Thank you for helping bring some further clarification to that. I think you're outlining why we feel it's so important to amend this.
Interestingly enough, the other day my colleague across the way made a comment with regard to Spain. I have since done a little bit of research on that, in terms of their legislation. Originally, they actually admitted that they made a mistake with their legislation, and they had to go back and fix it. My colleague forgot to mention that part. In fixing it, they actually went back and had to make a change with regard to hyperlinks and making sure that they alone were not reason for compensation. That is consistent with other European legislation as well.
The reason for the amendment on the table today, CPC-2, is to also be consistent with those other entities that learned from their mistakes. I think we can do likewise and get this right the first time. I think the amendment on the table, then, would be that we don't include a hyperlink as something that can be expected to be compensated for. It would be excluded from the scope of bargaining, which then means that, of course, copyrighted material would still be permitted within that framework of bargaining. It would bring us into greater consistency, as I said, with Spain and the EU, but it would also make sure that we're in line with the Supreme Court decision from 2011, which says that links do not have monetary value in and of themselves.
For those reasons, we would wish to move the amendment, which is CPC-2.