Julia Reda

France tried to push two time such a law (with the difference that it was for viewing terrorist website "regularly")[0].
This law was banned two time by the Conseil Constitutionnel (equivalent of the supreme court I think)[1].

But now EU is trying to put a "terrorist-filter"[2], which, I guess, our law-maker are probably heavily pushing for.
Such a proposition might be able to pass through the Conseil Constitutionnel, since banning website (in France) has already been approved and is in place (some website like The Pirate Bay cannot be accessed "normally" in France).

This should really worry us. The definition of terrorism or extremism has always been blurry (see for example the situation with the PKK). And, in any case, it has been shown many time again that this kind of measure could be misused, either intentionally, or by technical ignorance (banning a shared IP). The Australian censorship is a good example of that[3].

All these laws have been also proven ineffective at best and are just a form of power-grab by authorities. A prime example of that is, yet again, France, where most of the "anti-terrorsime" laws passed after the Paris attack have mostly been used against various political militant and, right now, against the protest going on with the gilets jaunes (See for example, the use of emergency state against the COP21 militant [4])

This will not stop, fear has always been used as an excuse to grab more power. Thats why it's important that we keep supporting and…

It requires a lot of knowledge of the context and some pretty hard work of crossreferencing several legislative texts to really get to what's going on here, although I think that the text by Julia Reda does it justice pretty well.

https://juliareda.eu/2018/06/article-11-13-vote/

In what follows, I'll say a bit about Article 11, because it's the part of the debate that I have been following more closely, and the one that I actually care about.

There is some context to this. This is a change that media corporations have been pushing for for many many years. When they did so at the level of national law in several European countries, they weren't quite as good as they are this time around at concealing their dark design. They basically came straight out and said: "We want to create an organization representing all of us in collective bargaining against the likes of Google. We want that organization to collect money from Google, compensating us for displaying headlines, webpage titles, and automatically generated summaries in search results and on Google news. And we want to change copyright so as to make it so."

Some of the legislative text that was passed around on the national level in several European countries, such as Germany, Austria, and Spain, actually made explicit mention of automatically generated summaries of copyrighted material, or use of copyrighted material by search engines and content aggregators etc.

In Germany, such a law actually entered into…

Yeah sure - I bet if you live in a region where no company has bought exclusive television rights to F1. In my country, a pay channel owns exclusive rights to all F1 broadcasting, so all official F1 content on YouTube etc. is simply blocked here (shows the infamous "This content is not available in your country" error.)

They have gone to great lengths to ensure the only way I can view live F1 GPs legally is to pay 25€/mon subscription to the cable company. If I had a choice, I would actually be happy to subscribe to UK's Sky Sports F1 channel, who for 20€/mon have much more extensive coverage of the whole GP weekend, with world-class commentators in studio and on track-side, including retired F1 drivers' title holders. The cable company broadcasting in my country has lower quality and less content, so I don't feel like paying them each month more than I pay to my ISP.

But of course, due to the very same geo-blocking rules, Sky Sports F1 is unable to sell their subscription to my country, because they only have rights for UK broadcasting. Same thing applies to Netflix etc., where some content may be available in one EU country but not in another.

This is actually a violation of the EU's core single market principle (customers should be able to freely procure services from providers in any EU country, not just providers in their home country). And a few years ago, the EU Parliament was actually bullish about abolishing the whole practice of digital content geo-blocking…

Happy to take corrections to the text (and I can fix that link), but both of the points you're criticising are still correct, and actually re-inforced by the points you make -- noncommercial and not-for-profit are interchangeable in this context: your quotation is from the President's negotiating text, and ours is from the rapporteur's proposed amendment text. Neither are final, or even at this point definitive.

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-finish-line/

This is false.
A13 Chapter 5[1] explicitly allows posts like yours:

The cooperation between online content service providers and rightholders shall not result in the prevention of the availability of works or other subject matter uploaded by users which do not infringe copyright and related rights, including where such works or subject matter are
covered by an exception or limitation.

Member States shall ensure that users in all Member States are able to rely on the following existing exceptions and limitations when uploading and making available content generated by users on online content sharing services:
a) quotation, criticism, review, b) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche.

It would however forbid you to post that lyrics without any commentary or some sort of relection.

[1]: https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unofficial.pdf

It's interesting how regularly US social media have these "oopsie" moderation [0]/copyright [1] "accidents".

Even more interesting when they openly admit to censoring content [2].

I wonder how much of that is actually "accident" and how much of it is just testing out boundaries how far they can go before it gets noticed too widely [3]?

[0] https://nypost.com/2021/03/24/twitter-censoring-detention-center-photos-at-border-was-a-mistake/

[1] https://juliareda.eu/2017/09/when-filters-fail/

[2] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html

[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37318031