 Okay, Ms. Burke, could you respond to that? Yes, it's our understanding that the limited request that we've asked for, which is the exemption to unlock an optical drive, replace it, and then relock that pairing would not cause that kind of decryption of what protects the Blu-rays and the DVDs at question here. Rather, I think it's important to note that this TPM that locks and pairs an optical drive to the rest of the video game console is unique to these optical drive-driven video game consoles. Other devices that have optical drives don't necessarily have these same locks. So if you wanted to replace your optical drive in your computer, you could go get a new optical drive, put it in your computer, and plug it in and change it out pretty simply without having to circumvent this kind of TPM. So these optical drives being able to change them out doesn't really implicate the same concerns when it comes to that type of a situation with being able to change out your optical drive. So what makes a video game console so unique? It's our understanding that these TPMs that are protecting the optical drive don't actually protect the content that could be played on an optical drive. Rather, it just protects this particular pairing. And so the TPMs that need to be circumvented here, they're really just protecting or preventing people from being able to repair an optical drive, which is a harm to consumers because optical drives are the most frequent thing to fail. In a video game console, replacing one is fairly cheap as opposed to having to purchase a whole new device. And so it's our understanding that these TPMs really aren't protecting content so much as they are preventing these types of repairs, which consumers have a right to do. When you own a device, you should be able to repair it and copyright should not be a tool that prevents you from being able to do that. It's not intuitive and it doesn't make sense with regard to what copyright is intended to protect. Okay.