 And I wonder if there is anything we could do specifically on repeat infringers. The small percentage of actors in this case represent a lion's share of the problem. Mr. Schurz, do you have thoughts on that, how to better distinguish between legitimate users and bad actors? Well, so Section 512 already requires digital services to have and enforce a repeat infringer policy. And we've seen from the Cox case that the failure to meaningfully enforce that kind of policy can result in serious liability. Of course, there are certain constraints for anonymous users unless you're going to forbid anonymous use of the internet. It's difficult to meaningfully catch all repeat users, repeat infringers. But certainly we've seen courts say you need to have this policy and you need to meaningfully enforce it. So I think that's certainly happening already. And I know within industry that enforcing that policy is a critical part of their internal DMCA compliance, lest you wind up facing a massive judgment.