Slashdot Mirror
EU To Move Ahead With Cultural Quotas For Streaming Services (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: The European Union is set to move ahead with a plan to enforce pan-European quotas on streaming services like Amazon Prime Video and Netflix to support production of locally produced film and video content. Roberto Viola, the European Commission's directorate general of communication, networks, content and technology told Variety that the new rules are on track to be approved in December. The proposals will require that streaming services give over at least 30% of their on-demand catalogues to original productions made in each EU country where a service is provided (individual EU Member States could choose to set the content bar even higher, at 40%).
Streaming services will also have to ensure visibility and prominence for local content -- so no burying the 'European third' in a dingy corner of the site where no one will find it, let alone stream it. The EU lawmakers' intention is to stand up for cultural diversity against the might of Hollywood and the flattening power of platforms -- in the latter case by making platforms invest in local content production rather than just doing the easy thing of fencing yet more Marvel superhero movies.
Streaming services will also have to ensure visibility and prominence for local content -- so no burying the 'European third' in a dingy corner of the site where no one will find it, let alone stream it. The EU lawmakers' intention is to stand up for cultural diversity against the might of Hollywood and the flattening power of platforms -- in the latter case by making platforms invest in local content production rather than just doing the easy thing of fencing yet more Marvel superhero movies.
Such quotas can be enforced in two ways: increasing the amount of local contents (as desired by the EU) or reducing the amount of foreign content.
I predict massive reductions in the catalogue of Netflix in most European countries.
Canada had something similar in place 30 years ago - it gave us such gems as SCTV's "Great White North" and the movie "Strange Brew". Thanks to that I learned the difference between back bacon and side bacon, and developed an appreciation for Molson's!
Take off, you Hollywood Hosers!
#DeleteChrome
I don't understand why technically Netflix is supposed to "give over" anything - can't they just ALSO host EU content? Is this rule really mandating that Netflix stop streaming some content even though technically they could steam any amount of content with enough server space?
I mean, over here in America I'd love to see this content also, let everyone see it!
I look forward to the new category in the Netflix TV app - right next to "Violent TV shows", or "Feel Good Reality TV" (both actual Netflix categories), they can add a new one "Dreck the EU Made Us Show You".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I can't see how this can possibly work in eg Malta, Luxembourg and Cyprus, countries which are very small so will have almost no local content either back catalogue or current production. Just means Netflix etc will never do business there.
these are quotas on locally produced content. I'm not surprised the EU would want them. It's not hard to see why smaller local studios can't compete with (let's be honest mostly US based) mega corporations.
And it's not so much that nobody watches the local content as it's that nobody'll produce it because why spend money making content for 2 markets when you can do it for one and folks will watch by default.
Hell, I wish we'd do this in America. Lately the dialog and plots in American movies suck balls because they have to be watered down to get past Chinese censors and/or be easy to dub over.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
How is this supposed to work anyway? Say Netflix has 3000 films available for streaming today in a particular country. Replacing a third of them would mean needing to find 1000 local films, which would likely require scraping the bottom of the barrel in the case of countries that lack a film scene. That's already problematic enough as it is, but let's ignore it for the moment. More worrying is that in some of these countries, the film scene likely isn't large enough to warrant more than a handful of distributors for theatrically-released, domestic films. This law—at least as it's explained in the summary—would seat those distributors in a disproportionate and unfair position at the negotiating table, since they know that Netflix has no choice but to work with them. They're basically being given the tools to extort Netflix legally.
In many ways, this bears a striking similarity to another form of intellectual property: standards-essential patents that companies have no choice but to use if they want to build a product in that space. In the case of standards-essential patents, however, the rights holders are required to provide licenses for their patents under FRAND terms in exchange for having their patents included in the standard. It seems to me like something similar should apply here: if the EU is effectively going to compel Netflix to license the rights to specific films, it's only fair that the rights holders to those films should be required to provide licenses under fair terms, lest they seek to take advantage of their propped up position.
Most European countries have a long tradition of subsidising art that is deemed worthwhile, yet isn't attractive enough for the masses to be able to compete in the free market. You could say it's the European way. And with the rise of streaming services and cord-cutting, it makes sense to ensure that this stuff remains available on such services to those who want it.
Now one could argue that forcing Netflix to host 30% local content isn't the best way to go about it. But another goal of this rule is to ensure that local small productions can find their way into these powerhouse all-you-can-eat subscriptions. It's serving the long tail, something that Netflix has been particularly bad at in my country even when it comes to older content from the US. So yeah, let's legislate. But at the same time that local content should be licensed out at long tail prices as well...
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The Three Tribes of Austerity
Austerity prevails in the West because three powerful political tribes champion it. Enemies of big government have coalesced with European social democrats and tax-cutting US Republicans, to create a cartel-based, hierarchical, financialized global economic system
By Yanis Varoufakis
August 31, 2018 "Information Clearing House" - ATHENS – No policy is as self-defeating during recessionary times as the pursuit of a budget surplus for the purpose of containing public debt – austerity, for short. So, as the world approaches the tenth anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, it is appropriate to ask why austerity proved so popular with Western political elites following the financial sector’s implosion in 2008.
The economic case against austerity is cut and dried: An economic downturn, by definition, implies shrinking private-sector expenditure. A government that cuts public spending in response to falling tax revenues inadvertently depresses national income (which is the sum of private and public spending) and, inevitably, its own revenues. It thus defeats the original purpose of cutting the deficit.
Clearly, there must be another, non-economic, rationale for supporting austerity. In fact, those favoring austerity are divided among three rather different tribes, each promoting it for its own reasons.
The first, and best known, “austerian” tribe is motivated by the tendency to view the state as no different from a business or a household that must tighten its belt during bad times. Overlooking the crucial interdependence between a government’s expenditure and (tax) income (from which businesses and households are blissfully free), they make the erroneous intellectual leap from private parsimony to public austerity. Of course, this is no arbitrary error; it is powerfully motivated by an ideological commitment to small government, which in turn veils a more sinister class interest in redistributing risks and losses to the poor.
A second, less recognized, austerian tribe can be found within European social democracy. To take one towering example, when the 2008 crisis erupted, Germany’s finance ministry was in the hands of Peer Steinbrück, a leading member of the Social Democratic Party. Almost immediately, Steinbrück prescribed a dose of austerity as Germany’s optimal response to the Great Recession.
Moreover, Steinbrück championed a constitutional amendment that would ban all future German governments from deviating from austerity, no matter how deep the economic downturn. Why, one may ask, would a social democrat turn self-defeating austerity into a constitutional edict during capitalism’s worst crisis in decades?
Steinbrück delivered his answer in the Bundestag in March 2009. “It’s democracy, stupid!” would be an apt summary of his tortured argument. Against a background of failing banks and a mighty recession, he opined that fiscal deficits deny elected politicians “room for maneuver” and rob the electorate of meaningful choices.
While Steinbrück did not spell it out fully, his underlying message was clear: Even if austerity destroys jobs and hurts ordinary people, it is necessary in order to preserve space for democratic choices. Oddly, it did not occur to him that, at least during a downturn, democratic options are best secured without fiscal tightening, simply by increasing taxes for the rich and social benefits for the poor.
The third austerian tribe is American and perhaps the most fascinating of the three. Whereas British Thatcherites and German social democrats practiced austerity in an ill-conceived attempt to eliminate the government’s budget deficit, US Republicans neither genuinely care to limit the federal government’s budget deficit nor believe that they will succeed in doing so. After winning office on a platform proclaiming their loathing of large gove
If there's significant demand for local content in a given country, the streaming services would fund it on their own. If they don't, then a new comer would identify the market and do so. Legislating means that the market doesn't see the demand.
Not everyone wants to live in a world of 24/7 "Ow! My Balls!" marathon.
I.e. 0$ budget productions watched by mental vegetables with voyeuristic disorders and the taste for sensationalism.
You know... What the "markets" crave. The Trump "base".
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
We all know a central committee with a five year plan knows better what the consumer needs than the consumer himself.
You mean, like the board of a global mega-corporation? After all, the detachment of decision-making from reality and customer demand in large corporations isn't that much different from the detachment of communist governments from the people.
Also, the content of commercial productions is today totally dominated by the fear to try anything "original" that is too far off the mainstream, simply because return-on-investment isn't guaranteed and the 7th follow-up on a once successful movie is favored over any new story.
maybe just like films by Luc Besson ...
Luc Besson's work is kind of "as hollywoodesque as European films get".
A much better comparison would be the original 13 Tzameti versus its terribly shallow US-remake 13 (where even the title got overly simplified).
What the EU intends: TV shows that remain faithful to the vision of each country's own distinct culture.
What will really happen: Netflix films 20 new TV shows based on... what else... Marvel or DC Comics, but has them produced in the EU instead of the US or Canada. Except they all follow Hollywood norms, have casts fluent in English & are produced IN English(*) so they can be directly monetized as-is in the US and internationally, and end up practically extinguishing what's left of that country's "culturally distinct" film industry (because everyone involved with the country's film/tv industry ends up being too busy chasing after Netflix's money).
Oh... and lots of low-budget reality-TV and game shows, because they're just about the only kind of show you CAN profitably make if your total market and language community only has a few million potential viewers.
The thing lots of people overlook is that "Hollywood" isn't a place. It's not even necessarily AMERICAN anymore. It's a business model that has proven over time to be wildly profitable & has spread over the globe.
Case in point: how would you classify the nationality of a TV show like "Game of Thrones"? Most of its cast members are European. Practically every scene was filmed in Europe. The CGI and production are done in Europe.
---
(*) Or possibly, shoot scenes involving visibly-spoken dialogue twice, back to back... once in English, and once in the country's official language. It would cost more, but not THAT MUCH more since you'd be using the same cast (they're all bilingual, remember), the same CGI, and could do the editing workflow in parallel... and you'd end up with two versions, both of which were a first-quality original shot in their respective languages.
I can't cite any specific examples, but I'm pretty sure this is ALREADY happening with big-budget Hollywood films co-produced with Chinese studios... two directors & casts [possibly with a few actors shared by both], shooting back to back using the same sets, extras, and CGI.
You do realize that the only reason the trade barriers were put in place was because the other country put their own trade barriers up first...right?
How the hell the parent was up-voted is beyond me.....*sigh*
What are you smoking? Who has trade barriers against US steel and aluminum?
Who wants to drop out of the WTO so they can get away with putting up even more tariffs?
How the hell you were upvoted doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Ignorance is upvoted around here if it fits the groupthink.