[A2k] Europe Wants 20% European Content on Netflix

Michael Gurstein gurstein at gmail.com
Fri May 27 19:16:40 PDT 2016


But isn't the Netflix content model (the models of various other similar providers that of cable TV). They provide and we pay for a "channel" which happens to be delivered via the Internet but could equally (from a content point of view) be delivered via cable or even over the air?  Netflix even restricts access on a country by country basis, attempting only partially successfully to prevent Canadians from using VPN's <http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/netflix-crackdown-1.3440348>  etc. to access the rather more substantial offerings of Netflix USA.

 

The French law seems quite reasonable on that basis.

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Seth Johnson [mailto:seth.p.johnson at gmail.com] 
Sent: May 27, 2016 1:10 PM
To: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Wyber <Stephen.Wyber at ifla.org>; Denise Nicholson <Denise.Nicholson at wits.ac.za>; A2k <a2k at lists.keionline.org>; Teresa Hackett <teresa.hackett at eifl.net>; evewoodberry at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [A2k] Europe Wants 20% European Content on Netflix

 

Right.  In relation to cable, which came into existence largely in the 80's, we first developed rules where cable had to provide a certain amount of local programming, then established the precept of retransmission consent -- for cable and its programming model.  Cable television providers have had a unique relationship to infrastructure, being "vertically integrated" from their origins.  It's not a regime that supports autonomous peers and ready access at the physical layer.

As a legacy from television, adapted to cable, the rules have some rationality.  As a foundation for the Internet, they don't.  Unless you no longer want a network of autonomous peers that anyone can readily join.  However, the US (and the EU is just now getting explicit on this) has engineered federal policy for Title II infrastructure so it "looks like" facilities-based/cable/vertically integrated telecom infra since the start of the 2000's.  Part of what happened was the network of networks was eliminated (since independent ISPs couldn't lease the lines on equitable terms), so we now have a vertically integrated dominant incumbent intranet on both sides, Title II and cable.  With the network of independent peers gone, our policymakers have been free to proceed with encouraging the facilities-based model on both sides, including setting things up so retransmission consent becomes a legal basis for the broadcasters treaty.

 

It's premature to endorse any content-related policy until we get the actual Internet back.  Then we need to address what that means for "content"-related policy.

 

 

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Michael Gurstein < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> We have had Canadian content CanCon laws in place for decades.  At 

> first controversial (usual bleating by neo-lib ideologues and those 

> living off mainlining US content into Canada), most now agree they 

> have been somewhat successful in building a small but vital Canadian 

> movie industry, enabling a place for Canadian writers in Canadian (and 

> now international) bookstores/distributors, supporting Canadian TV 

> talent (a lot of which has ended up in the US) and particularly in 

> supporting a flourishing Canadian music industry.

> 

> 

> 

> Perhaps a useful model.

> 

> 

> 

> M

> 

> 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: A2k [ <mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org> mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of 

> Stephen Wyber

> Sent: May 27, 2016 12:44 AM

> To: Denise Nicholson < <mailto:Denise.Nicholson at wits.ac.za> Denise.Nicholson at wits.ac.za>; Seth Johnson 

> < <mailto:seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>; A2k < <mailto:a2k at lists.keionline.org> a2k at lists.keionline.org>; 

>  <mailto:teresa.hackett at eifl.net> teresa.hackett at eifl.net;  <mailto:evewoodberry at gmail.com> evewoodberry at gmail.com

> Subject: Re: [A2k] Europe Wants 20% European Content on Netflix

> 

> 

> 

> Hi,

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Fascinating - especially given that in France it appears that there is 

> a fair movement against the Loi Toubon quotas implemented a good few 

> years back on radio. Clearly the format is different, but the 

> argument<http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2015/09/25/cha

> nson-francophone-les-radios-montent-le-ton-contre-le-durcissement-des-

> quotas_4771286_3236.html> runs that this tended to lead to only a 

> small number of French songs being played repeatedly on some stations, 

> while elsewhere the quality of output fell given the protection the 

> quotas offered from competition. And of course the most successful 

> artists sang in English anyway...

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Thanks,

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Stephen

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> 

> From: A2k [ <mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org> mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of Denise 

> Nicholson

> 

> Sent: 26 May 2016 19:30

> 

> To: Seth Johnson < <mailto:seth.p.johnson at gmail.com> seth.p.johnson at gmail.com>; A2k 

> < <mailto:a2k at lists.keionline.org> a2k at lists.keionline.org>;  <mailto:teresa.hackett at eifl.net> teresa.hackett at eifl.net; 

>  <mailto:evewoodberry at gmail.com> evewoodberry at gmail.com

> 

> Subject: Re: [A2k] Europe Wants 20% European Content on Netflix

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Hi,

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> South African Broadcasting Corporation recently made a decision that 

> 90% of music played on radio has to be local content. The draft 

> Copyright Bill proposed 80% but I have been told it may be 70% in the 

> revised Bill which is due to go to Cabinet very soon.

> 

> 

> 

> See:

>  <http://mg.co.za/article/2016-05-12-sa-music-to-dominate-radio-as-sabc-> http://mg.co.za/article/2016-05-12-sa-music-to-dominate-radio-as-sabc-

> announces-90-local-policy

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Regards

> 

> 

> 

> Denise

> 

> 

> 

> ________________________________________

> 

> 

> 

> From: Seth Johnson [seth.p.johnson at gmail.com]

> 

> 

> 

> Sent: 24 May 2016 11:56 PM

> 

> 

> 

> To: A2k

> 

> 

> 

> Subject: [A2k] Europe Wants 20% European Content on Netflix

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Europe thinks Internet is cable. Note that this dovetails exactly with 

> cable TV tradition as well as the notion of the broadcasters treaty

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  <http://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/commission-wants-netflix-> http://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/commission-wants-netflix-

> to-carry-at-least-20-european-content/

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> 

> 

> 

> A2k mailing list

> 

> 

> 

>  <mailto:A2k at lists.keionline.org%3cmailto:A2k at lists.keionline.org> A2k at lists.keionline.org<mailto:A2k at lists.keionline.org>

> 

> 

> 

>  <http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> <table width="100%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"

> style="width:100%;"> <tr> <td align="left" 

> style="text-align:justify;"><font face="arial,sans-serif" size="1" 

> color="#999999"><span style="font-size:11px;">This communication is 

> intended for the addressee only. It is confidential. If you have 

> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and 

> destroy the original message. You may not copy or disseminate this 

> communication without the permission of the University. Only 

> authorised signatories are competent to enter into agreements on 

> behalf of the University and recipients are thus advised that the 

> content of this message may not be legally binding on the University 

> and may contain the personal views and opinions of the author, which 

> are not necessarily the views and opinions of The University of the 

> Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. All agreements between the University and 

> outsiders are subject to South African Law unless the University 

> agrees in writing to the contrary. </span></font></td> </tr> </table> 

> _______________________________________________

> 

> 

> 

> A2k mailing list

> 

> 

> 

>  <mailto:A2k at lists.keionline.org%3cmailto:A2k at lists.keionline.org> A2k at lists.keionline.org<mailto:A2k at lists.keionline.org>

> 

> 

> 

>  <http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org

> 

> _______________________________________________

> 

> A2k mailing list

> 

>  <mailto:A2k at lists.keionline.org> A2k at lists.keionline.org

> 

>  <http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org




More information about the A2k mailing list