 I want to ask Ms. Rose, the copyright office report did not distinguish between traditional creators such as recording artists and purely online creators such as those who produce content for YouTube or Facebook, such as Mr. Biato. What makes the interest of such online creators different from traditional creators with respect to Section 512? Thank you. I actually also am a fan of Mr. Biato, so I will commiserate there with the occasional disappearance of his videos. It's certainly, there are a number of points of difference between what we consider sort of the more traditional trajectories and traditional artists, in scare quotes, and those sort of new creators that we see emerging largely through online platforms. One is obviously the method of getting your content out to the public. Those are going to be governed by different systems. When you are a traditional recording artist, you go through a record label, the publishers. Mr. Biato completely makes the content releases through YouTube and thus is entirely subject to the way in which YouTube has structured its particular implementation of things like monetization, demonetization, and notice and takedown. At the end of the day, a lot of these new creators, Mr. Biato in particular, are really reliant on some of the provisions of fair use, which is a built-in sort of safety valve to a First Amendment concerns to alleviate some of the problems that would arise from sort of total copyright control. In his case, it's education, criticism, and commentary. Is the bread and butter of what he does? What he's been facing is a good illustration of the fact that these systems, especially algorithmic ones designed in-house for specific companies to address their business needs, cannot care for those things. They fundamentally can't. They are binary systems in a lot of ways, and copyright is not a binary system. So it's a poor match to say that really what we need to do is just sort of nerd harder and develop better algorithms, and that will somehow take care of these things, because at the end of the day, they're just not capable of doing that. So when we look at Section 512f, and you've been critical of victims of abusive takedown notices that the provision of 512f are too weak, what would you say is a better way to beef up that for frivolous notices, while not going so far as to penalize copyright holders to issue notices in good faith, but just turn out to be wrong? So I think the easy, or the lowest-hanging fruit on this is to, Lensburg's Universal decided that there was a subjective knowledge standard for what constitutes good faith notice. Changing that to an objective standard would be far more enforceable at a minimum. Okay, thank you.