would like to ask if he would agree that
Congress should pass database legislation as early as possible next year to
ensure that those who invest their time, money and effort in compiling and
updating databases are protected from having their work pirated both
domestically and internationally? Would the Senator from Utah agree that
without such protections, database creators may decide that the risk of
loss from piracy outweighs any potential gains from creating or updating
databases.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as my colleague well knows, I have facilitated a
number of meetings with interested parties from all sides of this issue to
try to work out a consensus bill. Obviously more work needs to be done to
pass a bill that is acceptable to all sides. This is an important issue,
and I think everyone understands that. The Senator from Ohio has my
assurance that I will continue to work with him on this issue.

                               [Page: S11892]

Mr. DeWINE. I again commend the Senator from Utah and the other WIPO
conferees and their staff, especially Senator Leahy, for their tireless
efforts to reach consensus on so many complex issues. I would simply like
to ask my friend from Utah to work with those of us on the Judiciary
Committee to introduce and seek passage of legislation early next year that
protects our databases.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me assure my friend from Ohio that I have
spoken to our colleagues on the House side, Congressmen Hyde and Coble, and
we have agreed to work together to introduce and seek passage of database
protection legislation early next year. I will continue to work with the
Senator from Ohio and our Senate and House colleagues and address this
issue early next year.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank the Senator from Utah for his comments.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WARNER. Without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. HATCH. As I understand, the conference report has been agreed to. Mr.
President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the conference report was
agreed to.

Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH. I thank my friend, the Senator from Virginia.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Mr. HATCH. Will my colleague yield for 1 other minute? I promised I would
yield to the distinguished Senator from Arizona.

Mr. WARNER. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from
Arizona, provided I do not lose my right of recognition.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

END
 

 

 NOTE :  The following information is taken from the electronic version of the Congressional Record.  The only change to the information is that it has been formatted to fit the DFC site style.  To look this information up on your own, your can go thomas.loc.gov and search the Congressional Record for "Digital Millennium Copyright Act."

 

DFC Site Map

This site is operated by the Digital Future Coalition (DFC).

IF you have trouble with this site, please contact dfc@dfc.org

 

Display the top matches that score at least