First, I think there's a difference between flexibility and neutrality of the legislation with regard to technology. Those are two completely different things. I think that people often confuse the two and believe that we need flexibility to adapt to everything that might arise and that we can't predict. On the contrary, we perhaps need legislation that is technology neutral.
What we can do is describe the uses that are permitted, rather than have any “flexibility”. Ultimately, that flexibility creates such a vague situation that no one knows where copyright stops and fair dealing begins, for example. Ultimately, it is left up to the courts to decide whether, in future, fair dealing without compensation should be permitted. We're trying to control a future that we don't know by leaving it up to the courts.
That is simply not a solution to the problem. First, it shouldn't be up to the courts to shoulder that responsibility. They don't have the ability to do it. In addition, they wouldn't have the necessary impact studies to assert that a particular use would or would not involve compensation as a result.
I understand the challenge. It is indeed a major challenge. However, the solution is not to grant flexibility that hands the problem over to the courts.