I can point out a few of them.
For example, as I think I indicated earlier, a lot of our sales are in the university market, so the bookstores have made a real effort to get students to sell back the textbooks. There's a real increase in the number of used textbooks in the university market. There is also a lot of use of whole digital books in the university market, which obviously has nothing to do with copyright and is not particularly legal, and is taking advantage of those e-book licences, but nobody seems to care. Basically, we have the same number of course adoptions, we sell the same number of books into the university system, but our returns rate has gone from about an average of 18% to an average returns rate now of 40%. Books are returnable. It's a great business. We can sell the books to people, and then they can send them back to us and get full credit. We get to have the expenses twice: once for processing them in and once for processing them out. A significant change in the returns rate, a doubling of the returns rate, is practically enough to bankrupt the publishing industry.
It's been suggested to us that we should get more government funding to replace the legitimate funding that we get from sales and from rights income. I would argue that's not a good idea, because, one, it's not fair; two, it's not a representation of reality; and, three, it doesn't look after the authors in the equation. For the 50¢ of every dollar that we get in rights sales, the authors get 50¢, and for all those books that aren't sold in the universities or come back in returns, the authors don't get any royalties. It's not really an answer on the creator's side to try to say, “Well, don't worry about us abusing the copyright back because we'll slip some money to you through the back door”. I don't really think that's an answer to our problem.