Piracy Deterrence and Education Act of 2004

PIRACY DETERRENCE AND EDUCATION ACT OF 2004 -- (House of Representatives - September 28, 2004)

(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill but with strong opposition to section 112. While the bill contains numerous anti-copyright piracy provisions that I helped draft, I oppose section 112 because it is an anti-copyright, special interest provision that will interfere in a pending lawsuit.

The content industries provide this country's number one export; in fact, copyrighted content provides a positive trade balance of approximately $89 billion. Clearly, our content is a valuable resource that deserves protection.

Unfortunately, the same technologies that have enhanced our lives and globalized trade have made it possible to obtain digital content for free; the same technology that enhanced the lives of so many is harming the lives of people-the artists, musicians, writers, etc.-whose work we value so much.

While there are laws on the books that protect copyrighted content from theft, they do not go quite far enough. New file swapping programs and sites appear every day on the Internet, each one better than its predecessor. These sites do not develop their own content but rely upon the popularity of content created by others and allow that content to be distributed to millions with the click of a mouse. These sites also create security and privacy risks, in that they open up the entire hard drives of average consumers for the world to see, financial and personal information included.

I was a cosponsor of Chairman SMITH's bill, H.R. 2517, but felt that we could do even more to thwart piracy. That is why Ranking Member BERMAN and I introduced H.R. 2752, which provided for increased enforcement of the piracy laws. For the past several months, we have been working in bipartisan fashion to craft language that is non-controversial and workable.

In that regard, I am pleased that the compromise bill incorporates numerous provisions from the original Conyers-Berman bill. H.R. 4077 clarifies that it is a federal offense to camcord a movie in a theater. This is a major means by which movies end up on the Internet for free. I think we can all agree there is little legitimate reason for engaging in this conduct and need to send a clear message that we will not tolerate this theft. It also ensures that theaters owners are exempt from liability if they attempt to enforce this prohibition.

The bill contains a sense of the Congress recognizing the potential dangers of misused peer-to-peer services (such as spreading worms, viruses, making personal computer files available to the public).

Third, the bill provides additional tools to prosecute those who upload copyrighted content to the Internet unlawfully, and I was pleased the content and Internet industries were able to compromise on this provision. It also provides an authorization of $15 million for the Justice Department's piracy fighting efforts, an increase over the traditional $10 million.

Finally, the legislation includes language similar to a provision in an earlier bill of mine, H.R. 4643 from the 107th Congress, saying the distribution of unpublished or pre-release works can constitute infringement. This is important for industries whose content ends up on the Internet before it is even released to the public.

Unfortunately, I am disappointed that our year-long bipartisan effort has been tainted by the addition of section 112, which is identical to H.R. 4586. H.R. 4586, the "Family Movie Act of 2004," is an anti-content creator proposal that interferes in a private lawsuit. It puts Congress on one side of a private business dispute that is properly left to the litigants and the court.

I urge my colleagues to vote "yes" on this legislation.