maybe you will come to order good morning everyone particularly our witnesses this is a hearing on piracy of live sports broadcasting over the  internet the purpose of the hearing is examine how the piracy of live sporting events over the internet impacts sports consumers broadcasters and the unique challenges moving piracy has increased as increasingly artists and intellectual property owners as individual consumers have access to faster more powerful regard to sporting event this is supposed to allow us to examine the new technologies that allow for the streaming in real time of sporting events thank you mr chairman this oversight hearing focuses on an emerging and disturbing new aspect of internet piracy an authorized streaming live television program today the committee will consider the impact of this  among the most popular and unfortunately the most programming in the world sports leagues are investing significant amounts to monitor the piracy of their property and provide notices to internet service providers and website operators to take down content the cost of efforts are then passed on to sports fans and consumers when they purchase tickets or subscribe to support networks leagues spend billions of dollars annually to build and market their brand half or more of their revenues generally derived from exclusive television deals pay per view sales and licensed internet distribution the unauthorized distribution of all forms of live and free produce video programming is widely and readily available via the web an example of this is when parted movies become available on the internet before they're released in movie theaters there's no expression that applies here why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free why pay for the sporting event when you can watch it online for free the wider adoption of broadband technologies the widespread availability of and expensive devices to upload television signals to the web and the global nature of the internet together poses enormous challenges to rights holders the organisation for economic co operation and development has declared the use of  networks for live piracy has become quote a significant threat for the sports broadcasting industry and the united states trade representative has noticed that china which today has more internet users than any other nation is a nation of particular concern when it comes to internet piracy internet piracy particularly the theft of live programming has increased dramatically in recent years it's clear we need to assess the state of the law and technology and to begin consideration of the steps that ought to be taken domestically and internationally to respond to this new damaging form of piracy mr chairman thank you for holding this hearing in your back my conyers thank you thank you very much mr chairman i appreciate the kind words good morning everyone chairman conyers ranking member smith and distinguished members of the committee on behalf of major league baseball i would like to thank you for the privilege of addressing you this and locally through broadcast television stations and regional sports networks and internationally to over two hundred countries and territories in the us armed forces overseas on the internet and been a pioneer in distributing live sport m l b's first live game webcast occurred in two thousand and two an innovation to better serve our fans in the pioneer and tradition of the first radio broadcast of one of our games in one nine hundred twenty one and the first rapidly they are believed to be located in many nations including the people's republic of china and the united states many are open doors permitting any type of television programming to be  infringement domestic operate litigation is a remedial tool available only in limited circumstances this is because the piracy is global often involving sites and services that operate entirely offshore outside the effective reach of our courts circumstances available to the private sector are limited we therefore believe that international cooperation about this problem must be improved most nations are both exporters and importers of television program we seek common ground both in terms of shared economic interests and legal obligations for the u s and its trading partners to work cooperatively to curtail the therefore recommend the congress and the administration of this matter priority in our nation's ongoing efforts to improve intellectual property rights protection and on a worldwide basis in conclusion this emerging international in scope and has demonstrated growth characteristics the threat it poses to the us televised media sector must be taken seriously we believe it is prudent to proactively against this threat and we commend this committee for shining a spotlight on it today through this hearing as we develop more experience in this area we look forward to the opportunity to make additional recommendations to you once again thank you very much for your interest in the matter and for the privilege of addressing you th we also hired several private vendors to assist us in this effort however even if our requests even if after our request web site takes down our pirated content it is often too late because the value of our content is extremely p match can be over in seconds so even if the web site friends content down within fifteen minutes the damage is done i would like to emphasize that as a business entrepreneur i applaud the development of technologies that help consumers access entertainment in certainly would not drive enough traffic to create a viable business based on an advertising revenue model the truth is that most of the content that is generated generating any real traffic consists of copyrighted works to make matters worse the websites often users access to the technology web site finally they should incorporate the latest technologies perhaps electronic fingerprinting to prevent piracy that they are currently mr chairman we are at a critical moment in the evolution of digital content commending you for holding this hearing and in particular for your focus on emerging forms of internet piracy in today's economy we cannot afford to let the theft of u s intellectual property undermine the vitality of what should be among our most promising creative and economic assets each year yes vienna's best billions of dollars to produce tens and thousands of hours of high quality sports programming for for distribution via television and a growing array of new media we are here today because sports is not immune from piracy we see this on the increasing number of internet sites that are the focus of today's hearing the site unable to real time theft of live sports programming uploaded either directly by the site operators or by the users of the site in the interest of time let me highlight just a few points from my written testimony first it is important to recognize that this is not a problem limited to live sports or even sports in general the same sites also make available real time streaming of many other types of television and new media programs this is an issue that affects the entire global media second this problem is though it's fairly nascent and heavily international in scope and impact in many cases in many cases the streaming sites set up overseas particularly in asia where the sites can take advantage of massive broadband capacity legal on certainty and in many instances lax enforcement third to give you a sense of yes dns experience network providing access to more than thirty five hundred live domestic and international sporting events here through our investment in technology and this programming these events are now available via dot com to over fifty million households through one hundred ten affiliated internet service providers we also provide this programming to u s college students and all u s based military personnel via a campus and military broadband network these effort tremendous benefits for consumers many of the household survey by e s p n three sixty dot com would not have legitimate access to these events for our investment yet many of the same events appear routinely without authorization on internet streaming sites it is not hard to see how the wide spread on authorized and on compensated availability of the content that we pay to produce and distribute would undermine our incentive to invest in and provide this high quality content whether through innovative broadband offerings or through a more traditional linear network fourth and finally all the challenges we see here are new in the process of devising solutions is still ongoing we can learn something from a we experience when user generated content sites first came online they're like here we saw a new media online distribution platforms with interesting possibilities to promote user generated user generated activity but we also saw those possibilities completely overrun by piracy as described in my written testimony e s p n s parent the walt disney company was one of several that led the way to develop a set of principles for user generated content service under these principles participating services and content providers agreed on a set of objectives that included the elimination of infringement on services and the encouragement of uploads of wholly original and authorized user generated content we consider whether the measures in via these principles would be affective or sufficient to address piracy on live streaming sites as a starting point those sites that claim their commitment to promoting legitimate  that commitment is important not only to protect the rights of creators and legitimate distributors of creative content but is also driving the development of a robust trusted and content rich legitimate streaming environment mr chairman i want to thank you again for your attention to this important issue but the opportunity to appear before you i look forward to your question thank you we conclude with the christopher you university of harvard university graduate we welcome you today thank you chairman conyers ranking member smith members of the committee i'm grateful the opportunity to testify today on the subject of piracy of live sports companies offer devices that take what is known at the log hole to enable end users to copy high definition television programming directly to personal computers these devices typically connect to the component video conyers the most important question right off the bat we don't believe there is a silver bullet to stop this problem i would agree with professor yoo that it's a very complicated one  we do believe that international cooperation needs to be improved practices and standards in other countries where we have seen the weight of the gravity of the problem occurring unclear and enforcement is lax one essential part of an enduring solution we think going to need to include improved cooperation with our trading all of the important and hard work that they are doing and then second i would say if we can bring the u s services up to best practices then we have a model that we can show time protect copyrighted works of international copyright related treaties in general and there are a number of them that establish minimum standards in foreign countries and national treatment and the world tremendous amount of money and have grown has grown it into what is now an international media company where we distribute our product to over one hundred seventy countries around the globe and to over four to five hundred million homes worldwide well i'm proud of you but that's not within twenty four forty eight hours is significantly different than it is to one of our events which is a life and the value of our product goes down significantly it's very perishable every minute that goes by  agree with mr mehlis we are very interested in creating a standard in the united states for sites that allow individuals to create and share life can also work with copyright holders to protect their rights and addressed this concern united states in terms of internationally or a legal basis lucian's unfortunately i don't have much to contribute on that front if you ever considered law school i know you have been very difficult a process that is and a real world example you know we made a decision a years ago to launch i said our broadband service e s p n dot com it's a tremendous service a great application to support the growth and development of broadband that it has thirty five hundred events on a year it's a terrific product we had a business model in which they paid us a fee they distributed it and today it's in as i said more than fifty million homes and providing a lot more product to a lot more people now if hour contemplating launching that service i might look around and say this is crazy there's not an environment in which this can take hold we started seven years ago invested you know tens of millions of dollars to try and produce something at a time when the service of like just in t v wasn't even thought about by anybody but today it exists and you know it's neatly packaged well produced and it provides certainly significant part of the now that the landscape of what people like us will want to do in terms of deciding to invest environment we decided that among a number of approaches we would approach internet service providers directly and say if we can produce a product that has the brand on it would that be helpful to you in terms of you're selling your product out to consumers the answer we got was yes that we were happy to participate in both the development of new businesses on their part and at the same time the distribution of the enhanced distribution of broadband throughout our country and analogy might be back in the early ninet  that's a similar circumstance year we look to build successful products that can work in an environment where we're making investments and we're working with our distributors to provide something for them that we think benefits consumers the fact that it's available to fifty million homes today seventy percent of the broadband universe we think is significant and that's been a successful effort so you didn't think it was economically w know we looked at the developer why you didn't offer it as a subscription price you didn't think it was always an opportunity missed chairman to get on board a train that we thought was leaving and would do very well which is called broadband th at the business that we're in or not a broadband you know we're not a platform we're not a content company we said how can we participate in this in a meaningful way to offer something to a broadband distributors that would help their business we have all we have other products available in other and in other areas so we're not just putting all of our eggs in one basket and dot com is available on the open internet it has a tremendous amount of product not in terms of video clips we offer a product there for example here i have some concrete suggestions of ways the law might be changed and that changes in the law that might contribute to curbing illegal piracy the digital any copyright  will give them advance notice of when programming will be provided and ask them to take appropriate measures in the absence of a specific web address by broadening our notion of what noticed not just a web address but hearings we're having today to encourage players to come to the table to find ways to find common ground because everyone has to recognize nobody wins unless the content is provided  well going back i think more than ten years ago and when we wrote that legislation i was asked by then chairman hyde to sit in a room with representatives of the content industry the internet service provider industry the universities and other users of internet content and try to manage a negotiation of this notice and takedown issue and we came up with something that we thought was very good at the time in fact it i know that you have a lot of experience with this notice and takedown issue what is the typical amount of time that an internet service provider takes to remove infringing content once a notice of infringement is how fast is it possible to take down content once we've been notified is extremely bad because we've been able to push this from the letter and email world into an online form as soon as we're notified to the copyright protection system into ten second in command if they're going to protect their copyrighted material they've got to get a notice to somebody really fast and they've got to respond virtually immediately which is very different than what i think we sat around and talked about ten years ago is that a feasible environment to operate in i mean can they i guess they can see coming the fact that they're going to have these programs on the air and they can then be on the lookout but i don't know they can be on the lookout for thousands of different people who might take the opportunity to stream and to use your service to stream you may have the capability of very quickly taking them all down but  what has been your experience with this the reason why we have developed the copyright protection system and the life altering system is to address the specific issue that you bring up sensually what we want to provide is a system whereby people can look at the site identify their content and have removed immediately but also a system by which people can provide us with a fingerprint and we will use our life extremely quickly and also how can we confront the issue of identifying the content in a more automated fashion now there's another side of this issue and that is the the user of your service or other other internet sites or the people who may have a web site on which they're placing some material that may or may not be copyrighted and i've received complaints from individuals who have complained that the their content has been taken down inappropriately are you able to judge quickly enough and accurately enough that the content you are taking down is indeed copyrighted material that takedown notices it has received under the dmca in the united states were sent by businesses targeting competitors which certainly is a legitimate thing to do but they also allege that thirty seven percent of the notices were thirty seven percent of the notices are in error alarm you considering the fact that the content must be expeditiously removed and will not be available online for at least ten to fourteen days after it is taken down that's the complaint that we're getting from some consumers and some users of of various internet web sites that have been subject to a notice and takedown and then have a hard time getting back up any of you want to respond t i'm not personally aware of validate any of those statistics relative to the percentage of inappropriate or appropriate takedown notices i can share with you that i think others on the panel of seeing the prostration and difficulty of operating within the current system especially in a live technological advances may be on the horizon here in a difficult it's a difficult time for us in this respect and what we're really looking for companies like just really make a firm commitment to say this is wrong and we will work tirelessly to fix this web sites say that they're doing things to try to prevent this one of the things that bothers us is that right on their own websites they provide exact detail on how to upload content from your television and content coming from the television my guess would be that ninety nine percent of it would be copyrighted material so not only are they there facilitating in some ways encouraging it and that's part of the problem that we have and that's why in our paper  expired but to ask professor you one last question that is you've heard this discussion about what can be done to make sure that content owners are doing their due diligence to make sure the claims they allege are valid we've heard from you some other ideas which i think have merit in terms of making their ability to protect their content stronger and more immediate which is effectively the environment they're operating with this type of what it what it what what can we do to make sure that people don't use this in an abusive way i can understand why a competitor have to ask another competitor to take something down that may be copyright material but they also might have an incentive to try to disrupt the availability of something on the internet that they shouldn't be asking to be taken down they don't seem to face any consequence for that right now what we do to change that clearly the congress could impose consequences  i have been listening with great interest since i entered the room but i must share with you that my initial motivation for coming here was not so much to learn about t receiving connector for that you would stick in a flash memory stick and then with drivers that would come with this device the one we bought cost seventy dollars more or less manipulate your personal the services in china that has plagued plague or through the instructions that a service like justin provides you can take those you've already been converted and are being i think that they could be i'm not what i what i mean to say is i'm not familiar with how they are in fact but they could be used to watch television programming on your personal computer then there is the next step marketplace pretty carefully to see the impact of our our business in the retail world we have not that we can identify where there was any kind of direct correlation between our sale of this product in the wholesale marketplace and an impact on the the business model of just not t v is not based around supporting the continued broadcast of authorized content is not a good base in which to start a business or to run a business in the long term and so when you look at where we've invested our partners who want to distribute live content on our platform and charging it in a metered format and the third aspect is going to partners who have premium content that they believe they can charge a pay per view or subscription for and to support all sit up here on this panel we're embracing technology we want to be able to give consumers our product in any format that they want whether they will watch it on satellite cable broadband on their on their telephones we offer those products all the way down the line and i think that that may be part of the difference as far as how about how that evolves and we're in a situation now where we offer it on all the various ways to watch it  out onto the internet and watched by literally hundreds of thousands of people for free without having to pay for the copyright thank you mr chair and as a freshman that sounds pretty good mr johnson asked most of the questions i wanted to ask and it's usually what happens when you're low man on the totem pole but was that includ incumbent upon us you know especially you know my predisposition is to protect the u s tradition of the value of property rights and certainly i understand what you're saying about the courts leaving it open to congress to fill in the gaps here and obviously mr chairman i think that that's our duty moving forward is to make sure that it's our obligations to finish the work that has been started years ago as technology and things evolve that we the record has pointed it to us and now it's our opportunity to address that situation as outlined in the grokster case  and from the testimony here today it sounds like that you have taken steps to try to work with the other entities but at the same time i can't get out of the back of my head this sort of notion that we have opportunities and obligations in the law to act you know if you act or you fail to act sometimes you can be just as culpable it sounds to me like justin t v has content on their website that is not permissible  and failing to act for that until one of the content content based companies come and say please take it down it's kind of like going into a jewelry store and robbing it but not making a mess when you're in there i  mean i don't know if that's a fair assessment but just because you've just because you aren't actively seeking out content based material but not doing anything about it until one of these guys comes and says hey you need to take it down in matters of law and fairness it just doesn't to me seem right what would you say in response so i think the new technology of the fingerprinting solution is a going to be one hundred percent or ninety percent for some reason when we think about the solutions that we want to provide we have been focusing on systematic and automated and that's why the and that can happen quickly what if you don't take it down what happens to you but what could happen to you do you know legally unfortunately i'm not as anybody just in t v would lose its immunity under the digital millennium mentioned with regard to maybe precluding these things even getting on site before and you've talked about what we can do as a congress to actively do that rather than just reacting how can we be proactive and i think that you mention that you know we need to make consequences for repeat offenders i believe that you said that one of the ways to do that is where under penalty that you know that these rights aren't there isn't that they can get in trouble for doing that is that is that specifically what you're talking about with regard to us making a law that would provide consequences for repeat offenders some more specific solution you have with that i think  thank you but i'm going to tell myself five minutes my five minutes and then we will make further determinations about the question and let me welcome the witnesses and thank you very much for presence here today i'm sorry that we are interrupted by vote i just have a non legal question mr fertitta do you have any relatives in texas oh my goodness  all right well i've obviously run into them on several occasions you won't bias my questions and i will recuse myself but in any event i hope you have the opportunity to visit its great state i am first of all i wan case establishes liability for peer to peer copyright infringement that pertains to the an authorized distribution and availability of music files on the web so it's a narrow decision and if i can profess i'll just yes or no is it a narrowly drawn decision yes that's all and it has implications beyond music but it's a narrowly drawn decision i mean if we look at it it pertains to music of course it can be used in sighted in someone's brief but it'll be up to the courts to interpret it more broadly is that my understanding the copyright law does not distinguish between music and other forms of protected out of your book cation is there but no it does not provide anything and so there is the possibility that we would legislatively act or this would have to be an ongoing court proceedings or actions that individuals who felt that they were aggrieved would take into court is that  correct let me indicate that though we don't often cite our work i think the judiciary committee has been a champion on job creation and it has done so because we've taken to task this whole question of copyright infringement as i understand it when you have a product content you also have jobs you have the institution that depends on content and i just want to cite for the record  some deals that have been put forward e s p n has in recent years signed several high price deals with sports leagues for podcasting rights including an eight point eight billion dollars deal with the n f l a two point four billion dollars a major league  major league baseball and a two point one billion dollars that's a lot of money and i assume the intent behind that is that those games generate dollars and that means that people  are employed in that particular industry not necessarily it may be that they open as well because i understand part of their revenue stream is the dollars that they get so when we talk about copyright protection i'd like it to be beyond the nuances of those of us who enjoy that kind of debate intellectual property it really has to be a mainstay of the survival of the genius of america and this committee has been in the forefront of trying to protect the genius of america we've done so on a number of occasions and we've not been the most popular committee here talked about performers we talk about others have not been popular so my quick question is and i think i'm on the five minutes is that where i been experiencing and observing it for several years is very difficult to quantify the impact because most of it is occurring offshore through rogue sites and services where we don't know much we don't know how many piracy incidents there are you do know that if piracy continues and your product deplete in now you the potential that you may lose jobs is that can you answer yes or no yes thank  you thank you mr yes i can tell you that i'm sure this is an important issue for the other members of the panel i can tell you that this is the most important issue for our company we have created thousands of jobs we have built a company  with our content and pay per view represents over half of our revenue is over half of our total revenue so when people can choose just to log on to the internet on to justin t v and get it for free it's impact on your bottom line in the potential of losing jobs in question all right professor you do you see this as a as an economic issue as an economic issue jobs are used to teach in nashville the music industry got behind the curve on this and they've been losing jobs like to recess this hearing and we ask that the witnesses remain available it should be about ten minutes maybe a little longer but we need you to standby thank you very much this meeting this hearing is  the hearing will come to order and let me recognize my colleague from california mr isay for as much time as he may consume thank you mr chairman this is been a very interesting hearing because i think it's gone beyond perhaps the issue just that your organizations are dealing with and let me go to a couple of questions first of all mr mehlis would you concur that over air broadcast becomes the right of anyone who can receive it to have it to timeshift it and to watch it wherever they want to watch it beyond the television set in the home be on the supreme court decision and other words the supreme court has held that we have in the sony betamax we have an absolute right on a broadcast to store and because it was a removable device in the case of the store and forward i mean i can take my v h s tape out and i can take it to grandma's house and watch it there that was all codified sony betamax with your great idea so the question for you is recognizing that that's not a commercial use it's not a dissemination or performance or a broadcast to others and you say it very well at the start and of baseball football all the major leagues that rebroadcast is prohibited so we're not having that discussion here and that may be today's subject but let me just go through a scenario i mean san diego san diego chargers are playing there let's just say that it's not being i don't have it available where i am would you say that as an owner of seven t v s in oceanside and san diego california vista california that i could watch it there and i could record a equivalent today of the betamax yes and if i have the ability to to do that and have the ability to forward it to myself i'm well within my rights well i think from a strictly legal contact that that question hasn't been decided by a court although there is a technology available to do that but the slingbox and other similar device but we're talking about here is the that telecast for worldwide viewing and one of the reasons i'm pursuing this line of questioning is i don't get you all in front of me very often i happen to believe strongly that your right to go to the audience that you originally broadcast to wherever wherever they might be including the store and forward i mentioned is really what we should be talking about today but i ask this to lead you down a road of a question that is to if in fact i were to pay a service to capture in my home whether it's a slingbox i own or a commercial equivalent so that i may watch that on my blackberry because in fact i'm away from my house right now i'm downtown i want to watch it as long as i am a broadcast recipient would you say that i have the reasonable right to have that delivered to  me on your blackberry let's just say on my blackberry and it is just service it's a service that you subscribe from your blackberry or it's are you saying from your television to your black well let's go back to the sling box because that may be a better one my ability to have delivered to my washington home from my san diego home a san diego chargers game or a pod or a game would you say that that was reasonably consistent with existing law and your interpretation of it i think my view under the copyright act is of the time and space right those are the issues and so the question is whether or not doing that in the context you describe for your own personal use having paid for it already whether that's a fair use and that hasn't been decided  court that i know that i know ok i'm going to go down the aisle quickly because i happen to be of an opinion thank goodness i'm not a judge but i'm of the opinion that simply broadly saying i'm going to capture everybody's football games baseball games boxing matches and then make it available service is way outside of the intent of existing law or copyright interpretations but as to the description i made that whether it's through a service that is literally in my home or a service i contract somebody would you believe that with existing laws we should feel comfortable that the the owner of a san diego home who wants to receive something from san diego in their home in washington d c or on their blackberry should be able to let's just assume it's a slingbox for now so that the technology is pretty understood how that plays out i you know i don't know there are legitimate concerns about the scope of geography and rights that we buy for example for baseball in terms of protecting markets and the like so it should complicate your bit but back to the original premise if i can set assuming i find one and i can remove that cartridge and move it here to california and play it at my home here and that is codified in in law then wouldn't you agree that the  quibble and would reasonably be anticipated by the supreme court decision i don't know that it would be honestly ok so this is something where you don't consider it settled law when we go digital we go over the internet we  go to something other than a sony version of a videotape record i think additional questions come into play ok professor you get you get the end on this because for us on the day of release for many of us that's the question i happen to come from a consumer electronics manufacturer background i come from that industry that thought it was settled law that the noncommercial rebroadcast by the owner of for purposes of time shifting or place shifting or even product shifting in other words recorded on this machine played on another one of the different we're all pretty much settled law how would you view that professor with respect i don't believe it's settled law i think that for interpretations by the courts as part of promoting commerce protecting intellectual property and recognizing that laws are only affected if they're one supported by the masses and two enforceable what i'm hearing here today is that potentially we would reinterpret a law my question to all of you in the abstract here hypothetical is how would we enforce you can do this but you can't library it well sony the sony product was a durable product and it was portable and it made a whole bunch of requirements so from this side or from the men and women in robes across the street how in the world would we want to enforce it and two why would it be the burden of the federal government to bring about that very expensive enforcement of finding out whether someone's storing something in their home whether they're forwarding whether it's durable because we've been asked over the years to buy into the digital millennium copyright act buy into schemes that we're going to empower others to primarily do it and each time when it fails you come back to us so i'm going to leave that as a rhetorical question because it is beyond the scope just of this hearing but i think with the chairman we're very interested in figuring out whether or not what's being brought to us is in fact here on the side is to ensure that the creative community is protective protected and continues to  believe that to be unanimous  i think the enforcement in the compliance with the real ones as suggested by my friend from california and i'm always struck being a farmer  it's a live sporting event that we charge money for it's extremely perishable once it's over it's not worth what it was once it started what somebody knows the outcome of what happened in that revenues that are but once that happens this is that this is grand larceny and until we get serious about enforcement and prosecution we're going to  you know i'm sure there are technologies that are out there and we could have as bob goodlatte indicated earlier continuing to have meetings etc but somebody's got to get serious about enforc experience so the concept really doesn't play by whoever is doing the eight million dollars to the company into our overall economy i'm sure he has a of speech in the marketplace but until there is a serious consequence and i think it's incumbent upon people who are in the industry working with the congress for broadcasting video from a video game console to justin t v which is an extremely popular practice to consider the second sentence this is a popular request among broadcasters who see channels like for player podcast where they broadcast a screen capture with video game you can look at the second instruction a way to send a video from your console to your television the third instruction most plugged their console into their t v using composite tables and use another set of rules to send audience if you were to follow this on just in t v you would not tell a vision showing up on your channel you would see a video game from an x box for play station three i just want to make that clear and i do apologize for the and the title tax because i do believe that that's slightly misleading that's something that we will certainly correct record or remain open for five legislative days with the submission of any additional materials thank you again in the h