But the goal of intellectual property law is not the enforcement of intellectual property law. The goal of intellectual property law is that it serves the broader public interest in saying that copyright at our Supreme Court has articulated a view that it's about both user rights and creator rights and the balance.
What we're really trying to serve here is the public interest. So I don't think our end goal to say that our intellectual property laws are enforced in the maximum fashion possible. Our goal is to say that the public benefits, our societal benefits, are maximized to the greatest extent possible.
I think we do need to ask ourselves whether or not every infringement is equal in terms of its impact on the public interest in society. My view is that it is not, that there are some kinds of infringements—whether in scope or in a particular area—where that public interest is more deeply affected. Of course, it's in those instances that I think we would quite rightly say that that's where law enforcement, where public resources have to play a role, because the public interest is being deeply affected.
Where it's more private interest and the impact on society or the public interest is less, well, then sure, it's still an infringement, but the gain here isn't saying we're pure enforcement, it's about society and the public interest as a whole.