We've had a little bit of judicial interpretation of the provisions, one of which was absolutely horrific, where a court, a lower-level court, thankfully, said that merely getting content that is behind a paywall for a third party—say John is a subscriber and I ask John to shoot me a copy of an article about me—is a circumvention of a digital lock.
We would say that plainly is not a circumvention of a digital lock. How you ought to be incurring liability within any circumvention provisions is by defeating them, tackling the technology and defeating the technology to access the content. That was the intent, plainly.
It may be that there is room for clarifying the legislation in that direction. We would also suggest looking at all the exceptions that are permissible under the trade agreement, and saying, what are the interpretations available to us and how can we craft those interpretations in a way that will safeguard Canadian innovation and creators who need to access this content to create?