Anroth wrote:Short answer: Wikipedia would be mostly fine as it's use of copyright material is usually covered by the US fair use exemptions. As the WMF and by extension Wikipedia are based in the US they can (and do) routinely ignore international laws - which is in line with how the US operates anyway. Plus the new law specifically exempts online encyclopedias.
That specifically extent in Article13 is only Wikipedia doesn't has the obligation to check the content in advance, but there is no extent for copyright violations and it is kristal clear, and confirmed by European case law many times the protection of the American legal system stop at the American borders. And not forget to mention, copyright violations on a lage scale can be a crime in Europe and the judge will look at the local legalisation in that case. Not to the American because his court is outside the United States and because of that not under the jurisdiction of the American legal system.
This is the old, well known Ming shit again of only looking from a American perspective. The American copyright law and the rest. The American legal system and the rest. But, many user are living outside the USA and many people, private persons who are re-using the content in good faith too.
WMF doesn't give them any protection, the American legal system doesn't give them any protection, a third party insurance will, never, never pay this kind of damages as you suggested before, there is often a local pay or a sue your system, so he Anroth, ever noticed the world is bigger than the street and neighbourhood you are living in? And that the sheriffs office in your village or town is not the only legal institute in this world?
Anroth wrote:Commons would have a number of problems, not insurmountable ones, but it would require a radical change in their policies. Of crucial note is that EU law applies to EU citizens, so any EU editor who violated copyright, even if the material is stored in the US, would be personally liable, and the WMF is not able to prevent their identities (as far as they are able) being passed along to the relevant authorities.
There is basely no difference before and after article13 is implanted, a European citizens has just like a American citizens to follow the laws and regulations of the country he or she is living in and otherwise he or she can be sued. Article13 doesn't change anything about that, as Arthur and I have many, many times explained. Like I have many times explained how strict European copyright is and what a nonsens copyleft is by private persons. A private, most times unknown person simple can't left copyright and declare someting to free content, that is legal impossible in Europe.
It is the same as madam gender takes just a bicycle from the street in Amsterdam because a unknown person said it is OK, just take it. And when she is again arrested after peeing on the street say to the officer, he my friend, but this time I had permision to take that bicycle, because that is the way we all do that in America. It is rediciles! Not a wonder she warns every woman not to go to Holland with her lifestyle. It is complete nonsens, the only thing a police officer will do is taking a alcohol and drug test because it is forbidden to ride a bicycle when you are drunk or stoned, also a stolen bicycle.
And what a nonsens Romaines "Brussels Advocating Group" was. Or his Piraten Party. Look here to the pool of the next European elections, and where is that "powerful" (read "powerfool") Pirate Party WMF is active promoting by it's frontman Jimmy and trustee Doc James? With game changers like Romaine=>Wikimedia, Gerlach, the political scientist Dimi and the rest of the shitbirds with there "Brussels Chapter"? Nowhere! Zero seats!