 The people in these fields are really hamstrung, imprisoned by their own fundamental misunderstanding of the law. And their disinclination, which is a byproduct of that misunderstanding to exercise the rights they already have. Now, that's not the only problem. One of the things that I've been surprised by as we've gone along is how important what a critical role gatekeepers played. When we started out, I had a very naive understanding. I thought, well, we've got these user communities over here and we've got these rights holders over here. And basically the users are scared of the rights holders and as a result they aren't making optimal use of their rights. The rights holders on the other hand are scared of the users because they think the users, if they are given any flexibility, will sort of go wild. So let's help the users to create documents that will build confidence on the parts of rights holders and at the same time give them guidance. And what I hadn't figured on were the gatekeepers. You mean like when the filmmakers say to me, it doesn't matter what I think. I have to get errors in omissions insurance. It doesn't matter what I think the broadcasters won't take anything they didn't say. Exactly. Or the university people say, well, I'm never going to get this passed by general counsel. I understand. I am committed to the idea not of disregarding copyright, but of exercising the rights that copyright gives me as a user with a mission, but forget about it. My dean will never understand. My general counsel will never understand. But you know, a lot of the time I think when people start out that train of thought, what they're thinking is I'm trying to get away with something and these other people won't let me. And one of the big shifts once they go through this process of establishing their own best practices is to see that this is not getting away with something, but it's a right. And I recall when we first started working with documentary filmmakers, when we realized that the core issue was self-censorship, was when they kept telling us, oh, well, we would never ever employ fair use because we're so professional. And we would never have a problem with copyright because we're so professional. And when we asked what that meant, they said, oh, well, we would never touch large subject areas that required us to use fair use. Which meant that they weren't dealing with popular culture or popular music and many other things. In other words, they were self-censoring. So let me bring up another word that comes up a lot when people are asking me questions. Aspirational. We may want to do this, but this is just an aspirational document. It's what we wish we could do. I often think of that in an analogous case. Imagine, for instance, that a bunch of people were to get together from different hospitals to come up with a set of best practices about preventing bacterial infections in the hospital environment. And so they get together and first they discuss the problem for a while. Why are people getting sick? Why are there infections? And then they talk about what they do. And it turns out that one hospital that's represented there is doing something really terrific. And the other people who perhaps aren't doing something quite as terrific say, well, that sounds good. We should all do that. And what emerges is a best practices document. Of course, it has an aspirational dimension. Any best practices document has an aspirational dimension. But it also has that foundation in reality. What happens when we get these practitioners in different fields together in the small group meetings, which are the basis of the consensus building, which leads to a code, what happens is that they look at one another, they talk about what they are doing, and they find in the room the models that they can all endorse. So, yes, it's aspirational, but in a very good sense, I think, rather than a negative sense. We've paid so much attention to not only when we talk to people in those small groups to develop the terms of the code, not only to have geographic representation and representation that's typical of the organization, but to make sure we have people there who have enough experience to have lived these problems and be invested in the kind of creativity that it takes to produce stuff. And also, people who have a will to dialogue with others about what's really needed. So now I think we're at a very interesting moment and another set of questions comes up, and that is we've got, as I say, as we've said, you know, 10, 11, 12 of these, depending on how you count, exist, and there are a couple of additional ones that are in the pipeline. But as the concept of Fairview's best practices becomes more widely understood and gets written about and referred to more and more often, other practice communities say, well, where are we in this? We haven't had the energy or the funding or the support that it was necessary to come together as a youth community and do one of these for ourselves. But on the other hand, we recognize the power of this and we don't want to be left out of the fund. And there are a couple of different answers, I think, for people in those communities. One is that it's not actually that difficult to do this for yourself with a little bit of outside help and guidance. Really, all we've ever done in these projects is to facilitate conversations. The conversations have always been within the community. These aren't things that lawyers impose on communities. One lawyer, one non-lawyer, we simply work with communities to try to help them to develop their own consensus understandings. You can do that yourself. It isn't that hard. It isn't that expensive. It isn't that complicated. All of these codes have great similarities since the basic ideas that the groups come up with are always, in some ways, proximate to one another. They have this nice kind of mutually reinforcing cross-bracing effect which makes it possible to suggest the kind of reasoning by analogy to which you were just referring. And it has huge effects. There's no doubt about that. When we started working with the documentary filmmakers in 2004, it was actually impossible for an ordinary person to get errors and omissions insurance. You couldn't get anything they had fair use on broadcast because the broadcasters wouldn't accept it. And if you were a special, if you were a big name, that was fine if you wanted... Really, you just had to be famous. But now, I just came back from a major film festival in which I could not find a documentary film that did not have fair use. And I asked. And some of those films, I already had errors and omissions insurance. Every errors and omissions insurer in the country now accepts fair use as a matter of course. They don't even charge more for it, for covering it. So those people's lives have completely changed. And now I'm interviewing younger filmmakers and they're like, well, of course I use fair use. Why wouldn't I? And it's a sea change. There's one other example I wanted to offer among many. And that is the sea change, to use that good word again that has been taking place in academic publishing. We are seeing as a result of codes that deal with scholarship in various areas, in communications, in cinema studies, in poetry and literature. We are seeing major academic presses changing their views about the extent to which authors of monographs that they're going to publish can legitimately and successfully rely on fair use. It's been an enormous liberating change for those fields. And not just for them. Peter, let me just take this moment to thank you because getting to do this project over the last decade has given me an opportunity to have more fun in academics than I knew was possible. So thank you very much. Well, you're very welcome. And I would say that it's always important to remember why this makes sense and why it's important. And that is that in the end, we know from the Constitution of the United States among other places and we know from the accumulated Supreme Court case law that we all read that copyright is really about promoting cultural flourishing. It does that in all kinds of different ways. But I'm obviously honored to have been working with you on this and very pleased that together and with the help of many others, we have been able to make at least a small contribution to the goals of the copyright system or to achieving the goals of the copyright system. Thank you.