No, it's not. What you said was very true, Charlie. We did say that, I believe, as well. Our members want their works to be exploited in all these various forms.
We're not trying to roll back the clock. We know that this is the future and we're excited about that, because it gives us new means of distributing our work. In fact, what we were talking about earlier is, yes, sometimes professional content does appear on YouTube because we can't yet figure out how to distribute all this work. But when it does get monetized, that's when it moves into a different realm and it becomes part of these affiliated broadcaster sites, etc. It's a good launching pad and it does have good content. I'm just saying there is a different level when you're producing professional audio-visual content.
So in terms of collective licensing, absolutely that's where we have to be, because there are going to be various uses that will fall outside the domain of our collective bargaining agreement, and we have to have a collective licensing regime imposed, something along the lines of a private copy model. We can work with you to do that.
Lastly, before you go down that road as well, in the audio-visual sector—I know we're considering it for music and the iPod—we need to address who is the author of the audio-visual work. We have not yet done that. The act is silent on that. We have already done some work with the other arts groups, and we have consensus between the creative community that writers and directors are authors of the audio-visual work.
We're trying to work and we're trying to move this forward behind the scenes, but we need to do a few things, and it all starts with amending the Copyright Act.