On the recordFebruary 25, 2014
In listening to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), there was a discussion of to what degree does this language interfere with potential and existing business models, and I agree with them. There are many workarounds. I think the danger here is invoking the language of copyright in an unrelated area. To quote from Public Knowledge: this new language, even if Congress believes that bulk unlocking is a problem, it is clear that it is not a copyright problem. Just as individual unlocking is not a copyright problem, a bill designed to scale back overreaching copyright laws should not also endorse an overreach of copyright law. I have a full statement from Public Knowledge that I will submit for the Record, Mr. Speaker. And as put by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, by expressly excluding bulk unlocking, this new legislation sends two dangerous signals: one, that Congress is okay with using copyright as an excuse to inhibit certain business models, even if the business isn't actually infringing on any of its copyrights; and, two, that Congress still doesn't understand the collateral damage section 1201 is causing. For example, bulk unlocking not only benefits consumers, but it is also good for the environment. Unlocking allows reuse, and that means less electronic waste. I will be submitting the Electronic Frontier Foundation statement into the Record.…





