The trick is that balance, and it's very challenging to achieve. From our point of view we have a principal, overriding concern, which is to ensure that those who are trafficking in circumvention devices, offering circumvention services, particularly charging money for it and in doing so making money on the backs of creators, are not able to do that.
The bill currently gets at that and does so in a very robust way and then offers a laundry list of exceptions and additional regulatory-making power and so forth to try to balance the interests there.
The main concern we would have is that the more you open it up, the more likely you're going to find these bad actors essentially exploiting those loopholes to justify their own activities. This is best illustrated by giving you a quick example. We have a guy who decides he wants to get UBISOFT's Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, which was just released by UBISOFT Montreal--buy it now--and downloads it and puts it into his Xbox. It recognizes it's a pirated version and won't play it. So he takes that Xbox to someone to have it modified so it will play the pirated game. Now he has an Xbox that will play all pirated games. The guy makes $80 to $100 on the modding services.
If we're dealing with a formulation that has broad exceptions in it, what's going to happen is that the act of infringement, which is the piracy of the game, the downloading of it, and the act of circumvention are distinct from one another. If we try to approach this guy who did the circumvention for money, saying he did something illegal, he's going to say he had no knowledge of any piracy: he's innocent. It makes the threshold and what we have to cross in order to establish his guilt nearly impossible to attain.
So our principal concern is to ensure that any sections that are introduced don't undermine our ability to pursue these actors and also don't have a negative effect on the overall digital content.