Regarding "filters":

Companies with an annual turnover below €10 million ($11.3 million) are exempt.

dw.com/en/eu-parliament-approves-controversial-copyright-reform/a-48062142

US Websites are protected under Section 230 of the Decency Act ... thus do not need to be concerned about filtering UGC.

Google and FB and YT, etc., however, can be governed under this EU copyright as they each have offices located in that jurisdiction.

Companies with an annual turnover below €10 million ($11.3 million) are exempt.

Only if they are also less than three years old. To quote from the text:

Member States shall provide that when new online content sharing service providers whose services have been available to the public in the Union for less than three years and which have an annual turnover below EUR 10 million

So if you run a site with UGC that is more than three years old it applies regardless of how much money it makes. Of course it is also only an exemption from article 13 (now 15) not from article 11 (now 13).

@tangor, that does not protect them under EU law. US sites have had to comply with GDPR. See the quote above, it says the law applies not to providers based in the EU, but whose services are available in the EU. I take that to mean any site that does not block EU visitors (I have come across American sites do block EU visitors already because of GDPR - mostly smaller newspapers).

Two other problems:

1. It is a directive (not a regulation) so the exact implementation will vary between countries so in effect you always have to comply with the strictest version of the law that any EU country passed.
2. The law will apply to existing content that was legal, so people are going to have to go through existing content and remove anything that might break the law. I imagine some people hav a lot of UGC.

If a site provides an open RSS feed, is that implicit or explicit permission to use the content/feed? I would assume explicit consent?

US sites have had to comply with GDPR. See the quote above, it says the law applies not to providers based in the EU, but whose services are available in the EU.

Chuckles. Have fun making that apply. Required segregation (EU class of users v rest of World) is an undue burden.

GDPR would have been better if it was a prophylactic requirement for EU inhabitants, ie. "these sites in compliance and no others".

If one plays in the world....

@DixonJones I very much doubt there is implicit permission to do anything with an RSS feed other than read it in a feed reader.

@tangor, countries can have surprisingly long reach. There are many examples of people who thought they were safely out of jurisdiction getting arrested when they visited a country (in one case the guy never even meant to get off the plane while it stopped there) or finding that there is some way there finances can be reached. Yes, people from outside the EU are fine as long as they never visit the EU or do business with the EU in any way.

I am not a fan of this legislation, or EU legislation in general, or the EU. GDPR, VATMOSS etc. are needlessly burdensome. The fact is that those of us in the EU, and a good many people outside will have to comply.

If a site provides an open RSS feed, is that implicit or explicit permission to use the content/feed? I would assume explicit consent?

Do not "assume" read their TOS, this is what TOS are made for.