Well those videos on Youtube won't be impacted by this. This law doesn't go after individuals who upload infringing content, rather it goes after the platform itself. It's unlikely Youtube will be affected by it.
While that may indeed be the intent, an aggressive prosecutor could make a strong argument that individual streamers dancing or singing unlicensed karaoke are providing a digital service (the word "platform" never appears in the text) that "is intentionally marketed by or at the direction of that person to promote its use in publicly performing works." Which would now be a freaking felony.
Going by the quoted portion of the bill up thread, "platform" doesn't appear in the relevant portions text but neither does "digital service" - it says "digital transmission service".
> This law doesn't go after individuals who upload infringing content, rather it goes after the platform itself.
Be careful. That's not what the law actually says. It doesn't mention "platform".
The term used is "digital transmission service", which is defined in terms of the undefined term "service". Perhaps there is some established narrow legal definition of the term "service" that will keep this law from being abused? Let's all hope so!
I would read "digital transmission service" as a service offering digital transmission, but that's not what the bill says. It says "the term ‘digital transmission service’ means a service that has the primary purpose of publicly performing works by digital transmission;" which to my eyes does not clearly restrict it to platforms as opposed to, at, a YouTube channel. Unless, as you say, there is a restriction somewhere unspecified on what can be meant by "service".
I, for one, will be glad if these go away. (Plus, get them out of my feed, youtube. I don't watch them.)
Apparently they're so successful that other people are doing it now. I saw someone totally unrelated to music reacting to amateur music songs.