U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–346 PDF 2013

UNLOCKING CONSUMER CHOICE AND 

WIRELESS COMPETITION ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 

AND THE INTERNET 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 1123 

JUNE 6, 2013 

Serial No. 113–27 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

[Vacant] 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JOE KEELEY, Chief Counsel 

STEPHANIE MOORE, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 6, 2013 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 1123, the ‘‘Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act’’ ... 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Tom Marino, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Pennsylvania, and Vice-Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual 

Property, and the Internet .................................................................................. 1 

The Honorable Melvin L. Watt, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of North Carolina, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet .......................................................................... 5 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 11 

WITNESSES 

Steven K. Berry, President and Chief Executive Officer, Competitive Carriers 

Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 17 

Michael Altschul, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, CTIA—The 

Wireless Association 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 25 

George P. Slover, Senior Policy Counsel, Consumers Union 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 29 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 31 

Steven J. Metalitz, Partner, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 42 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Melvin L. Watt, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of North Carolina, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet ......................... 7 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet .......................................................................................... 13 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, 

Intellectual Property, and the Internet .............................................................. 59 
Page

IV 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, 

Intellectual Property, and the Internet .............................................................. 100 

Prepared Statement of Derek S. Khanna, Founder, Disruptive Innovation, 

Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School, Information Society Project ....................... 102 

Prepared Statement of the Library Copyright Alliance ....................................... 119 
(1) 

UNLOCKING CONSUMER CHOICE AND 

WIRELESS COMPETITION ACT 

THURSDAY, JUNE 6, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND THE INTERNET

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Tom Marino (ViceChairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Coble, Goodlatte, Marino, Chabot, 

Chaffetz, Holding, Watt, Conyers, Johnson, Chu, Deutch, Bass, 

DelBene, and Lofgren. 

Staff present: (Majority) Joe Keeley, Chief Counsel; Olivia Lee, 

Clerk; and (Minority) Stephanie Moore, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. MARINO. Good morning. I want to call the Subcommittee 

hearing to order. The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the Subcommittee at any time, and that is going to happen very, 

very shortly because we are going to be called to vote here probably 

not much after 10 o’clock. 

I want to welcome all of the witnesses here today. Thank you so 

much for being here. 

I think that my friend and Ranking Member and I can get our 

opening statements in, and then we will see where we go from 

there. So if you would allow me to give my opening statement and 

then the Ranking Member, Congressman Watt. 

I would like to begin this hearing by thanking the Members, witnesses, and people in the gallery for joining us today for this important hearing. 

This morning we will hear testimony on H.R. 1123, the 

‘‘Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act,’’ introduced by Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Subcommittee Chairman Coble, and Subcommittee Ranking Member 

Congressman Watt. 

The bipartisan legislation restores the ability of Americans to legally unlock their cell phones, an important consumer issue. As everyone knows, cell phones have become universal devices that are 

relied upon by Americans to communicate with family, conduct 
2 

business, and stay in touch with friends. Although cell phone companies have subsidized the purchase of a cell phone through lower 

upfront costs, should be able to ensure that consumers meet the 

terms of their contract, providing consumers with an easy way to 

switch to a cellular provider of their choosing is important to ensuring a competitive marketplace. H.R. 1123 reinstates an earlier 

exemption for consumers to be able to switch their cellular providers by unlocking their phones. 

H.R. 1123 also directs the Register to look at other similar wireless devices, such as tablets, to determine whether an exemption 

is warranted there as well. 

Testifying before the Subcommittee this morning are four participants in the 2012 section 1201 Copyright Office rulemaking. Each 

brings a unique perspective to this issue, and the Subcommittee 

appreciates their making the time available to appear today. 

Finally, I recognize that there are other sections in interest that 

may be surfacing throughout the hearing, and a few Members and 

some of the audience may want to hear those issues as well. I am 

sure these issues will be among many raised during the Committee’s comprehensive review of our Nation’s copyright laws. 

Again, I thank everyone for being here today and I look forward 

to hearing your testimony. 

Then I hand it over to the Ranking Member, Congressman Watt. 

[The bill, H.R. 1123, follows:] 
3 
4 
5 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being 

here substituting for our Chairman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Coble. I hope he is well. 

I am not quite as prepared, I would have to say, as I usually am 

for hearings of this kind, primarily not because of my circumstances but there was an explosion down the street right across 

from my staff person’s house, and she could not quite get out to get 

my opening statement to me. So I am struggling a little bit this 

morning because I am reading an opening statement that I have 

not had as much opportunity to edit and review, as I normally do. 

So forgive me. 

It did not go unnoticed to me, though, that because of the explosion across from her house, the very first sentence in the opening 

statement has the word ‘‘explosion’’ in it. [Laughter.] 

Maybe she was a little distracted too. So that is a good segue into 

the statement, however. 

It says individual cell phone use worldwide has exploded over the 

past decade. In the United States, the Pew Research Center estimates, as of last month, 91 percent of adults in this country own 

a cell phone. Moreover, the increasing popularity of smart phones 

that enable consumers to access a variety of services and perform 

multiple functions from a single device heightens the importance of 

public policy surrounding cell phone use. 

The relevant policy choices, in turn, involve a web of communications, competition, and copyright law. Current law prohibits the 

circumvention of access controls that protect copyrighted works. 

Because software contained in cell phones is often protected by 

copyright law, an exemption is required to legally circumvent those 

protections measures. Because Congress understood that in the 

field of technology, there are, quote, unknown unknowns, and also 

to comply with our treaty obligations of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, required a multiple review called the 1201 

proceeding to provide a process to determine whether exemptions 

to the prohibition against circumvention were warranted for various categories of works, that task was assigned to the Copyright 

Office and the Librarian of Congress. 

We appreciate the hard work and dedication of the Copyright Office and the Librarian of Congress in this most recent 1201 rulemaking, the fifth since passage of the DMCA. Our hearing today 

is not designed to call into question any aspect of that critically important process but instead to explore the specific policy issue of 

cell phone unlocking, which could not be fully addressed through 

the limited 1201 rulemaking proceeding. 

The 1201 proceeding concluded that, for phone purchases prior to 

January 26, 2013, owners could unlock their phones to use on another network without fear of penalty. For all phones purchased 

after that date, however, the Librarian of Congress concluded that 

due to changes in the marketplace, namely the widespread availability of unlocked phones, and based on the evidence submitted in 

the proceeding, an exemption was not warranted. In other words, 

consumers would not be permitted to bypass access controls that 

protect copyrighted works because their choices in the market had 

expanded. Over 14,000 people signed a petition criticizing the decision and demanding that unlocking be exempt from the prohibition. 
6 

I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1123 because I support providing consumers the freedom to use their cell phones on another network 

after their contracts have expired even though I am a strong supporter of protecting copyrights. I do so without prejudice to the various business models of wireless carriers, including those that provide locked phones at deeply subsidized rates. I believe that practice allows many in the underserved community access to quality 

cell phones that they otherwise would not have. It also enhances 

competition. However, because not all consumers are world travelers and may be unaware of whether a phone is or is not unlocked, 

I believe that providing the exemption to phones purchased beyond 

January 26 will expand consumer options even further beyond 

what the changing market already provides. 

But I also support a process that routinely evaluates the options 

and technological advancements available to consumers to ensure 

a healthy, competitive marketplace and also protects copyrights. 

While it is important that we not be tone deaf to the voices of a 

significant number of American citizens, it is equally important 

that we not allow a fraction of the millions of cell phone users to 

drive policy outcomes or upend the process mandated by the 

DMCA. 

The cell phone unlocking debate raises important issues of consumer protection and choice. Although these issues also implicate 

broader copyright law, we should not react reflexively on the basis 

of one of many issues considered in the 1201 proceedings. Cell 

phone unlocking merits more immediate attention and should be 

considered separate and apart from our ongoing copyright review 

work. I believe H.R. 1123 is the appropriate response to the issue 

at hand but that we need to continue to work on the other issues 

involved. 

Mr. Chairman, I will submit my full opening statement for the 

record and I welcome the witnesses and yield back. 

Mr. MARINO. Without objection, thank you, Congressman Watt. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Watt follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 

Mr. MARINO. I now recognize the full Committee Chairman, Mr. 

Goodlatte of Virginia, for his opening statement. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Three months ago, I introduced H.R. 1123, the ‘‘Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act,’’ to ensure that consumers continue to be able to unlock their cell phones. Americans 
12 

who have completed their phone contracts or have purchased a 

used phone want to be able to use their device on their network 

of choice. They have made that preference loud and clear, and Congress has listened. H.R. 1123 restores the previous authority for 

cell phone unlocking and adds a new rulemaking process for related wireless devices such as tablets and other cellular connected 

devices. 

The witnesses today have indicated their support of unlocking. I 

recognize that there are some who would prefer a longer exemption. However, in the interest of helping consumers today and not 

running afoul of several of our Nation’s free trade agreements, H.R. 

1123 reinstates an exemption for cell phone unlocking until the 

next rulemaking process. 

I have often spoken about the need to protect the creator and 

how theft of their works affects not just that creator but our Nation’s economy as a whole. An important part of helping creators 

is to enable them to protect their works from theft in the first place 

by using technological protection measures. I believe that section 

1201 is an important tool that helps creators protect their works 

from theft. 

However, an important safeguard, the triennial rulemaking process, was built into section 1201 to recognize when technological 

protection measures might adversely affect noninfringing uses of 

copyrighted works. The Register’s authority to recommend an exemption is limited by the record that is presented to her by proponents of any exemption. In prior rulemakings, the record was 

sufficient to justify an exemption for cell phone unlocking. That 

was not the case in 2012, leaving it to Congress to determine if 

such an exemption was warranted. Today we will hear from several 

witnesses, all of whom participated in the 2012 rulemaking, who 

do feel such an exemption is warranted. 

I also recognize that some may prefer changes to the underlying 

statutory language of section 1201. Whether or not such changes 

would have the support of this Committee is a question for another 

day. I have already announced a comprehensive review of our Nation’s copyright law, and there will, no doubt, be a future opportunity for interested parties to discuss section 1201 in more detail. 

I also look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. 

I now recognize the full Committee Ranking Member, Congressman Conyers of Michigan, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am a cosponsor of the bill and I ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the record. 

Mr. MARINO. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 
13 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, Ranking Member, Committee on 

the Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet 

I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1123, the ‘‘Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless 

Competition Act,’’ because it would restore the ability of consumers to unlock their 

mobile phones so that they can readily switch from one wireless carrier to another. 

There are several reasons why this flexibility that is the heart of this legislation 

is critical. 

First and foremost, this bipartisan legislation enhances consumer choice and 

competition in the cell phone market. 

Unlocked phones should remain affordable and consumer choice should not come 

at too high a price. 

H.R. 1123 ensures that consumers will be able to unlock their cell phones without 

risking criminal or other penalties. 

In addition, this bill would enable consumers to take advantage of lower rates if 

they decide to switch carriers. 

Another reason why I support this legislation is that it effectuates a balanced approach. 

For example, the White House and the Federal Communications Commission have 

both urged Congress to overturn the decision by the Librarian of the Congress. 

I believe this bill addresses these concerns in an appropriate manner that reinstates the previous exemption by repealing the October 2012 change and reinstating 

the 2010 exemption. 

In addition, H.R. 1123 directs the Copyright Office to determine whether similar 

treatment should be given to other wireless devices. 

In the past two triennial rulemaking proceedings pursuant to section 1201 of the 

Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the Librarian of Congress included an 

exemption for unlocking wireless handsets. Unfortunately, the Librarian of Congress 

did not renew this exemption in October 2012. 

Although the Copyright Office argues that cell phone makers offer a range of unlocked phones on the market and consumers no longer need an exemption to unlock 

their phones, I want to hear the views of our witnesses today about this matter. 

Finally, I support this bill because it will help ensure competition in the wireless 

marketplace, which ultimately will benefit consumers. 

The ability of consumers to be able to transfer their cell phone services to different wireless carriers will encourage market innovation and provide incentives for 

the industry to develop less expensive products. 

Although unlocked mobile devices have become more widely available for purchase, the exemption is still warranted because some cell phones sold by carriers 

are permanently locked. 

Additionally, many unlocking policies contain restrictions and may not apply to 

all of a wireless carrier’s cell phones. 

This bill provides us with a meaningful opportunity to help consumers by leveling 

the opportunity for competition. 

Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I look forward 

to hearing from our witnesses today. 

Mr. MARINO. That is it? There is some time, Congressman. There 

is some time if you want to make a statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, that is all right. It has all been said only 

three times so far. [Laughter.] 

Mr. MARINO. I have never known you not to take advantage of 

what we said and then just really put us in our place. 

Mr. WATT. That is because his Ranking Member and his Chair 

are so eloquent. [Laughter.] 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. 
14 

Without objection—— 

Mr. WATT. And coincidentally I agree with him. [Laughter.] 

Mr. MARINO. Without objection, other Members’ opening statements will be made part of the record. 

At this time, I am going to call a recess. We must go vote. We 

have, I think, five or six votes. It could be anywhere from 20 to 30 

minutes. So I apologize but we will be back and relax. Thank you. 

A recess is called. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. MARINO. The Subcommittee on Intellectual Property will 

come to order. 

Thank you so very much for your patience, both our witnesses 

and our audience. I did fail to mention to you that I gave you congressional time, 20 minutes. Reality, you just multiply that by 2. 

We have a very distinguished panel today. I will be swearing in 

our witnesses before introducing them. If you would please all rise 

and raise your right hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. MARINO. Please let the record reflect that the witnesses have 

answered in the affirmative, and you may be seated, gentlemen, 

thank you. 

Each of the witnesses’ written statements will be entered into 

the record in its entirety. 

I ask that each witness summarize his testimony in 5 minutes 

or less, and I will politely tap the gavel if you are going over the 

5 minutes. To help you stay within the time, there is a time light 

on your table. When the light switches from green to yellow, you 

will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When the light 

turns red, it signals that the witness’ 5 minutes have expired. 

Our first witness today is Mr. Steven Berry, President and Chief 

Executive Officer of the Competitive Carriers Association. Prior to 

joining CCA, Mr. Berry was Managing Director of Government Affairs at Merrill Lynch and also held positions at the National Cable 

and Telecommunications Association and at CTIA. Mr. Berry received his J.D. from George Mason University Law School and his 

B.A. from Emory and Henry College. 

Our second witness is Mr. Altschul, Senior Vice President and 

General Counsel at CTIA—The Wireless Association. Mr. Altschul 

joined CTIA in 1990 after having served with the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice for 10 years. And 

I served with Justice myself. Mr. Altschul received his law degree 

from New York University School of Law and his B.A. from Colgate 

University. Welcome. 

Our third witness is Mr. George Slover, Senior Policy Counsel at 

Consumers Union where he oversees telecommunications antitrust 

and competition policy issues. Mr. Slover has 3 decades of Federal 

service in all three branches of Government, including 9 years here 

at the House Judiciary Committee. Mr. Slover received his J.D. 

from the University of Texas Law School and B.A. from Vanderbilt 

University. It is a pleasure to have you back. 

Our fourth and final witness is Steve Metalitz, Partner at the 

Washington, D.C. office of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, 

where he counsels clients on domestic and international copyright 

issues. Mr. Metalitz—Metalitz—I will get it right, sir, just give me 
15 

a couple times. I apologize—previously served as General Counsel 

to Information Industry Association and as Chief Counsel of the 

Senate Judiciary Committee on Patents, Copyright, and Trademark. He received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and his B.A. from the University of Chicago. 

Welcome to you all, and we will start with Mr. Berry for his 

opening statement. Thank you, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF STEVEN K. BERRY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Watt, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 

inviting me to testify and thank you for your work to ensure that 

all consumers can unlock their wireless device. 

I am here today on behalf of the Competitive Carriers Association, the Nation’s leading association of competitive wireless carriers with over 100 carrier members ranging from small, rural providers to regional and national providers serving millions of customers. We also represent almost 200 associate members, small 

businesses, vendors, and suppliers that support the wireless ecosystem and employer constituents. 

We support the Committee’s efforts to remove the barriers to 

competition. Accordingly, we support H.R. 1123, the ‘‘Unlocking 

Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act.’’ 

CCA supports unlocking for every consumer that has met the 

terms and conditions of their contract and/or service agreement. A 

consumer who wishes to switch carriers should be allowed to do so 

if they have met their carrier commitments. 

Unlocking is particularly important for rural and regional small 

carriers that lack the scale to gain access to the latest and most 

iconic devices directly from the equipment manufacturer which, in 

turn, prevents millions of consumers, your constituents, from accessing the latest devices. 

Competitive carriers face many challenges gaining access to the 

resources necessary to provide mobile broadband service, including 

interoperable spectrum, interconnection, and roaming relationships 

and, of course, devices. In an industry where the largest two carriers control critical inputs, unlocking devices and unlocking provides one small, but very important, opportunity for the competitive carriers to distinguish themselves in the marketplace and provide innovative services and rate plans to customers that do not 

wish to give up previously purchased devices, applications, or the 

associated content on those devices. 

I commend your work on H.R. 1123 as a positive first step to restore the previous exemption. The Librarian of Congress, or the 

LOC, should have extended the exemption in the first place as 

NTIA had recommended and as CCA testified in support of continued exemption. The Librarian just got it wrong. Even the FCC 

Commissioner Ajit Pai today, in the New York Times article, indicated he was puzzled by the decision and supported the unlocking 

process before the Committee. 

I also strongly support the bill’s direction to the LOC to revisit 

the determination to extend the exemption to other wireless devices. Consumers do not differentiate between a handset and what 
16 

is a device, and neither should the Library of Congress. Long gone 

are the days when handsets were used for only voice calls, and in 

an all-IP world, there will no longer be a difference between voice 

and data. There are many forms of smart phones now, devices, tablets, and even phablets. Further blurring the difference between a 

handset and a wireless device and the potential for consumer confusion is real. 

We support the Goodlatte-Leahy bicameral bill as an immediate 

fix to correct the Librarian of Congress’ poor decision. CCA welcomes continued discussion on ways authorized unlocking will continue to promote consumer choice. The Committee must remain 

vigilant, for there are other ways that devices may be impaired, including technologically designing devices with particular specifications in order to permanently lock the device, making it nonoperable with other carriers just because you can, configuring devices 

so that even when unlocked, the device may only work on a particular carrier’s network, and potential for software updates that 

might relock and unlock the device. 

Finally, while Congress must move forward to enact the H.R. 

1123 with full haste, I would also offer some recommendations for 

further conversation, such as including the consumer’s agent in the 

exemption. Consumers should not have to be a virtual MacGyver 

in order to unlock their handsets. Consider shifting the burden of 

proof in the statute to the opponent and adding a presumption to 

extend the existing exemption unless shown otherwise. Lastly, the 

exemption should also change ‘‘telecommunications network’’ to 

‘‘communications network.’’ Consumers do not differentiate between 

types of access. Neither should policy. 

Mr. Chairman, CCA supports your work and encourages swift 

passage of H.R. 1123, and I welcome your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berry follows:] 
17 

Prepared Statement of Steven K. Berry, President and 

Chief Executive Officer, Competitive Carriers Association 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Mr. Berry. You came in under the wire. 

Mr. Altschul, please. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL ALTSCHUL, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL, CTIA—THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ALTSCHUL. Thank you, Chairman Marino, Ranking Member 

Watt, and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing on H.R. 1123 and allowing CTIA to add 

its voice to the choir supporting this bill. 

My name is Michael Altschul, and I serve as the Senior Vice 

President and General Counsel of CTIA—The Wireless Association. 

Membership in CTIA includes wireless carriers and their suppliers, 

as well as providers of wireless data services. 

When the DMCA was enacted, Congress could not have known 

the technologies and markets that have become commonplace 

today. Accordingly, section 1201 authorizes the Librarian of Congress to issue temporary exemptions during a rulemaking process 

that occurs every 3 years. The triennial rulemaking was intended 

to be a safety valve to the anti-circumvention provisions of the 

DMCA and it can serve as an important barometer for issues such 

as this one that may be ripe for further discussion. Because the 

rulemaking process does not permit the Librarian to change the 

terms of the DMCA, only Congress, through the legislative process, 

can address these issues. 

In the 2006 triennial rulemaking cycle, the Librarian of Congress 

granted an exemption for cell phone unlocking. This exemption was 

renewed in 2010. However, in the 2012 rulemaking, the Librarian 

determined that the exemption for unlocking was not necessary because the largest nationwide carriers have liberal publicly available 

unlocking policies and because unlocked phones are freely available 

from third party providers, many at low prices. If you go to our 

website or Best Buy or many other retailers, you can see close to 

200 individual wireless phones that are available unlocked for sale 

to the public. 

While the Librarian’s order was clearly justified by the market 

circumstances and the requirements of the DMCA, CTIA in its 

comments stated that we would not oppose a narrowly tailored exemption that allows bona fide individual customers to use their 

own phones on a different network. This bill would create such a 

rule. 

We did, however, oppose any broader exemption out of concern 

that broader relief would serve to permit the bulk commercial purchase of new phones in order to free ride on carrier subsidies and 

arbitraged sale of these phones, either in the United States or 

abroad. We were pleased that the Register recognized this potentiality in its 2010 ruling noting that bulk reselling of new mobile 

phones by commercial ventures is a serious matter. There is no justification for the result of this rulemaking proceeding to condone, 

either expressly or implicitly, the illegal trafficking of mobile 

phones. Such illicit practices raise the cost of doing business, which 

in turn affects the marketplace for mobile phones and the prices 

consumers pay for such devices. 
24 

Moreover, continuing the prohibition on bulk unlocking makes 

our streets just a little bit safer by making it harder for large scale 

phone trafficking syndicates to operate in the open and buy phones, 

unlock them, and resell them either in the U.S. or in foreign markets. Making it illegal to unlock devices without carrier consent 

adds another barrier to these fencing operations and may help dry 

up the demand for stolen phones. 

But because we are not seeking to limit individuals’ noncommercial ability to unlock their own devices and because the bill preserves the important limitations against bulk unlocking included in 

the Librarian’s 2010 decision, CTIA supports H.R. 1123, which is 

narrowly tailored and appropriate to alleviating consumer confusion that may have arisen as a result of the Librarian’s most recent 

decision. 

While enactment of H.R. 1123 should alleviate consumer confusion about whether unlocking his or her wireless phone will subject 

them to possible criminal penalties, it is important to note that no 

one should view enactment of this legislation as enabling a universal phone that can be easily moved from one network to another. Unlocked phones are not the same as interoperable phones, 

and it would be a mistake to conflate the two. While there are circumstances in which a device can be unlocked and moved from one 

carrier to another, differences in technology and differences in spectrum assignments limit or preclude seamless movement of devices 

between most carriers. And even if some features will work on another carrier’s network, unlocked handsets can result in a degraded 

customer experience since all the carrier’s services may not be supported by the device. 

And with that, thank you again for the opportunity to participate 

in today’s hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Altschul follows:] 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Slover, please. 

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE P. SLOVER, 

SENIOR POLICY COUNSEL, CONSUMERS UNION 

Mr. SLOVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Watt, 

Members of the Subcommittee. It is a pleasure to be here on behalf 

of Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer Reports, the largest independent, not-for-profit product testing organization. Our 

mission is to work for a fair and just marketplace for consumers. 

And we believe consumers should have the right to unlock their 

mobile device to use on another network, to switch carriers, or to 

use their device abroad, or to sell or give it to someone else. Consumers should be able to use the mobile device they bought, as 

they see fit. 

As wireless takes over as the predominant way of communicating, we want consumers to be free to choose service and product offerings that suit their needs in a competitive marketplace. 

And being able to switch carriers to get a more suitable and affordable plan, without having to start over and purchase a new phone, 

can make a big difference. 

And consumers agree. In a nationwide survey by Consumer Reports 2 years ago, 96 percent of those with long-term contracts said 

that, when we change carriers, we should be able to keep using the 

mobile phones we already have. 

Until last October’s decision by the Register of Copyrights and 

the Librarian of Congress, consumers had the legal right to unlock. 

Then in one fell swoop, unlocking went from legal right to felony. 

But the unlocking we are talking about here has nothing to do 

with copyright infringement in any traditional sense, and has no 

business getting caught up in the dragnet of a law intended to help 

stop copyright infringement. It is far too blunt an instrument for 

protecting material that is actually copyright protected from actual 

infringement. It creates a zone of protection far wider than is needed or justified. It is like having a cake that you do not want your 

teenager cutting into and devouring with his friends. But instead 

of just telling him not to eat the cake, you tell him he is grounded 

for life if he even sets foot in the kitchen. 

Mobile phone unlocking is a perfect candidate for DMCA exemption, as the Register and the Librarian readily concluded in 2010. 

Their reversal this time is hard to reconcile. However, if you parse 

their rationale, the result is a legal ruling that impairs competition 

and consumer choice, and will render millions of perfectly good mobile devices useless, left to gather dust in a drawer, or to slowly 

decompose in a landfill, or to be discarded into a recycling bin. 

The lock benefits carriers, by propping up the long-term bundled 

contract. And it benefits mobile device manufacturers, by artificially inflating demand for new devices through forced retirement 

of used ones. 

But for consumers, it means less competition, less choice, more 

expense, and more waste. That is not a fair tradeoff and it does not 

belong in the copyright laws. 

Pealing this misfit legal armor off the lock is a key step on the 

road to more competition. If consumers could shop for the best deal 
30 

on each of these two purchases separately, they would get lower 

prices, improved quality, and greater innovation and variety that 

more competition would encourage among mobile device manufacturers and wireless carriers alike. Some carriers now are offering 

alternatives to the bundled contract, a healthy development that 

would be sped up by restoring the right to unlock. 

We are heartened by the interest in Congress, with a number of 

bills taking various approaches to a solution. While we would like 

to see a permanent solution, to make sure mobile phones cannot be 

put on lockdown again, we appreciate that a temporary solution 

can be an effective stopgap while the permanent solution is in the 

works. 

If you opt for the temporary solution expressed in H.R. 1123, 

while you work on the permanent solution, we think it would be 

helpful to make a few clarifications now, without waiting, to ensure 

that the DMCA exemption as reinstated works in today’s world, 

and to reduce the risk of unnecessary and unwarranted legal obstacles. Our recommended clarifications are in our written statement 

and in our comments to the Register. 

For example, consumers should not be denied the right to unlock 

because the device they purchased does not carry with it the software inside it, but only carries a license to use the software. And 

consumers who use a tablet as their phone should have the same 

right to unlock as consumers who use a handset. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for including us in this hearing on an 

issue of great importance to consumers. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Slover follows:] 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, sir. 

Now, for the third time, Mr. Metalitz. 

TESTIMONY OF STEVEN J. METALITZ, PARTNER, 

MITCHELL SILBERBERG & KNUPP LLP 

Mr. METALITZ. That is right, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

Mr. METALITZ. Good morning and thank you very much for inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee. 

In all five rulemaking proceedings that have been held under the 

Digital Millennium Copyright Act, I have represented a broad coalition of copyright industry organizations. Because the bill before 

you today addresses a decision made in the most recent DMCA 

rulemaking, I hope I can provide some useful context. I am not 

here to advocate a position on whether the Librarian of Congress’ 

decision on the cell phone unlocking issue was right or wrong. Our 

coalition was neutral on that during the rulemaking. 

I am here to say that if Congress concludes that the Librarian’s 

decision was not the right policy outcome, then H.R. 1123 is an appropriate and well considered way to change it. It restores the status quo ante without undermining an important provision of title 

17 that has done so much to benefit creators, distributors, and consumers of copyrighted works. That provision is section 1201. It protects the technological measures that copyright owners use to control access to their works. Since it was enacted in 1998, it has 

helped to launch three important trends. 

First, in nearly every industrialized country in the world and in 

many other countries, similar legislation has been adopted. Some 

follow the U.S. model closely, others take a somewhat different approach, but they all recognize that access control technologies 

should be encouraged to better serve the public. 

Second, responding to this encouragement, copyright owners 

have increasingly launched innovative new services that depend on 

access controls. Everyone in the software world is talking about 

cloud computing today. Cloud computing depends on access controls. These controls are also essential in upgrading the security of 

computer networks and reducing their vulnerability to attacks. Access controls have also enabled cloud services for delivery of all 

kinds of copyrighted materials—software, games, video, books, 

music, and so forth. 

The third trend is as a result of the rapid proliferation of these 

services, more consumers today enjoy authorized access to more 

copyrighted works in more diverse ways and at more affordable 

price points than ever before. Access control measures have been 

indispensable to achieving this. 

Now, perhaps the best part of the story is this. This Committee 

and the rest of Congress anticipated that this might happen. In enacting the DMCA 15 years ago, Congress foresaw that technological 

protection measures could be used not only to prevent piracy but 

also to support new ways of disseminating copyrighted materials to 

users. Congress was also wise enough to realize that not all of the 

consequences of these new legal protections could be anticipated. 

So it created the triennial rulemaking process whose purpose is to 
41 

identify specific factual situations in which access controls have 

had unexpected negative consequences. 

Now, again, our copyright industry groups that have participated 

in these rulemakings do not agree with every decision that has 

come out, or everything in the way the Copyright Office has approached it, but overall we think the rulemaking process has fulfilled the functions that Congress intended for it. I point out some 

of these reasons for saying so in my written testimony. 

First, instead of the Copyright Office ranging the field to regulate uses of access controls that a government official might think 

are problematic, it relies on private parties to step forward to identify exactly where the exemptions are needed. 

Second, exemptions are reserved for situations in which they are 

necessary or it is impossible or extremely burdensome to make a 

noninfringing use without circumventing access controls. 

Third, all the exemptions expire after 3 years. So the Copyright 

Office and the Librarian take another look at that point. That 

makes sense, given the pace of technology and pace of change in 

market developments. 

And fourth, the Copyright Office has consistently provided detailed explanations of its recommendations. We do not always agree 

with them, but they provide a lot of useful guidance. 

Now, H.R. 1123 is tightly focused on changing the decision issued 

by the Librarian of Congress on the single issue of cell phone 

unlocking. It does so without tampering with the structure of section 1201 or with the key ingredients for success of the rulemaking 

that I have just summarized. It simply restores the status quo 

ante, the cell phone unlocking exemption that the Librarian recognized in 2010 but decided to phase out in 2012. It places this restored exemption back into the existing rulemaking framework. It 

directs the Copyright Office to initiate a new rulemaking on the 

question of whether that exemption ought to apply to other devices, 

and both these exemptions would be reviewed again after 3 years 

under the same procedures the Copyright Office has developed. 

In short, H.R. 1123, if enacted, would be the most effective and 

focused way for Congress to correct what it considers an erroneous 

outcome of the last DMCA rulemaking, and it would inflict the 

least possible disruption on the rulemaking process and keep intact 

this provision, section 1201, that has served American creators and 

consumers so well. 

Thank you very much. I would be ready to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Metalitz follows:] 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, gentlemen, for keeping your initial comments to 5 minutes. 

The Chair now recognizes the Chairman of this Subcommittee, 

the gentleman from North Carolina, Congressman Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you and the 

gentleman from North Carolina covering for me. I apologize to the 

witnesses for my belated arrival. Today was one of those days 

when I had to be at five places simultaneously. You all have never 

had that happened to you before, have you? I am sure you have. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. 
48 

Starting with Mr. Berry, and then including all of the witnesses, 

what is the current state of the unlocked cell phone market? And 

do consumers have a growing number of choices for unlocked 

handsets and providers than ever before, or is the marketplace limited? 

Mr. BERRY. Hi, Mr. Chairman. You are correct. There are a lot 

of choices for the consumer, but there are also a lot of unique circumstances where the phone is a very personal device and we believe that consumers should have the choice whether or not to continue to use that particular phone. I think it actually enhances the 

competition or competitive elements in the market. Many of the 

small carriers, six or seven of them in your congressional district, 

have a difficult time getting access to the iconic devices and 

unlocking gives them an opportunity to retain that customer that 

may come into their area that wants to keep their iconic device. 

And I think it is a choice that consumers enjoy having and gives 

us, the smaller carriers, an opportunity to distinguish themselves 

in the marketplace. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ALTSCHUL. There are close to 200 different devices available 

on an unlocked basis to consumers in the United States. Just one 

store, Best Buy has on their website as of last night 146 different 

devices from the latest Apple and Galaxy phones to very simple 

feature phones, and Best Buy is just one of the retail outlets that 

are available to customers that are interested in buying unlocked 

phones and being free to take the appropriate phone to the carrier 

of their choice. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SLOVER. I would say that the focus should also be on the consumer who has got a phone already, and has a chance to get a new 

one if he wants and to give the old phone to somebody, else or to 

sell it, or he has got a phone that he likes, but he wants to switch 

it to another network. It is not just whether there are phones out 

there in the market that are available to consumers who want to 

buy them. A lot of those phones that we have been talking about 

are new phones. The used phones are going to be gradually phased 

out now—if the Register’s decision stays in place, that has been 

phased out now. And so over time, there will be fewer and fewer 

used phones available, and they will be older and older used 

phones that are available. 

So I think it is also important to focus on the consumer who has 

got a cell phone in his hand and what his choices are, what he can 

do with that phone. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. METALITZ. I do not have anything to add, Mr. Chairman, on 

the state of the market, but just to note that if the consumer has 

the phone in his hand, under the current exemption, if he bought 

it prior to January, then he is certainly free to exercise the exemption that exists now. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Let me try one more question before my time expires. 

Gentlemen, how is the unlocking issue dealt with in other Nations, and more specifically, is this only a U.S. issue or is it an 

issue elsewhere? Either of you. 
49 

*The Subcommittee did not submit post-hearing questions to the witnesses. 

Mr. BERRY. I am certainly not an expert on all the markets globally, but unlocking is a problem in some countries. I do not think 

it is quite the same in the United States. In the United States, we 

subsidize phones and some of the iconic phones are exclusive to a 

particular carrier, and that carrier obviously wants the customer to 

meet their commitments. Many of the countries overseas, Europe, 

they do not subsidize phones, and they have more of a standard 

technology. So that is a little easier to switch out SIM cards and 

actually use a phone across carrier networks. It is a little different 

than in the United States. Again, it is a very personal device, and 

I think having an unlocking opportunity—capability—allows you to 

do a lot of different things with that used phone that you would 

not otherwise be able to do. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, sir. 

Mr. METALITZ. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add on the international dimension. As I mentioned in my statement, many countries now have similar laws protecting access controls—and as, I 

believe, Chairman Goodlatte mentioned in his opening statement— 

we have obligations under our free trade agreements with regard 

to these types of protections. But I think the good news is that H.R. 

1123, as I read it, is consistent with our obligations under those 

free trade agreements. If it were enacted, I do not think it would 

create a problem of compliance with the free trade agreements. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, I see my red light is illuminated. I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, could I make a unanimous consent 

request over here on this side? 

Mr. MARINO. Yes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just like to ask unanimous consent to submit a couple 

of questions in writing for the panel’s response at a future time. 

Mr. MARINO. Without objection.* 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. MARINO. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

North Carolina and the Ranking Member, Mr. Watt. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As has become my policy as the Ranking Member, I generally 

have decided to go last in the questioning so that if any of my other 

colleagues need to leave, they can before the hearing is over, especially on the last day of the week when they are trying to get out 

of town. So I am going to defer to Mr. Johnson, and I will go last. 

Mr. MARINO. The Chair recognizes Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe Mr. Watt just 

loves to hold back and wait until I ask my questions because they 

are so good, and then he gets to clean up behind me. [Laughter.] 

I believe that is what the real deal is. 

But thank you all for coming today. 

Strong copyright protections are the backbone of innovation, creativity, and the public good. Copyright theft hurts everyone. Song 

writers and artists depend on royalties for their livelihood. Companies depend on protection so that they can make new content and 
50 

products, and consumers want to know that when they download 

an app, it is not counterfeited or full of malware. 

As this Committee looks to update areas of copyright law, I think 

it is important to leave room for companies to provide innovative 

solutions while protecting copyright owners. For instance, one of 

the great success stories of copyright law is the DMCA intermediary safe harbor. One major example of this success story is 

Google, which receives 17 million takedown requests monthly and 

processes each of these, on average, within 6 to 8 hours. 

Today’s hearing represents another opportunity for innovative solutions in the marketplace. As a cosponsor of the bipartisan H.R. 

1123, the ‘‘Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition 

Act,’’ I recognize that we need solutions that bolster competition 

while empowering consumer choice. And as a parent who—sometimes I drop my mobile phone and crack the screen on it, and I do 

it every so often. But then my kids tend to do it more often. So they 

end up being the recipients of my phone. And both have accounts 

with other cell phone service providers. So it presents a dilemma 

that I am faced with. 

I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today. 

I applaud my colleagues from across the aisle for coming together 

on this pro-consumer legislation. 

And, Mr. Slover, in your written testimony you indicate—you referred to a nationwide survey of consumer views on unlocking mobile phones. Could you share with us the results of the survey? And 

thereafter, I would like for you to explain to us how the 1201 exemption for unlocked devices enhances consumer choices. 

Mr. SLOVER. Well, the survey was done 2 years ago, and one of 

the highlights was that 96 percent of those we polled who have 

wireless handheld devices believed that consumers should be able 

to keep their handset when they switch carriers. And the figure actually went up to 98 percent for people who had smart phones. The 

margin of error on that survey was 3 percent. So that is virtually 

100 percent of everybody who we surveyed thinks that consumers 

should have that right. So to them, it is just common sense that 

they should be able to keep their cell phone with them as they 

switch carriers. So that was the highlight of the survey. 

There were other figures in there, too. There was one, about 

three-quarters of the people surveyed said that they thought that 

cell phones should be interoperable across all networks and that if 

necessary, Government laws and policies should be instituted to require that. 

As to your question about the 1201 process, that is a broader 

issue than just how it applies in the phone unlocking context. In 

the phone unlocking context, we do not think it should have gotten 

caught up in that at all. I think it was a surprise to everybody— 

nobody was planning in 1998 that the anti-circumvention restrictions were going to help reinforce the long-term bundled package 

where you get your cell phone as part of your long-term contract. 

That is just how it worked out. And what we want to see is for that 

to be pulled out and separated from that. 

The broader issues about 1201 are very interesting and certainly 

deserve attention, and we look forward to being a part of that discussion in the months to come. 
51 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 

Holding. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Altschul, you were talking about some of the concerns if the 

rule were overbroad, concerns about the arbitrage of phones, the 

demand for stolen phones, fencing of phones. I am curious about 

what the business model is for the arbitrage of phones. If you 

could, kind of explain how that would work and how much are 

these phones worth if they are completely able to be unlocked and 

so forth. 

Mr. ALTSCHUL. Well, we know that the U.S. is unique in offering 

consumers subsidized, very deeply discounted phones for those customers that enter into a service contract with their carrier. To the 

extent that the phone is compatible in markets overseas or in other 

countries, the software lock is the only thing that keeps somebody 

from basically gaming the system, from obtaining a deeply discounted phone, which the carrier is fronting the subsidy for up 

front out of the expectation that over the life of the service agreement, they will be able to recover their costs from the customer. 

Phones are small and light and are easily shipped to foreign countries where there is no discounting. So the difference between getting a modern, top-of-the-line feature phone or a smart phone for 

$199 in the United States that more or less instantly can be sold 

for $600 or $700 in another country creates the arbitrage opportunities. 

Mr. HOLDING. What about on stolen phones? Is there a big market for stolen phones? 

Mr. ALTSCHUL. Well, there is obviously a huge amount of street 

crime where these phones are being targeted by criminals, and it 

has caught the attention of the police chiefs in this city, in New 

York, and San Francisco, and other cities because of how easily 

fenced these phones are on the street. And, of course, with the existing rule, there is now no legal reason or basis for a brick and 

mortar storefronts to be in the business of taking a phone that a 

customer brings in and changing its identity, its software, and the 

ability to operate that phone on different networks. 

So one of the concerns about going beyond allowing an individual 

customer known to a carrier to unlock phones creating a broad 

commercial exception would be to legitimize the ability of brick and 

mortar stores to be the first step of the fencing operation. 

Mr. HOLDING. I think we see all the time that technology is rapidly changing, evolving, and I will posit this to all of you. The business model we have here, as you say, heavily subsidizing the phone 

on the front end—are there changes in technology on the horizon 

or forecasted that would change that business model, that would 

render it obsolete or not profitable? And so we try to do something 

legislatively here and before you know it, the business model has 

changed, and what we are doing here is moot and a waste of time. 

Mr. ALTSCHUL. Well, the business model is constantly changing. 

Right now, there are the two dominant types of service agreements, 

both of which are popular with consumers: no contract phones with 

no service plan and typically not a discounted device and a contract 
52 

plan where there is a discounted device. T-Mobile 2 to 3 months 

ago announced a hybrid plan where they are breaking the tie between their service and device. Other carriers said if this is popular, they can follow a similar plan. There are prepaid offerings 

that offer some discounted devices. So already the marketplace has 

a mix, and consumers have shown how sophisticated they are in selecting and choosing the most attractive combination of service and 

devices that best meets their needs. 

Mr. HOLDING. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes Congresswoman Chu from California. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Slover, I want to get the basics of cell phone 

unlocking. At the end of my contract term with my wireless carrier, 

how would I be able to unlock my cell phone? Would I be able to 

unlock the phone myself, or do I need to seek out the help of my 

wireless carrier? 

Mr. SLOVER. Well, there are some people who have figured out 

how to do it themselves. Most people would need to get help from 

somebody else. And you could either get that from your wireless 

carrier, your old wireless carrier; you could get it from your new 

wireless carrier, or you could find one of the people who has figured 

out how to do it and ask them to explain it to you, to walk you 

through the steps, to maybe send you a link to an explanation for 

it. There are a number of ways, and we would like to see all those 

ways available. 

Mr. ALTSCHUL. If I may add to Mr. Slover’s answer. One of the 

facts that the Librarian of Congress relied on in the record before 

it in this hearing was the fact that carriers will unlock their customers’ phones once the service terms have been fulfilled. Carriers 

do that. It can be done over the phone. It involves codes the customer can follow, and there is no charge for it. 

Also, on the Internet, along with a lot of other things, there is 

information how to do this. People should think twice because it 

also could be a back door for malware and viruses and other 

changes to the device that might not be welcome, as well as when 

it is done over the Internet or through third parties, there is a 

charge. If the customer goes to their carrier, under the carrier’s 

terms there will be no charge to unlock the device. 

Ms. CHU. Yes. Mr. Berry? 

Mr. BERRY. I think it is also important to note—and I think you 

hit on a very important aspect, and that is, do you have to be 

MacGyver to unlock your phone? Sometimes you do, and some of 

the locking devices are getting more and more complex. And that 

is why we recommend that an agent be authorized. If you have 

locked yourself out of the house and you need a locksmith to come 

in and help you open the door, I mean, that is certainly an acceptable use of your property and it is certainly a property right that 

you have. I think that it should be recognized that locking and 

locking devices are getting more complex, and you are absolutely 

right. The wireless carrier sometimes does not have the code. 

Maybe it is an unlocked device that you bought at Best Buy and 

that particular carrier may not have that code to unlock the device 
53 

at the end of your service. So I think it is an important question 

and an important issue to address. Thank you. 

Ms. CHU. Yes. Are you saying then any phone could be unlocked 

by any carrier or are there limits to that? 

Mr. BERRY. My understanding is most phones can be unlocked by 

a carrier, an authorized carrier, but there are some devices that 

cannot be unlocked. For example, the Apple phone. If you do not 

have the code, you cannot unlock it. If you buy an Apple unlocked 

phone, it is not necessarily going to work on every carriers’ network 

even if the carrier has the same technology in their network. And 

so it can get fairly complicated. Like Mr. Altschul said, there is no 

such thing as one interoperable phone. It depends on your network, 

your technology, and quite frankly, the OEM—the manufacturer 

that built it. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Slover, or anybody else, the Register of Copyrights 

found out with respect to new wireless handsets, there are ample 

alternatives to circumvention and the marketplace has evolved to 

the point where there is a wide array of unlocked phone options 

available to consumers. Do you believe that consumers have meaningful options when purchasing new unlocked phones, and why did 

the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

support a broader exemption? 

Mr. SLOVER. I think it is incomplete to look at the question just 

from the perspective of what is out there in the marketplace for 

consumers in general who want to buy a new phone, and are there 

enough unlocked phones out there that if they want an unlocked 

phone they could find one. Now, even on that question, they may 

not be able to find the specific kind of phone that they want unlocked. So it is more than just whether there are enough phones 

out there in general. But that is only one side of the equation. 

And the other side of the equation is what about the person who 

has got a phone, is getting a new one, wants to pass their old one 

along to somebody else or wants to keep their old one and pass 

their new one along to somebody else, or wants to sell the one they 

are getting or the one they are giving up to somebody else. So from 

that side of it, the criminal prohibitions against unlocking the cell 

phone are a big hindrance. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

I guess it is my opportunity. 

Mr. Altschul, what do the major carriers think about this legislation, and do they have any suggestions on how to tweak it? 

And then, Mr. Berry, I am going to ask you about other carriers 

as well. Same question. 

Mr. ALTSCHUL. The members of our association support the bill 

and they support it in the way it is narrowly drafted to restore the 

exemption as it was in 2010. That returns the situation to the status quo that the industry operated under for the prior 3 years. 

Mr. MARINO. Mr. Berry? 

Mr. BERRY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our members support the legislation, 1123. I think some of the smaller carriers, the rural and regional carriers, would probably see much more immediate benefit 

because they have more difficulty getting access to these iconic devices or to the type of smart phone that is very difficult for smaller 
54 

carriers that have less scale to be able to purchase. But all our carriers support the legislation and think that something should be 

done immediately. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

Mr. Metalitz, do you know of anyone or any entity that opposes 

this? 

Mr. METALITZ. I am not aware of any, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MARINO. Does anyone on the panel know of any opposition 

to this? 

Mr. Slover, I think you testified initially in your initial reading 

that you want to see this permanently established with no time 

limits. Am I correct on that? 

Mr. SLOVER. Well, we do not want our consumers to face a situation where there is uncertainty every 3 years. I think one aspect 

of that is that the de novo review that has been followed is a complete de novo review where you start over again, and the people 

who have proven that an exemption is justified, and satisfied that 

burden once, have to satisfy it each time, and you have got different people in the offices making the decisions perhaps. I think 

it would work better if there were a presumption at least that once 

there is an exemption in place, the starting point, the default is 

that it stays in place, and then the people who think it should be 

expanded can come in and explain why, and the people who think 

it should be narrowed or not renewed at all can come in and explain why. 

Mr. MARINO. You are probably aware of this, but we could have 

some trade issues concerning this because of the agreements. There 

could be creative ways to rework those trade issues with other 

countries, but I think at this point it is inclined—I cannot imagine 

other countries having a problem with this, but it still would involve some trade issues. 

Mr. Metalitz? 

Mr. METALITZ. Yes. Mr. Marino, if I could just say a word about 

the de novo review. I think that is a positive feature of the system. 

You know, a wise man said long ago you cannot step in the same 

river twice. All of these areas are ones where there is a lot of 

change both in technology and in markets. And the Copyright Office and the Librarian have shown the ability to look at these and 

to adjust their recommendations accordingly. So I think that is a 

positive feature. 

Mr. MARINO. I am going to play a little devil’s advocate here 

based on my experience as a prosecutor. Do any of you gentlemen 

see any complications or down side to this from those individuals 

who just practice, as much as they can, hacking into our computers, hacking into our phones? Do you see any technical complications here that may make it somewhat more easy for these 

people to get into our phones by unlocking these? Anyone. 

Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, going back to the bulk—you would 

call bulk reselling—that is a problem. It continues to be a problem 

whether you have the exemption or not, as we have seen. And I 

think you should at least start from the point that this statutory 

language is neither sufficient or necessary to deal with the much 

larger issue of bulk reselling. And there are numerous other activities that you—breach of contract, infringement, copyright infringe-
55 

ment, trademark infringement, not to mention the criminal codes 

to address that. You are always going to have those potential problems for those nefarious people that would like to break into the 

device in this case. But I do not know that it is so overbearing that 

the consumer should not continue to enjoy this opportunity to freely use their property. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. My time has expired. 

I am going to move on to Congressman Jeffries from New York. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Well, thank you very much. And let me also thank 

the Ranking Member. 

Mr. Slover, the Librarian came to the conclusion that there was 

adequate consumer choice for unlocked phones on the market. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. SLOVER. That is correct that that was the conclusion that the 

Register of Copyrights and the Librarian of Congress came to, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, I assume you disagree with that conclusion. 

Mr. SLOVER. I think it is incomplete and it is only one side of 

the question. It is incomplete because not all phones are available 

to all consumers in all situations, but in addition to that, the consumer who has got a phone already—it is all of the phones that 

are going to be rendered useless because they cannot be unlocked 

and resold without the potential for criminal penalties, which is 

going to be very chilling, I would think. And so over time, they are 

going to end up getting thrown away or left in a drawer someplace 

rather than being put to use where they could be. And the consumer who has got those, who would be able to get some benefit, 

either a family member taking over the phone, or being able to sell 

it for a small amount, or giving it away to some charitable organization that is collecting phones for their clients, they are all wasted. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, what is the state of play as it relates to 

someone who is coming off contract and will be able to make a decision as to whether to move forward with their current carrier or 

switch carriers in terms of the unlocked phone market that they 

would confront? 

Mr. ALTSCHUL. Well, as the Librarian of Congress found on the 

record, carriers will unlock a customer’s phone upon the customer’s 

request, and they publish the requirements. You might think it 

would only be at the end of the contract. Different carriers have 

different policies, including just being in good standing and saying 

you are going to go on a trip, say, to Europe and you want the 

flexibility while traveling to use other carriers’ networks. So that 

was in the record before the Librarian of Congress. 

And the benefit of having the carrier do the unlocking is that you 

do not go to third party sources on the Internet or elsewhere which, 

in the unlocking process, increases the risk of malware and viruses 

being inserted into the device. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, currently it is my understanding that when 

carriers sign up a new customer to a contract, often the cell phone 

or certainly in the case of a smart phone, is offered to that customer at a very discounted price. To the extent that this bill moves 

forward—and I do support the legislation, but to the extent that 

the bill moves forward and becomes law, do you anticipate that 
56 

that would change in any way in terms of perhaps a decrease in 

the discount that is available or its outright elimination? 

Mr. ALTSCHUL. Well, we operated under the rule that would be 

restored for the past 3 years, and the choices to consumers and the 

availability of discounted phones was not diminished under the 

prior rule. I do not think any of us have a crystal ball. The markets 

change. Consumers’ tastes change. We have seen over the past few 

years, even with the existing rule, the greater popularity of no contract plans and the availability of unlocked phones with consumers. 

So I cannot predict what the future will bring, but I am fairly confident that this bill is not going to change the business practices 

one way or another. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you. 

Mr. Slover, have you done any analysis on this question? 

Mr. SLOVER. Well, we would like to see greater choices for consumers. The idea of getting a contract where you do not have to 

worry about going over your minutes or going over your other limits, but not having to take a phone packaged in with that, if the 

two purchases could be considered separately, then there would be 

more transparency, the consumer would know what they are paying for. I mean, right now, you walk into one of the stores, and they 

direct you over to the display of phones that you can get for free 

or at a dramatically reduced price as a result of signing up for the 

contract. But it is not, ‘‘here is one thing you are buying, here is 

another thing you are buying, do you want to buy both of them 

from, us or not?’’ 

And so the greater the choices that are made available—and to 

us, the lock and the penalties for getting around the lock, for 

unlocking to interconnect to another network are part of the artificial support system for the bundled contract. We are not saying the 

bundled contract should not be made available. We think it will 

still be made available to consumers who want it, but there will be 

more transparency and consumers will have more choices. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I see that my time has expired. I thank the witnesses for their participation. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes Congressman Chaffetz from Utah. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, and I thank the Committee for taking 

on this issue. It is one that I think is important to a lot of consumers today. 

I want to start with the developers and some of the distribution 

of the potential tools that could be used to help unlock these 

phones. One of the problems, even with a DMCA exception, is it 

does not provide immunity for making or distributing the tools to 

circumvent a lock even for a lawful exemption. If we want to make 

sure people can unlock their phones, do we not need to clarify that 

the DMCA does not apply to phone unlocking or somehow provide 

an exemption to developing and distributing the tools in addition 

to just simply using them? Maybe we could start with Mr. Berry, 

please. 

Mr. BERRY. Thank you, Congressman. 

You are correct that there seems to be fewer and fewer apps developers that will provide this technology, the coding necessary to 

unlock phones. Again, I mentioned the agent. In many instances, 
57 

it is this individual or the wireless carrier that has the unique ability to unlock phones. And I think it would be appropriate to consider that capability, that unique capability as an agent of the consumer to help ensure that consumer can fully utilize their property 

rights. I think it is a good idea. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What is the penalty if you were to not comply? 

Based on the law, the way it is now, if somebody were to do this, 

what is the penalty for that? 

Mr. BERRY. Well, my understanding is it could be a fine up to 

$500,000 and it could be criminal prosecution and potential incarceration. So it is a felony. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. It seems pretty severe for unlocking a phone. 

Does anybody else care to weigh in on this? Yes? 

Mr. METALITZ. Yes, sir. I just wanted to make a couple of points. 

First, I know the issue of criminal penalties has come up here 

several times, and I think it is important to bear in mind that the 

act of unlocking a phone, even if you assumed there was no exemption at all, would only attract criminal penalties if it was done willfully for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial 

gain. And those are limitations that the Congress put in in 1998 

when it enacted the DMCA. So many of the scenarios we have been 

hearing about about individuals unlocking their own phones or donating a phone to a charity, this type of thing could not be reached 

by that. In fact, there have been virtually no prosecutions under 

section—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, and that is a good reason to take it off the 

books, is it not? 

So would you agree, though, with Mr. Berry that the developers 

or distributors of these potential tools, if we were to enact something, should also be covered under this? 

Mr. METALITZ. Well, no, I would not agree with that. I think that 

is a separate question. The reason I think Congress set up the rulemaking the way it did to only deal with the act of circumvention 

was the concern about developing a marketplace for tools to hack 

through access controls. And very, very few, if any, of these tools 

are specifically limited to one type of access control or to one type 

of use. So the concern would be that developing a marketplace for 

these tools could lead to a lot of exposure of other—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But if the law was crafted such that your goal is 

to allow the consumer to unlock their phone, why would you not 

also protect the developer or the distributor of that tool or app or 

whatever it might be and allow that to happen? 

Mr. METALITZ. Well, I think the testimony has—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I mean, who is going to go and develop that if 

they are going, for their own financial gain, be facing a $500,000 

fine and time in jail? 

Mr. METALITZ. I think the testimony has been that, first of all, 

in many cases this unlocking would be taking place with the consent of the copyright owner, which in the situations where the carriers are doing it—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What we are talking about is giving consumers 

more ability to do this. So why would you not protect the developer 

too? 
58 

Mr. METALITZ. Well, I think the other thing to look at is whether 

between 2006 and today when this exemption has been in place 

that applies to the act of circumvention have consumers been unable to exercise it. I do not know the answer to that. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, I do. 

Mr. Chairman, as my time is expiring here, I think to truly have 

an understanding of how the technology works, there need to be— 

everybody in that food chain needs to be protected under the law 

so that they can provide these tools and allow access and allow 

more freedom for the consumers to make these types of choices. 

With that, I will yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes Congresswoman Lofgren from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It was 

good to hear Mr. Chaffetz’s questions because I have a similar set 

of questions. 

First, let me say that I do support Chairman Goodlatte’s bill. I 

believe I am a cosponsor of the bill, and I think it is a necessary 

thing. 

I also believe, however, that we ought to do something further. 

Congressman Tom Massie and I have a bipartisan bill, H.R. 1892, 

that would engage a permanent fix in the section 1201 of the 

DMCA that would be not instead of the Chairman’s bill but in addition to it because, as has been noted, we do need to amend some 

of our trade agreements. Sometimes I hear colleagues express concern about the role of the Congress in many of these trade agreements. I am certainly for trade, but they have managed to constrain the role of Congress in amending our laws as we see fit, 

which is a real problem for us. But we do direct in this bill the 

President to negotiate changes so that we can, once again, have our 

proper role as the legislative branch. 

I would like to ask unanimous consent to include in the record 

a letter to the Register of Copyrights from the Department of Commerce recommending cell phone unlocking. 

And if I could, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to ask unanimous 

consent to include in the record a letter from FreedomWorks, as 

well as a letter from the National Consumers League, supporting 

1892 and certainly also supporting Mr. Goodlatte’s bill. 

Mr. MARINO. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 

Ms. LOFGREN. I am really sort of in a pro-freedom place on this. 

The use of copyright to preclude people from using the phone that 

they bought with their own good money is just inappropriate. It is 

not the Congress’ role to tell people the business model they should 

use. If people want to do a subsidized phone and a long contract, 

fine. If they do not want to do it, also fine. That is not our job to 

say how the market should work. But once someone buys something, they should own it. 

I just think that if a carrier—you know, you have got a contract, 

for example, and if someone breaks that contract, you have a lot 

of remedies. I mean, you can sue them. You can charge them a fee 
96 

if you can put in your agreement. You can brick the phone. But I 

do not think that using criminal law to enforce the contract is appropriate. As a matter of fact, we have the same problem in the 

CFAA and its misuse with the late Aaron Swartz where you basically use the criminal law to enforce a private contract. That is just 

a misuse, I think, of the law. 

It is good to see you, Mr. Slover, and I remember your many 

years of service here to the Committee. 

It seems to me that—and it has been discussed—if you preclude 

individuals from using third party applications, which Mr. 

Goodlatte’s bill does not address—and I do not criticize him. I think 

it is really not possible to do that without looking at 1201. You 

really, in many cases, preclude the owner of the phone from actually exercising their property rights, don’t you? I mean, if I have 

a phone and I own the phone, I want to give it to my son, and the 

carrier will only unlock it for me as the owner, doesn’t that constrain my property rights? 

Mr. SLOVER. Absolutely. We believe that the right to unlock 

should include the right to get help in figuring out how to unlock. 

We would ordinarily assume that that would be implicit in the 

right to unlock. If it is not, we would like to see it fixed. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I think, you know, I am glad that people— 

you know, our last vote was a while ago, and sometimes it is hard 

to have hearings after the votes are over, but I am glad that we 

all came back. I praise the Chairman for scheduling this hearing. 

As I say, I am a cosponsor and supporter of his bill. But I hope that 

we can go further and really address the property rights issue that 

is present here for American consumers and allow full property 

rights to attach to them and this misuse of copyright law to enforce 

private contracts to end. And I would recommend the bill that Mr. 

Massie and I have introduced as a way. And we have got tremendous support from not only FreedomWorks but the Consumers 

League, Public Knowledge, and on and on—this bipartisan bill. 

So I see my time is up and I yield back, Mr. Chairman, with 

thanks for recognizing me. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, the gentleman from 

North Carolina, Congressman Watt. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think the Chair actually asked the question that I was most interested in hearing the answer to, and that was whether is there 

anybody in the world that is out there opposed to this bill. You all 

seem to think that there is not. At least, that was the consensus 

I got. Anybody in the audience maybe could raise their hand if 

there is anybody opposed to it. So you all have answered that, and 

I think the answer is you do not know of anybody. Is that correct? 

So the other question then I would ask is are there any suggested revisions to H.R. 1123 that would keep it in its current 

framework and deal with this issue, not the broader issues. Are 

there any revisions to H.R. 1123 that any of the panelists would 

suggest? 

Mr. SLOVER. Yes, Mr. Watt. We did make a number of recommendations in our written statement. They are the same recommendations that we made to the Register of Copyrights in the 
97 

last review proceeding. We think those could all be done within the 

framework of reinstating the exemption in the 1201 process with 

directives in the legislation to make whatever of those clarifications 

you saw fit. 

Mr. WATT. Wouldn’t that put Congress in a more micromanaging 

position if we started going in every time a 1201 proceeding concluded and saying, well, we agree with this and do not agree with 

that? I mean, it is one thing to do it when you have broad-based 

support without any opposition. It is an entirely different thing to 

go in—I mean, one of the reasons we punted that to the Librarian 

of Congress and set up this process was to take into account more 

technical issues and give it more expertise. So you are not suggesting that we do legislatively now go back and change that. 

Mr. SLOVER. Not as a larger matter. I am talking about specifically with this one. The proposals that we made to the Register we 

think are well considered and are warranted, and we had hoped to 

see them implemented by the Register of Copyrights. 

Mr. WATT. And this bill gives you a shot to do that because it 

requires further review of this in a fairly expeditious time, in fact, 

in a shortened time frame from the 3-year time frame. 

Mr. SLOVER. If you are talking about the further review that is 

directed as part of the legislation as introduced, I think that just 

goes to one of our recommendations, which was to include other devices—— 

Mr. WATT. So I take it that there are some things that you would 

like for them to have done that they did not do other than this 

unlocking provision that we put in this bill that would have us second guess even other parts of what they did or did not do. 

Mr. SLOVER. Yes. 

Mr. WATT. Okay. I got you. 

Anybody else have any technical concerns about the content of 

H.R. 1123, things that you would suggest we might change? 

Mr. BERRY. In short answer, no. I think that the bill needs to be 

enacted as quickly as possible. 

I think in all fairness I should mention that I too made recommendations to the Librarian of Congress on three areas. 

One is that it should be a wireless device, not a cell phone or a 

handheld phone. I think that is a recognition of where the economy 

has gone. 

Also, I suggested changing the burden of proof in the process 

itself. If you change the burden of proof so that there is some precedential value to a previous decision of the Librarian, then you give 

this opportunity to continue whatever the process was going forward. It is hard to prove a negative, and if you had an exemption 

in effect at the time that you are trying to prove what was the 

harm, then I think you have sort of a dilemma there. So we suggested, at some further discussion and at some other time, maybe 

you might want to address the burden of proof. 

I do not think it gets into the problem with WTO or the international treaties. In a previous life, I was chief counsel of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We looked at every treaty and 

every trade agreement that came through the Senate to ratify it, 

and I do not think that changing the burden of proof would be a 

significant international issue. 
98 

The de novo issue is not a statutory issue. It is a requirement 

that the Committee put in via Committee reference in the report. 

So it is not really addressed. What gets me probably the most is 

the NTIA, specifically from this Committee, the Committee said 

that the Librarian of Congress shall consult NTIA. NTIA found 

that we had met the burden of proof to continue the exemption, but 

the Librarian of Congress made a decision to the contrary notwithstanding. And I would think that the Congress put ‘‘shall’’ in there 

for a reason. They did not put ‘‘should.’’ And the Librarian of Congress did not appreciate the NTIA’s recommendation, and I think 

that there are some adjustments that could probably benefit everybody 3 years from now. 

Mr. WATT. I got you. But ‘‘shall consult’’ does not mean ‘‘shall abdicate your responsibility.’’ 

I assume you are content to have those other issues. Hopefully 

we can address some of the ones Mr. Slover has suggested in a 

broader copyright context. 

Mr. BERRY. I would like to see the Chairman’s bill acted on immediately, yes, sir. 

Mr. WATT. But in this bill, you think we have found the sweet 

spot. 

Mr. ALTSCHUL. Well, if I could say the reason CTIA is able to 

support H.R. 1123 is because it is narrow and it does not reopen 

these issues, which have been fully aired in the past and I predict 

will be fully aired in the next triennial review and other bills as 

well. 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I am well over my time. I appreciate 

your indulgence, but I want to express my sincere appreciation to 

the witnesses for being here. I know a number of them traveled 

distances. So we thank them for doing so. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you. 

I do too want to thank you for being here. Your insight and your 

knowledge is very helpful. 

I want to thank the citizens in the gallery for sitting here and 

listening to this and having an interest in it. 

And I thank my colleagues for being here because today they are 

headed back to work in their district, and I am sure some flights 

have been delayed because of this. 

So, again, thanks to all of you. 

This concludes today’s hearing. 

Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional 

materials for the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(99) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
100 

Material submitted by the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, 

Intellectual Property, and the Internet 
101 

f 
102 

Prepared Statement of Derek S. Khanna, Founder, Disruptive Innovation, 

Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School, Information Society Project 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 

f 
119 

Prepared Statement of the Library Copyright Alliance 
120 

Æ