I 
109TH CONGRESS 
1ST SESSION H. R. 4536 
To amend title 17, United States Code, to safeguard the rights and 
expectations of consumers who lawfully obtain digital entertainment. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
DECEMBER 14, 2005 
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California (for herself, Mr. BOUCHER, and Mr. DOO-
LITTLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary 
A BILL 
To amend title 17, United States Code, to safeguard the 
rights and expectations of consumers who lawfully obtain 
digital entertainment. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Benefit Authors with-
out Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations 
(BALANCE) Act of 2005’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The law of copyright is often described as 
a ‘‘difficult balance between the interests of authors 
. . . in the control and exploitation of their writings 
. . . on the one hand, and society’s competing inter-
est in the free flow of ideas, information, and com-
merce on the other hand.’’ Sony Corp. v. Universal 
City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984). 
(2) Copyright seeks to encourage and reward 
creative efforts by securing a fair return for an au-
thor’s labor. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. 
Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975). At the same time, 
‘‘[f]rom the infancy of copyright protection, some 
opportunity for fair use of copyrighted materials has 
been thought necessary to fulfill copyright’s very 
purpose, ‘[t]o promote the Progress of Science and 
useful Arts . . .’ ’’ Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 
Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 575 (1994). 
(3) ‘‘[P]rivate motivation must ultimately serve 
the cause of promoting broad public availability of 
literature, music, and the other arts . . . When tech-
nological change has rendered its literal terms am-
biguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in 
light of this basic purpose.’’ Twentieth Century 
Music Corp., 422 U.S. at 156.
(4) Advances in technology have often prompted 
changes to the copyright laws to maintain the bal-
ance. For example, the development of player pianos 
preceded the enactment of the Copyright Act of 
1909. The development of cable television prompted 
complex reforms to section 111 of title 17, United 
States Code. Sony, 464 U.S. at 430–31. 
(5) The development of digital technology and 
the rise of the Internet have once again altered the 
balance. On the one hand, digital technology threat-
ens the rights of copyright holders. Perfect digital 
copies of songs and movies can be publicly trans-
mitted, without authorization, to thousands of people 
at little or no cost. On the other hand, technological 
control measures give copyright holders the capacity 
to limit nonpublic performances and threaten soci-
ety’s interests in the free flow of ideas, information, 
and commerce. 
(6) The Digital Millennium Copyright Act 
(‘‘DMCA’’) was enacted as an attempt to safeguard 
the traditional balance in the face of these new chal-
lenges. It gave copyright holders the ability to fight 
digital piracy by employing technical restrictions 
that prevent unlawful access and copying. In prac-
tice, however, the DMCA also endangered the rights 
and expectations of legitimate consumers. 
(7) Contrary to the intent of Congress, section 
1201 of title 17, United States Code, has been inter-
preted to prohibit all users—even lawful ones—from 
circumventing technical restrictions for any reason. 
As a result, the lawful consumer cannot legally cir-
cumvent technological restrictions, even if he or she 
is simply trying to exercise a fair use or to utilize 
the work on a different digital media device. See, 
e.g., Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 
F. Supp. 2d 294, 321–24 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (DMCA 
failed to give consumers the technical means to 
make fair uses of encrypted copyrighted works). 
(8) The authors of the DMCA never intended 
to create such a dramatic shift in the balance. As 
the report of the Committee of the Judiciary of the 
House of Representatives accompanying the DMCA 
stated: ‘‘[A]n individual [should] not be able to cir-
cumvent in order to gain unauthorized access to a 
work, but [should] be able to do so in order to make 
fair use of a work which he or she has acquired law-
fully.’’ House Report 105–551, Part I, Section-by- 
Section Analysis of section 1201(a)(1).