 Well, we had been anticipating the release of the document and looking forward to it. And we had already briefed our general counsel's office that the document was coming and had told them that as soon as it came out, we wanted to meet with them because we expected to use that as a guidance and to be very aggressive in using it as a guidance. And so when it came out, we immediately forwarded it to them and scheduled a meeting and it was a very positive meeting. But they were a little surprised because I told them that I considered this document the floor from which we would then, below which we would not go, rather than a ceiling under which we would stay. And that did cause them, I think, to take a moment to sort of think about, do I need to reread the document? But they did, I think, essentially feel very comfortable with it. And they agreed that if we had specific projects, particularly large-scale ones, where we were going well beyond what was explicit in the document that we would bring it back to them and discuss it with them on a case-by-case basis, but essentially said they were very comfortable with our proceeding. I think we've always been a lot more willing to take risks, but their whole job is to keep us out of court. It has helped us to realize that it really is not risky to look carefully at these things and recognize that they're transformative and to defend, if you will, and extend the rights of our authors and the rights of our users to access our materials. Yeah, we've had a number of internal meetings and discussions. We've still got a few staff who really would very much like to have numbers. And every time they send a draft up that has a number in it, I scratch it out and send it back and say, no, no, I know it is harder. And I mean, that's part of it. It takes longer to look at cases individually and really examine is this case transformative and that case isn't. So some of that I think is just looking for something that's quick and easy because they're handling a large volume of requests, particularly when it comes to the electronic reserves and that kind of thing. But I think in terms of their managers and certainly from their managers up the food chain, I think it's helped everybody's level of comfort and assurance that they can do more and should do more. Well, we certainly have a very large scale digitization program. And so in looking at all of our digital projects, we've been kind of reexamining the criteria that we were using and I think being less conservative, more aggressive. I don't know how you want to frame that. You know, being a little more risk taking about what are we doing and looking at some of the other case studies of things that people have done, trying to really carefully understand transformative use and to think really more carefully about is this a transformative use and finding that there really is a lot more transformative use than we have been letting ourselves think about. And so I think it's really having its biggest effect there as we're prioritizing digitization initiatives to really be more expansive in how we define what we're doing. We have implemented, though not directly as a result of the code, but reinforced by the code an Orphan Works policy for one of a better term for our own electronic theses and dissertations. So we're doing a retrospective digitization and we're doing that with a, you know, we're notifying you if we know how to find you and we're making public an ability for people to say, no, no, I found you and I don't want you to have my dissertation up, but that we're being aggressive about some of those kinds of things and, again, with more confidence, I think, in moving forward. And I think the decision yesterday on Hathi Trust will embolden us further in terms of feeling that we now have the courts really acknowledging library's role in scholarship and research and teaching and how fair use fits into that in a very legitimate way.