Just so there's no confusion about this, it is not about opening up intellectual property rights. This is a decision of the property rights holder to offer it for free, and there are two aspects to it. One is public policy. Canadian taxpayers have paid for this content; they've invested over 70 years, and they should have access.
The second thing is that it's available by streaming only. It's not to own. They can watch it, and watch it any time they want, but it's by streaming.
Third, it's industry-wide. That has been the case, for example, with Hulu and other aggregators. What they've done is they've started to build audience. What you want to do is build audience. If we had put up a pay wall right away, we would have gotten nowhere near the exposure, the connection, or the acclaim that we've had, or that ability to connect, particularly to younger audiences who don't know you. They're going to come and then they know you.
Now, what you can do is build on that. You can continue to offer a basic streaming service for free, but for those who want to buy to own, we can add that in. If we want to, we can add in a whole level of other kinds of forms of micropayment.
With YouTube we launched an interesting experiment. They were launching a rental system, a VOD service. They were trying to find their own economic footing and business plan, and one of the earliest things they did was to launch it with one of our films at South by Southwest. It was a revenue-sharing arrangement. We're doing that with other kinds of things.
What's key for the film world--and again, this is part of that--is that whatever the partnership arrangements that we're doing in this online world, what you really have to do is protect the brand.
Ian referred to brands. They are crucial, because in that wealth of content, the greater the recognition, protection, and awareness, the better. Given what the NFB represents--and I'm talking as a Canadian, as a Quebecker--it stands there, it means something, and it brings the world to Canada.