Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was going to go in a different direction, but to start I think I'll follow up on that.
We've heard a lot of testimony from people who say they're concerned about the bill being overly broad. They use language similar to what you've used. I prefer to go to the text of the bill and take a look at what the bill actually says.
For example, user-generated content has been a concern that's been brought up here. Ms. Hebb, you just brought it up. The bill says basically that user-generated content is not an infringement of copyright and then goes on and lists some clarifications. One of those is if
the use of, or the authorization to disseminate, the new work or other subject-matter does not have a substantial adverse effect, financial or otherwise, on the exploitation or potential exploitation of the existing work or other subject-matter — or copy of it — or on an existing or potential market for it, including that the new work or other subject-matter is not a substitute for the existing one.
When you hear that language, what part of that seems broad or unclear to you?