Thanks. I would respond with two things. One is to reiterate the fact that the notion there are people out there who will be able to make any kind of copying and claim it's for educational purposes, and that it stops there, is fundamentally not what the bill says nor what the law is. The law says they can start with that, to claim that it's educational, but it will still be subject to a fairness analysis. In fact, I reiterate that the Federal Court of Appeal looked at this specific issue around educational copying this summer—areas where it was already included as a category—and determined that compensation was still due. This notion that all of the revenues disappear is fundamentally at odds with the law.
I'd also like to comment on this notion that any exception is anti-creator. With all due respect, I simply think that's not the case. Certainly we can well see that exceptions like parody and satire are designed specifically for creators; they are designed to ensure that those who engage in the creative process have the ability to do so without fear of lawsuits. The same is true for some of the other areas. Even in the UGC, the remix type of exception, we are talking about a new generation of creators, the people I think we want to embolden and allow to go ahead and create.
Sometimes the Copyright Act as currently constructed erects barriers to that creativity. Some of the exceptions we see within this legislation, as well as the digital locks, which themselves can be a major problem for creators in their desire to create, ultimately have to be addressed as well.