Thanks so much.
When you're writing public policy and so forth, you try to avoid duplication. Duplication creates confusion and opportunities for misunderstanding.
The point is that this clause in particular is unnecessary because it already exists in the Copyright Act. It's already considered under the term “work”. This is, again, good housekeeping, good clean public policy writing. It shouldn't be in two places simultaneously.
There doesn't appear to be any need for it at all. As this bill itself amends the Copyright Act, why would you amend an act to add something that duplicates something that's already in the act? It's just clean housekeeping to avoid confusion.