Hacker News Reader

I'm quite positive what will instead happen is psuedo-companies will prop up in each country, whose specific purpose is to produce a sufficient number of garbage but 'local' film, to license to each streaming provider, to meet the requirement. If netflix has a catalogue of 600, and belgium only has 90 films, then 210 pieces of shit will be produced to fluff it up (and likely explicitly ignored by the recommendation algorithms, with caveats). Eventually, the streaming services will realize its a smaller headache, cheaper, and presumably more profitable, to rely solely on the psuedo-companies for local films (outside of 'hit' local films, or rather, accidentally local), and it will simply become 300 garbage items.

Notably, those accidentally local films would probably have appeared in the catalogue anyways.

In similar fashion, the US gov is required to give a chunk of its business to minority run companies, and so you now have companies whose sole value is having a disabled alaskan female at the head, to land the contract, and then immediately contract out the entire thing to an 'actual' business to handle.

So I expect that it wouldn't be merely as bad as reducing netflix's catalogue. It will entirely cripple each countries local film industries (at least, if they are, or were going to be, dependent on streaming services for income). This can only be good for countries that already have a strong film industry.

Your entire premise is utter nonsense.

Lots of countries have minimum local content provisions. And in none of those countries have their been companies whose sole job it is to produce garbage content. You know why ? Because (a) nobody wants to work or be involved with garbage, (b) the cost of producing garbage is often the same as producing something amazing, (c) its hard for writers to have the motivation to deliberately write garbage.

Often local content (due to their being less money) are really thoughtful, low budget dramas/thrillers which aren't expensive. And contribute greatly to teaching the world how people live. Case in point: Nordic police dramas. They also can be hugely popular/profitable internationally.

What universe are you coming from? I mean hell, just look at porn as a trivial example against all three of your points. Sure, theres some decent porn out there, but by and large its trash. Exactly at the minimum quality required to service its needs, and its a huge industry. And its got the works: directors, actors, writers, producers, all working together to produce a shitshow, because its a profitable shitshow. Distinctly because its cheap to produce shit, and if it sells well despite being shit, theres a lot of money to be made.

Im not saying good things won’t be produced, I’m saying the market will optimize, and theres a very simple, clear and obvious “happy path” that directly conflicts with the spirit and intent of this law. I don’t know of a universe we can live in where money isn’t the primary motivator of a (generally open) market. I also don’t know of a universe where it costs the same to do more work than less, or a universe where people globally refuse shit work, when the price is (more than) right.

Oh as a filmmaker, you might not think you are making garbage. But the studio giving you money to make a film for a quota knows you wont make anything of general appeal. Maybe a few people will like it, but the rest will see it as garbage.

There are dozens of French and German films made under this theory.

For smaller countries, could a service small up exclusive rights to most feature length media, effectiy locking out competitors?

Its more about smaller industries, but in the scenario I described, probably not: there’s no reason that more psuedo-companies wouldn’t spring up, to service the other streaming services.

If you somehow blocked this garbage film industry as well as implemented a minimum requirement rule, such that only “good” films counted to the percentage, and given that “good” is relatively difficult to meet, so supply is severely constrained, then lockout is not unimaginable. But it’d probably still be difficult without additional regulation: prices would simply increase until the strangehold was broken (as a studio, what do I care about netflix’s monopoly if amazon is willing to pony up?). It would still be locked down to a handful of major services, but that’s a scenario that comes about with or without this law

Also an addendum example: chinese actors/directors/producers in film, whose primary value is allowing potential access to china distribution.

When you substitute merit for nationality (or most other things), its trivial to game, and it will be gamed.

This isn't about Netflix. Of the major streaming services, Netflix is the only one that actually meets or exceeds the 30% threshold.

This is about all the other streaming services, like Amazon, Hulu, Disney, etc., which produce almost no shows outside of North America. The EU is trying to force them to play ball.

And they'll succeed...in getting all of those services to add token local crap to the catalog. Expect to see a lot of very low-budget teen dramas and single-set movies if this passes. The EU believes that this will increase funding for EU "cultural" productions, but the more likely result is an entire generation of Uwe Bolls filling up EU's streaming services with utter crap. (Uwe Boll, for those who do not know, was a German filmmaker who took advantage of EU/German film incentives to convince major studios to let him make a number of very bad films, like Postal and the Dungeon Siege movie. Germany eliminated those incentives after a few years almost entirely because of him, and Uwe Boll hasn't managed to make a film since.)

Do you have a source on the Netflix claim? I doubt that 30% of the shows available in Malta are made in Malta.

> 30% of movies in Indiana need to be created in Indiana

Seems like the media production is pretty centralized in the US. It's hard to compare with Europe, where most nations have different languages, their own TV stations (producing their own content) and their own funds to support productions of movies.

It would be a shame if these biotopes of media production would get dried out because of US monopolies.

At least for Netflix I know that they license movies/tv shows produced in my country and they actively recommend it to me.

But the size of EU member states varies drastically. Germany is home to 83,000,000 people, Malta just over 440,000.

Is the EU suggesting that Malta's population should only be able to stream content 2x the volume of its domestic content output? And that's assuming the likes of Netflix was able to hoover up all of that domestic output which seems untenable.

Yes, and my guess is that Malta will implement the law differently from what the EU proposes.

[Edited to fix typo.]

For reference, IMDB shows 297 movies from Malta, and Netflix' catalogue in Malta offers 716 movies.

So even assuming the current catalogue is completely devoid of Maltese movies, there is still some margin available to fulfil the strictest requirements. Although I think the actual requirements is to include 30% movies from the EU.

I don't think your interpretation of the requirements is correct. From upthread:

> 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%)

Also * cough * a good chunk of those US shows/movies are made up here in Vancouver anyways.

Or Toronto, aka "NYC on your favorite TV show"

LA is the more frequent stand-in for NYC on TV (e.g., CSI NY, Brooklyn 99, etc.). Humorously enough, Toronto frequently fills in for LA on lower-budget TV productions (e.g., Supergirl, anything on SyFy).

What fills in for Toronto?

Seattle

NYC and LA mostly, not really centralized as much as concentrated

Its not as if Netflix is the creme de la creme of cinema. Netflix already sucks outside the US. Outside the US, there's far less content, and there is either way a lot of filler content anyway.

What is going to happen is that Netflix will get the rights to stream (hopefully quality) local movies and series. That's gonna differ per country in EU. For example, some movies get broadcasted once or twice on public TV and that's it. Youth however mainly or even only stream. So they can get to see the movies they paid for (via tax) but via Netflix now, and Netflix can acquire them [reasonably] cheap. Everyone wins.

Right now, there's a bunch of quality EU series on Netflix already such as Casa De Papel and Dark.

I always find it weird when folks say Netflix sucks outside the US. Much of the library in the US feels like a mish-mash of old television and b-grade movies. When I'm in the UK, I have access to new episodes of television. Shows that you have to pay for on a per-episode, or per-studio basis in the US (Star Trek Discovery; The Good Place) were available in the UK on Netflix just after they aired in the US.

The Good Place is just an NBC show in the US.

Right -- and Star Trek Discovery is just a CBS show in the US. When either show airs in the US, the new episodes are available immediately on Netflix in the UK.

If I want to watch them in the US, I either have to pay per-episode/season on Google/Amazon/iTunes. CBS offers access to their entire library, but at $10/mo, it's more than a Netflix subscription.

My point is just that comments about the Netflix library being better in the US vs elsewhere holds true less and less every day.

Actually, Star Trek Discovery does not air on CBS in the US. It is exclusive to their streaming program.

I felt like Netflix was amazing the first few years I had it - first with mail-in DVD service and then the early days of streaming. Once content rightsholders got wise to the idea that they have something to negotiate for, and Netflix shifted to producing their own content, it seems like what I liked about Netflix (large catalog of sometimes obscure movies) mostly vanished. I cancelled my subscription.

Lack of quality streaming content in US is compensated by the huge DVD catalog though.

> Netflix can acquire them [reasonably] cheap

Why would the seller sell cheap, knowing that the buyer is forced by law to buy?

Not every place would bother making tons of money off of them because they'd rather have the programming out there. I'm going to guess many weren't making money anyway, since they were only shown once or twice on broadcast television. And overall, some of it might be a bonus for the production of new stuff.

The law cannot force Netflix to not buy the cheapest content offered in a country if the quality is irrelevant. All these countries have their own Hollywoods that takes all the money, and tons of small productions and artists living in poverty; there will always be someone to offer dirt cheap content needed to fill the quota. And Netflix can always make its own local production company, produce some crappy reality TV program and generate as much local content as they want.

It's a problem with TV or cinema, since there is limited space and time on it, but with streaming, Netflix can just put it in the catalog and let everyone not click on it...

> Right now, there's a bunch of quality EU series on Netflix already such as Casa De Papel and Dark.

Just wanna add to this. Babylon Berlin is also shockingly great. Wish Netflix could introduce more series like this to the US market.

Not available for me at Netflix in The Netherlands. And I believe you right away. Everything Tom Tykwer had a hand in which I've seen was ace.

Something to think about, if Netflix comes in with their brand recognition and cash and buys the digital rights (more money for exclusive rights of course) to the local movies, this regulation basically locks up the market for them. As long as they have the bigger user base, they can pay more for any new local content, and effectively shut down any competitors. Amazon Prime might not be able to compete, forget about Hulu or whatever. So instead of a few big American companies and some local start ups in the market, you get just one big American company.

A lot of the removed U.S. content, is usually accessible in other countries (and vice-versa in some cases). I find more blockbuster movies when I am in Europe can be accessed via Netflix than in the U.S. (e.g. Black Hawk Down, House, Brooklyn 99, Lethal Weapon, Mad Max, Star Wars VII etc). There are a couple of search engines specific to find the right region.

Netflix from my understanding can pay less upfront for rights to well known movies outside the U.S. (https://flixed.io/newest-best-netflix-movies/).

The problem with Netflix from a non-U.S. region viewer is its lackluster offering of native language movies.

> 30% for each country seems really high to me.

The article misstates what the proposal actually says. It's a quota of 30% on "European works". The term is defined in Article 1 (1) (n) of Directive 2010/13/EU [1], which the proposal seeks to amend; it includes works originating in the member states, works originating in countries that are parties to the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, and works coproduced based on agreements between the EU and third countries. (There is an additional provision ensuring that the movies are actually produced mainly in these countries and not just through letterbox companies having a legal presence there.)

So, Netflix can definitely offer French movies to Belgian viewers in order to fulfill their quota or British movies (even after Brexit, the UK will remain a party to the European Convention on Transfrontier Television) to Irish viewers.

An overview on the state of the legislation can, as with most EU legislation, be found on the European Parliament's legislative train website [2].

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:...

[2] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-connec...

Ok, let's say that any title made in EU will suffice for every EU member. Still, for every 100 non-EU (basically, US) titles Netflix would need to get 50 EU titles. And I don't think that amount of movies/series/etc produced in US is only twice as big as in EU.

Netflix already offers only a fraction of its US titles in EU member states.

And you'd be surprised. The UK, France, and Germany combined already outproduce America in terms of movies [1] (quality may be a different story, of course).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_industry#Statistics

I am indeed surprised, thanks for the link. So, it's definitely doable. But still, it will require investments just to keep existing entries available.

Does the law mandate that the movies be good? Because you can just set up a webcam, chunk it into 2 hour pieces, and call it a movie.

Nice question. Although brand value concerns will trump these problems in practice.

Not if Amazon Prime is anything to go by - Prime Video in the UK at least is full of random Youtube videos (yes...) and bargain basement independent productions. I don't mind most of the time, as the recommendations means they'll mostly surface if there's genuinely little good stuff available in a given genre, but they're clearly not very concerned about it reflecting on their brand.

Um. That's already a part of the television culture in some places. Norway has slow tv. I don't watch it, but some folks out there do.

https://www.visitnorway.com/media/news-from-norway/finally-t...

Ideal place for Test cricket ! For those who do not know it is a sport played over 5 days , 7 hours of play each day.

You forgot to mention that is a time limit so that matches don’t drag on too long...

At one point when our son was four, almost five, he loved Slow TV, in particular the 7 hour train journey. (We are in Australia so watching it on Netflix.) We'd just put it on for him and he'd play with it on in the background. It is far less annoying than some of the other things he wants to watch (e.g. Commander Keen playthroughs on YouTube). (But, since then, he has kind of lost interest in trains, so it hasn't been on for a few months now.)

This was a neat story. Thanks for sharing :)

I'm amazed something this poorly thought out is about to be 'signed off'.

I foresee shrinking catalogues and a massive increase in piracy. Go EU!

Probably going to need a license to pirate soon. That way they can ensure that all illegally downloaded content is culturally appropriate. I am only half joking with this comment, I could see it happening

This model has already be adopted for France for more than a decade for music (and tv + movies ?), I imagine the 40% number actualy comes from there.

The direct effect was a tsunami of money poored into anyone that could produce anything in French, just to meet the quota.

Content is fast to produce and there is no judgement on quality regarding the quota. For radio the impact was bigger, but I think it just accelerated a trend of people moving to on demand music anyway.

> Imagine if every state in the US did this, what Netflix would look like. 30% of movies in Indiana need to be created in Indiana. Netflix would suck, ha.

Europe is much more culturally diverse than the US. This is what this regulation is about.

The US is incredibly culturally diverse, it's a nation of immigrants from all over the world. It's just not delineated by state. There are geographic pockets of one culture or another, but frequently a single geographical area has many different cultures in it, so it isn't as easy to draw a line around your culture and make laws to protect it. A culture lives and dies on its own efforts and merits.

It is not as diverse for major film. Most of the film in the US comes from Hollywood.

So? Walk onto a set and I bet you'll find people from every continent except Antarctica there. People born on those continents too, not just descendants.

So?

- What language do they speak?

- What cultural nuances are they bringing to their films? Local food, local culture?

99% of US films have little to do with international perspectives, much less with local cultures.

A black man eating a Big Mac is a person eating a Big Mac, no matter how black he is.

I disagree. This entire line of thought is just ridiculous prejudice. If you think the US film industry is entirely represented by the 20 or so big blockbusters that come out each year, and that somehow the hundreds of smaller and independent movies don't count, that's your problem. Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

To what degree is the regulation about restricting individual's choice vs. forcing corporate compliance? If a European user chooses to access Netflix through a VPN, are they in violation of the regulation, or is the VPN provider, or is Netflix, for not doing sufficient checking?

Frankly, it's amazing that so many regional policies, both regulatory (like GDPR) and policy (region encoding) have survived in the modern internet. Maybe in an IPv6 world we can move towards IP addresses not containing any significant geo-IP information, making such attempts moot. Probably not, but it's a nice dream.

To take the EU's perspective, it's not about restricting individual's choice, but to encourage other local choices as well

I understand the purpose of the regulations -- France, in particular, has had similar regulations for movie theaters since forever, so there would always be some French movies playing. Here it is easy -- consumers are not required to watch the movies, they can do whatever they want, but the theaters are required to devote some theaters and showtimes to support the French culture.

The question is to whom the regulations apply in this case -- presumably Netflix has the primary responsibility, but some regulations are expansive in scope. For example, money laundering regulations require not only that you report certain particular transaction types and not knowingly support money laundering, but that you also go out of your way to monitor and attempt to detect money laundering.

So in theory, regulations for Netflix could also require that Netflix go out of their way to prevent users using VPNs or IP address masking in order to access non-regional Netflix content. Or they could require VPN providers to ensure that they don't allow their customers to do that. Or they could assign criminal or civil penalties for individuals who attempt to circumvent regional restrictions. Or they could just say that Netflix is only responsible for serving content compatible with the user's stated region, and leave it at that.

You've got the wrong impression that the EU and the USA are interchangeable when it comes to national market. There is no such thing as a Federal level market in the EU as there is in the USA. This means that French/German/Belgium/Polish or any of the nation state has a national level market for cultural product that doesn't cater for cultural product from other national market located inside the EU. There have been attempt to get bi-national TV channels (see ARTE), but those a poor response to a need for breaking up the national market. This regulation is hitting the streaming services because those are perceived as less reliant on national market.

The proposition is also to promote production from anywhere else within the EU to 'a' national market, and therefore exposing an audience to TV shows/films they wouldn't have access to through their national broadcaster. I do believe this is unfair on streaming service as the national markets are still closely guarded market, and national network should be made subject to the same constraint. I would even go one step further and break the national airwave license in favor of a European one, but that is going to be another discussion entirely.

But there are only two languages with large demographics in the USA: English and Spanish. If the FCC created a regulation that said streaming services must support at least 30% Spanish, I think that would be an improvement, and it would also be easy for the streaming services to hit that goal.

Perhaps you could argue that smaller language groups should also be supported. According to the 2010 USA Census, there were 2.9 million people in the USA who spoke Chinese. I think proportional representation could be useful, though clearly you could not give each language group 30% of the streaming service. But if the regulation insisted that the movies streamed had to match the languages, proportional to the demographics of the USA, I think the streaming services would be the better for it.

In the US, there are spanish streaming services available and Chinese streaming services available. You can find movies from every country. It's a free market, and services from other countries are allowed. If they did what you said, it would be difficult for foreign streaming services, and even small American services to exist. And it would just concentrate the industry further in a few big companies.

There are some streaming services that are available for the larger language groups, however to depend on the market is to depend on a series of happenstance circumstances that are sensitive to which companies decide to offer what. Only the government can ensure that each language is represented. The smaller the language group, the more that group could benefit from having some support from a legal mandate.

Maybe that's the intended effect, reducing American cultural influence.

I find this understanding unlikely.

One of the rules of EU is that you should as much as possible not treat foreign europeans any differently than national ones. So german, belgian, french, whatever content should pass the bar for local content anywhere in the EU.

Netflix is mostly only good for a handful of TV series outside the US. Sometimes it has movies worth watching, but it's rare. More usually, it has n-1 for the sequel du jour.

Depends on exactly what the rule is. If the rule is something like, “any view where the customer is choosing a movie to watch, you have to show at least thirty percent local films,” Netflix would not need to trim the catalogue. They could just repeat the same ten Belgian films on every page. #ThanksEU

Perhaps the EU should be under anti-trust investigation for actions detrimental to consumers.

I was wondering if this could be applied to music streaming services in the future.

Forcing Spotify or Apple Music to make at least 30% of their content locally produced music seems... Exceedingly high.

Honestly I think that more doable than 30% of movies and tv-shows.

Perhaps. Or they could argue that tweaking their recommendations to always feature 30% locally produced music would fit the requirement, while keeping their entire global catalogue.

I mean, Uwe Boll is European (German, specifically).

Well, he did become who he is exactly because of similar German regulations.

Perhaps a local service other than Netflix can step up then.

It sounds like you are defending Netflix in order for them to continue to offer an inferior product outside of the US.

So to get the same as with Netflix today I now have to subscribe to 50+ services?

Sounds like two, not 50+ unless you live across multiple EU states...

Or they will just buy up a bunch of cheap streaming rights to low budget stuff and older movies. They will the Belgian equivalent of "Who's the boss" or something.

Course that doesn't fit the narrative of "Regulation is bad"

> Or they will just buy up a bunch of cheap streaming rights to low budget stuff and older movies. They will the Belgian equivalent of "Who's the boss" or something.

> Course that doesn't fit the narrative of "Regulation is bad"

I would argue that it does.