Existing copyright law already forbids you from copying and redistributing the creative works of other. More laws won’t stop anyone from violating the law. The problem with content scrapers is that its so easy to hide your identity, so easy to scrape content, and so damned easy to be approved into advertising programs.

Exisiting copyright law is, as the author says, hard to use. Making those laws easier to use for blatant commercial violation is a good thing.

Fines should follow the money if they can't resolve on the party directly responsible. Advertisers can buy insurance and insurance companies can vet domains.

How do they help? What the author is describing was illegal before and will be illegal after.

It means you can sue Google for damages, so that Google's responsibility becomes to prevent copyright thefts. That way, you don't have to run around trying to chase down a phantom no-name dude on the internet.

And if you can keep the copyright-theft'd works off of Google, Bing, and other big name search engines... then you've basically won in this day and age.

--------

Yeah, its an extreme measure. But its pretty clear cut how Article 13 helps in this case. Link Tax (Article 11) may also play a role, but its less obvious IMO.

> It means you can sue Google for damages, so that Google's responsibility becomes to prevent copyright thefts.

Nope. You can not. Google is not a content sharing platform which is what Article 13 is about.

You can do the same as before: Send a takedown request to google. Again, literally nothing changes here.