I don't know for sure but it seems to be mostly music copyright companies pushing for articles 11 and 13. There reasoning seems a bit unclear but then again mus

I don't know for sure but it seems to be mostly music copyright companies pushing for articles 11 and 13. There reasoning seems a bit unclear but then again music licensing are some bizarre aspects to it. But I think it's important to understand the who and why behind articles 11 & 13 in order to understand what the proposed issue is. It's not unlikely that the media and copyright industry would try to reach farther than they need either intentially or unintentially due to misunderstanding the technical details. For the first example, The British Phonographic Institute (BPI) has a statement argueing that big tech companies, under current safe harbor laws, are allowed to profit off user uploaded content if it contains music. The statement says: > This so called “safe harbour” from liability means that sites can provide a vast global jukebox of music whilst arguing they don't even need to negotiate a licence to do so. I can't think of a single site that operates in this manner. Besides upload filters, Youtube allows copyright holders to flag videos for copyright violation. Does this work differently in the EU than the US currently? The system seems to be very effective to the point that it's abuse is widely critized. Are other sites currently implementing a subpar system? Are there EU hosted sites that are currently providing these "global jukebox's" ? I guess I haven't seen a single online site in a while that provides unlicensed music in the manner that BPI describes. The best example was Grooveshark but that's been defunct for years. https://www.bpi.co.uk/news-analysis/bpi-brit-awards-ceo-geoff-taylor-calls-on-meps-to-support-artists-boost-creativity-and-back-the-eu-copyright-directive/ https://www.bpi.co.uk/news-analysis/bpi-brit-awards-ceo-geof... I don't think money would be spend on lobbying if they didn't think there would be a return; therefore there must be some industry, site, or platform that EU copyright holders think they can extract rent from or push more people into buying music. Given that the most likely form of music copyright infringement is having music in the background of a video uploaded to some social media site, I guess it seems that copyright holders are after the ad revenu of user-generated/uploaded content sites (Facebook, Reddit, etc). If their music appears in the background of a video, they want a slice of the ad-revenue the site collects. But I think many sites would opt to just muting the audio (like Twitch already does). If videos with background music are the major target of this legislation and would impact any site that allows users to upload videos, the expense of building an identification system and forking over a portion of the ad-revenue is likely less than using ML to selectively remove/replace the background music while leaving other sounds in-tact. In the short term I expect sites to just mute copyright infringing portions.