Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Ms. NANCE. I agree.

Mr. GOODLATTE.-on a slope toward telling the intellectual property community as a whole, including the motion picture industry, that we're going to have a situation where they begun the process of eroding their ability to protect their intellectual property

Ms. NANCE. I completely agree with you. I've fought these peerto-peer sites tooth and nail over pornography.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Ms. Peters?

Ms. PETERS. I'm an extremely strong supporter of technologies that are used by copyright owners to protect their works. As I understand the technology here, it does not implicate the anti-circumvention provisions.

Mr. GOODLATTE. That is good. So, in other words, if we were to put a provision in here to say that other people attempting to do other things could not invade the language of the DMCA, you would, A, agree with that and, B, feel that it would not be harming companies like ClearPlay to kind of do what they're doing.

Ms. PETERS. That's right.2

Mr. GOODLATTE. Dr. Etzioni?

Mr. ETZIONI. Thanks for not giving a number to my age. [Laughter.]

I see no reason these two concerns cannot be reconciled by allowing invasion for this purpose and not for sale or any other purpose, not setting a precedent for other violations.

Let me just add one sentence. Several times we heard about the right of the creator of those works as if one right is an absolute and trumps all other rights. Ninety-five percent of what we do in ethics and much of what we do in law is try to deal with conflicting rights. In this case, it's the right of parents to bring up decent citizens against the right of a creator of a work to insist that children will see all of it and not part of it.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you for your forbearance, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Goodlatte.

Let me say to the panelists that several Members have questions they would like to submit to you in writing. Particularly Mr. Berman I know has some questions. And if you all can respond to those within 2 weeks, we'd appreciate it.

Further, the gentleman from California is recognized for a minute for some observations.

Mr. BERMAN. I simply didn't want to be the only person on this Subcommittee not to comment on Mr. Valenti's, Jack's appearance here. I myself, given the time between I first heard of his interest in moving on from MPAA to now, I've assumed that this will not be the last time you would be appearing before our—if the past is prologue, we will see you again. But I hope particularly that you will understand and know the admiration and warmth I feel for you and what you've contributed to the industry, to the protection of intellectual property, and to my own personal abilities as a legislator here, as well as to the country from your service.

Mr. VALENTI. Thank you.

2 See letter dated July 6, 2004, in the Appendix, p. 89, from the Honorable Marybeth Peters, for clarification of answer to question posed by Subcommittee Member.

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Berman, and I thank all the Members for their attendance, and I thank the witnesses for their very, very informative and good testimony today. And we stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

APPENDIX

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

LETTER FROM THE HONORABLE MARYBETH PETERS

The Register of Copyrights of the United States of America

United States Copyright Office - 10s Independence Avenue SE - Washington, DC 20559-60008 · (202) 787-8350

July 6, 2004

Dear Chairman Smith:

I am enclosing my corrections to the transcript of the June 17, 2004, hearing on H.R. 4586, the "Family Movie Act of 2004."

After reviewing the transcript and carefully reading the questions, I have determined that I may not have completely understood two of the questions when they were asked. I therefore request that the record be corrected in the manner described in your letter of June 25, 2004, with the following explanations:

1. Page 45, line 948: My answer should have been:

"I believe that the result would be the same if this bill were enacted as it
would be under present law."

2. Page 66, line 1472: My answer should have been:

"I do not believe that ClearPlay would be harmed by such a
provision, but I do not believe that such a provision is necessary or
advisable. The anticircumvention provisions of section 1201 apply
even in cases where circumvention is carried out in order to engage
in an act that is not an act of infringement under the copyright
statute. The Family Movie Act, like other exemptions in the
Copyright Act, would simply provide that it is not an act of
infringement to engage in the conduct that we are discussing. To
include in this new exemption a reference to section 1201 when
none of the other exemptions in section 110 or elsewhere in the
Copyright Act make such reference will imply that those existing
exemptions also apply to liability under the anticircumvention
provisions, when it should be clear that they do not.

The Honorable

Lamar S. Smith

2

July 6, 2004

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to express my views on H.R. 4586. As always, please feel free to call on me if I can assist you further in connection with this legislation.

[blocks in formation]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »