Come and find out the ins and outs of Article 13
All You Need to Know About ...
Article 13
Brush up on the details
Video Claim
Contact Us
What do you need to know?
Know the Rules of Article 13
Article 13 of the EU is one of the two contentious pieces of copyright law. Some people who oppose it argue that it could lead to destructions of the internet. These people consider it censorship or a ban on memes. However, some people advocate for it since it supports online creativity.

This article also referred to as the EU copyright directive, is intended to put in place a marketplace that is functional to exploit works and other possibilities while taking into account particular cross-border uses and digital content.

In particular, Article 13 states that some services, for instance, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook should be responsible in case their users upload video content that is protected by copyrights. Article 13 is a good sign for industries in the creative field in Europe. However, some people argue against this fact.
Everything You Need to Remember
The article has been made famous by critics claiming it will detrimentally impact online content creators and distributors. They argue that content creators and distributors will have their source of livelihoods at risk by this article. Currently, online content publishers, such as Google, typically pull-down content whenever the holder of copyrights requests them. These publishers have measures for detection put in place to identify and weed out materials considered as infringing; however, they are not able to locate everything. The ability of a lot of people, all way from content creators to users will be shut down by this law. It is argued that using filters to identify and block content that is copyrighted will lead to blocking of fair use of content since its too difficult to determine who owns the material.

Furthermore, publishing giants make their arguments based on revenue generation. It is clear that by establishing rules of copyrights tight the publishing companies will not be able to deliver the same quality and range of content to their users. This, in turn, will make users turn elsewhere, say to other platforms that will be paying holders of copyrights for their content. It's not in dispute that the directive allows holders of copyrights are getting their fair pay for their content. However, concerns have been risen on how the instruction will be implemented. The current version of the article requires that the blocking of content automatically should be avoided, but there is no other better alternative. Users under the EU will have limited access to online content if the law is implemented than under the landscape currently.

If article 13 will be passed into law, it will attempt to curb the issue of copystriking. Copystrike may generally mean to make claims of copyrights to fair use of content online, for instance, on YouTube. This will, in no doubt, handle this issue of people reaping where they have not sown. Some people pick other people’s videos and content, circulate them and get paid. Original owners will be the ones earning from their content. In some way, the law may harm the cultures of the settings in which they operate; probably this is why some people are against this law. In the past, Facebook and YouTube as well as other hosts claimed to be simple hosts and therefore cannot be held responsible for their users’ content. They hide in the name of the host to evade the law. The article will, thus, if passed into law, help curb this.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the article has more disadvantages than advantages. However, it is crucial to note that the benefits of the material towards original content owners would by far outweigh the negatives. This is mainly the reason why most genuine content creators advocate for the law.
Article Thirteen