EU content quotas for Netflix and Amazon to become law

[Corky34]

The principle that, by definition, a broadcast is available to all, but a subscription service is only available to subscribers, who choose to subscribe in order to receive what THEY want.

Ah i see what you mean now, yes a broadcast is available to all but what do you do (not you personally but theoretical) when advertising revenue drops because fewer people are watching? Free market thinking would say let them fail or that they should change content so their more appealing, attract more viewers.

However broadcasting isn't really a free market, in the same way ‘high-quality journalism’ isn't, there's massive government regulation of those markets (arguably for good reason), the scope for competition is severely limited due to the aforementioned regulations, rules, codes of conduct (as you've been talking about in the Freedom of speech - contentious thread), and the presence of local cultural customs (I'm guessing something like Police Interceptors, 24hrs in A&E and other programs specific to the UK aren't very appealing to someone living Italy, Africa, or America).

Don't get me wrong I'm not sticking up for broadcast media or newspapers, however the rise of the online world has raised, what are IMO, some interesting questions on how or even if financial support should be provided to keep what is essentially 'local' media content going and of sufficient 'quality' in order to perform their role as part of a community.

[Wolfclaw]

30% of crap and repeats now going to be home grown. Oh can you imagine what the French content will be like, as bad as their music

[spacein_vader]

30% of crap and repeats now going to be home grown. Oh can you imagine what the French content will be like, as bad as their music

Given the method of delivery isn't it impossible for Netflix to have repeats?

[peterb]

30% of crap and repeats now going to be home grown. Oh can you imagine what the French content will be like, as bad as their music

Ah - nothing like appreciating some cultural diversity

[Smudger]

30% of crap and repeats now going to be home grown. Oh can you imagine what the French content will be like, as bad as their music

You should watch a few French films, they're generally very good, and are often copied/remade by Hollywood, only with hugely saccharine endings.

Start with La Haine.

[philehidiot]

Can I also point out that Netflix and Amazon are usually consumed via some kind of set top box style deelie-mah-bob-a-ma-jig.

This means that it's usually something that can run multiple different pieces of software. The point being that if I want to watch an Amazon program, I use their software. If I want to watch local rubbish, I can use iPlayer, if I want to watch 'allo 'allo then there's UKTV play. As a result the fault of a lack of streaming local TV shows lies SOLELY at the feet of the local broadcasters who may well not be creating streaming services. Perhaps they don't see a need. Either way, the correct approach to solve this problem if the EU feels it MUST throw itself into this is to tell these local broadcasters that streaming is now seen as a mode of broadcast that they must service and therefore provide a downloadable app for the boxes. Surely rather this than force Netflix, et al to host programs for which there is evidently little demand (or they'd have done it). This is all about trying to maintain the status quo and not letting the market evolve properly. What will happen is local media will know that their programs will get picked up as other companies are forced to buy them to stream them and so will continue to produce the same old tat which evidently isn't gaining traction. If the EU said to them get into the streaming game (perhaps here's some low cost loans to help with set up costs and maybe even some infrastructure deals where the EU bought a load of server space at low prices to pass on at cost to the local media) then they'd end up competing with the big boys for viewership and the quality would increase.

But no, let's just drag other people down rather than helping others up. It's a familiar tale. Why make things better when we can make it all equally bad for less effort?

As for GPDR it was a massive back office issue requiring a lot of work and legal expertise. Yes, all we see is an annoying message but when you look at the stuff that went into that message you realise just how much effort goes into compliance. And that's one set of EU laws. These people are getting carried away with themselves and they really are going to drive away business because someone will cost a deal and then realise the cost of compliance makes it just not worth the hassle or the money. You say to find another news provider - I use a piece of software which aggregates articles on a subject from left, right, neutral and foreign media. The idea being that I can get a rounded view of something. To say they don't care about my privacy is mad - none of them do because they make a lot of money by tracking me, generating a profile and selling that data. They all make money by violating your privacy but the difference is that finally one large company has gone "it's gonna cost us more to comply than we'll make". And that may be a one off for now, but it will spread. Who suffers? Well the end European user of course.

[peterb]

If I want to watch local rubbish, I can use iPlayer, if I want to watch 'allo 'allo then there's UKTV play.

iPlayer just shows BBC content, some of which is sourced internationally - and was also responsible for commissioning and airing 'Allo 'Allo.

Maybe you were confusing it with ITV hub?

[Saracen]

Ah i see what you mean now, yes a broadcast is available to all but what do you do (not you personally but theoretical) when advertising revenue drops because fewer people are watching? Free market thinking would say let them fail or that they should change content so their more appealing, attract more viewers.

However broadcasting isn't really a free market, in the same way ‘high-quality journalism’ isn't, there's massive government regulation of those markets (arguably for good reason), the scope for competition is severely limited due to the aforementioned regulations, rules, codes of conduct (as you've been talking about in the Freedom of speech - contentious thread), and the presence of local cultural customs (I'm guessing something like Police Interceptors, 24hrs in A&E and other programs specific to the UK aren't very appealing to someone living Italy, Africa, or America).

Don't get me wrong I'm not sticking up for broadcast media or newspapers, however the rise of the online world has raised, what are IMO, some interesting questions on how or even if financial support should be provided to keep what is essentially 'local' media content going and of sufficient 'quality' in order to perform their role as part of a community.

That's why government-provided srvices (for example, BBC) are different to subscription services. Government services are, supposedly, paid for by all and required to provide a broad-based content with something for evverybody. Hence, Beeb4 educational stuff (wildlife, Horizon, etc), through go reality shows, Strictly, and on to Eastenders.

There, IMHO, government is quite right to include, for example, local/regional news, and local radio.

But subscription services are a deal between content-provider and subscriber. For instance, if Netflix costs £x/month, and provides me (a generic me, the potential user, not me personally) with content that I value higher than £x/month (and assuming I can afford it).

But .... anything that either increases the service cost-base, or increases cost to me, threatens that.

For instance, I might subscribe at £10/month, but not at £20/month. Somewhere in-between is my breaking point. Put my costs up beyond that, and I cancel and the service not only doesn't get my increase, but they lose the £10 they previously had.

A similar logic works for increasing costs .... such as by being forced to provide content the company doesn't want to offer, and I don't want to receive.

An example. Years ago, in the days of analogue satellite, I (me, personally this time) had Sky and added on the optional movie channels. Then, the introduced Premium movies, more or less pay-per-view. and I noticed immediately that the quality of movie content of the standard movie channel dropped immediately, and stuff I previously would have got suddenly disappeared onto pay-to-watch.

So, my subscription cost stayed the same but the contrnt I was paying for dropped. All of a sudden, my £x/month bought me less of what I wanted and the deal was not worth it, I cancelled Sky entirely.


In a commercial organisation, it should be market forces that rule. If the service cost goes up, I'll probably pay it. But if it goes up too far, I leave. It's for the company to determine what content to provide, and what price point maximises profit. It may be that raising prices makes more profit, even
after those, like me, not prepared to pay it, have left. Fair enough.

If the company start bundling losts of things I don't want, and my benefit/cost calculation suffers, I'm off.


Suppose you subscribe to a SciFy service. Do you want wildlife programs or period drama/romance films? Probably not.


This EU levy interferes with the ability if a company to provide what it considers users want, and at what price. Netflix is a commercial operation, not a social services department doing "good works". Dumping either content demands or price/cost rises on them in state interference.

[spacein_vader]

As for GPDR it was a massive back office issue requiring a lot of work and legal expertise. Yes, all we see is an annoying message but when you look at the stuff that went into that message you realise just how much effort goes into compliance. And that's one set of EU laws. These people are getting carried away with themselves and they really are going to drive away business because someone will cost a deal and then realise the cost of compliance makes it just not worth the hassle or the money. You say to find another news provider - I use a piece of software which aggregates articles on a subject from left, right, neutral and foreign media. The idea being that I can get a rounded view of something. To say they don't care about my privacy is mad - none of them do because they make a lot of money by tracking me, generating a profile and selling that data. They all make money by violating your privacy but the difference is that finally one large company has gone "it's gonna cost us more to comply than we'll make". And that may be a one off for now, but it will spread. Who suffers? Well the end European user of course.

Disclosure: I work in data protection so I may be biased.

GDPR can be a lot of work depending on what you do. For a US news website (your example,) with no EU presence it would be much smaller, read the regs, apply the notice to the website and provide a point of contact for any EU based individuals who wish to exercise any of their rights.

As for saying they don't care about your privacy, you're absolutely right. So this makes them. It's up to you to decide whether being profiled is a cost you're willing to pay for your content. I dare say for the majority of people it will be. And if the majority AREN'T prepared to sacrifice their privacy there are still ways of monetising a website. You can still provide ads, just not targeted ads. You can ask for a subscription, you can use product affiliate links. I'm sure there are other models too.

As for the European user suffering, only if you define having your wishes about privacy respected as suffering.

Data protection is a bit like health and safety. With no regulation a lot of companies wouldn't care or bother with it as it adds costs and reduces profit. But as with H&S governments (and not just the EU, most countries have regulations on it,) have decided that it's in the public interest for people to know what information is collected on them, what it's used for and (depending on the reason for holding it,) to refuse to provide it. Just as they've decided it's in the public interest for buildings to have fire exits and first aiders.

That's why government-provided srvices (for example, BBC) are different to subscription services. Government services are, supposedly, paid for by all and required to provide a broad-based content with something for evverybody. Hence, Beeb4 educational stuff (wildlife, Horizon, etc), through go reality shows, Strictly, and on to Eastenders.

There, IMHO, government is quite right to include, for example, local/regional news, and local radio.

But subscription services are a deal between content-provider and subscriber. For instance, if Netflix costs £x/month, and provides me (a generic me, the potential user, not me personally) with content that I value higher than £x/month (and assuming I can afford it).

But .... anything that either increases the service cost-base, or increases cost to me, threatens that.

For instance, I might subscribe at £10/month, but not at £20/month. Somewhere in-between is my breaking point. Put my costs up beyond that, and I cancel and the service not only doesn't get my increase, but they lose the £10 they previously had.

A similar logic works for increasing costs .... such as by being forced to provide content the company doesn't want to offer, and I don't want to receive.

An example. Years ago, in the days of analogue satellite, I (me, personally this time) had Sky and added on the optional movie channels. Then, the introduced Premium movies, more or less pay-per-view. and I noticed immediately that the quality of movie content of the standard movie channel dropped immediately, and stuff I previously would have got suddenly disappeared onto pay-to-watch.

So, my subscription cost stayed the same but the contrnt I was paying for dropped. All of a sudden, my £x/month bought me less of what I wanted and the deal was not worth it, I cancelled Sky entirely.


In a commercial organisation, it should be market forces that rule. If the service cost goes up, I'll probably pay it. But if it goes up too far, I leave. It's for the company to determine what content to provide, and what price point maximises profit. It may be that raising prices makes more profit, even
after those, like me, not prepared to pay it, have left. Fair enough.

If the company start bundling losts of things I don't want, and my benefit/cost calculation suffers, I'm off.


Suppose you subscribe to a SciFy service. Do you want wildlife programs or period drama/romance films? Probably not.


This EU levy interferes with the ability if a company to provide what it considers users want, and at what price. Netflix is a commercial operation, not a social services department doing "good works". Dumping either content demands or price/cost rises on them in state interference.

Can't argue with any of that.

[Kumagawa]

So I take it there will be steps to make sure that German, French and other nations content owners won't be jacking up their licence fees to streaming services now that they are legally mandated to purchase set amounts of it right? right?

[Corky34]

<Snip>
This EU levy interferes with the ability if a company to provide what it considers users want, and at what price. Netflix is a commercial operation, not a social services department doing "good works". Dumping either content demands or price/cost rises on them in state interference.

I don't disagree with anything you've said...but...state interference has been a thing across broadcast media since its inception, it's not exclusive to publicly funded organisations like the BBC, yes there's less state interference with regards to commercially funded broadcasters (either funded by subscriptions exclusively, advertising, or a mixture of both) but as i said there's long lists of what is and isn't allowed, there are still regulations, rules, and codes of conduct.

This proposal and The Cairncross Review is not about publicly funded media, it's about commercially funded media. Publicly funded media is less effected by falling viewer numbers, commercially funded media depends on advertising revenue and it goes without saying that advertisers pay less when viewer numbers are lower, and that's ignoring the fact that we don't have publicly funded print media.

As i said free market thinking says we should either let these commercial entities fail or they should adapt to what the markets want, but should we allow the likes of ITV, CH5, The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Guardian, The Mail, to fail leaving no 'high-quality journalism’ in print media and only publicly funded broadcast media? Should we allow them to fail and no longer have the presence of local cultural customs (local i suggest in this situation is more than the customs of Wales, Scotland, NI, England, London, the NE, NW, SE, etc, etc. It's cultural customs of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, etc, etc.) reflected in the media people are consuming?

[Saracen]

I don't disagree with anything you've said...but...state interference has been a thing across broadcast media since its inception, it's not exclusive to publicly funded organisations like the BBC, yes there's less state interference with regards to commercially funded broadcasters (either funded by subscriptions exclusively, advertising, or a mixture of both) but as i said there's long lists of what is and isn't allowed, there are still regulations, rules, and codes of conduct.

This proposal and The Cairncross Review is not about publicly funded media, it's about commercially funded media. Publicly funded media is less effected by falling viewer numbers, commercially funded media depends on advertising revenue and it goes without saying that advertisers pay less when viewer numbers are lower, and that's ignoring the fact that we don't have publicly funded print media.

As i said free market thinking says we should either let these commercial entities fail or they should adapt to what the markets want, but should we allow the likes of ITV, CH5, The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Guardian, The Mail, to fail leaving no 'high-quality journalism’ in print media and only publicly funded broadcast media? Should we allow them to fail and no longer have the presence of local cultural customs (local i suggest in this situation is more than the customs of Wales, Scotland, NI, England, London, the NE, NW, SE, etc, etc. It's cultural customs of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, etc, etc.) reflected in the media people are consuming?

Well, state interference, up to a point, is justified where there's a public charter mandating, for exsmple, "educate, entertain and ..." whatever the BBC charter says, AND the state is effectively paying for it, via direct taxation, or a la BBC, forcing us to pay use it or not, because it's a public service.

Or, of course, to fight crime, prevent terrorism, etc. So there's a case, for the public good and with adequate oversight for telecomns interception, and even regulating docial media platforms that are being abused.

The state does have an interference role, most notably for public protecton. That ranges from food safety inspections to programs to reduce sslt, sugar, etc in our diets .... for those daft enough or too stupud/ignorant enough to not moderate their own appetites.


But I can't see how this fits any of that.

It's more like relling one of the old "DVD by post" operations that a third of their inventory has to be wildlife programs, regardless of whether snybody asks for them.

At the risk of going Brexit again, this is an example of EU interference where it's not wanted and, IMHP, certainly not needed.

There are times when EU legislation is justified. Harmonising consumer rights across all member states is a prime example.

But this, IMHO, is neither wanted, needed or justified.

[DanceswithUnix]

You should watch a few French films, they're generally very good, and are often copied/remade by Hollywood, only with hugely saccharine endings.

Start with La Haine.

I would, but there aren't many on Netflix

Joking aside, my son is doing GCSE Spanish and *did* find some films on Netflix to watch. More would be nice.

To us English speaking peeps, having TV diluted with American material is I think fairly easy to shrug off. I actually watch far more BBC content on Netflix than on actual terrestrial broadcast these days and very little on iPlayer. On holiday in Menorca last week, the kids were watching a local cartoon channel and only the adverts were in Spanish. Cartoons were in the original language either American or Japanese, not even subtitled let alone dubbed. Seemed very odd to me.

[Saracen]

should we allow the likes of ITV, CH5, The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Guardian, The Mail, to fail ....

Oh, don't tempt me.

Oh, what the heck. Hell, yes. If they can't either survive as they are, or adapt to a chsnging market, hell yes. Make room for some fresh, innovative and probably online alternatives .... which is where user demand is going, anyway.


At the risk of ruffling left-wing feathers, we should not support doomed industries, or we'd still have cotton mills, unless there is a strategic national interest. The mining industry needed massive change and the strike just about killed it. We should never have let ship-building be decimated.

But .... government determining what content should be available? What next? Mandatory watching of party-polutical broadcasts?


As for those papers/TV chsnnels, ic they fail, thry fail. We centainly don't want EU appointed editors mandating content.

[Corky34]

Well, state interference, up to a point, is justified where there's a public charter mandating, for exsmple, "educate, entertain and ..." whatever the BBC charter says, AND the state is effectively paying for it, via direct taxation, or a la BBC, forcing us to pay use it or not, because it's a public service.

Or, of course, to fight crime, prevent terrorism, etc. So there's a case, for the public good and with adequate oversight for telecomns interception, and even regulating docial media platforms that are being abused.

The state does have an interference role, most notably for public protecton. That ranges from food safety inspections to programs to reduce sslt, sugar, etc in our diets .... for those daft enough or too stupud/ignorant enough to not moderate their own appetites.


But I can't see how this fits any of that.

Would it be a good guess to say you wasn't aware that even commercial media, TV and print media, have similar mandate charters as PBS media? As i said there's is not as restrictive/regulated but the UK government, probably other countries governments also, mandate what commercial media must and must not do, e.g ITV has to spend something like 50% of its funding on regional programs (12 to specific), there's other regulations but it's late and I'm off to bed.

EDIT: It's morning so....IDK if it's me or that maybe we're at cross purposes as I've been trying to explain that this is not to do with PBS (public broadcasting systems), it's to do with CBS (commercial broadcasting systems) and commercial news systems (newspapers) but for some reason we keep getting our wires crossed as it seems every time I've explained that free market thinking says we should let CBS and newspapers fail or adapt but that CBS and newspapers are not actually free markets you seem to largely ignore CBS and newspapers and keep mentioning PBS.

Oh, don't tempt me.

Oh, what the heck. Hell, yes. If they can't either survive as they are, or adapt to a chsnging market, hell yes. Make room for some fresh, innovative and probably online alternatives .... which is where user demand is going, anyway.


At the risk of ruffling left-wing feathers, we should not support doomed industries, or we'd still have cotton mills, unless there is a strategic national interest. The mining industry needed massive change and the strike just about killed it. We should never have let ship-building be decimated.

But .... government determining what content should be available? What next? Mandatory watching of party-polutical broadcasts?


As for those papers/TV chsnnels, ic they fail, thry fail. We centainly don't want EU appointed editors mandating content.

Ops i didn't read that bit last night.

You'll get no argument from me about letting some of the CBS channels and newspapers fail, I've only ever bought or read a handful of newspapers in my entire life and i detest adverts. However that raises the question of what happens when or if they do fail, are we willing to allow 'high-quality journalism' (again the governments own words) to disappear and be replaced with citizen journalism, sensationalist fake news, click-bait, and 'low-quality journalism'? Are we willing not to have the presence of local cultural customs reflected in the media we watch (i think they call it the Americanization of films and TV)?

This isn't only about the EU mandating what we should watch as the UK is proposing a far more extreme version when it comes to the newspapers, they're talking about either using public money or taxing the large tech companies to fund the print media, in essence handing over large amounts of cash to millionaire media moguls.

Like i said free market thinking says we should let them fail and I'm all for that but letting them fail raises a whole heap of interesting questions around the 'value' (in the societal sense) of 'local' broadcast and print media reflecting local cultural customs and no longer having free (as in editorial freedom) broadcast and print media and how having those are apparently vital to democracy.

At the risk of ruffling left-wing feathers, we should not support doomed industries, or we'd still have cotton mills, unless there is a strategic national interest. The mining industry needed massive change and the strike just about killed it. We should never have let ship-building be decimated.

I'm not sure what this has to do with left-wing or right-wing politics as I'm all for being consistent and treating everyone equally unless there's strong evidence not to do so, such as ship-building, however what I've been trying to highlight is that IMO there's a conversation that needs to be had about whether 'local' commercial broadcast systems and 'local' (when compared to the global nature of the Internet) news media outlets should be allowed to fail because of the role they have in society.

Free market thinking says let them fail, society says our local cultural customs and democracy are important: Broadcast and print media play a key role in local cultural customs and democracy, no?