> But if a company is too small to afford licenses, it's also too small to build filters. Google's Content ID for YouTube cost a reported €100 million to build and run, and it only does a fraction of the blocking required under Article 13. That means that they'll have to buy filter services from someone else. The most likely filter vendors are the US Big Tech companies like Google and Facebook, who will have to build and run filters anyway, and could recoup their costs by renting access to these filters to smaller competitors.
How? E.g.: Google wouldn't be able to display website content descriptions for free anymore (OK, they are allowed to display a few words of the description).
I understand that content creators will benefit most (e.g. news sites).
Ah, they will find their way. Make some concessions, cry about the laws, show some figures and bribe some politicians. In the end there will be exceptions which are strangely well-tailored for those big players...
This isn't true, and never has been true. It's a constant cry of the monopolist to claim regulations help them. It's a lie we need to stop propagating and giving attention to.
The main issue you are missing is that Google and Netflix are screaming desperately, and spending billions funding groups decrying that "oh no, our monopolies will be protected if these laws are passed".
Myths aside, these companies are not complaining about repealing net neutrality[1], copyright reform, etc. out of the goodness of their hearts and their desires to protect competition or the free internet or whatever other nonsense they're peddling. They're lying about the impact because they want to continue to rake in profits at the expense of everyone else, and they well know the changes in the law that are coming are going to turn off the free faucet.
[1]The irony of this one in particular, is that net neutrality assures regulatory capture. ;)
