Maybe I'll make the distinction between technological neutrality and being neutral to changing cultural norms. The law is flexible in a sense because the courts have essentially interpreted the continued licensing value regardless of what means it's being sent on. The law in some ways updates itself, in the sense that we went from vinyl to cassette to CD to streaming without a need, necessarily, for a specific change to the law, although we've had continued thoughts about it.
As I indicated in my previous answer, in terms of this changing cultural norm, this notion of what the value of cultural goods is, I think it's very interesting. On the one hand, we're seeing a record-high consumption, so huge amounts of consumption of creative and copyrighted goods, and a changing nature of value. You'd have to go sector by sector. Some sectors have had peaks, and then troughs, and then plateaus, and they've come to a new normal, as it were. Others are still in a massive stage of disruption.
There is one interesting question this committee will have to explore as it continues its work. Is there more that needs to be done or are we at the right state of understanding what value goes into creative industries and the creation of new materials versus what people are willing to pay for them? I think that is a fundamental question of remuneration, which is the work of this committee. Is what's being offered being paid for at a reasonable rate? I do think it's an interesting question/shift, and the data is somewhere in between.
As my remarks indicated, our most recent opinion research shows huge value being placed by lots of consumers, and there is quite a bit of money going through the system, but that's not necessarily consistent all the time with what we're hearing anecdotally. Some people feel like material is available for them regardless of ability to pay, or willingness to pay.