c3o

There's another independent criterion that will cause lots of trouble/legal uncertainty:

1b. Regardless of (1), can you prove you made "best efforts" to acquire licenses for the content that was later found on your platform.

It's not specified who you should be seeking deals with, how you're supposed to know ahead of time what a user will upload, how you're supposed to identify the true rightsholders of an uploaded work, etc.

That criterion must even be fulfilled when you're less than 3 years old, by the way!

> I don't think any content-sharing platform should profit from copyright infringement

That is not a requirement to fall under Article 13! Are you maybe mistaking "copyright-protected material" for "copyright-INFRINGING material"? Every creative text and photo is "copyrighted material", so this covers any for-profit UGC platform.

MEP Reda proposed making the above change in the text, that proposal was rejected. So the broad coverage is intentional.

For those who do redeem the coupon, it's often an incentive to spend money they normally wouldn't have (in high-margin stores).

The link tax was not rejected in Germany, in fact it's the law of the land there. When it failed to lead to the expected riches, the lobbyists behind it switched their attention to the EU level.

It could well be argued that all Internet regulation has to do with enabling a united market.

If you're unhappier with the national decisions (e.g. Trump) than regional ones, regionalism starts looking better and better... I'd bet that's almost all the reason behind it, not some kind of deep ideological stance on governance.

In fact, they already did: The ACTA protests.

Every EU law needs the approval of a majority of directly elected MEPs. They are up for reelection in May. Of course one can influence their behavior.

Nationalism is the problem behind that, not the solution for it:

Legislative processes in the EU are woefully under-covered by the press. That's because newspapers have offices full of reporters to work on national political stories, yet send only one person to Brussels to cover all issues there. (That in turn is one factor leading to EU political jobs being way less glamorous and desired, which in turn has an effect on who even gets sent there in the first place, etc.)

It's no wonder that when everyone's horizons end at their national borders the supra-national body will operate under too little scrutiny. We need to start thinking European – the alternative, going back to trying to regulate things like the internet in 28 different ways on a single continent, is just not a reasonable option.

Another provision of the article limits its scope to services that "organise and promote" user-posted/uploaded content "for profit-making purposes".

The 3 criteria you quoted then further narrow which of the services matching the above provision need to deploy upload filters.

Come to think of it, the pastebin-like site is actually already excluded by the "organise and promote" criterium, regardless of whether it's profit-oriented or not.

You could be taken to court and ordered to pay damages if someone reports you – but not the owner of the garden you're projecting it in. And you definitely don't have copyright cops show up at your door pre-emptively everytime you turn on your projector, without whose approval nothing will even play, do you?