I might add, just to put a couple of facts and figures around it, that I think these kinds of site blocking remedies are available through common law in other countries as well, like the U.K. However, they have still passed law reform to make injunctions directly available against the service providers.
I think the reason is that it's just not a practical solution for a rights holder to sue a website, successfully prosecute the entire case, try to enforce, fail to enforce, and then apply for a separate injunction only at that stage to get the site-blocking order. When you think about how easy it is for someone to then open a new website, that creates an imbalance in the legal remedies available.
I think the FairPlay coalition filed a legal opinion indicating that the timeline and cost were something in excess of two years and $300,000 for one order under the current system. What we're proposing is something that is a little more streamlined.