HATCH INTRODUCES FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT ACT
Legislation will help parents control what kids watch
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) today introduced a bill that will assist parents in protecting their families from inappropriate material in movies as well as make other modifications to federal copyright laws.
"The Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 will give parents more say over what their children see," said Hatch. "It also closes some significant gaps in our copyright laws that are feeding some of the piracy so rampant on the Internet."
Hatch said one of the bill's primary purposes is to protect companies like Utah-based ClearPlay, which has developed technology to allow viewing of DVDs with inappropriately violent or sexual content omitted.
"This is important legislation both to parents who want the ability to use new technologies to help shield their families from inappropriate content as well as the technology companies, such as ClearPlay in my home state of Utah, that are working to develop these technologies," said Hatch.
The bill, which passed the Senate twice in the waning days of the last Congress, is co-sponsored by Senators Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), John Cornyn (R-Tex.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Along with the technology measures, the bill contains a number of provisions to protect intellectual property, including an important statutory tool to help law enforcement officials combat the growing problem of music and movies being distributed on filesharing networks and circulating on the Internet before they are even released. It also contains a measure to reauthorize an existing program for the preservation of certain historically and culturally significant films.
Hatch's floor statement follows:
Statement of Senator Orrin G. Hatch before the United States Senate
"Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005"
I rise today to introduce the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005. This important legislation consists of a package of smaller intellectual property bills that the House and Senate have been working to enact since last Congress. This legislation passed the Senate not once, but twice, during the waning days of the last Congress. Unfortunately, though, it was doomed by a non-germane amendment unrelated to intellectual property law. My hope is that we can work together this Congress to avoid this type of pitfall, and I commit to work with other members to do so.
Before beginning my substantive discussion of the bill, I would like to thank my colleagues Senators Leahy, Cornyn, and Feinstein for their ongoing efforts on this legislation. Just as it was last year, this legislation is a group effort, and I want to take care to recognize the contributions and their excellent work along with that of Representatives Sensenbrenner, Smith, Berman, and Conyers in the House.
Before going into a title-by-title discussion of the bill, I would like to express my particular support for the Family Movie Act, which has been included in this legislation. Chairman Lamar Smith and I worked on this bill last Congress. It's important legislation both to parents who want the ability to use new technologies to help shield their families from inappropriate content as well as the technology companies, such as ClearPlay in my home state of Utah, that are working to develop these technologies. The Family Movie Act will give parents more say over what their children see, without limiting the creative control of directors and movie studios.
Title I of this Act, the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005, (the ART Act), contains a slightly modified version of S. 1932, authored by Senators Cornyn and Feinstein in the 108th Congress. This bill will close two significant gaps in our copyright laws that are feeding some of the piracy now rampant on the Internet.
First, it criminalizes attempts to record movies off of theater screens. These camcorded copies of new movies now appear on filesharing networks almost contemporaneously with the theatrical release of a film. Several states have already taken steps to criminalize this activity, but providing a uniform federal law - instead of a patchwork of state criminal statutes - will assist law enforcement officials in combating the theft and redistribution of valuable intellectual property embodied in newly-released motion pictures.
Second, the bill will create a pre-registration system that will permit criminal penalties and statutory-damage awards. This will also provide a tool for law enforcement officials combating the growing problem of music and movies being distributed on filesharing networks and circulating on the Internet before they are even released. Obviously, the increasingly frequent situation of copyrighted works being distributed illegally via the Internet before they are even made available for sale to the public severely undercuts the ability of copyright holders to receive fair and adequate compensation for their works.
Title II of this Act, the Family Movie Act of 2005 (the FMA), resolves some ongoing disputes about the legality of so-called "jump-and-skip" technologies that companies like Clearplay in my home state of Utah have developed to permit family-friendly viewing of films that may contain objectionable content. The FMA creates a narrowly-defined safe-harbor clarifying that distributors of such technologies will not face liability for copyright or trademark infringement, provided that they comply with the requirements of the Act. I have been working with my colleagues in the Senate and several leaders in the House - including, most importantly Chairmen Smith and Sensenbrenner - for the past couple of years to resolve this issue. The FMA will help to end aggressive litigation threatening the viability of small companies like Clearplay which are busy creating innovative technologies for consumers that allow them to tailor their home viewing experience to their own individual or family preferences.
The Family Movie Act creates a new exemption in section 110(11) of the Copyright Act for skipping and muting audio and video content in motion pictures during performances of an authorized copy of the motion picture taking place in the course of a private viewing in a household. The version passed last year by the House explicitly excluded from the scope of the new copyright exemption so-called "ad-skipping" technologies that make changes, deletions, or additions to commercial advertisements or to network or station promotional announcements that would otherwise be displayed before, during, or after the performance of the motion picture. This provision was included on the House floor to address the concerns of some Members who were concerned that a court might misread the new section 110(11) exemption to apply to "ad-skipping'" cases, such as in the recent litigation involving ReplayTV.
In the Senate, however, some expressed concern that the inclusion of such explicit language could create unwanted inferences with respect to the merits of the legal positions at the heart of recent "ad-skipping" litigation. Those issues remain unsettled in the courts, and it was never the intent of this legislation to resolve or affect those issues in any way. Indeed, the Copyright Act contains literally scores of similar exemptions, and none of those exemptions have been or should be construed to imply anything about the legality of conduct falling outside their scope. As a result, the Copyright Office has now confirmed that such an explicit exclusion is unnecessary to achieve the desired outcome, which is to avoid application of this new exemption in potential future cases involving ad-skipping devices. In order to avoid unnecessary controversy, the Senate bill omits the exclusionary language with the understanding that doing so does not in any way change the scope of the bill.
That this change in no way affects the scope of the exemption is clear when considering that the new section 110(11) exemption protects the "making imperceptible ... limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture ...." An advertisement, under the Copyright Act, is itself a "motion picture,'' and thus a product or service that enables the skipping of an entire advertisement, in any media, would be beyond the scope of the exemption. Moreover, the phrase "limited portions'' is intended to refer to portions that are both quantitatively and qualitatively insubstantial in relation to the work as a whole. Where any substantial part of a complete work, such as a commercial advertisement, is made imperceptible, the new section 110(11) exemption would not apply. The limited scope of this exemption does not, however, imply or show that such conduct or a technology that enables such conduct would be infringing. This legislation does not in any way deal with that issue. It means simply that such conduct and products enabling such conduct are not immunized from liability by this exemption.
This bill also differs from the version passed by the House last year in that it adds two "savings clauses." The copyright savings clause makes clear that there should be no spillover effect from the passage of this law: that is, nothing shall be construed to have any effect on rights, defenses, or limitations on rights granted under title 17, other than those explicitly provided for in the new section 110(11) exemption. The trademark savings clause clarifies that no inference can be drawn that a person or company who fails to qualify for the exemption from trademark infringement found in this provision is therefore liable for trademark infringement.
Title III of this Act, the National Film Preservation Act of 2004, will reauthorize the National Film Preservation Board and the National Film Preservation Foundation. These entities have worked successfully to recognize and preserve historically or culturally significant films - often by providing the grants and expertise that enable local historical societies to protect and preserve historically significant films for the local communities for which they are most important. This fine work will ensure that the history of the 20th century will be preserved and available to future generations.
As a conservative Senator from a socially-conservative state, I occasionally take a few swings at the movie industry for the quality and content of the motion pictures they are currently creating, but I will note for the record that I commend efforts to ensure that important artistic, cultural, and historically-significant films are preserved for future generations. I commend my friend from Vermont for his perseverance in reauthorizing federal funds to continue this important effort.
Title IV of this Act, the "Preservation of Orphan Works Act," also ensures the preservation of valuable historic records by correcting a technical error that unnecessarily narrows a limitation on the copyright law applicable to librarians and archivists. This will strengthen the ability of librarians and archivists to better meet the needs of both researchers and ordinary individuals and will result in greater accessibility of important works. I applaud my colleague in the House - Representative Howard Berman of California - for his efforts on this bill and am pleased to see it included in this Senate package.
Just to conclude, I will again thank Ranking Democratic Member Leahy, Senator Cornyn, Chairmen Sensenbrenner and Smith, as well as Mr. Conyers and Mr. Berman for their bicameral, bipartisan approach to these bills and to intellectual property issues generally.