European consumer organization BEUC also opposed the reform. "We fully support the aim of ensuring fair remuneration for creators, but this should not happen to the detriment of consumers," said Monique Goyens, head of BEUC. "There is a very high risk that the new law will do more harm than good."

IT ABSOLUTELY SHOULD happen to the detriment of consumers because consumers aren't making any fucking money off of it.

predatory copyright - an anecdote

So I worked on a movie. There was a scene in it that montaged very nicely with a song:

It would have been very nice to have the Elvis version - after all, the lead character's name was Elvis - but we weren't crazy. The song, by the way, was written in 1926 and first recorded in 1927:

So since all the studios and all the distributors are signatories to BMI and ASCAP, if you've got a movie and you want to use a song you need to EXPRESSLY PROVE that you have the rights to the song. So if it's public domain, you need to DOCUMENT that it's public domain. And you know, up until 2003 "public domain" was 75 years. 1926 plus 75 years equals 2001 and we're good, right? Wrong.

The Supreme Court ruled that Disney characters can't fall into public domain because then Communism wins so now it's 95 years with the ability to extend copyright into eternity. So if it isn't public domain now, it never will be.

Thing is, that song has been recorded 22 times. It's been on the Hot 100 under nine different artists. We wanted to buy the publishing rights, not the recording rights, to get someone to record a cover.

And we were told no.

Not "you can't afford it" not "it's out of your price range" but no. Because Fox and Company can do that - with a song that should be public domain - and that was recorded by everyone from Al Jolson to Sam Kinison - because they own the rights.

There are 86,000 versions of Are You Lonesome Tonight on Youtube because Google doesn't care.

A minuscule percentage of Youtube's uploaders will ever make money on them. But Youtube makes money on every.single.one. And will continue to do so so long as anyone uploads a clip to Youtube, the onus of copyright claims on the user. And if Youtube gets an official takedown notice, they'll take down one of those 86000 versions. But really, it's not their responsibility, the supreme court says so. So they'll keep making money off of it until someone hurts them.

Youtube is cruisin' for a bruisin'.

I've been contemplating a 100-year plan for Hubski.

Market Hubski as a place to host creators with kick ass OC?

Edit: Though, from the article, it sounds like you're safe on these two points . . .

Non-profits and encyclopedias such as Wikipedia will still be able to use data for research and educational purposes.

Fledgling companies with an annual turnover below €10 million ($11.3 million) are exempt.