Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Specifically on “manufactures”, we understand the desire to be more specific. The concern we have is that it comes at the risk of actually locking other people out. Specifying who can do something creates a situation in which anybody who isn't a manufacturer may not be permitted to take these same actions.
The example I've been noodling with in my head really comes down to this: A farmer already owns one combine—I think that is the right term—and then they decide to change to a different platform. They've already invested in a whole bunch of headers. They simply want to make that interoperable, but they are not manufacturers. If they have a fellow farmer who has already done this, they would not be permitted to rely on that colleague to assist them or to actually do this for them. They would have to go through a manufacturer. Honestly, I don't fully appreciate what that would mean in this situation.
With respect to “lawfully obtained”, in the way the Copyright Act is drafted right now, it talks about the owner or the licensee, essentially. When we looked at this bill and at CUSMA, and then looked also at the way U.S. law is being drafted, we saw that the U.S. law is using this concept of “lawfully obtained”, which we feel is broader. We believe that once someone is the owner, if they allow access to a third party, that software is still lawfully obtained, even though that third party is not the owner or the licensee.
That's where we feel this actually expands the scope of the bill as drafted. We think this better fits the purpose and the intention that Mr. Patzer is seeking to achieve.