It seems to me that recognizing the need for balance in copyright would suggest that one of the things the government ought to be doing is seeking to restore some of that balance. Crown copyright is one way to do it. Digital locks is another. Full flexibility, frankly, with fair use or flexible fair dealing provision—all things recommended in the industry committee's copyright review—are the sorts of things I think would help restore the balance. I think it would be in our broader interests as well.
We don't necessarily need a trade agreement, of course, to do it, but given that we have this 30-month period, we ought to be using that 30-month period both to get the term extension issue right but at the same time recognize that this has created or this will create a distortion in the balance of copyright, given that we largely are just acquiescing to some U.S. demands.
So it would be in our interests to restore that copyright balance by looking to the copyright review by the industry committee and looking at some of those kinds of changes—Crown copyright, the registration requirement, digital locks, expansion of fair dealing to a flexible fair dealing approach.