Website would only be bankrupt unless it does absolutely nothing to verify content.
The bare minimum technical solution seems to be excessive. You need some kind of "Shazam for all the things", which can identify copyrighted material by having a small snippet. And for that you actually need a huge database with fingerprints or whatever of copyrighted material.
Please let us know if you have a simple and cheap solution that every blog owner can implement (without high costs).
For Joe blogger there is proportionality (https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unoff... - 4a). And if Joe blogger decides to open comment section then he should read it every so often.
If not then this Harry Potter excerpt would be hard to find among spam overflowing comment section.
Big boys like Amazon wouldn't be able to get away with this shit (ends up on HN regularly):
https://www.extremetech.com/internet/268109-an-update-on-my-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/01/02/amazon-s...
Now you tell me how do you make Amazon and similar not to profit off scam? Ask them nicely? Doesn't work.
Not being a lawyer, I have no idea how hard it is for a prosecutor to get that outcome.
(So far as opinion, I would like copyright duration reduced to 7 years from publication, but suspect it is easier to make a human-level-creative AI then to change the law).
> Now you tell me how do you make Amazon and similar not to profit off scam?
The fact that they're selling a plagiarized book is grounds for a lawsuit from the author.
Google seems to have had such a hard time doing so that it has the appearance that they've given up
For article 13, everybody can sue. And copyright already has lows like grannies without internet ending up in a court for alleged file sharing.
the 2 laws are not even remotely comparable.
This, and the successfulness of GDPR, is why I'm so doubtful over the problems presented about Article 13.
What is being targetted here are websites that rely on infringement for their popularity and traffic and ad revenue.
I'm not sure why are you stating this like some sort of undisputable truth.
That said, we're making our Attribution engine (the shazam for all audio-visual content) free to all platforms and rights holders [0]. It's surely not a great situation, but we don't want to stay still and let the small platforms to crumble under the weight of the giants.
[0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CLybxCFg_gz4n62UqVr3XEsy...
One is that you can have your own database of copyrighted works, let anyone submit one, and the law considers that sufficient. But then everyone has their own database that starts with nothing in it, none of them really ever have more than 1% of the total copyrighted works in them nor ever really catch anything, and uploading everything to everyone's database is completely intractable so nobody bothers.
The other is that having an incomplete database is insufficient, but having a complete database is still intractable because anyone else can at any time create a new copyrighted work that isn't in it. And then troll you with it because they know it isn't in any database but can have someone upload it to your site just so they can use the law to destroy you. No database will ever contain more than 1% of the total copyrighted works, because they're created by the millions every minute of every day.
So does pooling together like that actually buy you something? It doesn't seem to change the "are you screwed" calculus much one way or the other.
That would imply that one database with an obvious way for rights holders to register their content should be the right way to go.
But we will not know up until an EU country actually writes the law.
Having a single database seems unusually problematic. If there is only one operator, who is that supposed to be? What happens if/when they give up or go out of business? What happens when they charge monopoly rents or their system is unreliable or full of bugs?
On the other hand, if there is one submission process that submits works to everybody's database and people have their own copies, that seems like it would be of particular interest to pirates -- go sign up as a database recipient and the copyright holders will send you copies of all their works.
It's as if no one has even attempted to think through how this would work.