#oh scream i forgot to post this. last one in the drafts with an id so it'll be a while before the rest lmao soz | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

greenteaanon · 4 months

Text

I'll love you no matter

Scaramouche X reader

2/18 promised fanfics

Slight angst WITH FLUFF!!! Also a fuck ton of red flags

(s/c/n) - Scaramouche's chosen name

This is made out of spite for @scarazone yea i know it took a year

This rotted in my drafts (Rushed ending so i can post this dumpster fire)

You and the Balladeer we're inseparable, so inseparable in fact that you and him still felt like the star crossed lovers you were even after multiple misunderstandings and betrayals. Something you never did but he did, everytime you forgave him because deep down you knew he didn't mean to hurt you.

But as the time passed you start to think. Does he actually care about me or am I just another one of his followers?

He no longer stopped by with Sumeru Roses or Sweets, Even so far as tolerating Dango which he openly expressed is not a fan of. It made you—

..what was I talking about.... You thought, you don't remember the last thing you remember was a mental note to go on errands.

Taking your woven basket, you thought about where it came from.

'I think I saw this at the flower shop a while back....ehh I probably forgot about buying a boquet' you continue to ponder on the idea not realizing the blonde traveller calling you.

That was until they grabbed your arm. "Oh Sorry Traveller I didn't see you there, do you need something?" You turn to face them properly.

"No no it's ok!" Little paimon squeaked, slightly panting from chasing you They ask "Do you know the Balladeer?" Your eyes widen in shock and confusion. It felt so familiar.

"I feel like I do....But I don't remember what or who....it was" you mumbled the traveller seemed to be glad you remember something even if it's just a little. Rushing they grabbed your hand "No time to explain We need to get you to Nahida!" Rushing past crowds up the stairs past scholars to the Sanctuary of Surasthana.

"Wait we're meeting with Lesser Lord Kusanali!!??" You shrieked going to fix your hair and clothes to be a little more presentable, They pushed you inside in a rush.

"You guys slow down, atleast explain what's going on!" you resisted trying not to trip while they pulled you harder. "Don't worry, The traveller will explain everything for me" nahida spoke up.

"Lesser lord Kusanali! It's a pleasure to meet you!" placing a hand over your heart and bowing. "Don't worry! Its nice to meet you too, I guess that the traveler brought you here because of some recent events.."

"I still don't get what's happening.." you repeated. "It's ok we can explain everything now" Paimon said.

They sat you down and explained everything "But how did you find out about me? Compared to you I just a random person" You asked

Nahida stepped forward "I hid some stories about a wandering prince and a lady that lives in a flower, I made it to look like a kid's fairytales to avoid being erased, sort of like a back up file" she placed a finger on her cheek with a wondering expression.

"A lady that lives in a flower..." You giggled sweetly. "It's how he described you" Nahida shrugged. "No..no..its all right! It really does sound like something he'd say" you smiled holding back more giggles.

"WHAT! THE BALADEER BEING HAPPY AND SWEET???" Paimon screeched. "I've never met him any other way-" you spoke incredibly highly of him, of course you loved the man, no matter what.

"Would you like to meet him again?" The traveler asked reaching a hand out for you. Your eyes widen and then you smiled "If its not a problem with you then sure, I'd love to! But id rather stay here with lesser lord kusanali...im not very fit to be honest" you muttered. The traveler allowed you to. As both of you patiently waited for them to arrived you heard a high pitch voice scream. "WE'RE HERE!!!"

Your head whipped to see The Balladeer sporting a teal version of his outfit, lacking the fatui insignas, of course. Lacking the words to talk to him, your mouth was left agape.

He slowly walked towards you. "I- I feel like I should....know you," reaching out his hand hesitantly. By instinct, you pull him close for a hug. "Pretty boy! You're back!!" Giggling and squealing as you're hugging him tighter. He stutters,flustered as he hugs you back. But that's when they can see a soft, gentle smile on his face.

"Wow....If i didn't see this... I wouldn't believe it to be true!" Paimon piqued. Nahida looked over, smiling. "I dont get it. What's...happening...I need to go back and help at the shop, " he said, not noticing he was holding onto your arm. Nahida stepped up and started to explain.

"What...I...I did what?" His eyes wide and hands shaking, he couldn't believe what he was hearing. "If you accept that this is a part of you...i can give back the memories."

He accepted and as the giant robotic body that seemed to have his old motifs on it start to move on its own, the traveler tried to keep you and the others out of harm's way as you stood behind Wanderer having a breakdown.

The ray of light came coming towards you. It was then he stood up with new found power of Anemo he'd finally accepted his past. Now he was trying his best to protect you. His one and only.

After the situation died down both of you now stayed in Sumeru to live both of your lives together.

Happy one year anniversary to this draft

#greenteaanon #genshin fanfic #genshin impact #genshin x reader #genshin wanderer #genshin scaramouche #wanderer #scaramouche x reader #scaramouche #scaramucci #scara x reader #genshin angst

74 notes · View notes

stolligaseptember · 5 years

Note

Sorry if I'm bothering you, but I just want to ask: how accurate do you think Matpat's theory on Article 13 is? A lot of people have been panicking about it (including me), but now that I've seen your posts on the subject, I'm really starting to doubt if there is anything to be afraid of. It's just hard to focus on looking for facts when the entire website is panicking, so I hope you can kind of clear this up for me (and a lot of others). Again, I hope I'm not bothering you! Have a nice day!

It’s no bother at all! I said I was here to answer all of your questions, so that’s what I’m going to do!!

But. Oh god. This whole mess started with a YouTube video, so I guess it was only inevitable that it would finally circle back to another one.

Okay so. I’ll be honest, it took me about 3 hours to get through this video. 18, if you count the fact that I started it before I went to bed last night. And like. He’s not wrong about a lot of things. But he’s not a lawyer, or a law-maker. And he’s definitely not a European one. Which you kind of need to be to understand what the hell is going on here.

He’s just misinterpreting a lot of things. And he’s misunderstanding how the entire EU-law system, and Europe's law tradition in general, works. Which, like, he’s an American, and not even an American lawyer, so no one can really blame him for that. But what frustrates me, and what actually makes me really fucking angry, is that he’s somehow claiming that he does understand this and that he somehow holds the authority to explain it to others. Which he clearly doesn’t.

So okay. What is going on in MatPat’s video. A lot of shit.

What first struck me is that he misses the bots. Like, his entire fear mongering tactic is based in this idea that all media platform would have to develop content ID bots. And that would indeed be a bad thing. But what he forgets to mention is that the bots have been removed from the new draft text. The draft that he, by the way, quotes himself. So I don’t know if he forgot to read the entire article, of if he just forgot to mention it. That’s very unclear.

But what really struck my nerves, and what made me so upset that I actually couldn’t fall asleep last night, was that he claims that the term “good faith” is somehow too vague and is because of that bad legal writing. And I’m not going to lie, that got my goat.

“Good faith” is like the least undefined term within all of European law doctrine. It’s about the most important principle we have. Bona fide, anyone? YEAH. That’s good faith. Trust me when I say that all lawyers, and everyone that has even gotten close to working with rights, know what “good faith” means. God, we have over 400 000 books and articles on “good faith” just in my uni library. “Good faith” is so far from an undefined term.

And no, “good faith” doesn’t somehow mean that copyright holders will have the final say in what will and won’t constitute as a copyright infringement. What “good faith” means, very simply put, is that you have to have trust in each others good faith while dealing with each other. You must be able to trust that the copyright holder is indeed the copyright holder, and that the media platform is indeed able to fulfill the obligations that’s put on them. When the directive says that they should cooperate in good faith, it means that they must cooperate in a way that the legal barrier for good faith is reached. I get that this is all sounding very weird, but that is kind of what you have lawyers for. We’re supposed to have read those 400 000 and more books to be able to conclude if something has been conducted in good faith or not. But no, this writing does not in any way open up for an arbitrary interpretation of copyright law. It does make things a lot more legal-technical, but that’s the way copyright law is looking right now.

And then. I don’t know what happens next honestly. He somehow manages to connect the “good faith” requirement and the conclusion that content ID bots will somehow stop content from being uploaded??? That’s a mental jump that I really can’t follow, but okay.

First of all, because the bots are no longer on the table. Second of all, because dealing in good faith has nothing to do with the bots. But if we forget all about the bots altogether, good faith will still never give copyright holders the right to file unfounded copyright infringement claims. Either something is copyright infringement, or it isn’t, and the copyright holders and media platforms should cooperate in good faith to make sure that copyright infringement doesn’t happen, and you always have the legal framework in the back to make sure that unfounded claims of copyright infringement doesn’t happen, and that the requirement of good faith is met.

And this is complicated, I get that, but that’s what I’ve been trying to say all along. Copyright law is weird and complicated as fuck.

He also can’t make up his mind if content ID recognition is a good or bad thing. Like first he says that if they had kept the bots in the text (and that’s where he says that the bots have been removed from the text, but he doesn’t clarify that further) then everything would have been a-okay, but then like 5 minutes later he says that the content ID (which!! Isn’t even in question anymore!!!!!!!) is the work of the devil. And I’m sorry, but I’m on a bit of a personal vendetta against YouTube right now, and this is exactly the stance that YouTube themselves have taken. They’re going “oh, article 13 is literally hell brought to life!!!!” but then in the next breath they go “BUT BOTS ARE A GOOD IDEA”, and I’m getting whiplash just trying to keep up with them. It’s contradictory as hell, and I can’t even figure out what people are really worried about or not these days.

I think a lot of people are just screaming because they want to scream, but that’s another story.

He also says that the directive will be “implemented by the end of this year” which is just an outright lie. Even if you’re generous and stretch that to the end of 2019, it’s still an outright lie. The next round of votes happens in early 2019, and EU bureaucracy is a literal hellscape, so that’s just not happening.

He also compares this to GDPR, but I’ve already explained why can’t do that. Regulations and directives are completely different legal documents, and unlike regulations, directives have to be actually implemented into each member state’s national law system. And you always have an implementing period of at least 2 years for this. But like, that’s the lower bar. You can push the high bar pretty goddamn far. It’s not unusual to see member states take up to 5-6 years to implement directives, and the commission can’t really do anything about it, as long as the member state can prove that they’re working on it.

Like, I don’t remember just what it was we were supposed to regulate, but I remember we studied this one directive that Sweden took like 7, if not 8 years to implement. And we where honest to god just stalling, because we didn’t really want to regulate what the directive said that we should regulate, and we needed the time to find a way to work our way around it. So when the commission came knocking to check if we had implemented the goddamn directive yet, our government was all like “oh no, you see, this is very foreign to our law system, and we have a very hard time seeing where it could fit in, but look at all these reports we’re writing and at all these experts we’ve hired to try and work it out”, and as soon as the commission had left again, seeing how we were at least giving the impression of trying to solve it, they were all like “OKAY BACK TO STALLING”. So depending on your member state’s outlook on this directive, there’s really no telling on how long it will take before it’s implemented.

The claim that the European copyright has a narrower definition of “fair use” is also just an outright lie. This is the exceptions and limitations to copyright that the InfoSec directive allows;

(a) use for the sole purpose of illustration for teaching or scientific research, as long as the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible and to the extent justified by the non-commercial purpose to be achieved;

(b) uses, for the benefit of people with a disability, which are directly related to the disability and of a non-commercial nature, to the extent required by the specific disability;

© reproduction by the press, communication to the public or making available of published articles on current economic, political or religious topics or of broadcast works or other subject-matter of the same character, in cases where such use is not expressly reserved, and as long as the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, or use of works or other subject-matter in connection with the reporting of current events, to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and as long as the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, unless this turns out to be impossible;

(d) quotations for purposes such as criticism or review, provided that they relate to a work or other subject-matter which has already been lawfully made available to the public, that, unless this turns out to be impossible, the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, and that their use is in accordance with fair practice, and to the extent required by the specific purpose;

(e) use for the purposes of public security or to ensure the proper performance or reporting of administrative, parliamentary or judicial proceedings;

(f) use of political speeches as well as extracts of public lectures or similar works or subject-matter to the extent justified by the informatory purpose and provided that the source, including the author’s name, is indicated, except where this turns out to be impossible;

(g) use during religious celebrations or official celebrations organised by a public authority;

(h) use of works, such as works of architecture or sculpture, made to be located permanently in public places;

(i) incidental inclusion of a work or other subject-matter in other material;

(j) use for the purpose of advertising the public exhibition or sale of artistic works, to the extent necessary to promote the event, excluding any other commercial use;

(k) use for the purpose of caricature, parody or pastiche;

(l) use in connection with the demonstration or repair of equipment;

(m) use of an artistic work in the form of a building or a drawing or plan of a building for the purposes of reconstructing the building;

(n) use by communication or making available, for the purpose of research or private study, to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals on the premises of establishments referred to in paragraph 2© of works and other subject-matter not subject to purchase or licensing terms which are contained in their collections;

(o) use in certain other cases of minor importance where exceptions or limitations already exist under national law, provided that they only concern analogue uses and do not affect the free circulation of goods and services within the Community, without prejudice to the other exceptions and limitations contained in this Article.

That’s way more than the few exceptions that MatPat lists. And he’s also completely incorrect in European copyright law not somehow being flexible? Like, we’re not idiots, c’mon.

EU law isn’t stagnant; they’re living instruments, and we always interpret them in the light of the contemporary time. This is a skill all European lawyers are mercilessly trained in. EU law documents are worded “vaguely” and openly because we need the space to be able to make different interpretations depending on the situation. Like, the claim that point k, that lists caricatures, parodies and pastiches is somehow narrow? No?? This is where memes, and all other forms of parodies and caricatures and pastiches falls in. But just because you call something a meme doesn’t mean that it can’t be copyright infringement. You still have to make an evaluation of the actual situation. And that’s where lawyers and judges in every single member state come in; lawyers and judges who have been trained in both copyright law and EU law, and who knows how to interpret both the national law and the directive.

Because, once again, this isn’t aiming at making Europe into one coherent law system. It’s aiming at harmonizing the European law systems, but at the end of the day, it’s still always up to each and every member state of how they want to implement the directive.

Then there was the safe harbor issue. In this he actually is correct. The very aim of article 13 is to remove the safe harbor and to put a share of the responsibility of the copyright infringement on the media platform. Like, that’s the entire idea behind the article. So, once again, if you think that this is a bad idea, then yeah, go ahead and keep fighting article 13. And I’m not here to get political, but just why is the idea of removing the safe harbor such an egregiously bad idea? You as an individual is not going to be affected by it. It’s these big, multi-billion companies that will have to pay content creators their fair share of illegal copyright infringement. And why is that bad for you? Just food for thought.

And as usual, I have no idea how understandable this whole mess is, so don’t be afraid to ask me follow up questions, or anything else that you’re wondering over, and I’ll try to answer as best as I can!

#article 13 #swearing tw #alllevelsrobin #storytelling september

157 notes · View notes