STRASBOURG — The European Commission, Parliament and EU countries agreed Wednesday on the controversial copyright reform, after two and a half years of painful negotiations and unprecedented lobbying campaigns from all sides of the argument.

The reform was initially presented by the Commission in September 2016. The most contentious aspects of the text were mainly targeting Google, which rights-holders have accused of taking a "free ride" by using content created by others, be it music on YouTube or press articles on Google News.

The tech industry, echoed by NGOs, argued the reform would force platforms to scan all content posted by users.

The legislation agreed this week creates a new EU-wide right for press publishers, allowing them to seek compensation from Google for having their content displayed on Google News. It also makes it mandatory for platforms such as Google’s YouTube to strike licensing deals with the cultural industry, film producers, record companies, collecting societies and other rights-holders seeking such deals as a condition for their content to be shared on platforms. Platforms will also become legally responsible for copyright-protected, licensed content that has been unlawfully uploaded.

But not all rights-holders are necessarily better off, and Google might not be as impacted as it looks.

As surprising as it may sound, Google has not completely lost the copyright war.

Here are the winners and losers of the copyright saga.

Winners

The European Commission: The EU executive body can tick a box on its digital single market to-do list, only weeks away from the end of the legislative period. The Commission wanted an agreement at all costs for one of its flagship proposals. The final text still needs to be signed off by EU countries and adopted by Parliament's legal affairs committee as well as the plenary session, so the story is not over yet. But for now, the Commission can breathe a sigh of relief.

The music industry: Record companies and collecting societies asked for the reform in the first place, arguing that there needs to be a correction to what they called the “value gap” between the music industry’s dwindling revenues and the ad-generated profits made by platforms that host their content online. The concept is reflected in the legislation.

Although labels have complained about the text's final version, they ultimately got what they wanted: YouTube will be forced by law to strike licensing agreements with them. The tech giant already did this sometimes, but was not required to, leaving labels in a weaker bargaining position. What does spoil the party for labels, though, is that they might have to pay more money to authors and performers.

Authors and performers: Songwriters, film and movie directors, actors, musicians, screenwriters — they all won a lot more from the reform than what was originally expected. They managed to add to the text a “principle of appropriate and proportionate remuneration.” This means they’ll be able to seek compensation for the exploitation of their work, proportionate to the revenues generated by their material, rather than based on a flat rate.

Press publishers: Companies such as European publishers Mondadori and Axel Springer (POLITICO Europe’s co-owner) also got what they have been asking for: an EU-wide neighboring right. Under the reform, platforms like Google News will have to strike licensing deals with them to be allowed to display their content. Whether this immediate political win will actually generate additional revenue for the press industry in the long term is an open question because of Google's very strong market power.

In Germany, where a neighboring right already exists, many publishers ultimately decided to offer their content for free after their traffic plummeted when snippets no longer appeared in search results.

Google: As surprising as it may sound, Google has not completely lost the copyright war. The legislation imposes new obligations on the tech giant, but it’s unlikely that it’ll have an effect on the company’s market power. When it comes to the publisher’s right, Google could choose not to display some companies' content to avoid engaging in licensing agreements with them — and has already hinted it won’t make deals with everyone. Google also managed to avoid having to take on full, unconditioned legal responsibility for copyright-protected content. The company won't be held liable for the appearance of unauthorized, unlicensed, copyright-protected content if it makes its "best efforts" — among other conditions — to prevent the content's availability.

Losers

Also Google: First of all, Google’s YouTube will now be required by law to enter into licensing agreements with rights-holders from the music industry wishing to do so. The usually discreet tech giant was also forced to come out of the woods and dispatch a U.S. delegation of top executives to Brussels and Strasbourg in fall last year, which shows how far things have slipped out of the company’s control.

Overall, the copyright reform gave the EU a PR win at the tech giant’s expense, at a time when regulating Big Tech is popular in the media, the lawmakers' sphere and the general public.

Hollywood studios and European TV channels: The audiovisual sector turned against the reform when it became clear that platforms would not automatically be legally responsible for hosting content for which they have not obtained a license. Movie studios and TV channels rarely seek licensing deals with platforms such as YouTube; they are much more focused on making sure that platforms are legally required to prevent unauthorized content from appearing online. They fear that the new copyright reform is weaker than existing law and could jeopardize a pending case in the European Court of Justice on whether YouTube can be held liable for unauthorized content.

Small and medium-sized enterprises: Small and medium-sized enterprises almost derailed the reform, when Germany and France couldn’t agree in the Council of the EU on whether they should be included within the legislation. Germany wanted a broad carve-out for platforms with an annual turnover under €20 million. France preferred only a targeted exception on very specific measures. Paris ultimately had the last word, and the targeted exception only applies to enterprises with an annual turnover under €10 million, a monthly audience under 5 million unique visitors and which are less than three years old.

Healthy dialogue: For two and a half years, the discussions have been polarized to the degree of becoming toxic — especially online. Big, heavy words, such as censorship, misinformation, and European sovereignty, have been floated around by both sides of the argument. Supporters of the reform were accused of being against free speech. Opponents of the reform were described as blind puppets of Google. Recently, a copyright expert at the Czech Permanent Representation to the EU was harassed online because he tweeted about copyright with a thumbs up.

This article is from POLITICO Pro: POLITICO’s premium policy service. To discover why thousands of professionals rely on Pro every day, email pro@politico.eu for a complimentary trial.