EU content quotas for Netflix and Amazon to become law

[HEXUS]

The December vote to enforce 30 per cent local content is just a formality, says official.

Read more.

[Usernamist]

But why though?

[iworrall]

Guess which shows will be the bottom 30% by views?

[AndyN33]

Easiest way to make sure the 30% is reached, remove other content so we will get screwed over, yet again.

[Saracen]

Let me see if I've got this right.

The EU wants to force a subscription-based service to include a large chunk of "local" content, whether subscribers want it or not.

Then, they want to impose a surcharge, which of course, gets passed right on to subscribers, to fund local content?


Makes me glad I don't (currently) subscribe to either.

IMHO, content should be added to such services if users want it.

So, let users opt-in or opt-out, and see how many want this extra "local" content .... and will pay for it.,

[peterb]

What do they designate as 'local'? Local to the country in which the service is delivered or content produced in the EU? Seems to be a protectionist political measure rather than one for the consumers.

[Corky34]

But why though?

I think it's to do with making sure 'local' content creators can maintain revenue streams, it seems to be a less extreme version of the The Cairncross Review, both ‘high-quality journalism’ (UK governments own words) and 'local' (ITV, CH5 in the UK, TV channels supported via advertising in the rest of the EU) have seen declines in revenue in recent years because of people have switched to streaming and online content.

Both the UK and the EU are grappling with how they should deal with what they see as the impending death, or at least threats to the financial sustainability, of 'traditional' media and journalism.

[Saracen]

What do they designate as 'local'? Local to the country in which the service is delivered or content produced in the EU? Seems to be a protectionist political measure rather than one for the consumers.

Dunno, but the article mentions country-specific sub-quotas, so it appears not. It's wider than that.

Given that it's EU rules, I guess "local" means inside the EU .... mainly as opposed to American.

[kalniel]

I guess it's a bit like the rules in some EU countries saying that their equivalent of the premier league teams have to have a certain proportion of national players.

[Saracen]

I think it's to do with making sure 'local' content creators can maintain revenue streams, it seems to be a less extreme version of the The Cairncross Review, both ‘high-quality journalism’ (UK governments own words) and 'local' (ITV, CH5 in the UK, TV channels supported via advertising in the rest of the EU) have seen declines in revenue in recent years because of people have switched to streaming and online content.

Both the UK and the EU are grappling with how they should deal with what they see as the impending death of 'traditional' media and journalism.

That could well be. But I question whether the principle set for public broadcastets should apply to subscription services.

It's kinda like the government deciding that supermarkets have to add 10% of the value of your shpping basket, and use it to supply you with healthy fruit and veg - whether you want it or not.

[jimbouk]

But why though?

To ensure that the culture of the EU is not decimated by imports. To align streaming services with broadcast services. To protect the language of countries and regions in the EU.

[philehidiot]

Why must they ALWAYS interfere? If people don't want it because there's only US content (from a US company) then they won't buy it! Stop poking your protectionist noses into everything. If there is a demand for consumers for services that stream local content then a business will open to serve the market. What they're doing is ensuring these smaller businesses won't open because now the big boys are being forced into supplying that service... for which I assume there is little demand. Why is there little demand? Because people have TVs and local broadcasting.

I tried to access a website for a large US newspaper yesterday (can't remember which one) and there was a block page saying that they could not show their content in the EU due to all the regulations. All this regulatory burden is NOT HELPING CONSUMERS. Since when did anyone mess with their cookie settings for individual sites? It's just another annoying warning message that most people don't understand and everyone just clicks "okay" to but costs websites a fortune in compliance. Utter nonsense.

[Saracen]

To ensure that the culture of the EU is not decimated by imports. To align streaming services with broadcast services. To protect the language of countries and regions in the EU.

But, surely, as a subscription service it should be for the service to provide what customers paying for the service want? Not some politically correct nsnny-statist interference.

[Saracen]

Why must they ALWAYS interfere? If people don't want it because there's only US content (from a US company) then they won't buy it! Stop poking your protectionist noses into everything. If there is a demand for consumers for services that stream local content then a business will open to serve the market. What they're doing is ensuring these smaller businesses won't open because now the big boys are being forced into supplying that service... for which I assume there is little demand. Why is there little demand? Because people have TVs and local broadcasting.

I tried to access a website for a large US newspaper yesterday (can't remember which one) and there was a block page saying that they could not show their content in the EU due to all the regulations. All this regulatory burden is NOT HELPING CONSUMERS. Since when did anyone mess with their cookie settings for individual sites? It's just another annoying warning message that most people don't understand and everyone just clicks "okay" to but costs websites a fortune in compliance. Utter nonsense.

That. Exactly and entirely.

Well put.

[peterb]

To ensure that the culture of the EU is not decimated by imports. To align streaming services with broadcast services. To protect the language of countries and regions in the EU.

What EU culture? There isn't one - just a group of individual countries with their own diverse cultures.

[Corky34]

That could well be. But I question whether the principle set for public broadcastets should apply to subscription services.

Not sure what principle set for public broadcasters you're referring too, is it the fact that public money is used to fund them à la the license fee?

If so that leaves out all the non-public broadcasters who depend on advertising revenue, The Cairncross Review is looking at skimming off some of the license fee or some kind of tax on the big tech companies to fund the ‘high-quality journalism’ produced by the likes of The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Guardian, The Mail, etc, etc. This EU thing seems to be taking a different approach in that they want to force the online world to carry 30-40% 'local' content so they get a fair crack of the whip.