The "in cooperation with rights holders" bit is pivotal.
It's notable that OpenStreetMap, which is hosted and governed in the UK, refuses to take data from Wikipedia because it believes it's tainted. (Specifically, Wikipedia says "you can get co-ordinates for articles by deriving them from Google Maps"[1], to which OSM says "nuh-uh".)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Obtaining_geographic...
Not for profit financially just means you cant give profits but have to reinvest it 100%
I'll add that there is indeed a lot of wrong stuff in the EFF article. Don't get me wrong, articles 11 & 13 are indeed bad law (IMO), but promoting inaccurate information does not help.
For example, there is no mention of "noncommercial activity" in the entire text of Article 13 (non-commercial activity is only mentioned in one of the recitals for a different purpose). Article 13 applies to "online content sharing service providers". These are defined in Article 2:
"‘online content sharing service provider’ means a provider of an information society service whose main or one of the main purposes is to store and give the public access to a large amount of works or other subject-matter uploaded by its users which it organises and promotes for profit-making purposes.
"Providers of services such as non-for-profit online encyclopaedias, non-for-profit educational and scientific repositories, non-for-profit open source software developing platforms, as well as internet access service providers, online marketplaces and providers of cloud services which allow users, including businesses for their internal purposes, to upload content for their own use shall not be considered online content sharing service providers within the meaning of this Directive;"
Likewise, the following claim is misleading:
"Speaking of references: the problems with the new copyright proposal don't stop there. Under Article 11, each member state will get to create a new copyright in news. If it passes, in order to link to a news website, you will either have to do so in a way that satisfies the limitations and exceptions of all 28 laws, or you will have to get a license. This is fundamentally incompatible with any sort of wiki (obviously), much less Wikipedia."
Article 11 is about ancillary copyright; now, ancillary copyright is a bad idea, but the above is a misrepresentation. For starters, Article 11 (3) subjects ancillary copyright to the same limitations as regular copyright, in particular Articles 5 to 8 of Directive 2001/29/EC, including the right to quote such content (which in turn requires attribution).
What Article 11 does is (potentially) creating a copyright for small excerpts that might normally not be copyrightable and granting that right to press publishers in addition to the authors. This is a problem for news aggregators and search engines (which rely on producing content that's an aggregation of normally not copyrightable material) but not per se for Wikipedia (where pages consist of original material littered with references and quotes).
The biggest problem for news aggregators is that Article 11 (1) leaves the definition of "insubstantial" up to member states, which will probably lead to a "lowest common denominator" result, where the most restrictive interpretation by a member state effectively determines copyrightability for the purposes of ancillary copyright.
[1] And earlier revisions can be found here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/procedure/EN/2016_280
The final text will be a compromise between these positions, but both attempt to exclude Github and Wikipedia with inaccurate and non-useful descriptions. And the key point remains that the limitations on Article 11 will be defined on a nation-by-nation basis, rather those specified in an EU-wide text. The two texts express the same ideas in slightly different terms.
If you'd like an alternative explanation of these issues, I'd recommend Julia Reda's breakdown of the same problems here:
https://juliareda.eu/2018/05/censorship-machines-link-tax-fi...
For a better overview on upcoming EU legislation, I recommend the legislative train schedule [1]. While the current page on the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market [2] only has the penultimate version, it's still more up to date.
[1] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/
[2] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-connec...
I don't understand where this level of detail has come from. Can someone explain?
Here's article 13 as far as I can tell
> Information society service providers that store and provide to the public access to large amounts of works or other subject-matter uploaded by their users shall, in cooperation with rightholders, take measures to ensure the functioning of agreements concluded with rightholders for the use of their works or other subject-matter or to prevent the availability on their services of works or other subject-matter identified by rightholders through the cooperation with the service providers. Those measures, such as the use of effective content recognition technologies, shall be appropriate and proportionate. The service providers shall provide rightholders with adequate information on the functioning and the deployment of the measures, as well as, when relevant, adequate reporting on the recognition and use of the works and other subject-matter.
> 2.Member States shall ensure that the service providers referred to in paragraph 1 put in place complaints and redress mechanisms that are available to users in case of disputes over the application of the measures referred to in paragraph 1.
> 3.Member States shall facilitate, where appropriate, the cooperation between the information society service providers and rightholders through stakeholder dialogues to define best practices, such as appropriate and proportionate content recognition technologies, taking into account, among others, the nature of the services, the availability of the technologies and their effectiveness in light of technological developments.
Edit -
> after Article 13 becomes law, any information hosted in the EU might disappear—and links to US mirrors might become infringing
How would links be infringing? Also where in A13 are they talked about at all?
Edit 2 -
I need to dig out a source but I'm near certain that there is an allowance for review, critique and satirisation of the news in the EU docs they're talking about.
> news sites may seek to withhold linking licenses from critics who want to quote from them in order to analyze, correct and critique their articles