Thank you very much. I want to touch on a point that has come up in many of the briefings sent to the committee. A few of the witnesses have touched on it.
Because of how technical the conversation is around technological protection measures—even the implementation of the Copyright Act—there seems to be this general misunderstanding about what the act does, what it would mean and how it's interpreted.
When I read the bill and when I read other bills similar to it, there's a lot of very specific language in it. This one in particular says, “circumvention is solely for the purpose of the diagnosis, maintenance or repair of a product”.
I guess this question is for Mr. Rosborough and Ms. Centivany.
In law, how important is it that we have very specific language around what the intent is with these bills?