I'll be careful of my time here. This is a conversation that we could have for the better part of this afternoon.
I would just point out that there are some very real challenges that over-regulation represents, and I would simply point to the Online News Act. This committee, the heritage department, was critical in the whole legislative process that created the Online News Act that now sees Google provide $100 million in funding to news groups in order to comply with the terms of the act.
As a part of that agreement, the Online News Act and the regulation that it imposes on the news sector, all news organizations must make all of their content available to Google. If you are a recipient of funding through the Online News Act, you are unable to prevent Google from scraping behind your paywall, scraping subscriber-only content to serve up in their LLM.
I think that we need to understand that, with every regulation, there are trade-offs. I'm sure that the committee members are well aware of this and have spent a lot of time reflecting on this. My point is that there are unintended consequences, and we are already seeing those emerge around the Online News Act and how this committee, the departments and the government will, for example, look at copyright protection as it relates to news organizations, if, in effect, those rights have been signed over to Google in the context of the Online News Act.
I realize that's not a precise answer. There are so many different directions that we can go on this, but I do think the Online News Act is in some ways a cautionary tale. It suggests the challenges of regulating this fast-changing environment and now, unfortunately, news organizations are going to have to live within that act unless it is amended accordingly to provide them greater flexibility to protect their content and to monetize it in a context of the use of that content by various LLMs and search platforms.