Are you presuming that it never becomes popular? All three aspects vaguely describe the intermediary as being more popular than the news operator. If lemmy takes off and becomes the next Reddit and people go to it to catch up on the latest news it would be a factor.
Just because it does not fit today does not mean it isn’t a bad law. It would essentially apply to ANY site that becomes popular and links to a canadian news outlet.
I didn’t say anything about popularity, but no, I don’t think Lemmy will become popular at the scale the act envisions. Most people will continue to use corporate services for the foreseeable future.
There’s a difference between popular and powerful though, and I hope the courts would be capable of making that distinction. I also see a couple of references to the “market” in the act, which I think should exclude Lemmy as long as it’s not-for-profit.
“There’s a difference between popular and powerful though” Not legally no the terms in this bill are very poorly defined. Really any “popular” / “large” website that links to Canadian news could be targeted with the open wording of the bill.
Are you presuming that it never becomes popular? All three aspects vaguely describe the intermediary as being more popular than the news operator. If lemmy takes off and becomes the next Reddit and people go to it to catch up on the latest news it would be a factor.
Just because it does not fit today does not mean it isn’t a bad law. It would essentially apply to ANY site that becomes popular and links to a canadian news outlet.
I didn’t say anything about popularity, but no, I don’t think Lemmy will become popular at the scale the act envisions. Most people will continue to use corporate services for the foreseeable future.
There’s a difference between popular and powerful though, and I hope the courts would be capable of making that distinction. I also see a couple of references to the “market” in the act, which I think should exclude Lemmy as long as it’s not-for-profit.
“There’s a difference between popular and powerful though” Not legally no the terms in this bill are very poorly defined. Really any “popular” / “large” website that links to Canadian news could be targeted with the open wording of the bill.