1) Technically, everyone’s a distributor (definitions, s24A)
Quote:The Bill defines “distribute” as the ordinary meaning of the word (i.e. sharing with others in any way), but also includes streaming content. A “distributor” is defined as someone who “conducts the business of distributing”, but the concept of conducting business isn’t fleshed out. It also doesn’t matter, considering section 24A(1) and (2) (I’ll talk about them later) apply to “any person who distributes”, not just “distributors” – that’s fine-toothed legal gymnastics for you, but it’s very relevant.
The Bill tries to distinguish between a “commercial online distributor” (who distributes via the internet for commercial purposes) and a “non-commercial online distributor (who distributes via the internet for personal or private purposes). But it’s a meaningless distinction at best, because (again) section s24A(1) and (2) apply to you either way. In fact, the term “non-commercial online distributor” is used exactly 3 times in the entire Bill. That’s once in the definitions, and twice in section 18E, which simply lets other people ask the FPB to classify your unclassified or prohibited content that they see online. Being a non-commercial online distributor doesn’t have any practical effect, under the Bill.
Maybe the Bill really doesn’t mean to include all non-commercial social media users, but it includes them nonetheless. After all, the purpose of the Act is to give South Africans the ability to choose the kind of content they consume. And more and more of that content is coming from users directly.
2) Technically, everything recorded is a film, and must be classified (definitions)
Quote:The Bill defines “film” to mean any recorded series of images, including streaming. This means Hollywood blockbusters, livestreams, your drone footage, and your cat videos. Arguably, it could even include GIFs.
According to the Bill, all films have to be classified. As we see above, that would technically include non-commercial online distributors, like everyday social media users. But let’s put that aside for a moment and consider for a second the impact that that will have on the growth of new businesses in the tech and online industries – where people share filmed content every day. I’m talking about streamers, vloggers, webinar hosts, influencers – pretty much any kind of digital content creator.
If you’re active in one of these industries, you’ll technically have to classify your recorded content, and that means paying a fee. You could always apply to be able to self-classify your content, but even that costs money. And even if it’s a small fee, that’s an administrative and financial burden that will make it even harder for small businesses and entrepreneurs to get off the ground. Which is hardly something we need more of.
3) Technically, everyone’s a criminal (s24A(1) and (2))
Quote:According to section 24A(1) of the Bill, you’ll be committing an offence if you distribute something and haven’t been registered as a distributor. If convicted, that’s a fine of up to R150,000, 8 months in jail, or both.
According to section 24A(2) of the Bill, you’ll be committing an offence if you distribute something that hasn’t been classified. If convicted, that’s a fine of up to R500,000, 5 years in jail, or both.
Again, even if the Bill doesn’t mean to apply to social media users, it technically still does – which means the FPB can hit us with it whenever it chooses to. And considering most of us won’t know that we should register or classify our works, or won’t be able to afford the registration or classification fees … well, that pretty much makes everything we’ve been doing up until this point a crime.
4) Technically, livestreaming is a legal impossibility (s24A(2))
Quote:This isn’t a new issue I have, but rather a specific example of how ridiculously the previous issues apply. If section 24A(2) makes it an offense to distribute something that hasn’t been classified, then obviously that means you have to classify things before you distribute them. Not only is this pre-publication classification (which is unconstitutional in a newspaper setting, and I don’t see why it wouldn’t be here), but it’s also downright impossible in the context of livestreaming. Because livestreams are things that happen … well, live.
So how did we get into this mess?
Quote:Now, if you look at the current mechanisms the FPB has in place, it’s clear that they don’t actually mean to affect regular, non-commercial social media users. If you register as a distributor on the FPB website, one of the first questions you’re asked is what kind of business you’re running. But remember what I said about things that people “never actually enforce” in contracts? If they don’t mean for it to affect social media users, then say that in the law. There are only three possible reasons why they wouldn’t: they’re malicious; they’re lazy; or they’re stupid.
RE: EU passes Article 11 and 13. South Africa, 'Hold my beer'
(03-28-2019 07:37 PM)bullet Wrote: So without reading 2 articles, South Africa wants to censor things so the EU is writing directives to do that?
The two are unrelated... except that they have the same result. Legally restricting what people can upload online.
In the EU, they want tech firms to create 'filters' so anything thats copyrighted is blocked. Which will have the end result of companies having to block everything, because if they let something slip by they are financially responsible.
In SA, they require you to register every 'series of images' with the government so they can make sure its not illegal before you upload it online. If you dont do that, you're breaking the law.
Basically, governments want to stop individual citizens from being able to create their own content and upload it. Probably because the gov can't control what people say like they can with businesses.
The EU is being dirty about the way they are censoring people... SA is being psychotic. Hence the title.
(This post was last modified: 03-28-2019 08:00 PM by q5sys.)
/
[NEWS] EU passes Article 11 and 13. South Africa, 'Hold my beer'
