IMHO a simple open platform could allow content creators to register their content. Anyone could then choose to check content id against such a platform. In case of conflicts, that platform would be the place to resolve things with escalation options and arbitration built into the platform. Basically getting to a world where people register ownership of content they created would make sharing that content safe.
IMHO this is a very sane solution to this problem. Right now the problem is that we rely on content id based on databases provided by the media industry. Any conflict in these systems means the wrong decisions get taken. With an open platform, you could argue that you checked and in case of conflicts with competing systems decide even document the outcome of any manual evaluation of ownership.
IMHO this would be in the spirit of this law, protect content owners against abuse of their content, and do so in a fair and transparent way where all sides have a chance to get their rights respected. The only problem with the current way of doing content id is that it is unfair and biased towards whatever version of the truth big media companies push as the truth.
All I see in discussions on this topic right now is this apocalyptic thinking which in my view is not a productive, at all. Where's the counter solution or the improved proposal? The debate on this only seems to get going when legislation is about to be passed; which is typically too late. Youtube as a victim is not going to cause me to shed tears.
Vague amateur interpretations of interpretations of what somebody said on a blog leading to ridiculous conclusions about what it all means are just noise. This is not the end of free speech, satire, or the internet. Wasn't the case for GDPR either. I see this as just a necessary step to get out of the abusive mess that is the status quo of today where people just do whatever without regard for copyright.
Sure this proposal is less than ideal and the process for creating it is flawed. There are probably many ways things can be improved further; how the impact for honest businesses and individuals can be mitigated; etc. Lets have that debate instead of doing nothing and hoping this topic goes away (which of course it won't). In my view concrete improvements might be a lot easier to get support for in the EU and other countries like the US with powerful lobbies for changing the law on this front (this is not an EU problem) than arguing for nothing to happen.
The solution is DMCA safe harbor laws, and putting the burden of enforcement on the copywrite holder.
ie, platforms get immunity, and effective non enforcement in all but obvious cases of infringement.
This is the solution that we use in the real world, and it is working fairly well.
And it forces the copywrite holders to be the ones who have to put in the work to enforce things.
Its the same argument that was constantly used in defense of segregation, slavery, imperialism, colonialism, feudalism, the belief in the humors, the prohibition of drugs, why housing prices are out of control, etc - its always "thats the way things are and they cannot change". Which is total bollocks.
And despite this, YouTube thinks that even their incredibly sophisticated rights management system is too lenient to comply with Article 13 and not be subject to immense damages.
That's a feature, not a bug. Perfectly as intended because now Google has to pay for a license from Springer.
there is no serious competition to Google or Facebook, in Europe. (or really the US either for that matter). How is this a shot in the foot if the industry is absent anyway?
In fact if Europe wanted to compete they would need to go the Chinese route. Double/Triple down on the regulation to the point where you make operation impossible and rebuild a national IT sector.
Alternatively they can pay workers or have knowledgeable volunteers pre-moderate the user submitted content before it appears publicly.