The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is vitally important to the livelihoods of authors, musicians, filmakers, software developers, and countless other creators of copyrighted works. The digital age has vastly improved the quality of these works, and a limitless number of digital copies can now be made with virtually no distortion and no reduction in quality.

While developments in digital technology provide many benefits to content producers and consumers, this new medium also provides fertile ground for pirates to steal these protected works. The DMCA was passed to provide copyright owners with additional protections and tools to help prevent their works from being stolen and illegally distributed, and it appears thus far to be successful in achieving that objective.

There is, however, another important side to this issue. When the Committee on Energy and Commerce first considered the DMCA in 1998, I was concerned that certain provisions in the legislation were overly broad and could make it illegal for anyone to circumvent a copyright protection measure, even if the circumvention was performed for an otherwise legal purpose. For example, if a school or library copied a portion of an article for educational use, that copy would be permitted under the "fair use" doctrine of copyright law. If that article was in electronic or digital form, however, the school or library may not be able to copy any portion of it without first circumventing a copyright protection measure. The act of circumvention itself would be a crime, even though it was undertaken for a perfectly legal purpose: that is, to make "fair use" of the underlying materials.

Such a result could seriously undermine the careful balance between the rights of copyright owners to be compensated for their works, and the rights of educators, researchers, and others to freely use portions of these works to enhance knowledge and understanding for the common good. Restrictive provisions such as these had the potential to stifle innovations in digital commerce, impeding the development of new hardware, software, and encryption technologies. Many members of this Committee and I sought to preserve a balance among these vitally important interests, and we were hopeful that such a balance had been achieved when we supported the Conference Report for the DMCA.

It has now been six years since the DMCA became law, and it is important for this Committee to review its progress. These hearings will allow us to explore whether the DMCA has achieved a proper balance after all, or whether further action is required. The Committee on Energy and Commerce should closely examine the current system to find the appropriate balance that protects scholarship, research, and innovation while protecting the legitimate interests of copyright owners.

I look forward to continuing this important work and hope that all sides of this issue will work closely with us in this endeavor.