It's an option; of course it is an option. In the ideal world, the broadcasters, producers, and rights holders would be successful in establishing among themselves what they feel is fair treatment. If we start with the fact that everybody is reasonable and of good faith, fine. But to do that, we have to look at the whole economic...or at every step of the exploitation.
I'll give you an example. You talked about Vidéotron. We know this thing about Illico and so on and so forth. Let's say my producer produces a show for TVA, and TVA puts it on Illico, video on demand, but decides to charge nothing to the viewers at home for downloading the show. Viewers can watch the show he produced at any time of night or day, any day of the week. They're not charged anything.
So TVA tells my producer that TVA is not getting any revenue from it. But down the road they are. They're selling the technology and the machine. You pay $87 a month to get the machine at home so that you can download at any time of the day or night.
It's not true, then, that there are no revenues. A corporation is benefiting from that technology somewhere. It's the same thing with the Internet. That's why everybody in the industry is willing to reopen and revisit the whole system. Everybody just wants to make sure that it's not going to be the same thing as in the past 50 years. The major people who made the money in the past 50 years are broadcasters and film distributors. Unfortunately there's never been....
I have been a broadcaster. I have sold advertising to finance my programming. Never have I as a broadcaster called an independent producer and said to them: You know that show you sold me? I was expecting to make 600,000 viewers, but guess what--I made a million. I generated more advertising revenue than I expected, so I'm sending you a cheque; the performance went way above.
I've been in this business for 35 years, and I've never done that. I've never seen it.