First they came for the privacy violations, then they came for the memes.
The European Union is trying to pass a hotly debated law on copyright. The European Copyright Directive has been two years in the making, and on June 20, the European Parliament's legal affairs committee voted to approve the draft legislation.
On July 5, the Parliament as a whole-- but that's hardly the end of the matter. The reforms will get voted on again in September after policy makers do some tinkering.
Those votes happened just weeks after Europe's last big piece of internet-related legislation -- the General Data Privacy Regulation (GDPR) -- kicked in.
Both the Copyright Directive and GDPR could dramatically impact and change things about the internet as we know it. But they also differ significantly, not just in scope, but also in how they're viewed and received by the world beyond Brussels.
GDPR has forced internet companies to scramble to fall in line with the new policy, but the privacy protections it promises internet users mean it's generally thought of as a consumer-friendly effort. Some hail it as evidence that the EU is leading the way when it comes to regulating the internet.
The pending Copyright Directive, however, is meeting with the opposite reaction.
What is the European Copyright Directive and why are people against it?
The EU Copyright Directive -- or to give its full name, the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market -- is Europe's attempt to harmonize copyright laws across all member states.
The last EU-wide copyright law was put in place in 2001, when the internet was a dramatically different place to how it is today. It's designed to update the law and make it more relevant to the internet we know and love now, as well as to anticipate change down the line. The legislation, however, is vague -- one of the criticisms against it -- in terms of what actually needs to change and how it will be upheld.
But there are two sections in particular that have drawn criticism for being overly harsh: Article 13, and to a lesser extent, Article 11. The impact, its critics say, could mean a substantially more closed internet of the future.
Who is in favor of the directive?
Alex Voss, rapporteur of the European Parliament for the copyright directive, for one. He suggested the law and believes its criticisms are highly exaggerated.
Many members of the European Parliament also support the overhaul of EU copyright law. How many exactly will be determined when it's put to a vote.
Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda is suggesting alternatives to both Article 11 and Article 13. She suggests her amendments "fairly balance the interests of different groups without compromising on fundamental rights."
What is Article 13?
Article 13 would force all online platforms to police and prevent the uploading of copyrighted content, or make people seek the correct licenses to post that content. For the most part this would mean filters that check content as it's uploaded would be mandatory for platforms including Facebook, Instagram, GitHub, Reddit and Tumblr, but also many much smaller platforms.
YouTube already uses such a system -- called Content ID -- to protect copyright infringement, but the technology to do this is extremely expensive and has taken over 11 years to build and refine.
Who has a problem with it and why?
The concerns about Article 13 are wide-ranging, encompassing factors including unease about the cost of compliance for smaller companies, and out-and-out censorship of the internet.
In a letter addressed to the president of the EP, Antoni Tajani, around 70 internet luminaries, including Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee, expressed their concern that the provision could cause "substantial harm" to the internet.
"Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the internet from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users," they said.
An organized campaign against Article 13 warns that it would affect everything from memes to code, remixes to livestreaming. Almost 400,000 people have so far signed a Change.org petition against the provision.
The Max Planck Institute, a nonprofit group, notes that Article 13 could threaten freedom of expression and information as enshrined in the European Charter of Human Rights.
What is Article 11?
A second part of the draft legislation, Article 11, is also raising eyebrows. This section stipulates that companies like Google, Facebook and Microsoft may have to pay publishers for showing snippets of news articles.
Who has a problem with it and why?
The objections to Article 11 are less vocal, but they're out there nonetheless. It's unclear what exactly would have to be licensed (snippets? headlines? links themselves?) so the jury is out on how much of an impact it might have.
"Platforms unable or unwilling to pay licensing fees would need to shut down or disallow users from sharing links with snippets," said Pirate Party MEP Julia Reda.
There are fears it could outlaw news aggregators as we know them or even prevent any sites other than giants like Google, which could afford a license, from linking to articles at all.
How will this affect Facebook and other social-media companies?
The law would force social media platforms to take more direct responsibility for policing uploaded content. Big tech companies will likely put their own, costly solutions in place for doing this. Smaller companies would likely use a more centralized platform.
It would also prevent social platforms from showing any kind of "snippet" of news stories, making it ultimately harder to share and link to content.
How will this affect me, an EU resident?
Everything you upload onto the internet will be checked for copyright beforehand, so this could mean no more making memes or edits for your favorite fan Tumblr, among many other things.
It could also mean the end of some of your favorite news aggregation tools and apps. When you click on a link, you may have little clue ahead of time what lies beyond.
These are just some of the possibilities, but because of how vague the law is, it's hard to see how it might be upheld when the time comes.
How will this affect me, a non-EU resident?
Each territory is governed by its own copyright laws, so unless the directive causes the big internet companies to make some huge, fundamental changes, you might not be directly affected.
The internet may not have as much content generated from within Europe, however, so if you're a fan of British humor or Europe's take on popular memes, your experience of being online may be the poorer for it.
Will the directive definitely pass into law?
It's too early to say whether the Copyright Directive will pass. The July 5 vote by the EU Parliament was a narrow one: 318 against, 278 in favor, with 31 abstentions. Next comes more debate and potential amendments en route to a new vote in September
If it eventually passes in Parliament, the measure then needs to be approved by each member state through the Council of the EU, before returning to Parliament for a final vote, potentially in December or January.
Originally published June 22 at 6:32 a.m. PT.
Updated July 5 at 7:55 a.m. PT: Added information about the vote in the European Parliament.
Blockchain Decoded: CNET looks at the tech powering bitcoin -- and soon, too, a myriad of services that will change your life.
Security: Stay up-to-date on the latest in breaches, hacks, fixes and all those cybersecurity issues that keep you up at night.