The Americans use the same language. They use “lawfully acquired”. If the objective is to reach the same level as what is permitted in the United States, that is how we achieve that.
Ultimately, that is what this does, and this goes beyond it. What the U.S. has done with its exceptions to TPM regimes is create very narrow verticals. It has said that you can have exceptions for farming equipment, medical devices or cellphones. We're taking a broader approach. It's one that says that if you are seeking to achieve interoperability.... It's not even that we are taking that approach. We have had it since 2012, when we first introduced this. We have had the exception since 2012 for creating interoperability between computer programs. What your bill is seeking to do is expand that to ensure that it isn't just computer program to computer program, but computer program to, potentially, a dumb device.
The answer you gave, which was that part of the program is in the combine and part is in the header, is already captured today in the Copyright Act. That is interoperability between two computer programs.
At the end of the day, this is expanding it, but it's really to capture those situations in which the interoperability is not between two computer programs but between one computer program and one device that may not have embedded software but may have some kind of embedded serial number or something like that. It is simply being verified or validated against, versus actually creating that handshake between the two pieces so that they can speak to each other.