Far as I can tell, if the proposals pass all sites that allows users to write, embed images and movies will have to either implement upload filters (and look at Tumblr if anyone think that is easy), buy licenses for all works that may be posted there, or be liable for users misconduct. And contrary to earlier legislation, if you don't do one of the first, removing after the fact is not enough. And with IPRED 2 came mandatory punitive damages for copyright infringements, so it will be most lucrative to sue sites like Wikipedia, or for that matter Eurotrib.

Wikipedia in Sweden was sued a couple of years ago for allowing photos of public statues without licenses. Photos the users had taken themselves. That suit was successful, so I don't think German Wikipedia is wrong here. This is legislation that may very well break Wikipedia and sites like Eurotrib.

Oh, and snippet and link will count as copyright infringement.

https: is supposed to be followed by two slashes. Apparently, the second got converted to an italic tag.

Hitting Google by forcing everyone to buy Google's upload filter is a Galaxy Brain level of good faith.

Article 13 will wreck the internet because Swedish MEPs accidentally pushed the wrong voting button / Boing Boing

In the EU, if a Member of the Parliament presses the wrong button on a vote, they can have the record amended to show what their true intention was, but the vote is binding.

Today, the European Parliament voted to pass the whole Copyright Directive without a debate on Articles 11 and 13 by a margin of five votes.

But actually, a group of Swedish MEPs have revealed that they pressed the wrong button, and have asked to have the record corrected. They have issued a statement saying they'd intended to open a debate on amendments to the Directive so they could help vote down Articles 11 and 13.

Is there actually a mechanism in the European Parliament that allows you to pretend to have voted another way??