Sometimes truth is inflammatory. Art 13. is a natural disaster in the making. I've publicly debated many proponents, even had the plesure of debating mr. Voss and ... they have no clue what they are doing. Remember the US congress deposition of Google and Faceboko CEOs and how utterly uninformed they were? Well the elected representatives in Europe are no better.
Their response to most arguments on how this will hurt creators is "we're just trying to protect creators". No counter arguments, just "our intentions are good". Yeah, I've almost given up at this point. Most legislators just don't understand how modern economy and society works ... and the political groups (like the Pirates) who do, are having a very hard time growing due to overall apathy.
It's not just big content. It's anyone who produces content on the Internet that Google can reach. Same goes for pinterest. All they do is use other people's content.
Why is that OK?
Imagine a used book store did that. Someone comes in with a photo copied book, the store buys and resells it. Or simply inserts their own ads for other books into it.
That store would be shut down and the owner arrested.
That shows a fundamental technical illiteracy - they either tell people where it is or are fair use essentially why they can't demand you pay a euro every time you say "Disney" because of copyright.
If I keep a list of every bookstore in town and what they carry (all publicly disclosable and I honor their requests to stop listing) and people visit it often so much so that I can make a profit by posting ads.
If some wanker expects me to pay him to list his bookstore because I am making money on billboards and he wants a cut, telling him to piss off, delisting him and then watching him go bankrupt is perfectly legal, moral, and just.
Except this is a book store pretty much everyone on the internet visits daily. And the books aren't photo copies but small synopses and blurbs.
If you want to go further you get the whole thing on the creators page, which, surprise, is ad-supported or paywalled. Big content creators basically want the ad revenue (which they get, in large, via portals like Google) and a payment from the portals for the service of getting them that ad-revenue.
Previous such legislation in Spain and Germany was a complete disaster. Spain is now without Google News and ad-revenue is down for many content creators. Germany content producers basically caved and gave Google banket permission to list their stuff.
This is a power move originating from the biggest publishers (which will be the only ones potentially profiting). The smaller outlets are actually against it.
I just can't imagine why it sounds like you are arguing against me while describing exactly the problem.
That Google can force a comply or die decision on content producers is exactly the problem.
I don't accept the "they are too big to be required to follow the law like everyone else" argument. I don't accept that Jane's bookstore has to follow the law but Google doesn't.
Their response to most arguments on how this will hurt creators is "we're just trying to protect creators". No counter arguments, just "our intentions are good". Yeah, I've almost given up at this point. Most legislators just don't understand how modern economy and society works ... and the political groups (like the Pirates) who do, are having a very hard time growing due to overall apathy.