That's orthogonal to what the Article 13 really says. If anything, it will "force" the platforms to prioritize original content over remakes.
However, in implementation, it's much easier to make a few deals with large companies, rather than to ensure that each of the tens of millions of nobodies with 10 subscribers completely adheres to the letter of the law.
All that this regulation does is (surprise!) add intermediaries, reducing the amount of money youtube and content creators get, and increasing the barrier of entry for new creators. Less creators means the customers get less creative content.
Independent content creators don't have the resources to go to EMI and cut a deal for using their music as soundtrack for their videos.
In addition, for a big company being sued is part of business, while for a regular guy it can mean bankruptcy. Taking the risk of using other people's stuff--even if it should obviously be considered fair use--might be too much of a gamble for most people.
This is of course bad because the quality could go down and it makes the whole process more frustrating, but most importantly it makes reviewing stuff risky, specially for negative reviews where it's not unusual for the author of the reviewed item to sue for defamation (and now for using footage without permission) if a negative review becomes popular.
The problem of being sued to shut down negative reviews remains, though.
It's not orthogonal at all. What the CEO said lines up precisely with what Article 13 says.
> If anything, it will "force" the platforms to prioritize original content over remakes.
Your wording is very peculiar. "remakes" can be original content. Like the remake of "A Star is Born" is original content. Youtube's issue isn't about "remakes". It's about critism and fair use.
The only thing EU regulation is meant to due is to stifle discussion, criticism, artist creation, etc in favor of multinational corporations and of course the political elite.
It's not about "original content", but the ability of the media conglomerates to suppress smaller creators and take their money. It's about using law, money and regulation to bully and intimidate and silence.
Youtube already does this to a limited degree as media companies have subsidiaries that pretty much mark everything as a copyright violation and force independent creators to prove their innocence. When in a fair society, things should be reversed. Innocence should be assumed and the guilt has to be proven.