Let me take advantage of your mentionning winners and losers to segue to an area in which we're seeing some companies winning with a new approach to intellectual property, whereas others seem to be losing. I'm thinking, for example, of something I recently raised with Professor de Beer from the University of Ottawa, a law professor, about how some companies are kind of shooting themselves in the foot by very strictly adhering to old models. An example of that is what HBO, with the program Game of Thrones , is doing whereby they've taken a very restrictive approach to their distribution system. On the other hand, there was an article recently in the Globe and Mail about how Getty Images has gone to a different approach for promoting and getting revenue for its images by having a new kind of watermark that doesn't interfere with the main picture but has a web link in the corner that you can go to and then offer to pay. That's actually been wildly successful for them, it appears, and it's created real revenue. They are two very different approaches.
What does this tell us, in view of the fact that trying to control this kind of IP for a company is a bit like picking up mercury? It's very slippery, right? They're difficult to control—and very toxic, someone said. That's fair. Mercury would be, of course, right? But they're easily pirated.
The question is what are some guiding principles or legal structures that government could put in place that might be suited well to where the world is going in this regard and the kinds of models that are most likely to be successful in the future?