Something changed in the laws concerning copyrights, recently? Taking a turn for the worse too, as they say?

Does somebody know more and can inform us? And are videogames affected in any way?

Sites like youtube and twitch will have to police their content either with human labor on a basically impossible scale, or with flawed content recognition software that has no idea of what constitutes a review or a parody. Unless implimented in a way that renders the directive moot, it's clear that people are going to have their uploads blocked without good reason. It should affect movies much more than games. No legislation is in effect yet and each EU state will have to decide how to follow the directive and then implement it in 2 years.

No wonder why the founders of the USA warned against centralized government getting too big...

Here you go.
And this is the article after the vote.

Very short summary for the worst bits:
1. Upload filters - Platforms are legally responsible for anything uploaded by users and must ensure there won't be any copyright infringement, so automated filters will be required, which make all sorts of mistakes and cost a whole lot, not only ensuring tons of blocked content, much of it unfairly, but basically shutting down anything but the biggest companies (and very small and new ones, as exceptions are made for those less than 3 years old, with less than 10 million EUR income and less than 5 million users - cumulative conditions, so after 3 years, bye bye either way).
2. Link tax - Rights holders will be entitled to claim copyright on any snippet of text quoted from an article that's not "very short" (a term which will be defined by each country, the Directive only stating that a single word can't be copyrighted in this manner) and claim fees or block it from being shared / posted anywhere, which was ostensibly done against the big players but is again something more likely to hurt everyone else more, and is likely to lead to negative comments being blocked and make fake news and conspiracies even more widely shared, as those producing them aren't at all likely to make use of this, while those producing factual content might.

The Directive itself doesn't at the moment have effects, as a majority of member states will also have to approve it in the Council. However, such a majority already exists, so something big will have to change very quickly for that to change. Then, once adopted by Council as well, member states have 2 years to put it in national law, which will lead to lots of different interpretations and likely lengthy court battles, with rights holders trying to enforce the strictest... And platforms likely to respect the strictest as well, so they won't have to bother with creating separate versions of the sites for each country.

some fuckery that benefits copyright extortionists like GEMA. Every country has one or more of these to handle the "protection of the authors' rights" on behalf of the government that doesn't want to bother with copyright laws because it doesn't get them any votes anyway. So when they tell you that each member state will have control over it, it just means they pass it over to the copyright mafias to exploit it. The aim is not exactly to censor things, it's to squeeze money of out it some more in addition to the usual hunts for software/movie/music pirates and extorting "protection money" from the authors (like if you have a band and want to do a show, playing your own songs, you still have to pay "protection money" to whoever is your country's copyright mafia). Also "protection money" from having a radio/tv on in your shop or pub or something. So with this they'll harass people over some shit they post on the internet.

Yeah, it's too bad one or two countries in Europe don't just try to leave the stinkin' EU altogether. If only they could get a movement started to turn that horrible EU legislation into really expensive toilet paper.

I think we could put together a much more compelling case for a couple of states to leave the US to be honest. I'm sure a majority'd be happy to ditch the flyover states for instance.

This doesn't come down from some President, it was voted on by corrupt and/or tech-illiterate parliamentarians from across the EU.

As one who proudly lives in Flyover-ville, I would also be more than happy for them to leave. As far as many sophisticated snobs go, the USA consists of only New York, California, and maybe Florida if you're looking for some snakeskin boots or cheap yayo.

But at least even here in Hicksville we can still look at porn without getting government permission, and we don't have draconian copyright laws that hold websites and hosts liable for their users' content.

We did vote for it but the Government and the EU Empire is against us on that. They're literally not letting us leave.

After what UK Empire did to form EU and have colonies all over the world, I can understand them. You don't deserve to leave.

Depending how it is interpreted when implemented in members laws it will most likely have pretty devastating effects. DMCA is already pretty bad but article 13 is even worse as it works the opposite, instead of removing stuff when you receive a DMCA takedown you also have to make sure that said content is not uploaded anymore. As it is impossible for humans to effectively filters everything that is uploaded and that automated filters are unable to make the difference between legit fair use content and infringing content it will most likely result in it becoming incredibly hard to upload anything to a lot of platform.

The only thing i can think about at the moment is that many journalists dubbed the worries of Internet users as fake news,
or didn't gave much news coverage about this problem because, i'm assuming, they think that being more in control of their articles, and the use of the latter, can be beneficial for them.

What they probably don't understand is that, basically, most people go on a newspaper website
thanks to services like Google News.

It's much easier for me writing key words in the Google search bar and finding what i'm interested to,
instead of searching for particular news in their website (considering also that some newspaper
websites are kinda sh***y).

Basically, many newspapers are shooting themselves in the leg.

Isn't this the same thing I got downvoted into a dumpster for warning people about?

I also read a report that there were a crucial 13 votes that were tricked through some procedure into voting against an allowance to amend to legislation. If these votes were counted according to their intent, there would have been an opportunity to amend it.

Centralized government sucks because it always turns into a one-size-fits-none disaster. Over the last few years, the real fight has been between city areas (controlling the central government through megacorporate money and outsized political influence) and the rural areas (who are fed up with having their rights abolished, big government regulation imposed at the behest of the cities that want someone else to pay for enforcing what should be local policy, and their jobs/futures sent overseas).

The era of Obama/European globalism immediately followed by nationalist-populism as the backlash (like it or hate it) is a testament to the fundamental political incompatibility between rural and urban areas and perhaps the defining political fight of the decade. It's the reason why Trump got in the White House, France keeps getting rocked by "Yellow Vest" protests, and the UK is splitting down the middle over a Brexit that keeps fumbling. These might all seem extremely different on the outside but the root cause is the same - the war between rural (small-government) and urban (big-government) interests.

The obvious solution is to have separate governments for rural and urban areas, something that was traditionally done through local governments. Federal and state government would take a hands-off approach, delegating as much power to localities as possible so people can vote on whatever fits them best. Over the last 10-20 years, there was a gradual epidemic of corrupt big-city areas that financially ran themselves into the ground, mainly through lavish promises of public-worker pensions they couldn't afford. This also meant that there was no local funding left for big-city policy/governing objectives.

So they mobilized their corporate lobby (a lot of senior-ranking megacorporate executive-types tend to live in these big-cities) and the media that they own to press state and federal governments to enact policy and projects that they couldn't afford. This constitutes a wealth transfer from everyone else to the big cities, and a general rise in burdensome, stifling regulation.

In that era, here are some of the things you might be furious at if you lived in a rural area (especially if you were a conservative):
* Your federal tax burden (and federal debt interest burden on your children and grandchildren) goes up to pay for regulation, environmental agendas, construction projects, and high-speed public transportation applicable only to cities that are 500 miles away and you probably will never use them. Your cost of living goes up due to the extra regulation.
* You get subjected to a painful circus of regulations and hostile policy that might make sense for the cities, although they are counterproductive and hurtful for the rural areas. Over the last few years (in the USA), the biggest city-sponsored regulatory grievances in the rural areas have been Obamacare, environmentalism, the assault on the 2nd Amendment, and immigration sanctuary cities.
* In the USA, there was previously a federal tax rule where you could deduct state and local taxes from the income that you paid federal taxes on. Residents big-tax states and cities would deduct more, constituting an indirect rural subsidy for the cities. Trump's tax reform put a strict limit on this deduction - a prominent point on his campaign platform that won over many votes in rural and sparse-suburban America.
* Rural areas tend to be poorer than urban areas, and now you end up living under big-city agendas and subsidizing them.

Ironically, now that Trump's in the White House enacting various policy reversing the last few decades of unending damage to the rural areas, the big-cities are screaming against it and you can see that in the left's intent on impeaching Trump. The only stable long-term solution is to vastly shrink federal and state government as much as possible and return to the old common-sense standard. Require as much as possible be delegated to local government. Let rural areas be rural, let cities be cities. More importantly, never force them to coexist under the exact same one-size-fits-none centralized government, because that's impossible.