What she's arguing for, and this is no secret in Brussels and even -dare I say- common sense, is better enforcement of copyright.
I don't think this is what she is arguing for at all.
Better enforcement of copyright won't really help those artists making less than €1,000 a month from the copyright system - the unauthorised use of those unpopular, long-tail artists will just stop, or be driven further underground. It might provide an incremental lift to the incomes of very popular artists, but it won't magically fix the problem for others.
I think what she is arguing for is a radical restructuring of copyright, doing away with fair use rights for things like web spidering. I think she wants to force Google to pay licence fees to spider websites or, failing that, to tax them.
There is a fair bit of precedent for this argument coming from French sources.
I don't think this is what she is arguing for at all.
Better enforcement of copyright won't really help those artists making less than €1,000 a month from the copyright system - the unauthorised use of those unpopular, long-tail artists will just stop, or be driven further underground. It might provide an incremental lift to the incomes of very popular artists, but it won't magically fix the problem for others.
I think what she is arguing for is a radical restructuring of copyright, doing away with fair use rights for things like web spidering. I think she wants to force Google to pay licence fees to spider websites or, failing that, to tax them.
There is a fair bit of precedent for this argument coming from French sources.