Exit light Enter night Take my hand We're off to Never—, Neverland Now I lay me down to sleep Pray the Lord my soul to keep If I die before I wake Pray the Lord my soul to take
YCombinator is now in violation of article 13. Some filter should have prevented me from posting this.
That is what article 13 is about.
There's never going to be some legal obligation to remove something like the quote you just posted.
Furthermore, since it's a directive each member state will need to implement it in a way that's compatible with both the directive and its own laws. The countries in the EU all have some sort of concept that's analogous to "fair use", even if that's not what they call it.
If that would happen, and the blog owner would sue, to which extend would the proportionality relate to real money? $50, $500, $50000?
If you include the above quoted snippet of the song in a youtube video, the probability that it will receive a copyright claim is close to 100%. Fair use is a legal defense that a person can use in court, but the purpose of copyright filters and thus the purpose of Article 13 is to resolve the issue in favor of the author before it end up in court. Article 13 in practice eliminates fair use.
Article 13 do not require copyright filters to consider fair use. If it did we would likely see a very nuanced discussion since it would force youtube to change their system in order to be compliant, but alas thats not the case.
If HN implemented a copyright filter we should expect from experience that such filter would not consider fair use, nor would it enforce copyright on the basis of proportionality. We could claim that this result is not the fault of article 13, but that is a naive perspective.
Youtube filter is there not only to follow the law, but also to please their advertisers/copyright holders.
Their latest change in the filter made Youtuber life so much worst and Youtube definitively know how they depends on theses Youtubers (and are lucky to have them). Thing is the cash come from advertisers/copyright holders and that's a much bigger issue for them right now.
To me that filter is beyond the requirements of the law, not for the law itself, but for the advertisers/copyright holders.
According to your statement:
Furthermore, since it's a directive each member state will need to implement it in a way that's compatible with both the directive and its own laws. The countries in the EU all have some sort of concept that's analogous to "fair use", even if that's not what they call it.
That's actually even worse!
It's not worse, just different. The EU has a history of experimenting with directives that later become core EU regulations. E.g. the GDPR existed in one form or another for the last 20 years as privacy and data processing rules the EU directed EU/EEA members to implement.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_(European_Union)
I do think it is worse because rather than 27 laws (one for each jurisdiction), you have 1 law with 27 interpretations, and unclear jurisdiction.
For instance, What might be treated as fair use in one jurisdiction could be treated as criminal in another.
In the US, while we may have different state laws, copyright and speech are managed at the Federal level, so there is only one hierarchy to navigate. This resolves the jurisdiction issue. I'm not sure the EU has that same capability in this situation. If so, then wouldn't the fair use situation quickly become harmonized?
The EU isn't making serious crimes like murder, arson etc. illegal, that's left to member states. It regulates market policy. Think something closer to NAFTA than the Federal government.
But if you squint hard you can think of EU directives as some sort of equivalent of the Federal government obligating individual states to regulate a certain topic within a given framework, without spelling out exactly how that must be accomplished.
That allows for local experimentation and flexibility. Whether you think that's a good or a bad thing I guess comes down to the philosophical argument of how close rule making should be to the governed.