This could also have notable implications for the BF’s ability to reach out on social media since they have a few channels such as Blender Today. If you are in Europe and the Eurozone passes article 13, your ability to upload videos might come to an end (which means going back to the way user uploads were watched in the 1990’s if even that can be done).
I’m from the US so it’s not something I have to worry about so much, but the BF is in Europe and this forum now has a European owner so…
i thought they,v closed this case months ago !!! ?
Last I read, the EU pulled the bill to make ‘changes’ and later reintroduced it with almost no changes whatsoever.
Youtube’s CEO says it is still an issue facing content creators, and they are usually pretty good at following these type of bills.
oh thats bad … i feel for the people on EU !!!
I hope this madness doesn’t catch on and spreads throughout the globe (even though it’s already pretty bad by affecting Europe itself, that’s a huge loss of content creation and userbase for everybody).
The last time I checked, there were three options which were being discussed. The official YouTube view is very undifferentiated for obvious commercial reasons. All the viral videos I have seen simply copy that opinion without going into details or adding anything substantial to the discussion.
As far as I know, one of the versions which is being discussed would require the large platforms to do their best to block copyrighted content to avoid legal consequences. This would mean that YouTube had to introduce something like an upload filter 
. That would definitely not be such a big deal for them as they already have one!
The other versions are more problematic from my point of view as YouTube would be liable for all uploaded content.
It seems that differentiated views are too boring and complicated.
If YouTube were made liable for the uploaded content … beyond a good-faith requirement to remove the material once reported … that’s simply “lawyers looking for someone rich enough to profitably sue.”
YouTube is a venue. It doesn’t produce the material that it makes possible for others to view. It already has filters in place to reduce the chance that copyrighted material would be posted, but it didn’t post them.
Plus – there have been a great many times that I decided to [buy and …] watch a full movie because I liked a few scenes that had been posted from it by other fans. What better advertising could you get … and, get for free?
I agree with you on that. Thankfully, there is a version which is being discussed that wouldn’t make YouTube liable as far as I can see.
I think it’s nowhere near that severe… but more of an old mix - capital-politic tactics to spread paranoia among the stupid, mental lazy sheep consumer.
It’s more like "Everyone who is offering, providing ‘publicly shared private space’ should start taking care (if not already) and could be held responsible in case of “damage done” for not trying to prevent it. Especially when profit is made & stupidity, emotions easily exploited… and that’s mainly it.
For public there’s nothing to worry about, and a message for the owner: “Be responsible.” For governments it’s to be prepared, having a bureaucratic procedure - a protocol for when the need arise. EU is different in regard considering how our own actions influence each other’s lives in public space. We strive to care about our common life.
That’s exactly my opinion as well!
Meanwhile they took the ugliest of all versions and made it even worse…
It is definitely ominous for sure, but the opposition against it on various websites isn’t quite as solid as one would think.
Some argue this really will be the end of the internet for Europe while others call it hysteria based on gross misunderstanding.
I’m not saying I support this (as I believe this is a pretty blunt and heavy-handed approach to tackling copyright violation). I’m just mentioning the reality that there’s not a 100 percent consensus among internet users.
If you believe that’s the motivation, you’re being a bit naive.
It’s important to understand how the EU makes its laws. They are drafted by special interest groups. Industry, NGOs, etc. Behind closed doors. It is lawmaking by the loudest lobbyist. So this law is not about some kind of social benefit or contract, it is about industry lobbies playing a game of f*ck the football.
It is one of many bad laws of modern times which are bad because they turn the private sector into compulsory policemen. It forces a website to police its content and be responsible if their policing is not good enough (state policemen are not punished for failing to prevent lawbreaking; private ones are, up to and including the destruction of their business or life). Of course this makes things much easier for governments, who can impose laws on their populace which private actors (in this case, websites) have to prosecute and pay for.
This is very bad lawmaking.
It obviously leads those private actors to err on the side of caution, being (in this case) more censorious than they need to be in order to ensure compliance. It also excludes small players and startups as they will not have the resources for compliance. Youtube, with Google behind them, can at least afford to comply and absorb most fines and punishments financially. Not so, a small business.
But then the EU, and “progressive governance” in general, only want to deal with big players. They don’t want a diverse economy. They want a few big players; big business, big lobby groups and NGOs, etc who they know and can easily deal with, not an unruly market of smaller players.
Escaping this kind of undemocratic, government by lobbyist is one of the things wise people in the UK are trying to escape with Brexit (needless to say, the Establishment who like this form of governance are playing every dirty trick to prevent that happening).
But this is another example of why (the UK) must leave, and leave now, and leave completely, and ultimately the whole maggot-ridden mess of the EU has got to go.
And even such conspiratorial belief is naive.
UK must leave for the same reasons as you describe - other group had another special interest - with a help of “free/fake advertising” - even War is occupying minds of many groups.
If any one wants to change anything (without resolving to war) one needs to be in the group.
The wicked know better, the dumb follow… 
The sooner everyone moves to Bitchute the better. The EU is a globalist dictatorship and Article 13 is just another step towards a dystopian future. The sole purpose of this bill is to shut down free speech and censor all views that go against the EU’s globalist agenda.
We need at least something different from YouTube, yes. Bitchute is still quite archaic in its design and I know very few content creators that I follow on YouTube that post there.
Also not a fan of the EU either and the sooner this Article 13 nonsense they’ve been pushing gets scorched from the face of the earth, the better.
Blockquote
the sooner this Article 13 nonsense they’ve been pushing gets scorched from the face of the earth, the better.
Sometimes things lilke this last for 1000 years. It could be it would not be seen until the falling and rising again of nations.