 So, Ms. Burke, can we take you back on what Mr. Ayer's brought up, which is modification and what are your thoughts? You can comment on what some of the prior commenters have said, but with respect to video game consoles in particular, do you see a need for modifications? I'm not sure that was the, I'm not sure that's part of why public knowledge is supporting with respect to video game consoles for this exemption. Yeah, so with respect to modification, to the extent that you might need to modify the software in order to like repair or relock the optical drive once it comes, like once you change it out, I think that modification would be potentially necessary, depending on what the anti-circumvention technology ends up doing. I know like as an analogy, there are sometimes when you might need to reprogram like in like the software, like how what the function of a button is. And so that might require modification, but in terms of like modification for a functional purpose, not modification to allow you to play pirated DVDs. And I just want to address that concern there that somehow allowing these, you know, changing out the optical drive and being able to repair that optical drive is going to jeopardize the security of the whole system. The lock that pairs an optical drive to the motherboard exists on the daughter board connection between the two devices. And it's my understanding that unlocking that so that you can pair a new optical drive is not going to then jeopardize the whole ecosystem of the video game console and its security protocols. And so I think that that's something that's particularly relevant here since this idea that all of a sudden changing at an optical drive is going to make it easier to pirate content. It just doesn't seem like that works within the realities of how these systems are constructed.