I know I said I was only going to talk about one issue, but I can respond to this just a little bit.
MTAC is a member of the FairPlay coalition, and we do support that initiative quite strongly. On the proposal, as I understand it, the comment earlier was that the Copyright Act currently provides an injunctive remedy for those seeking to respond to infringement. It won't surprise any of the lawyers in the room if I say the phrase, “There is no right without a remedy”. Injunctive relief is not a practical remedy. You don't need to look any further than to find out how many injunctions have actually been granted in connection with the Copyright Act to know that. This is why the FairPlay coalition is proposing a separate body to deal with exactly these kinds of requests.
I don't propose to speak on behalf of the ISPs on what the compliance burden might be to deal with orders to restrict access to certain infringing content as identified by that body. That's a little outside my ballpark, but we've been down this road for 20 years talking about how to effectively respond to infringement. I think a review of the act and a serious long look at what the FairPlay coalition is proposing is certainly worth doing.
I'm sorry I can't contextualize that further in terms of the U.S. development yesterday, but I do note that this exact same system exists in the United Kingdom and in other places. That's something this committee should look to.