{"database": "lobbying", "table": "lobbying_activities", "rows": [[2630552, "1ccdf332-6c28-41bd-abde-c9ff4e227c9d", "2T", "HUGHES LAWYERS, LLC", 401104707, "EQUIPMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION", 2021, "second_quarter", "AGR", "Proposed Class (b)(9) can be renewed in its current form, and potentially\nclarified with certain definitions. The Copyright Office, however, should not permit the\nexpansion of Proposed Class (b)(9) in the guise of so-called renewal as part of a broader\nProposed Class 12. First, expanding the exemption to include third-party service providers\nlikely exceeds the permissible scope of these Section 1201(a)(1)(B)-(C) proceedings by\nviolating the separate prohibitions on trafficking in circumvention tools and services as provided\nin Section 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b)(1), which are not subject to this triennial exemption\nprocedure. Second, as noted in the Notice, the Copyright Office reviewed and declined to adopt\nthe remaining proposed expansions in the 2018 Section 1201 Exemption Rulemaking. 85 Fed.\nReg. 65,307 nn.201, 204. There is no reason to reach a different outcome here. Any proposed\nrenewal should be subject to the same limitations as embodied in the current regulations, and\nadditional definitional clarifications are warranted.\n\nProposed Class 16 exceeds the permissible scope of an exemption in these proceedings.\nSection 1201(a)(1)(B) limits the scope of any anti-circumvention exemption to users of a\ncopyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such [users] are, or are likely to be\nin the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to\nmake noninfringing uses of that particular class of works[.] (Emphasis added.) As the\nCopyright Office noted, this rulemaking process requires a showing of distinct, verifiable and\nmeasurable adverse impacts on noninfringing uses, which cannot be hypothetical, theoretical,\nor speculative and must be real, tangible, and concrete. Id. (citing Commerce Committee\nReport at 37; Section 1201 Study at 119-21). For these reasons, broad proposed categories\nsuch as fair use works or educational fair use works [are] inappropriate. Id. (citing 2015\nRecommendation at 100 (citing 2006 Recommendation at 17-19).\nHere, the Copyright Office correctly noted that Proposed Class 16 is not limited to particular\nusers or types of devices or particular uses. Id. Indeed, as written, Proposed Class 16\nsweepingly applies to an unlimited set of users for all computer programs-irrespective of\nany particular type of machine or device-for any lawful uses.", null, 10000, null, 0, 1, "2021-05-11T11:13:26.067000-04:00"]], "columns": ["id", "filing_uuid", "filing_type", "registrant_name", "registrant_id", "client_name", "filing_year", "filing_period", "issue_code", "specific_issues", "government_entities", "income_amount", "expense_amount", "is_no_activity", "is_termination", "received_date"], "primary_keys": ["id"], "primary_key_values": ["2630552"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.45292102731764317, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}