If I may, Mr. Chair....
First, the definition of a “work” in the Copyright Act is, in fact, very broad. That is why we believe that by talking about “work, performer's performance fixed in a sound recording or sound recording to which” we actually cover the entire universe of the types of works that could be covered and that could be protected. Thereby, we believe this actually better covers and provides more clarity over the ability to circumvent a TPM for the purpose of repair.
This actually doesn't try to restrict it. It is using, as you've said, the broad definition of a work in the Copyright Act and using it to empower the section.
With respect to the distinction between what's happening at the federal level in the U.S. and the state level, at the federal level they have created exceptions for the copyright law. The librarian of copyright has created certain exceptions for the circumvention of TPMs in order to allow the circumvention of TPMs. These do not create a positive right to repair. All they do is clear a barrier that could be created by the copyright law. This is to enable, at the states' level, if they wish to create positive rights to repair.... At that point, that could be achieved.
We're seeing some of that happening in some states where they not only are relying on the exception in the TPM regime but are going further by mandating that parts, repair manuals, and potentially contracts don't prevent people from actually being able to effect repairs on their devices.
I think it's worth remembering that, in the Copyright Act, all we can do here, really, is eliminate a potential barrier to repair.