PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 105-80.
Congressional Research Service
Version 35 · Passed Senate amended · Oct 30, 1997
Amends the Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1994 and various Federal copyright provisions to make technical and conforming amendments with respect to: (1) licensing and royalty fees charged for the retransmission for home viewing of superstation and network station transmissions; (2) the copyrighting of restored works; (3) licenses for nonexempt subscription transmissions; (4) royalties payable under compulsory licenses; (5) negotiated licenses for jukeboxes; (6) copyright registration and infringement actions; and (7) digital audio recording devices and media. (Sec. 7) Authorizes the Register of Copyrights, after conducting a study, to increase the copyright fees to be paid to the Copyright Office for 1997 and thereafter to cover Office costs for the registration of claims, the recording of documents, and the provision of services. Requires the Register, for any such increase, to prepare a proposed fee schedule and submit such schedule and an economic analysis to the Congress. Requires a 120-day waiting period after submission of such schedule and analysis before its implementation. (Sec. 8) Authorizes the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, to: (1) authorize the distribution of those royalty fees collected that the Librarian has found to be not subject to controversy; and (2) accept or reject royalty claims on the basis of timeliness or the failure to establish the basis for a claim. Directs the Librarian to reimburse the arbitrators presiding in royalty distribution proceedings, considering such costs to be reasonable costs incurred by the Library and the Office. Requires the reasonable costs incurred by the Librarian and the Office in ratemaking proceedings to be borne by the parties to the proceedings as directed by the arbitration panels. (Sec. 11) Provides that the distribution before January 1, 1978, of a phonorecord shall not for any purpose constitute a publication of the musical work embodied therein.
People & committees
Rep. Coble, Howard [R-NC-6] · R–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 105-80.
Became Public Law No: 105-80.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by voice vote. (consideration: CR H9882-9883)
Resolving differences -- House actions: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by voice vote.(consideration: CR H9882-9883)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Mr. Coble moved that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendments.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 1541 agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Amendment SP 1541 proposed by Senator Grassley for Senator Hatch.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S11498-11499)
Senate Committee on Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
Received in the Senate and read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 424 - 2 (Roll no. 53).
House roll call 53 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by recorded vote (2/3 required): 424 - 2 (Roll no. 53).
House roll call 53 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1068-1069)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Coble objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1053-1056)
Mr. Coble moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 16.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-25.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 105-25.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.672 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.672 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.672 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.672 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.