Well, one example would be that when you allow timeshifting of television programs, you are clearly allowing a form of reproduction. It basically is a kind of private copying, only without the royalties that are generally payable to rights holders.
For example, educational institutions used to have to pay for a license in order to use television or radio programming recorded for educational purposes. That license was payable to copyright collectives. However, it has been abolished. Those are a few examples that show that, as currently worded, given the exceptions it creates, this bill will mean that most copyright collectives will be losing a great deal of money in royalty payments that are distributed to copyright holders. At the time, those royalties were payable for certain types of use. They are not just there to keep the collectives in business; a large part of that money is redistributed to the people who make the music. So, we are really talking about wages for performing artists, authors and producers—wages that will disappear with these exceptions.