"I am impressed you could dissect the legal text so effectively,"
I am impressed you could dissect the legal text so effectively, especially given your statement that:
The largest two barriers are firstly thinking you cannot understand it and secondly falsely thinking you do. If you think you absolutely cannot then you cannot in more cases than not even if you are able to. The second part is more difficult because of its nature and I may well fall under that.
Perhaps something to note as I've glanced over the newer version(as I should have done to start with..) It provided more clarity on some points of contention, namely in Art. 11 Par. 1 in the second Subparagraph it states(paraphrased for brevity) that:
- it does not apply to insubstantial parts.
- Member States shall be free to determine the insubstantial nature, taking into account if it is the expression of intellectual creation, or whetever they are individual words or very short excerpts.
I think it should be easy to argue links aren't a expression of intellectual creation.(in this sense at least) To me that seems to provide enough room for small excerpts(as it's mentioned) and links but aims to prevent using large sections of articles from being shared which to me sounds reasonable although how it will be defined will be up to each individual country.
Art. 13 changed significantly as well and my previous post about that should be mostly discarded, now in essence even though "content recognition technologies" has been removed from the directive it seems to have cemented it needs to be used, at least that's what I would assume reading it. It also cemented the need for preventive measures instead of removing content at the request of a rightholder which is something I'm very much against especially as it doesn't make sense everywere to implement such a preventive measure. For small companies/organizations they likely and luckily won't have to do much more than removing copyrighted content at request and probably removing copyrighted content which they know is not allowed to be freely spread.
This is probably a lawyer plot to drive more business their way
You may well be onto something! Having (
sometimes ofttimes stupidly) vague laws may not be cause by incompetence of politicians but instead be a plot to provide lawyers with work.
For everyone interested in reading the directive you should probably start at about page 54 since that's where the articles start although you may want to skip the definitions as you'll probably have forgotten them by the time you encounter them.
p.s. Migg thanks for mentioning those links as I wouldn't have caught my mistake otherwise.