Article 13: What just happened to the EU ‘meme ban’ and why are people so angry?

Supporters say the rules will keep content secure, but opponents argue they could force companies to undermine the processes that power the internet

The EU has passed some of its most controversial rules in years, changes that could fundamentally alter how the internet works.

The new copyright regulations force internet companies, news organisations and just about everybody else who uses the internet to do so differently, in an attempt to preserve copyright.

Supporters of the rules argue they are necessary to ensure people keep control of their own copyrighted content, and that it can't be pirated or shared illegally over the internet.

But opponents say it will have the accidental effect of banning all sorts of legitimate behaviour, punishing tech companies and maybe even "banning memes".

What are the new rules?

They are a huge, complicated but often vague, set of regulations that will force countries, companies and consumers across the EU to adopt new ways of dealing with copyright. They focus on all the various ways that content is shared around the internet, but most of the controversy has focused on two important bits of the law.

Article 13 is the rule that opponents claim could "ban memes". It requires that tech platforms ensure they are not hosting content wrongly – but campaigners claim they will have to automatically scan for anything that is potentially in violation, and taking it down, which is where the idea of a meme ban came from. The rules do have exemptions to try and avoid such drastic events, but tech companies argue the rules are so vaguely written that they will be forced to take a strict view, and end up banning everything.

(Article 13 picked up a different number in the final draft of the rules, though it was otherwise kept in much the same form.)

Article 11 is the other controversial piece of the regulation, though probably less so. It refers to the so-called "link tax", which will stop tech platforms from showing snippets of other people's content on their own site, without crediting them or paying them.

What just happened?

The final vote has passed, with 348 in favour and 274 against. As such, it will now pass into law, despite the best efforts of the vast number of campaigners who opposed it.

It had been suggested the vote could be close, but in the end it passed relatively comfortably. MEPs gave their final verdicts on the final version of the rules – tweaked slightly from the version that became public before – and then approved it.

Why are people so happy about that?

Copyright campaigners – which includes many of the world's biggest music companies, as well as stars – have repeatedly argued that the new rules are necessary because they will ensure content can't be stolen across the EU, and will bring different regulations in line.

News organisations have also supported the rules, arguing that article 11 will help make sure they are properly paid for the content they produce.

And why are others so angry?

Other activists and campaigners argue that the rules are badly written, and will end up hurting the users they are trying to help. Both rules might appear legitimate, they argue, but include vague and restrictive rules that could force companies to apply them in ways that could become difficult.

They say the rules shifts the responsibility for protecting content onto tech companies, who in turn say they will have to do so in extreme ways. YouTube said that article 13 could have to ban people in the EU from uploading content at all, for instance, and Google circulated images that suggested article 11 could mean that search results will include barely information at all in them.

What happens now?

There's plenty left to do. The vote might be the end of a very long process of lobbying and discussion, but it's the beginning of a new one.

Countries now have two years to work out how to put the rules in place, and that will no doubt include extensive work with companies like Google and YouTube that have been so active in opposing them. The practical application of the rules is likely to change as discussions carry on about what restrictions will be in place and how they will be implemented.

It's also not clear what will happen in the UK, and with Brexit. If the process is extended or called off then the country will end up adopting them, and they might even be left in law if Brexit happens soon.