And all because germany wanted a pipeline... (for context: france promised to not complain about the planned gas pipeline if we approve their worst version of copyright) This result is a disaster...
And all because germany wanted a pipeline... (for context: france promised to not complain about the planned gas pipeline if we approve their worst version of copyright)
This result is a disaster and I hope people will show that in the voting boths in the upcoming election.
Here's more information about the pipeline deal for anyone interested (this is a short summary, it includes a link to the original reporting in German): New Report: Germany Caved To France On...
Good protest culture in germany though, gotta give us that. Curiously though, the coalition agreement between german federal SPD and CDU ruled out a upload filter. That's some fuckery right there....
Good protest culture in germany though, gotta give us that.
Curiously though, the coalition agreement between german federal SPD and CDU ruled out a upload filter. That's some fuckery right there. If only the SPD had a spine these days. Our current federal government should've been done for thrice over by now. This parliamentary term hasn't even been that long yet and it's such a clusterfuck.
I wonder who's actually behind all of this. I.e. the lobbyists who made CDU do this...
It should be noted that the only party in favor in germany way the CDU/CSU Union, even the AfD was against this. It was one of the rare issues that was discussed in the Bundestag where basically...
It should be noted that the only party in favor in germany way the CDU/CSU Union, even the AfD was against this. It was one of the rare issues that was discussed in the Bundestag where basically everyone but the CDU was in favor. I joked at the time of the discussion with a friend that this is like that meme where two muscular arms hold together with some common issue uniting them and in this case one would be right wing except CDU, the other left wing.
I'm severely disappointed in the SPD, it seems the coalition was more important than standing up to their values and honoring the coalition contract. The german justice minister could have stopped it to but she passed it "with a stomach ache". She has veto rights even if the chancellor orders it, she could have used that instead of "bad compromise is better than no compromise".
Here's the EFF's post about it: EU’s Parliament Signs Off on Disastrous Internet Law: What Happens Next? They posted an explanation article a week ago too if you want more general information: The...
I had a hard time to remove my palm from my forehead while reading through the tech dirt news report. Jesus... They actually do not understand the technology at all, should they not get updated on...
I had a hard time to remove my palm from my forehead while reading through the tech dirt news report.
Jesus...
They actually do not understand the technology at all, should they not get updated on these things by specialists?
Some MEPs are now saying they accidentally voted the wrong way because the voting order was changed and they were confused: Enough MEPs Say They Mistakenly Voted For Articles 11 & 13 That The Vote...
13 of them registered a correction to their vote on amendments, with 10 of those intending to vote for amendments. However, the corrections aren't used to affect the outcome.
Edit: checking Techdirt's math:
Official vote: 312 for, 317 against, 24 abstained
MEPs that registered a voting correction (blank for abstain):
Name
Voted
Intended
Gerolf Annemans
for
Johannes Cornelis van Baalen
against
for
Dita Charanzová
for
Martina Dlabajová
for
Antanas Guoga
against
for
Eva Joly
for
Jo Leinen
?
for
Peter Lundgren
against
for
Michèle Rivasi
for
Kristina Winberg
against
for
Marek Plura
for
against
Marita Ulvskog
for
against
Daniel Buda
against
After corrections: 320 for, 314 against, 20 abstained
So the vote would have had the opposite result if the corrected votes were used.
I have no words. What the actual fuck. "Too Bad" essentially. Well, I'm curious now how they justify having changed the voting order. I'm sure there's decent reasons for doing that sometimes, but...
I have no words. What the actual fuck.
"Too Bad" essentially. Well, I'm curious now how they justify having changed the voting order. I'm sure there's decent reasons for doing that sometimes, but that needs to be absolutely clear to every MEP. If it confused 13 people, that makes me think it's kind of a unusual procedure. That's the equivalent of about 10 million voters messing up their ballots. That's not a trivial amount.
I just searched through the official voting records and generally there aren't many corrections (it's rare to have any, and usually it's only one or two). The only votes that had more than 5...
I just searched through the official voting records and generally there aren't many corrections (it's rare to have any, and usually it's only one or two). The only votes that had more than 5 corrections are:
The amendment vote in question ("A8-0245/2018 -Axel Voss -Vote procédural") had the 13 corrections I listed above
"A8-0245/2018 -Axel Voss -Am 271" (the vote on the directive as a whole) had 18 corrections but wouldn't have flipped the result
"A8-0170/2019 -Jeppe Kofod et Luděk Niedermayer -§ 401" had 8 corrections
"A8-0170/2019 -Jeppe Kofod et Luděk Niedermayer -Résolution" had 6 corrections
Someone on HN linked this video today, of Dobromir Sośnierz (an MEP from Poland) explaining and showing how crazy the voting system is. A change could absolutely confuse a lot of people if the...
Someone on HN linked this video today, of Dobromir Sośnierz (an MEP from Poland) explaining and showing how crazy the voting system is. A change could absolutely confuse a lot of people if the voting is done like this, I had no idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzigiPUXNzI
Wow. That is quite a.... interesting procedure. I imagine there's some things where you expect the vote to be so clear that a visual tally is ok, but at least give people the time to raise their...
Wow. That is quite a.... interesting procedure. I imagine there's some things where you expect the vote to be so clear that a visual tally is ok, but at least give people the time to raise their hands in time.
If that means you're gonna be late to lunch every day, your voting system is messed up. How about we give every MEP a spreadsheet they fill in digitally, while reading the proposals or whatever. Then during votes, you just adjust if you've (unexpectedly) changed your mind during the debates. Then when it's time to vote, you just submit your spreadsheet.
Will this affect Tildes? Since Tildes aggregates links and accepts user-generated content, will it be subject to Articles 11 or 13? I know that Tildes is under Canadian jurisdiction, but Google...
Will this affect Tildes? Since Tildes aggregates links and accepts user-generated content, will it be subject to Articles 11 or 13?
I know that Tildes is under Canadian jurisdiction, but Google seems subservient to both US and EU law, and many sites not based in the US respond to DMCA requests and many not based in the EU still respect the GDPR. For instance, Reddit seems concerned about this law.
My fear is that this might become a reason for European countries to block links to non-compliant websites in the future. Legally, that's the only scenario that makes sense in the long term and...
My fear is that this might become a reason for European countries to block links to non-compliant websites in the future. Legally, that's the only scenario that makes sense in the long term and it's terrifying. There's countries blocking the pirate bay and whatnot for copyright infringement, so it's a logical step. So no, it won't affect Tildes (probably mostly because it's non-commercial so no reason to play along?) but it might affect European users wanting to participate.
The current exemptions apply to websites which have less than 5 million unique visitors, an annual turnover under €10m and (as in logical and) operate for less than 3 years. The latter is especially cynical since 3 years is about how long a social network takes before it gains momentum and it should take at least a year to even implement such filters. If they made exemptions for "small" sites that at least would give start ups and smaller sites like Tildes some breathing room but the 3 years part really makes this awful, IMO.
Lots of exceptions baked into the law for smaller companies. Regarding Art.13, the limit seems to be "make an effort to acquire a license(I think this only applies if you can identify content as...
Lots of exceptions baked into the law for smaller companies. Regarding Art.13, the limit seems to be "make an effort to acquire a license(I think this only applies if you can identify content as copyrighted by someone not submitting it) and to act appropriately to tip-offs by rights holders. IANAL, don't quote me. This will change once Tildes has been publicly accessible for 3 years - depending on your interpretation this might've been when tildes sent invites (it is effectively public now) or when registration and read-access is open for everyone (it is not yet public).
The above might look vastly different if you interpret the law in the most stringent way; what with the (imo) contradictions built into Art.13 and all. I interpreted them rather liberally. (i.e. actually respect Art 13.7 which guarantees freedom of expression for reviews, quotes, satire, etc - but how contentID-like systems are gonna respect that while enforcing Art 13.4.... beats me.)
It will probably have some effect on Tildes, but at this point everything is so ambiguous that I don't think it's worth worrying about yet. At least in theory, there are supposed to be some...
It will probably have some effect on Tildes, but at this point everything is so ambiguous that I don't think it's worth worrying about yet. At least in theory, there are supposed to be some exceptions for smaller sites and/or non-profits, but it will depend exactly how everything gets defined.
my reading suggests that until tildes has been public for two years, the only stipulations of the upload filter article(Art. 13/17) is that you have to make every attempt possible to acquire a...
my reading suggests that until tildes has been public for two years, the only stipulations of the upload filter article(Art. 13/17) is that you have to make every attempt possible to acquire a license of the copyrighted material distributed. Since tildes only links to other places and hosts users' text posts, the implicit contract for publication of their text should suffice. The other stipulation is that you have to react immediately once you receive a reasonable tip-off by a rights holder that you are infringing upon their copyright. From a canadian vantage point, that would mean to me that if you happen to be checking your email anyway and receive a complaint, that you should waste no time, just deal with it then. No need to check in on saturday.
Regarding article 11/15 (link tax) - this only applies to copyrights held by EU press. It does not cover hyperlinks or short verbal extracts. I'd say, tildes' current interface does not infringe upon that in the slightest. It also does only apply to actual press publications, so not even the website mini icon next to the link should be covered by Art. 11. Though, whether that use is legal to begin with I do not know - my hunch says it's not a copyright concern, and since you're not claiming it as your logo or impersonating it is not a brand issue either.
IANAL. I just took a class or two on german/EU copyright.
Yeah, there's an issue on the tracker for getting that set up: https://gitlab.com/tildes/tildes/issues/30 I don't think it's very difficult, but it's not something I've ever done.
I'm wondering how long this would last. Governments can shut this shit down, at the worst through a "white list" of sort and high penalties for bypassing it. See China. I like VPNs and such as a...
We move to the dark web, or some other solution (but this is way too cool to ever happen)
I'm wondering how long this would last. Governments can shut this shit down, at the worst through a "white list" of sort and high penalties for bypassing it. See China. I like VPNs and such as a backup of sorts but if they ever become a mainstream need, they will be banned as well. We should not have to rely on it.
Honestly, though, I have hopes for scenario 1. It's sadly the best outcome possible at this point.
There is a 5th and more likely option. Google and facebook become the only ones with the technical capability to comply with the law and all user generated content must be posted on a google or...
There is a 5th and more likely option. Google and facebook become the only ones with the technical capability to comply with the law and all user generated content must be posted on a google or facebook website.
I love how everyone can complain on the internet as they want, I love how I don't know a single person that would be for article 13. It just doesn't matter one bit and just passes anyways. I am...
I love how everyone can complain on the internet as they want, I love how I don't know a single person that would be for article 13. It just doesn't matter one bit and just passes anyways. I am getting pretty angry at politics all around - Brexit, Trump, now this..., this is probably because of the nature of news reporting, which means that if some awesome new policy is adopted nobody actually hears about in the news. Nowadays I don't really want to talk politics at all with my friends, because most of the time we just all agree on some thing sucking and nothing being done to help it.
I am sick and quite busy with a few things in real life, so I have not been able to have another read through it yet. I was going to participate here but I was only able to get a few pages in...
I am sick and quite busy with a few things in real life, so I have not been able to have another read through it yet. I was going to participate here but I was only able to get a few pages in before the letters were "dancing" around on page.
Assuming it has not changed massively, I am in the opinion that most people against it are either being fed a massively warped view of the directive or haven't actually bothered researching it.
The iffy part primarily comes from it being a directive, so each individual member country is given a lot of freedom in how they want to implement it. The directive itself does not seem that bad, in many ways it could even be good for the internet.
With how this is playing and from my understanding of the situation I really wouldn't be surprised if websites started just blocking access from EU IPs just to cover all their bases. If anyone...
With how this is playing and from my understanding of the situation I really wouldn't be surprised if websites started just blocking access from EU IPs just to cover all their bases. If anyone knows why that wouldn't be the case I'd really be interested in hearing your perspective.
We're already seeing this because of the GDPR (which largely is a good thing and at least on the side of user's interest). There's plenty of US news sites, for example, with large, overly cautious...
We're already seeing this because of the GDPR (which largely is a good thing and at least on the side of user's interest). There's plenty of US news sites, for example, with large, overly cautious banners, sometimes flat-out blocking European IPs.
Article 13 (or whatever the number ends up to be) might literally cut off half the internet. Either from foreign sites who don't want to deal with it or from the side of European countries who block access to non-compliant sites. The only websites that would remain are the big ones who basically already do everything in this proposal (Facebook, Google, etc). It's genuinely awful.
As I understand it, only the big companies should be affected by this. You can still have your blog with memes and comments without EU taking it down. There are some requirements, if I remember...
As I understand it, only the big companies should be affected by this. You can still have your blog with memes and comments without EU taking it down.
There are some requirements, if I remember correctly, that the company needs to be at least 4 years old1, make at least 10 millions Euro a year1, and the user generated content should be used in commercial way (I assume that for example Amazon reviews would count into this too). If i'm not wrong, this law doesn't require scientific or educational institutions to do anything about it2.
Only websites with user generated content are affected so your blog doesn't change because you are responsible for what you put on there. Also small websites are not excluded if they have been...
Only websites with user generated content are affected so your blog doesn't change because you are responsible for what you put on there. Also small websites are not excluded if they have been public for 3 years.
That last part is really right and proper fuckery in my book. It imposes startup culture on every affected website to some extent. Because if after 3 years you're not at a point where you can do...
That last part is really right and proper fuckery in my book. It imposes startup culture on every affected website to some extent. Because if after 3 years you're not at a point where you can do the heavy lifting of making a filter, you're gonna have to license one. And those licenses might be expensive, so your only way out is to go for radical growth from day 1 and force your business (or hobby project) to acquire the financial weight necessary or die in a fire. Urgh.
Here is a pdf of how the MEPs voted, sorted by groups. Here is how the Swedish MEPs voted, for the benefit of my countrymen: Jytte Guteland (S) and Olle Ludvigsson (S) voted AGAINST the amendments...
Here is a pdf of how the MEPs voted, sorted by groups.
Here is how the Swedish MEPs voted, for the benefit of my countrymen:
Jytte Guteland (S) and Olle Ludvigsson (S) voted AGAINST the amendments and FOR the directive.
Peter Lundgren (SD) and Kristina Winberg (SD) voted AGAINST both the amendment and the directive.
Marita Ulvskog (S) voted FOR both the amendment and the directive.
I couldn't find Soraya Post (FI) nor Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (M) on the pdf. A cursory search revealed that Post was ill and couldn't vote, but would have voted against the directive. I couldn't find any info on Corazza Bildt.
All other MEPs voted FOR the amendment and AGAINST the directive.
With peertube, you are responsible for the content you submit, so could be held responsible for introducing it to the network. The mess comes from how to charge the rest of the network for...
With peertube, you are responsible for the content you submit, so could be held responsible for introducing it to the network. The mess comes from how to charge the rest of the network for uploading to and downloading it from each other.
And all because germany wanted a pipeline... (for context: france promised to not complain about the planned gas pipeline if we approve their worst version of copyright)
This result is a disaster and I hope people will show that in the voting boths in the upcoming election.
Here's more information about the pipeline deal for anyone interested (this is a short summary, it includes a link to the original reporting in German): New Report: Germany Caved To France On Copyright In A Deal For Russian Gas
Good protest culture in germany though, gotta give us that.
Curiously though, the coalition agreement between german federal SPD and CDU ruled out a upload filter. That's some fuckery right there. If only the SPD had a spine these days. Our current federal government should've been done for thrice over by now. This parliamentary term hasn't even been that long yet and it's such a clusterfuck.
I wonder who's actually behind all of this. I.e. the lobbyists who made CDU do this...
Edit: Just saw the results: Between https://twitter.com/Senficon/status/1110552457682264065 and https://twitter.com/MartinSonneborn/status/1110541162371272704 I find that in germany, only the conservatives were largely in favour, while german liberals and social democrats voted strongly against... In the EU at large however, the social democrats and liberals were also slightly in favor. France, are those yours? Did you mess this up? ;)
It should be noted that the only party in favor in germany way the CDU/CSU Union, even the AfD was against this. It was one of the rare issues that was discussed in the Bundestag where basically everyone but the CDU was in favor. I joked at the time of the discussion with a friend that this is like that meme where two muscular arms hold together with some common issue uniting them and in this case one would be right wing except CDU, the other left wing.
I'm severely disappointed in the SPD, it seems the coalition was more important than standing up to their values and honoring the coalition contract. The german justice minister could have stopped it to but she passed it "with a stomach ache". She has veto rights even if the chancellor orders it, she could have used that instead of "bad compromise is better than no compromise".
As little as I like the SPD, I was very impressed with their votign behaviour for this one. I did not expect them to actually hold up to their word
So, it's just France throwing a grenade into the anglophone universe in the hopes of becoming relevant again?
This is n ray's all over again.
https://www.futilitycloset.com/2019/03/18/podcast-episode-241-a-case-of-scientific-self-deception/
Here's the EFF's post about it: EU’s Parliament Signs Off on Disastrous Internet Law: What Happens Next?
They posted an explanation article a week ago too if you want more general information: The European Copyright Directive: What Is It, and Why Has It Drawn More Controversy Than Any Other Directive In EU History?
Here was an interview I saw last night with a couple of Swedish MEPs that had decided to vote in support of the directive. It's pretty revealing how poorly they understand what they were voting for and how they think it will work: “We’ll be Voting Yes to the Directive”— Swedish Social Democrats Break Their Silence
I had a hard time to remove my palm from my forehead while reading through the tech dirt news report.
Jesus...
They actually do not understand the technology at all, should they not get updated on these things by specialists?
Everything passed, article 13 is called article 17 now and still includes wording that describes "upload filters".
Some MEPs are now saying they accidentally voted the wrong way because the voting order was changed and they were confused: Enough MEPs Say They Mistakenly Voted For Articles 11 & 13 That The Vote Should Have Flipped; EU Parliament Says Too Bad
13 of them registered a correction to their vote on amendments, with 10 of those intending to vote for amendments. However, the corrections aren't used to affect the outcome.
Edit: checking Techdirt's math:
Official vote: 312 for, 317 against, 24 abstained
MEPs that registered a voting correction (blank for abstain):
After corrections: 320 for, 314 against, 20 abstained
So the vote would have had the opposite result if the corrected votes were used.
I have no words. What the actual fuck.
"Too Bad" essentially. Well, I'm curious now how they justify having changed the voting order. I'm sure there's decent reasons for doing that sometimes, but that needs to be absolutely clear to every MEP. If it confused 13 people, that makes me think it's kind of a unusual procedure. That's the equivalent of about 10 million voters messing up their ballots. That's not a trivial amount.
I just searched through the official voting records and generally there aren't many corrections (it's rare to have any, and usually it's only one or two). The only votes that had more than 5 corrections are:
Does this only go back one year or did they fuck something up with their buttons in 2018?
Oh, that's just the one day's voting, 191 separate votes.
Oh wow, lol.
Someone on HN linked this video today, of Dobromir Sośnierz (an MEP from Poland) explaining and showing how crazy the voting system is. A change could absolutely confuse a lot of people if the voting is done like this, I had no idea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzigiPUXNzI
Wow. That is quite a.... interesting procedure. I imagine there's some things where you expect the vote to be so clear that a visual tally is ok, but at least give people the time to raise their hands in time.
If that means you're gonna be late to lunch every day, your voting system is messed up. How about we give every MEP a spreadsheet they fill in digitally, while reading the proposals or whatever. Then during votes, you just adjust if you've (unexpectedly) changed your mind during the debates. Then when it's time to vote, you just submit your spreadsheet.
Will this affect Tildes? Since Tildes aggregates links and accepts user-generated content, will it be subject to Articles 11 or 13?
I know that Tildes is under Canadian jurisdiction, but Google seems subservient to both US and EU law, and many sites not based in the US respond to DMCA requests and many not based in the EU still respect the GDPR. For instance, Reddit seems concerned about this law.
My fear is that this might become a reason for European countries to block links to non-compliant websites in the future. Legally, that's the only scenario that makes sense in the long term and it's terrifying. There's countries blocking the pirate bay and whatnot for copyright infringement, so it's a logical step. So no, it won't affect Tildes (probably mostly because it's non-commercial so no reason to play along?) but it might affect European users wanting to participate.
The current exemptions apply to websites which have less than 5 million unique visitors, an annual turnover under €10m and (as in logical and) operate for less than 3 years. The latter is especially cynical since 3 years is about how long a social network takes before it gains momentum and it should take at least a year to even implement such filters. If they made exemptions for "small" sites that at least would give start ups and smaller sites like Tildes some breathing room but the 3 years part really makes this awful, IMO.
Lots of exceptions baked into the law for smaller companies. Regarding Art.13, the limit seems to be "make an effort to acquire a license(I think this only applies if you can identify content as copyrighted by someone not submitting it) and to act appropriately to tip-offs by rights holders. IANAL, don't quote me. This will change once Tildes has been publicly accessible for 3 years - depending on your interpretation this might've been when tildes sent invites (it is effectively public now) or when registration and read-access is open for everyone (it is not yet public).
The above might look vastly different if you interpret the law in the most stringent way; what with the (imo) contradictions built into Art.13 and all. I interpreted them rather liberally. (i.e. actually respect Art 13.7 which guarantees freedom of expression for reviews, quotes, satire, etc - but how contentID-like systems are gonna respect that while enforcing Art 13.4.... beats me.)
It will probably have some effect on Tildes, but at this point everything is so ambiguous that I don't think it's worth worrying about yet. At least in theory, there are supposed to be some exceptions for smaller sites and/or non-profits, but it will depend exactly how everything gets defined.
my reading suggests that until tildes has been public for two years, the only stipulations of the upload filter article(Art. 13/17) is that you have to make every attempt possible to acquire a license of the copyrighted material distributed. Since tildes only links to other places and hosts users' text posts, the implicit contract for publication of their text should suffice. The other stipulation is that you have to react immediately once you receive a reasonable tip-off by a rights holder that you are infringing upon their copyright. From a canadian vantage point, that would mean to me that if you happen to be checking your email anyway and receive a complaint, that you should waste no time, just deal with it then. No need to check in on saturday.
Regarding article 11/15 (link tax) - this only applies to copyrights held by EU press. It does not cover hyperlinks or short verbal extracts. I'd say, tildes' current interface does not infringe upon that in the slightest. It also does only apply to actual press publications, so not even the website mini icon next to the link should be covered by Art. 11. Though, whether that use is legal to begin with I do not know - my hunch says it's not a copyright concern, and since you're not claiming it as your logo or impersonating it is not a brand issue either.
IANAL. I just took a class or two on german/EU copyright.
I think it's would be useful to have an onion address for tildes so if tildes gets blocked/banned people can still access it
Yeah, there's an issue on the tracker for getting that set up: https://gitlab.com/tildes/tildes/issues/30
I don't think it's very difficult, but it's not something I've ever done.
I'm wondering how long this would last. Governments can shut this shit down, at the worst through a "white list" of sort and high penalties for bypassing it. See China. I like VPNs and such as a backup of sorts but if they ever become a mainstream need, they will be banned as well. We should not have to rely on it.
Honestly, though, I have hopes for scenario 1. It's sadly the best outcome possible at this point.
There is a 5th and more likely option. Google and facebook become the only ones with the technical capability to comply with the law and all user generated content must be posted on a google or facebook website.
I love how everyone can complain on the internet as they want, I love how I don't know a single person that would be for article 13. It just doesn't matter one bit and just passes anyways. I am getting pretty angry at politics all around - Brexit, Trump, now this..., this is probably because of the nature of news reporting, which means that if some awesome new policy is adopted nobody actually hears about in the news. Nowadays I don't really want to talk politics at all with my friends, because most of the time we just all agree on some thing sucking and nothing being done to help it.
I am sick and quite busy with a few things in real life, so I have not been able to have another read through it yet. I was going to participate here but I was only able to get a few pages in before the letters were "dancing" around on page.
Assuming it has not changed massively, I am in the opinion that most people against it are either being fed a massively warped view of the directive or haven't actually bothered researching it.
The iffy part primarily comes from it being a directive, so each individual member country is given a lot of freedom in how they want to implement it. The directive itself does not seem that bad, in many ways it could even be good for the internet.
With how this is playing and from my understanding of the situation I really wouldn't be surprised if websites started just blocking access from EU IPs just to cover all their bases. If anyone knows why that wouldn't be the case I'd really be interested in hearing your perspective.
We're already seeing this because of the GDPR (which largely is a good thing and at least on the side of user's interest). There's plenty of US news sites, for example, with large, overly cautious banners, sometimes flat-out blocking European IPs.
Article 13 (or whatever the number ends up to be) might literally cut off half the internet. Either from foreign sites who don't want to deal with it or from the side of European countries who block access to non-compliant sites. The only websites that would remain are the big ones who basically already do everything in this proposal (Facebook, Google, etc). It's genuinely awful.
As I understand it, only the big companies should be affected by this. You can still have your blog with memes and comments without EU taking it down.
There are some requirements, if I remember correctly, that the company needs to be at least 4 years old1, make at least 10 millions Euro a year1,
and the user generated content should be used in commercial way (I assume that for example Amazon reviews would count into this too). If i'm not wrong, this law doesn't require scientific or educational institutions to do anything about it2.There might be more limitations.
Edit: Added some sources. Look for "Article 4" in the second source.
Only websites with user generated content are affected so your blog doesn't change because you are responsible for what you put on there. Also small websites are not excluded if they have been public for 3 years.
That last part is really right and proper fuckery in my book. It imposes startup culture on every affected website to some extent. Because if after 3 years you're not at a point where you can do the heavy lifting of making a filter, you're gonna have to license one. And those licenses might be expensive, so your only way out is to go for radical growth from day 1 and force your business (or hobby project) to acquire the financial weight necessary or die in a fire. Urgh.
I don't think A13 applies outside the US so unless you have a EU HQ or office then you should be safe.
Here is a pdf of how the MEPs voted, sorted by groups.
Here is how the Swedish MEPs voted, for the benefit of my countrymen:
Jytte Guteland (S) and Olle Ludvigsson (S) voted AGAINST the amendments and FOR the directive.
Peter Lundgren (SD) and Kristina Winberg (SD) voted AGAINST both the amendment and the directive.
Marita Ulvskog (S) voted FOR both the amendment and the directive.
I couldn't find Soraya Post (FI) nor Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (M) on the pdf. A cursory search revealed that Post was ill and couldn't vote, but would have voted against the directive. I couldn't find any info on Corazza Bildt.
All other MEPs voted FOR the amendment and AGAINST the directive.
What about peertube? Since it works like torrent, wouldn't be harder to point to one uploader? Maybe it can be tweaked to circumvent these rules.
With peertube, you are responsible for the content you submit, so could be held responsible for introducing it to the network. The mess comes from how to charge the rest of the network for uploading to and downloading it from each other.