Open main menu

Talk:Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market


Position of GoogleEdit

This source says: "Those backing the law include Axel Springer, the German publishing giant, and internet companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter."

I have not see many directs comments from Google on their position. Those saying Google opposes appear to be mainly the publishing houses rather than Google itself. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Google commented to the Financial Times stating that they opposed the directive. If you can't read the page, they said:

The purpose of the DNI Working Group is to exchange views and improve collaboration between the news industry and Google. The group asked us to send them our views on Europe’s copyright reform, and we were happy to share our position and a summary of the views of others.

Tom Edwards (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes so some reports say they support it and other state they oppose it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I find it odd that the above quote, labeled "Google commented to the Financial Times stating that they opposed the directive." does not contain a quote showing Google either supporting or opposing the directive. Was there nothing in the article that addressed Google's position in Google's own words? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, Google commented to the Financial Times confirming that they opposed the directive. Here are more quotes from the FT's article:

Google opposes the copyright directive, which it says would impede the free flow of information, and in a recent email to publishers suggested they contact members of the European Parliament to express their views. In the email to the members of the DNI working group — and which has been seen by the FT — Madhav Chinnappa, Google’s director of strategic relations, wrote that the “timing is urgent” and provided a link to a directory of MEPs. “If you feel strongly about this, please consider contacting the MEPs,” he said.

On the one hand we have an obscure magazine stating in passing and without explanation that Google support the directive. On the other, we have Google directly telling the Financial Times that they oppose it. Not a difficult choice. Tom Edwards (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
After looking at both sources, I agree with Tom Edwards on this. It is unlikely that Parliament Magazine somehow discovered a source where Google supports the proposal yet nobody else can find that source. Financial Times has a direct quote. BTW, the story has been picked up by other sources:[1][2][3] -Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Yah theparliamentmagazine appears mistaken. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


I just had to move a group from the Opposition to Support section after reading the citation given for their inclusion. In the past I've also had to trim lists of news articles of items which didn't oppose the directive. We need to go through each citation made and either quote from it - in the right place! - or remove it. Tom Edwards (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I think it's very sad that this article has evolved towards bothsidesism. Wikipedia is not an electoral debate. Each topic should present a unified summary, with a neutral point of view. --Nemo 19:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted almost all of your changes, with individual justifications. You think that quoting from the text of the proposal and citing major national newspapers is biased, which is completely wrong. Tom Edwards (talk) 07:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
We need to use independent secondary sources not primary sources. Thus I have removed the text in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
A bunch of the primary sources were restored again such as
This is also not a high quality independent source
And neither is this Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Then remove the citations, and remove all of the other primary sources in the article while you're at it. Don't just delete properly-cited chunks of text that don't fit your agenda. Tom Edwards (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
You appear to be doing an excellent job of making sure that any dodgy citations on the support side are removed -- which is a Good Thing. If (and I do mean "if" -- I haven't checked to see if this is the case) some other user is doing an excellent job of making sure that any dodgy citations (but 9only on the oppose side) are removed, that would also be a Good Thing. Try to avoid Whataboutism and try to insure that all the citations on both sides are high quality, OK? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Tom Edwards why did you restore all these poor citations? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
See my message from the 5th. I was unhappy about having to clean up after you again. You should have fixed the problem you saw instead. In general the article is full of citations pointing directly to campaign websites of all varieties, which I'm relaxed about because it is accurately reporting the claims rather than making them. Tom Edwards (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Doc James' edits have improved the article. Yours have been a mixture -- some genuine improvements, some that ignore basic rules about sourcing. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── On the subject of collecting primary sources/position statements, there's this from OpenStreetMap (opposition), this by some MEPs from ALDE, S&D, EPP and ECR (more moderate), and also the amendments themselves (which we don't seem to link directly at the moment). XOR'easter (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

We already list Creative Commons in the "opposition" column, but if we want a primary source on that, there's this. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Doc James, you've moved the disputed tag from the Opposition section to the entire Positions section. Can you give some specifics about what you want to see changed in these other sections? Tom Edwards (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"Support" section contains a number of statements such as "to support their financial interests" in the voice of Wikipedia. We should not be doing this.
This ref is dead[4] this ref does not support the content in question.[5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, let's look at each of these.
  • The full quote regarding financial interest is: "In general, there is agreement among mainstream press sources that Internet platforms are lobbying against the bill to support their financial interests." Reading that, it seems clear to me that the sentence is reporting the collective opinions of newspapers. Looking at the sources, I also see that they refer very early on (some even in their headlines) to Google trying to escape paying out more to artists. Would using a quote from one of the sources be helpful? e.g. "lobbying against the bill to 'escape billions in copyright payouts'".
  • The VoteWatch link does work, but you have to log in to the site (BugMeNot has a login) and then go back to the original URL before you can see it. If you know of a site providing detailed voting statistics without requiring a login that would be a good replacement.
  • The Music Week link does support the content in question, which is a quote from Tom Watson. This article cuts out a section of the quote for brevity so if you just did a quick search in the cited page you may not have found it, but it's all there in paragraph seven.
Tom Edwards (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
This is not supported by the sources "In general, there is agreement among mainstream press sources that Internet platforms are lobbying against the bill to support their financial interests"
This source comments on Wikipedia and does not say they are lobbying to support their financial interests.[6]
One could maybe say "Some newspapers" and comment on "Google".
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
The strapline of that article talks about "a copyright law that would have required social media sites to pay for content", and the first paragraph mentions "compelling the tech industry to pay for content that it uses for free". I think that entirely supports the claim being made.
I'm not a fan of saying only that "some" newspapers are making these accusations because that implies that most newspapers disagree, which is not the case. If you want to avoid making any judgement on the popularity of this view, how about: "A variety of mainstream press sources agree that Internet platforms (chiefly Google) are lobbying against the proposal to support their financial interests". Tom Edwards (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
That blanket statement is also not supported by the references provided or the current facts avaliable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
What, the whole thing? I don't agree at all, the sources very much support the statement being made. Can you give another suggestion for what we might say instead? Tom Edwards (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no general agreement among the mainstream press or that "internet platforms" generally are doing this to support their financial interests. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, I've changed it to read "A variety of mainstream newspapers have reported that Internet platforms are lobbying against the bill to support their financial interests". I hope that's agreeable. Tom Edwards (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay and I have added "some". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Some updated information that may be usefulEdit


This "such as YouTube (owned by Google)" is not correct. YouTube is owned by Alphabet Inc. which also owns Google. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Tom Edwards (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Journalists and authorsEdit

It appears that well this proposal was initially supported by journalists and authors the recently approved version is rejected by many of them.[7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

They are annoyed by a recent change, and that is worth mentioning, but are still supportive of the proposals overall: "this deal is good news for the industry and for authors in some sectors." Tom Edwards (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, you left out the last part "but it makes a mockery of journalists' authors' rights, promoting buy-out contracts and bullying to force journalists to sign away their rights and giving publishers a free ride to make more profits from journalists' work while the creator receives nothing. It is bad for journalism and bad for Europe. Agreeing on it, EU institutions have either been naive or have cynically betrayed the values of fairness and social justice Europe is meant to stand for"."
So no they clearly reject it overall. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
That is the annoyance that I mentioned. But they are referring to a specific change in language in one part of the proposal. If the group had decided to reject the whole thing they would have said so. Compare their letter to the one from the TV companies and big record labels, which ended with: "We therefore call on negotiators to not proceed on the basis of the latest proposals from the Council." Tom Edwards (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Sure so "We therefore call on negotiators to not proceed on the basis of the latest proposals from the Council." means they reject the current proposal also. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Jesus Christ...that was an example from a different letter from a different group. Tom Edwards (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay so we can just go with the quote that it is "bad for journalism". We can leave it up to the reader to decide if that is a support or oppose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
You are cherry-picking information to give a misleading impression of the source. I don't care enough about this issue to continue fighting over it, but don't mistake that for approval of your behaviour. Tom Edwards (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
No were do they say they still support the current version. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Position of the European CommissionEdit

It is interesting that this blog post by the EU Commission is no more.[8]

One can see the prior copy here.[9]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The StarEdit

Is not exactly a good source. And what is this supporting exactly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I've replaced it with another source saying the same thing. The about page of shows that Google and other large American firms sponsor the project. Tom Edwards (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
But not that they exercise editorial control over the statements that makes, or that their priorities set the agenda, or that Google is paying them for anything specific. Maybe they are, but the source doesn't say so, and I'd rather have a non-primary source for that kind of thing. (Pride of place on their list of sponsors is held by the MacArthur Foundation, not Google or Yelp.) This article (currently reference 12) is cited to support the claim Google and other American firms hired lobbyists to create arms-length campaigns opposing the directive, including Copyright for Creativity, but what it actually says is that C4C gets roughly 2/3 of its funding from the CCIA, which represents big American technology companies (the other 1/3 comes from the Open Society Foundation). It doesn't make any claim that Google paid for a particular campaign, going so far as to say, "[I]t is far-fetched to accuse these independent, pro-privacy, pro-digital rights organisations of being pawns of big tech, when they are in fact often their main opponents in the regulatory process on issues from ePrivacy to trade, or how to handle mis-information." And, while we're discussing textual tweaks, I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation should be described as a "technology company"; it's a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
We aren't making any claims about whether they are directed or not, and I agree that they probably aren't. We are claiming only that the companies set them up and provided funding for them, which is true and supported by the sources. We can change the passage to explicitly mention the CCIA if you like, but do bear in mind that Google are that lobby's biggest members and that should be mentioned given their obvious links to the topic. If you want to soften "hired" into something a little softer (like "funded") that's okay too. Tom Edwards (talk)
Yup what we have here is WP:original research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The sources fully support the claims being made. Please do not arbitrarily remove information you don't want to hear. You have been acting in very bad faith lately. Tom Edwards (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay two of use oppose your original research. Please stop re adding it.
A bunch of your edits here Tom are original research. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I just looked at your user profile for the first time. You are part of the Wikimedia Foundation, and yet here you are censoring information about the Foundation's involvement in a political campaign. This is an unacceptable conflict of interest and reflects exceedingly poorly on the Foundation, and you. I really can't believe how brazenly corrupt this is.
We now have two options. The easy way is that you apologise immediately and stop editing this article. The hard way is that I file a complaint on WP:COIN and have you forcibly blocked from editing the page. It's your choice, but I would recommend the easy way. I am not interested in further discussion with you. Tom Edwards (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay so that you can continue your original research on the topic?
You have been a Single Purpose Account on this topic these last 8 months...
User:Tom Edwards I have started a discussion on COIN for you. Regardless I believe it would be good to have more people working on this topic.
By the way User:XOR'easter also says "I don't think the Wikimedia Foundation should be described as a "technology company"; it's a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Public protests: Attendance confirmed as 1.500 by police.Edit

Police in Cologne confirmed that roundabout 1.500 persons were attending at the first protest against Article 11 and 13, even more than the first estimation by the organisers published by archived at

I propose to change "Organisers made an unverified claim that 1,000 were in attendance in the same location.[97]" to "Official reports estimate that 1.500 people were attending at the protest." and add a reference to the WDR report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

That sounds fine in principle, but can we find the actual statement from Cologne police? It's highly unusual for organisers to provide a lower estimate than public officials, and images of the event on Heiss show no more than a few hundred in attendance. I've been looking for other sources and the only other count I can find is on, who reported from the march that there were "a few hundred". Tom Edwards (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I added the count alongside the Heiss one and mentioned the disagreement. But I just don't think that the second-hand report of 1500 is credible given the other sources' claims, the photographic evidence, and the lack of a direct source. Tom Edwards (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
We have this source.[10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn blog postEdit

Moved here

" In a blog post (since deleted) the European Commission went much further, saying that "there is ample evidence from respected sources...that ‘Big Technology’ has even ‘created’ grassroots campaigns against the Copyright Directive", and contentiously described those riled by "sponsored messages" from Facebook and Google as "the mob".[1]"

This means they do not support this any more. Thus should not be in the article as this is no longer their position. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ "The Copyright Directive: how the mob was told to save the dragon and slay the knight". European Commission. 2019-02-14. Archived from the original on 2019-02-16. Retrieved 2019-02-17.
That is not correct. Read the retraction message: "We acknowledge that its language and title were not appropriate and we apologise for the fact that it has been seen as offending. That is why we removed this article from our Medium account." This does not provide an excuse to ignore the European Commission's opinion, nor to replace it with an obscure MEP's. The cherry-picking continues. Tom Edwards (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
It is no longer their position. Adding it like they still support is undue weight.
The other is supported by a news article and thus is not original research.
Have started a RfC below. A removed opinion does not reflect their current opinion and it is unclear if it ever reflected their official opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC on Removed Blog Post by the European CommissionEdit

The consensus is to exclude the text.

Cunard (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This text has been added by User:Tom Edwards

In a blog post (since deleted) the European Commission went much further, saying that "there is ample evidence from respected sources...that ‘Big Technology’ has even ‘created’ grassroots campaigns against the Copyright Directive", and contentiously described those riled by "sponsored messages" from Facebook and Google as "the mob"

As mentioned the blog post has been deleted with the comment that "We acknowledge that its language and title were not appropriate and we apologise for the fact that it has been seen as offending." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose inclusionEdit

  • Oppose as opener. If this was published by mistake, as it appears to be, claiming that this reflects their official position is not really appropriate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on balance. There are just too many question marks about who wrote it, whether the stated reason for taking it down was the real reason, etc., etc., for us to make this kind of statement in Wikipedia's voice. XOR'easter (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The mistaken publication is not the issue (such a leak/gaffe could be highly relevant and well covered) - the lack of secondary sources covering this is. Sourcing to an archived version of a retracted post clearly is unreliable (as the organization behind the post retracted). While the retraction itself (and the contents) may be DUE - one would need secondary sources discussing this. All I see is the register and techdirt referring to the redacted portions (e.g. techdirt - " the EU Commission "removed" the post without an apology -- but with the standard cop out of someone who did something bad but can't admit it") - however this is a level of sourcing that I don't fell is DUE for inclusion. Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the lack of a secondary source substantiating the sequence of events is fatal Gumsaint (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - additional quality secondary source. The Independent. [11] Also, opinion from Cory Doctorow [12] Summoned by bot. Chris vLS (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
There was also coverage in WIPR, I think? But without subscription, dunno much. [13] Chris vLS (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Support inclusionEdit


Per twits by Julia Reda it appears that neither responsible Commissioner of the European Parliament agreed to the publication of the since withdrawn blog post.[14] People are trying to figure out who approved it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Axel VossEdit

Has made some interesting statements on how the law may work. This source says "This is sheer nonsense and testifies to the absolute lack of understanding of this person," commented the copyright expert Till Kreutzer of these statements on ancillary copyright."[15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

De SpiegelEdit

Has a piece here from Feb 22 2019 about the split within the SPD party over the copyright directive.[16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Internet LawEdit

Do people deem this to be a suitable source?

States this "If this legislative process gives the impression of an overpowering lobby by Google & Co., this is nothing more than a caricature"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

And than we have this[17] looking critically at the lobbying from politicians such as Axel Voss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Video by the WMFEdit

Fix Copyright - Article 13

Wondering peoples thoughts on using this within the article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no serious objection, as long as it is properly labeled, with a caption that makes clear it is a statement from the Wikimedia Foundation rather than the volunteer community. (One way or another, it'll be of historical interest in a few days.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Breakdown of votesEdit

Is breakdown of votes between political groups available? If so, it should be included next to information that 348 MPs voted in favor and 278 MPs voted against. (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a breakdown by MP is appropriate but we can do breakdown by country, as it has been established in most sources that support/opposition is primarily demonstrated at that level. --Masem (t) 15:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually, both might be appropriate, since the Directive has largely been a project of the center-right parties. Unfortunately, such information is not yet available as far as I can see. Pretty sure activists will want to mobilize against those in favor wrt the EU elections in May, so I expect a list to appear sooner rather than later. Regards SoWhy 15:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The breakdown could be quite interesting. From what little I've seen collated so far, the breakdowns within nations could be significantly different from the totals. E.g., the S&D overall were 99 in favour, 54 opposed and 6 abstaining, while I've heard that within the German contingent, only 1 SPD member was in favour. Waiting for more comprehensive lists is probably the best course of action, and shouldn't take long. XOR'easter (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
The vote even by party line would be questionable unless it is clear other third-party sources are doing it, otherwise it creates the appearance of original research (Framing data in a way not previously framed before). By I do know that vote-by-country is how its been framed throughout the working through passage, so its not so much original research. --Masem (t) 18:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I did add a chart with the votes by political group to the article. It shows the corrected voted (7 MPs of S&D changed their vote because they said they made a "mistake" for example see page 53 -a lot of EPP MPs made mistakes as well but in addition it only changes 1 vote against and 1 abstention-) In detail the results after corrections are:

EPP +153 -29 a12 (without corrections +153 -28 a13)

S&D +92 -61 a6 (without corrections +99 -54 a6)

ECR +23 -42 a2

ALDE +35 -26 a3 (without correction +36 -25 a3)

Greens-EFA +4 -39 a4

GUE/NGL +5 -36 a3

EFDD +6 -28 a1

ENF +15 -14 a3

Non-Inscrits +5 -9 a2 (without corrections +7 -8 a1)

In the chart I did add the members who were not present to the abstentions. (By the way: The European Parliament itself lists the votes by political group and not by country. Makes sense because the MPs sit with their political group and not with all MPs of their country. On the other hand in a lot of countries MPs of different parties did vote very different, although they are from the same country. Most members of the Greens and GUE/NGL for example voted against the directive, although most MPs of their countries voted for the directive) --Yoda1893 (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Here you can find the numbers without corrections. But I think it makes more sense to include them. --Yoda1893 (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I removed the corrections in the chart because they were not actually counted and would not have changed the decision. [18] --Yoda1893 (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Table for 'converting" pre-March 2019 draft to finalEdit

Because of the whole renumbering thing, I'm wondering if it just better to present the Content of the Directive as a table, with columns for pre-March 2019 article number, final article number, brief name of article, and the general purpose of the article with any additional details within it. Everyone is going to remember this as "Article 11 and 13" of the Directive, even though those are now 15 + 17, and we need to make that clear. By headers its not, but a table would do it better. --Masem (t) 16:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


It's probably worth expanding a bit on article 16, which essentially overturns the ECoJ Reprobel case (and allows private copy levy to benefit publishers directly): «Article 5(2)(a) and Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29 preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which authorises the Member State in question to allocate a part of the fair compensation payable to rightholders to the publishers of works created by authors, those publishers being under no obligation to ensure that the authors benefit, even indirectly, from some of the compensation of which they have been deprived».

Nemo 10:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletionEdit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not law yetEdit

It has not completed its legislative procedure, right? – Kaihsu (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Correct, officially it's still a "proposal" (see here: EU Legislative Observatory - "status: awaiting Council 1st reading position / budgetary conciliation convocation"). The new directive still needs to be formally approved by the Council of the European Union, which could theoretically reject the proposal and send back the proposal to EU Parliament for a second reading. --Holapaco77 (talk) 08:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market" page.