There is a statement on upload filters at openstreetmap.de [1] (in German) that mentions some sort of "Wikipedia exception".
I don't know what that's supposed to be, but I believe the EU parliament truly didn't have in mind to destroy Wikipedia. So they vaguely thought of "something", but I guess even they don't know in legal terms what that "something" is or should be.

This EU decision however is just a framework, which, when it takes effect, needs to be implemented by individual laws of the EU states. I think it's safe to say that this will create a whole zoo of individual laws with all kinds of incompatibilities.

If you are affected by these laws, then I guess it will come down to whether you are "too big to fail". I think Wikipedia is, so they will get their more or less individual exception, either by the EU or its various member states.
However, Openstreetmap seems to think they are not "too big to fail". According to their statement the see a problem in the character of their data. Usually when you need to evade copyright problems with competitors you make your product sufficiently different from theirs. But because their product is "the reality" as they put it, they don't see this as an option. A street in Openstreetmap will always essentially look the same as in the product of any commercial competitor, because there is only one way of displaying it correctly (direction, length, curvature, etc.).


I think the copyright holders will create hashes of their IP (or parts thereof), upload these hashes to some central DB, and whenever someone else uploads new content somewhere, the upload service will hash that new content and compare it to the already existing DB.
So technically speaking, it doesn't even prevent someone from uploading copyrighted material, because the data needs to be uploaded in the first place to compare it against the DB. It's just that the algorithm will decide to publish the uploaded material or not. In any case, the upload volume will tax your data plan (if you are on one).


In Germany you are allowed to create a "personal backup copy" of your media, assuming you don't circumvent any "effective copyright protection" in doing so.
Now, what makes a copyright protection "effective" or not is a constant point of legal debate. It's certainly not as simple as in: "If it can be broken it's not considered effective anymore."
I'm no lawyer, but I feel the general approach is, that it is considered "effective" when it had not been already broken at the time it was first implemented.

To circumvent this "right for personal backup copies", publishers have changed their approach on selling their stuff. They often claim to sell you the physical medium along with a license to consume it's content, but they don't sell the content itself. This way they say you are not allowed to copy the content, because it doesn't belong to you.

Strangely enough though, we pay taxes on storage media (HDDs, empty DVDs, USB sticks - anything, even whole computers) to compensate for the financial loss that copyright holders may experience due to copyright violations.

You just have to pay enough for it. In "TNG:Parallels" the makers decided it's not worth it and had the crew of the Enterprise sing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" for Worf instead. [2]

In Germany there have actually been lawsuits over this, because people were hearing music or TV too loudly while their windows were open. The GEMA [3] considered this to be a "public performance" which requires you to register it in advance and pay a fee for it.


[1] https://www.openstreetmap.de/uf/
[2] http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/P..._%28episode%29
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEMA_%...rganization%29