On the recordFebruary 25, 2014
I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, there seems to be some strong, bipartisan consensus here that there remains more work to be done. As Representative Chaffetz said, we do need a long-term solution. We need to ensure that any solution we enter is not compromised by our Nation's trade agreements to ensure that consumers are protected in control of their own devices in choosing the plan that they desire. The language in question that was added after the bipartisan consensus was reached in committee is not operative language. It is not language that criminalizes something that wasn't criminal before or proactively bans the bulk sale of phones. What it does explicitly do is establish some degree of congressional intent. Perhaps this colloquy between the two gentlemen from Virginia helped roll back a part of what could be read in the congressional intent of this language, and I am appreciative of that effort. However, congressional intent could, nevertheless, be construed that there is an imprint, there is a congressional desire to use a more restrictive view of copyright, one in which copyright laws can be used to ban business practices that have nothing to do with making illicit copies of protected works. Copyrights are a very important area of law. It is meant to protect the creator of a work from having their work ripped off and sold and others profit at their expense.…





