I think this is the big issue. Subtitling video is much more difficult than just recording it and while maybe reasonable for well funded groups, it isn't for your average one person shop.
In these cases, it seems like it would be much more reasonable to allow scripts/transcripts in place of subtitles. Putting together a written version is something that many educators do already.
Then if it's free, can it really be considered a business in the eyes of the state? Why aren't free auto-generated captions from YouTube sufficient for appeasing the law if no money is being made by the creator from the work? Is it being targeted despite being free because YouTube is still generating ad revenue? Which would mean that it should be YouTube's responsibility for content on its platform to meet the new accessibility standard?
Again, I don't know how legal affairs like this work over there and he didn't elaborate, so readers are basically forced to ask questions like this in order to actually understand or sympathize with what's happening here.
I feel like accessibility laws should be targeting businesses. If there isn't a carve out for personally hosted free content, that's a horrible oversight.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220603100412/http://javabook.c...