Explainers

All filters: Article 13 of the EUCD explained

Is this the end for memes everywhere?

Published

September 24, 2018

Gab Orlina

If you haven’t been on the web often lately, this may be something that has slipped past your radar. On September 12, 2018, the European Parliament voted to pass a directive that could change the way we approach the internet for years to come. But, consider first that it’s only the initial review, with a final vote happening next year.

What is this directive, and why is the internet involved? Why are people suddenly seeing #Article13 trend on Twitter a few hours after the decision was passed? What’s with this #SaveTheInternet nonsense?

Understanding the copyright directive

The directive at the forefront of this entire debacle is known as the European Union Copyright Directive, or EUCD. The EUCD hopes to streamline effective regulations towards the protection of intellectual property in the EU. It was first adopted in 2001, following the ruling during the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty. Earlier this year, another version of the directive was drafted with added articles and stipulations.

Basically, the EUCD seeks to create measures to protect one’s copyright on created content. The range of intellectual property that should be protected include music, videos, images, algorithms/codes, and even software. The directive calls for member countries to enact and implement laws that protect copyright owners. Eventually, such stipulations also reach big companies that operate within the EU.

You might be thinking why there is an outcry over it in the first place, especially when the directive’s purpose is clear. Well, there’s one particular part of the EUCD that a lot of people disagree on: Article 13.

The unlucky Article 13

Article 13 of the EUCD isn’t a lengthy piece of reading. The whole article contains three provisions for the implementation of copyright protection on websites that host user-generated content. The directive makes a note that these websites store large amounts of user-generated content, with the main purpose, if not one of its main purposes, of earning profit. Basically, any website that allows you to upload your own content and allows you to earn money from it is affected by the directive.

The article also cites that such websites should create measures such as “effective content recognition technologies,” complaint management systems, and tracking solutions. These measures should be readily available the moment users upload content on the website itself. With such measures taken into account, it allows content creators and service providers to properly engage in discussions should there be a dispute. It’s basically what YouTube Creators is all about.

Websites like YouTube, Twitch, Facebook, and Twitter, as well as streaming apps such as Spotify, Apple Music, and IGTV (when monetization is available) are most likely the article’s main targets. The directive also explicitly states that non-profit service providers and online marketplaces will not be affected. So, Wikipedia and Shopee aren’t affected, don’t worry.

The ongoing debate towards copyright protection

For some people, the EUCD is inherently good for intellectual property protection. They argue that the primary goal of the directive is to protect users from piracy and copyright infringement. Through the EUCD, there will be systems in place that protect music labels, content creators, and publishers from any illegal use of their content online. For these people, users should be held liable for infringement of any kind (memes, remixes, and parodies are a few examples).

Furthermore, the directive not only affects users but also the companies that run these websites. It basically mandates companies to create better content recognition systems, or change their already existing system for stricter copyright protection. If they don’t make adjustments, they will be held liable for any infringement-related issues. What Article 13 does, for those who are for the EUCD, is simply a suggested improvement.

However, there are others who believe that the directive is a little too extreme and could potentially do more harm than good. Leading institutions and companies in the tech industry think that the provisions are too vague, leaving it open for interpretation. This has the potential for companies to abuse copyright claims without effective ways of intervention. Furthermore, any significant changes to already-existing systems would require heavy costs to implement.

The bigger picture here is how the directive affects the internet as a whole. Big names in the tech industry argue that it’s an attack on the creative freedom of users. Instead of allowing the internet to be an open space for the right way of creativity, it simply adds more filters and restrictions in the process. Basically, you can’t put up an Avengers meme without having the approval of Disney and Marvel Studios first.

So, what happens now?

The EUCD was put in place to protect copyright — a simple and basic goal. There is recognition that there are measures that must be in place to uphold copyright. There is no denying that big companies have to abide by intellectual property rules, or suffer severe consequences for infringement. However, a lot of people are clamoring that these measures are both vague and sound extreme. Not only does the directive infringe one’s creative freedom in providing quality content, but it also makes the whole process costly and rigid.

At the end of the day, everybody wants to protect copyright. The argument for or against the EUCD is already past the debate on whether protecting copyright is right or wrong. The debate now is whether or not a open source like the internet should be kept that way or be strictly protected at all costs.

All of these will come into play in January 2019, when the European Parliament casts its vote for or against the directive. If you have the time to read the EUCD, you can access the full document here.

Explainers

Everyone’s angry at PlayStation’s new no-disc policy, and this is why

It’s a tragedy for nostalgia, ownership, and preservation.

Published

July 2, 2026

Luigi Leonardo

Check in with your gamer friends today. Today, a lot of gamers are up in arms over Sony’s decision to kill the physical game disc starting in 2028. But, if you’re a digital-only gamer or just not a gamer yourself, you might not understand the anger. If you want to understand the ire or just want to relate with your gamer friends, here’s a primer for you.

Ending the era of the physical media

Last year, Nintendo launched the Switch 2. Though the console still has a slot for physical cartridges, the Switch 2 also introduced the Virtual Game Card as a way to digitize your library of games.

Of course, the feature wasn’t positioned as a way to eliminate physical cartridges. In fact, Nintendo just wanted to add the flexibility of physical cartridges to the digital world. In the end, the feature strangely coincided with less cartridges. For example, Pokémon Pokopia, one of the most popular games this year, does not come with a cartridge even if you buy a “physical” copy in a brick-and-mortar store. It was a portent of things to come.

Fast forward to today, Sony has made the monumental decision to stop producing physical game discs starting in 2028. The PlayStation’s future is completely digital.

On a similar note, Microsoft is also experimenting with a disc-to-digital feature. Much like the Nintendo Virtual Game Card, the experiment will digitize libraries and attaches the digital copy to the physical game disc. It sounds awfully like a prelude to killing off the game disc.

Why this matters

The physical disc is synonymous with a simpler time. It represents a time when gamers camped out stores to anticipate midnight releases, when gamers can learn more about their games through an in-box manual, and when gamers can show off their fandom through a beautifully stocked shelf of games.

And yes, that’s part of why this situation sucks, but it’s not the only reason.

If you’re an outsider looking in, this nostalgia factor is the easiest to see. Then again, it’s also the most difficult to relate with, especially if you’ve never had the history of buying physical games.

The more crucial reason — and the one that most people will relate with — is media ownership. By not having a physical copy, you will no longer have ownership of what you bought digitally.

And it’s not an imaginary issue. In 2024, Steam amended its policies to reflect that players do not own the games they buy. Rather, they simply own a license to play the game.

In the same year, Ubisoft delisted The Crew, a sure sign that the new policy means business. Though Steam itself has a relatively good track record of prioritizing its customers, publishers and developers can get rid of games if they choose to.

That limitation doesn’t exist with a physical copy. As long as you have a working disc drive, you can install a game whenever you want, even if the publisher decides to pull it from stores.

Therein lies how much this is a touchy topic. Should you own digital goods in the same way as you own physical ones? If the answer is yes, then selling only the license for the good doesn’t make sense. But if it’s a no, we shouldn’t pay full price for something we don’t own anyway.

Will PlayStation actually delete games?

Now, just because they can, does it mean that they will?

Right now, it’s hard to say. You can certainly go by the optimistic hope that PlayStation would never do something as anti-consumer as that. And yes, there are times when you’d be right.

Plus, there is a good chance that governments, especially those in the European Union, will protect consumers if PlayStation even thinks about deleting a game that others have paid for. Governments have been known to intervene in the past, such as when the EU forced Apple to adopt USB-C as a standard. There are checks and balances available.

Then again, Sony has had recent history of deleting media from a user’s library.

Only a few days ago, PlayStation made headlines for deleting over 500 titles from their library. Starting September 1, users can no longer access movies distributed by Studio Canal, due to licensing agreements. Sony was unapologetic about unceremoniously deleting this content. No refunds, no apologies; just 500 movies, which you thought you bought, gone for good.

No matter how you angle it, Sony’s recent decisions just don’t bode well for media ownership.

You can argue that this is the price we’re paying for not buying enough physical games. Still, losing PlayStation discs, even as an option, is tragic for nostalgia, ownership, and preservation.

The world we live in

Unfortunately, this all comes with precedent. Unless you buy physical games and movies, we already don’t own anything in today’s world.

Outside games, Netflix and Disney+ remove the ownership of movies and shows from us. It’s already common practice for these platforms to remove titles regularly. Some platforms even give you a last chance to catch these titles before they go away. Moreover, they can even restrict access, like with Disney+, if you travel abroad.

In exchange for convenience, subscription services and digital storefronts have made it all too comfortable to not own media. With a rental service like Netflix, that’s all expected, but we’re now at the inevitable stage when even bought games and movies are at the behest of our corporate overlords.

This is where the fury comes from. Companies are getting more brazen about taking more options from us. Between this and the increasing prices of RAM, it’s getting harder and harder to live as a tech-savvy citizen in today’s age.

Computers

Samsung’s SECRET That Made OLED Even Better

Say hello to the new QD-OLED Penta Tandem display tech by the Korean giant

Published

May 23, 2026

GadgetMatch and Michael Josh Villanueva

Samsung Display just unveiled QD-OLED Penta Tandem technology. This is a next-generation display structure that stacks five emission layers to improve brightness, efficiency, and overall OLED performance.

In this video, we simplify what Penta Tandem actually is, how it works, and show you two monitors that already have the technology — specifically from MSI and Dell.

For more details, check out Samsung Display here.