I understand that, but I want to make sure it's both. I see it from the Department of Industry, and I want to make sure that we're on the same page.
The way it's drafted, only services, and I'm going to quote this, “designed primarily to enable acts of copyright infringement”...those would be liable for infringement.
We know that there are peer-to-peer sites—Mr. Blais, you referred to this a little earlier—such as BitTorrent index sites, which are not primarily designed to enable acts of infringement. My view is that they're designed to be content neutral. The reality, however, is that they are primarily operated in a way that enables substantial amounts of infringement. In some instances, 90%, 95%, 98% of downloads from these services are in fact infringing.
I'm wondering if the legislation or the wording “designed primarily to enable...infringement” should also include “which induce infringement”. That's an add-on to the question I had earlier on hosting.
These are early observations, but I want to signal to you the concern that we have on our side that some of the language may not capture the intent that you're seeking. We may need to tighten the wording.
Comments?