Copyright is not legacy. Companies purchase the rights from artists who lack mass distribution, and in return most artists get rich. Those who get screwed usually deal with fly-by-night labels or people they trusted, not the biggest players. That’s why the top-shelf talent won’t even work with indies. Listen to the horror stories of unprofessional productions (lack of insurance being one example), or not getting paid, nonunion work or union rules not being followed, and there’s a reason these companies have that "legacy."

I’m an independent musician who has put ALBUMS on iTunes, Spotify, etc. I have not had any sales, only streaming royalties totaling up to less than $5. So you would think I would be ALL FOR Article 13. You’d be wrong. If a major label offered to turn me into a star tomorrow in exchange for my rights, I wouldn’t take their deal. NOT because I don’t want to move up within the industry, but because of the industry’s view on copyright not aligning with mine. What I’d consider "free publicity" they’d consider "copyright infringement". They’d call money from Content ID claims "royalties", but I don’t want that kind of royalty.

Furthermore, you’re really generalizing artists who get screwed over who signed to a major label. And nowadays, why would you want to go to a gatekeeper with a chance to get screwed over when you can put music out independently without gatekeepers? That way, if you don’t like what you’re getting, it’s 100% in your control and you can do whatever you want. As far as collaborating with "indies", you again are generalizing it. There are plenty of independent productions that follow the union rules, get union workers, all without the need to go to a gatekeeper for their blessing. You’re painting a picture where the gatekeepers and the industry has everything figured out, and that anyone who says they can do it without them is destined to fail. That’s no longer the case in the 21st century.

Masnick, on the other hand, is a loudmouthed, cowardly (as in lets his commenters bully people as if he shouldn’t endure any consequences for that), NOBODY whose sole purpose seems to be seeding Google with sentence-long headlines that people can read without even clicking to his site.

Bully. Noun. A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker. Bully. Verb. Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants. Tell me this: How is what you say not make you a bully? Furthermore, using sound, logical arguments to rebut arguments like this is not bullying. Even if you’re feelings are hurt because you don’t like what you’re reading doesn’t make that bullying.

What was in the other post? The top 20 searches on YOUTUBE (owned by Google) said something, yet Google itself talked about "good censorship." This is predicated on a belief that the audience is stupid and easily manipulated.

Is there a source saying Google talked about "good censorship"? And as far as the audience being manipulated, come on! Even those in the US who are for copyright law are against Article 13. Just because you disagree with their logic, and Google sides with their logic, does not mean Google manipulated those people. What’s next: Assuming everyone who uses an Android phone is against Article 13 because of Google?

Copyrightholders and governments have had enough of piracy. One way or another, it’s on the way out. Anyone who doesn’t like what this does to the internet should blame the pirates, not the government.

First off, copyright holders lobbied the governments for this kind of law that will screw up the Internet. I already addressed how Article 13 won’t kill piracy in another comment (presumably to you), but to recap: Article 13 won’t stop piracy; it’ll only mess up the rest of the internet platforms who are trying to avoid copyright infringement (i.e. YouTube, Facebook, etc.). If we want to stop Article 13, we need to talk to government officials. Talking to "pirates" will do absolutely nothing!