I would tend to say that it's all about them.
This comes back to a point I raised earlier: at the root, we must ask ourselves what the primary function of the act is.
It would be a trap to ask ourselves what a nice balance would be and to decide to reduce the 70 exceptions to 30 so that everyone is happy. I don't think that's the heart of the matter.
We want a fair and balanced copyright law, of course, but one that also protects authors, publishers and producers, all rights holders.
If our mentality is that we have a basic right and that then,
we do a whole bunch of carve-outs,
it does not reflect the political will to have strong legislation.
As I explained to Mr. Jeneroux, strong legislation will then allow for negotiations on equal footing, regardless of the players involved. We don't want to give one an advantage over the other. Essentially, the situation must be clear, as you said about the time that the board can take to make its decisions.
You asked which ones, and I listed the ones that were technology-specific. The legislation should be neutral. Why are there specific exceptions to one technology over another?
Basically, copyright is quite clear: a reproduction right, a communication right or a right of first publication relates to recordings, producers, neighbouring rights or copyright. Then there are a host of exceptions that I think should be reviewed. Do we really want to take away rights and weaken the basic protection position that allows creators to negotiate? Shouldn't we review everything, reaffirm the right at the grassroots and then discuss a public right?
I think this choice should be left to creators and rights holders. It shouldn't be imposed by a legislative instrument.