Representative Tom Bliley in the House of Representatives (Cong. Rec. H7094) (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1998):
Section 1201(a)(2) makes it illegal to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to certain works; has only limited commercially significant purposes or uses other than to circumvent such a measure; or is marketed for use in circumventing such a measure. Section 1201(b)(1) similarly makes it illegal to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a protection measure that protects certain rights of copyright owners under title 17, United States Code; has only limited commercially significant purposes or uses other than to circumvent such a measure; or is marketed for use in circumventing such a measure.

In our report, the Committee stressed that section 1201(a)(2) is aimed fundamentally at outlaying so-called "black boxes" that are expressly intended to facilitate circumvention of protection measures for purposes of gaining access to a work. This provision is not aimed at products that are capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses, such as the consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computer products--including videocassette recorders, telecommunications switches, personal computers, and servers--used by businesses and consumers everyday for perfectly legitimate purposes. Moreover, as section 1201(c)(3) makes clear, such a device does not need to be designed or assembled, or parts or components for inclusion in a device be designed, selected, or assembled, so as affirmatively to accommodate or respond to any particular technological measure.

Section 2101(a)(3) of H.R. 2281 defines certain terms used throughout Section 1201(a). As we made clear in our report, the measures that would be deemed to "effectively control access to a work" would be those based on encryption, scrambling, authentication, or some other measure which requires the use of a ’key’ provided by a copyright owner to gain access to a work.

Section 2101(b)(1) of H.R. 2281 makes it illegal to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a protection measure that protects certain rights of copyright owners under title 17, United States Code; has only limited commercially significant purposes or uses other than to circumvent such a measure; or is marketed for use in circumventing such a measure. The Committee believes it is very important to emphasize that this section, like section 1201(a)(2), is aimed fundamentally at outlawing so-called "black boxes" that are expressly intended to facilitate circumvention of protection measures. Thus, this section similarly would not outlaw the manufacturing, importing, or distributing of standard videocassette recorders and computer products.

Section 1201(b)(2) of H.R. 2281 defines important phrases, including when a protection measure "effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under title 17, United States Code." In our view, the measures that would be deemed to "effectively" protect such rights would be those based on encryption, scrambling, authentication, or some other measure which requires the use of a "key" to copy a work.

With respect to the effectiveness of the measures covered by the legislation, the Committee stressed in its report that those measures that cause noticeable and recurring adverse effects on the authorized display or performance of works should not be deemed to be effective. Given our keen interest in the development of new products, in particular digital television monitors, the Committee is particularly concerned that the introduction of such measures not frustrate consumer expectations and that this legislation not be interpreted to in any way limit the authority of manufacturers and retailers to address the legitimate concerns of their customers.

Based on prior experience, the Committee on Commerce was concerned that manufacturers, retailers, and consumers may be adversely affected by the introduction of some technological measures and systems for preserving copyright management information. In fact, the Committee learned as part of its review of H.R. 2281 that, as initially proposed, a proprietary copy protection scheme that is today widely used to protect analog motion pictures could have caused significant view-ability problems, including noticeable artifacts, with certain television sets until it was modified with the cooperation of the consumer electronics industry.

As advances in technology occur, consumers will enjoy additional benefits if devices are able to interact and share information. Achieving interoperability in the consumer electronics environment will be a critical factor in the growth of electronic commerce. In our view, manufacturers, consumers, retailers, and servicers should not be prevented from correcting an interoperability problem resulting from a protection measure causing one or more devices in the home or in a business to fail to interoperate with other technologies.

Under the bill under consideration today, nothing would make it illegal for a manufacturer of a product or device (to which section 1201 would otherwise apply) to design or modify the product or device solely to the extent necessary to mitigate a frequently occurring and noticeable adverse effect on the authorized performance or display of a work that is caused by a protection measure in the ordinary course of its design and operation. Similarly, recognizing that a technological measure may cause a problem with a particular device, or combination of devices, used by a consumer, it is our view that nothing in the bill should be interpreted to make it illegal for a retailer or individual consumer to modify a product or device solely to the extent necessary to mitigate a noticeable adverse effect on the authorized performance or display of a work that is communicated to or received by that particular product or device if that adverse effect is caused by a protection measure in the ordinary course of its design and operation. I might add that nothing in section 1202 makes it illegal for such a person to design or modify a product or device solely to the extent necessary to mitigate a frequently occurring and noticeable adverse effect on the authorized performance or display of a work that is caused by the use of copyright management information.

I wish to stress that I and other Members of the Committee on Commerce believe that the affected industries should be able to work together to avoid such problems. We know that multi-industry efforts to develop copy control technologies that are both effective and avoid such noticeable and recurring adverse effects have been underway over the past two years. We strongly encourage the continuation of those efforts, which should offer substantial benefits to copyright owners in whose interest it is to achieve the introduction of effective protection (and copyright management information) measures that do not interfere with the normal operations of affected products. We look forward to working with interested parties to the extent additional legislation is required to implement such technologies or to avoid their circumvention.

As the Chairman of the Committee that eliminated the inherent ambiguity in the Senate’s version of this legislation, I also want to put section 1201(c)(3) in context. It provides that nothing in section 1201 requires that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computer product provide for a response to any particular protection measure. We specifically modified the Senate version of this provision because of our strong belief that product manufacturers should remain free to design and produce consumer electronics, telecommunications, and computing products without the threat of incurring liability for their design decisions. Imposing design requirements on product and component manufacturers would have a dampening effect on innovation, on the research and development of new products, and hence on the growth of electronic commerce.

As the hearing record demonstrates, there is a fundamental difference between a device that does not respond to a protection measure and one that affirmatively removes such a measure. Section 1202(c)(3) is intended to make clear that nothing in section 1201 requires 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 measure that might be used to control access to or the copying of a work protected under title 17, United States Code. Of course, this provision is not intended to create a loophole to remove from the proscriptions of section 1201 devices, or components or parts thereof, that circumvent by, for example, affirmatively decrypting an encrypted work or descrambling a scrambled work.