Maybe after governments thoroughly cripple the Internet, force content-hosting platforms like YouTube to reject copyrighted content and drive people to stop interacting with copyrighted content altogether and turn to permissively-licensed content instead, the corporate lobbies behind those laws will realize that they killed their own business.
Or not.

Quoting: SalvatosMaybe after governments thoroughly cripple the Internet, force content-hosting platforms like YouTube to reject copyrighted content and drive people to stop interacting with copyrighted content altogether and turn to permissively-licensed content instead, the corporate lobbies behind those laws will realize that they killed their own business.
Or not.

This is what I am hoping. The people making these laws are in for a MASSIVE shock on just how far they will be fucking up the internet for everyone.

Some massive sites may end up just entirely blocking the EU and I have no doubts things like that will quickly make people change their minds.

These articles have horrible consequences for Gaming On Linux and a vast majority of other websites too.

I admit that with Brexit, I really am not sure what the impact of these articles would be on a UK-based website. (I guess no one will really know until an actual deal is reached on how the UK leaves the EU.)

But there are potentially bad circumstances, because every link to an article is a financial liability on the website. Every quote from an article is also a potential liability even if it is user generated. That could mean a lot of money that needs to be paid out for a website like this in the EU that links to stories on other websites.

It also means that a website will need to add content filters that search for copyright infringement being uploaded or be held liable. Even if paying for upload filters, a website can be held financially liable if copyright-able content makes it on to the website and a court deems the steps taken by the website (with or without the upload filters) were not adequate.

That potentially means that any screenshot of a copyrighted game can be considered infringement, and this (or a different) website be held financially accountable. While a game developer/publisher is unlikely to go to court over a few screenshots on a review website; (after all, it is free publicity,) that attitude is quickly reversed if there are any negative or disparaging comments about their game. (e.g. A company will quickly claim copyright over screenshots if they have a negative review in order to remove the bad publicity.) And remember, this can happen even if it is an end-user of the website making the bad comments, not necessarily the website owner.

So, yes, a lot of bad ju-ju for these articles if they are ever instated.

In reality, it should never affect us as we're such a tiny website. The EU themselves said it's mainly aimed at the big ones which often do take the piss a bit.

Still, it's scary stuff with the way it's worded as the wording would put us under the rules since we've been in operating for years.

I know in theory, it shouldn't affect sites like this because it isn't targetted; however, it is not specifically excluded either.

Here on the other side of the pond in the USA, we have the [DMCA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act). Among other things, it does limit websites liability for uploaded user content provided that they abide by the regulation of a takedown system.

While a human is intended to be in the process and things like [fair use ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use)are supposed to be allowed, the large copyright holders have pretty much automated the whole process, ignoring fair use, affecting tiny blogs that no one reads all the way up to Google/Youtube and other huge websites. Not only is fair use blatantly ignored, but sometimes the automated web crawling searching for copyright abuse has used single keywords as a basis for copyright abuse in spite of no infringing content whatsoever. It has also been used to quell bad online reviews.

[Top 3 Copyright ‘Owners’ Sent Google a Billion Takedown Requests](https://torrentfreak.com/top-3-copyright-owners-sent-google-a-billion-takedown-requests-181225/)
[Scammers Hit Pirate Game Sites With ‘Irreversible’ Google Takedowns](https://torrentfreak.com/scammers-hit-pirate-game-sites-with-irreversible-google-takedowns-181130/)

Also, as for not targeting small businesses...
From [Torrent Freak's article](https://torrentfreak.com/eu-reaches-deal-on-article-13-and-other-copyright-reform-plans-190213/) on the new rules:

Last September’s version of Article 13 excluded small businesses, but that’s no longer the case.

If a service is publicly available for less than three years, with fewer than five million unique visitors per month, and an annual turnover of less than €10 million, only then it is excluded.

This means that only small startups will not be bound by the new rules. These companies will still have to do their best to obtain licenses from rightsholders. However, they will not be forced to prevent infringing content from being re-uploaded.

tl:dr In short, don't expect to avoid being hit by this just because you are not the intended target. Many things that were not targeted by the USA's DMCA laws have been hit, and in many cases intentionally. Corporations will abuse this system as well as long as they can get away with it.