Australia's Streaming Quotas Become Law (deadline.com) 53
Australia's streaming quotas have become law. Legislation requiring the likes of Netflix, Disney+ and HBO Max to spend a portion of their local earnings on original Australian content has been passed in parliament, and now comes into effect. From a report: The quotas were announced earlier this month. This will see global streamers with more than one million Australian subscribers made to spend 10% of their total Australian expenditure -- or 7.5% of their revenues -- on local originals, whether they are dramas, children's shows, docs, or arts and educational programs.
Failing to comply with the rules will see streamers fined up to ten times their annual revenues in Australia. This is more than what broadcasters are liable for if they breach their quota rules laws. Streamers will be given three years to get their production operations in line.
Streamers have long opposed government-set quotas and content levies, arguing they already meaningfully invest in the production sectors of the countries in which they operate. Producers, in general, have welcomed the systems, but remain wary that they could push streaming services out of their countries.
Failing to comply with the rules will see streamers fined up to ten times their annual revenues in Australia. This is more than what broadcasters are liable for if they breach their quota rules laws. Streamers will be given three years to get their production operations in line.
Streamers have long opposed government-set quotas and content levies, arguing they already meaningfully invest in the production sectors of the countries in which they operate. Producers, in general, have welcomed the systems, but remain wary that they could push streaming services out of their countries.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:And show what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tumbleweeds, dying reefs and spiders? We've had enough of that already.
Haha only... there's a healthy-sized Australian TV industry with some very good shows.
While the bulk of content for English-speaking people seems to come from the US, as a Canadian I actively look for content from here, from the UK, Australia and NZ because frankly there's some really excellent stuff out there. It's another benefit to sailing the seven seas... when you're not fettered to the big streaming companies you can find things you'd never otherwise know exist.
Re:And show what? (Score:4, Interesting)
My wife and I just finished watching the Australian version of Ghosts and it was great.
Re: (Score:2)
My wife and I just finished watching the Australian version of Ghosts and it was great.
Wait, what? I totally missed that. My wife and I started with Ghosts (the original, UK version), and have been watching the US version as it comes out. But an AU version? Neat!
Thank you.
Re:And show what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why do they have to force non-Australian companies to produce shows if there's a healthy Australian tv-industy? Is this one of those "Australia has an army!" things?
Because it would get swamped out with the sheer amount of foreign content. Canada has had a similar law for decades and it works rather well.
Personally I'd just make a few hours of AI generated aboriginals spouting hate speech at the Australian government as a middle finger for each day.
You would really benefit from some self reflection.
Re: And show what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
France also.
On radio and on TV.
Works.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then why do they have to force non-Australian companies to produce shows if there's a healthy Australian tv-industy?
Because monopolies and oligopolies exist only to make the maximum amount of money, and the maximum amount of money is achieved by stuffing the global catalogue with global appeal. For that you still look to the USA movie industry, despite the fact they produce less movies per year than Australia on a per capita basis.
Australia seems to understand that a healthy market is maintained through regulation. Many Slashdotters on the other hand haven't seen what an economics textbook actually looks like. If they ev
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, yes, and region locking, too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Haha only... there's a healthy-sized Australian TV industry with some very good shows. Then why do they have to force non-Australian companies to produce shows if there's a healthy Australian tv-industy? Is this one of those "Australia has an army!" things?
Imagine a family has $20/mo to spend on streaming content.
Imagine Disney+ has the billion shows you already know about; Star Wars, Marvel, all the princess things.
Imagine Stan! has a decent selection of Australian content. Obviously not Disney's massive library worth, but a reasonable library.
Now imagine Disney+ wants $15/mo and Stan! wants $8.
Finally, imagine you've got kids. You can't afford both. You have to pick one or the other service.
You've got to pick Disney, right? Even though Stan! has
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying it would be ideal if Disney was forced to push streamers specializing in local content out of business and become a local monopoly?
In your hypothetical, lots of families can in fact afford the $23/m, so Stan would still get a lot of business.
In your proposal they're mostly redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying it would be ideal if Disney was forced to push streamers specializing in local content out of business and become a local monopoly?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Which is why I said it.
Oh. Wait. I didn't.
In your hypothetical, lots of families can in fact afford the $23/m, so Stan would still get a lot of business.
In your proposal they're mostly redundant.
In my hypothetical situation, zero families can afford $23/mo. It's stated in the definition of the scenario.
Now, I could have written a wall of text that nobody would've read. I could've gotten into the differences between show producers and show distributors. I could've explained how it can actually be beneficial for a show producer (Stan! for instance) to get money from anywhere to do what they do and not have to worry about distribution. I could've explained how this model has been a thing in Canada for decades. I could've explained that the regional industry welcomes this and wants it, and why. Much of that would've required more research on my part, and would've been ancillary to the topic.
Suffice it to say that the scenario wherein an Internet rando posts anything along the lines of "this is a stupid idea" is incorrect.
Re: (Score:2)
Canadian content can be good, too. I loved watching Corner Gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Schitts Creek and Kims Convienence were both really good.
Lesser-known stuff too. Obviously Letterkenny has some international awareness, but for instance my wife and I have found Late Bloomer to be interestingly funny and illuminating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And show what? (Score:2)
If what you say is true, then why is a cultural trade war necessary instead of letting this stuff simply succeed on its own merit?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NX... [youtube.com]
The cold war is over.
Re: (Score:2)
If what you say is true, then why is a cultural trade war necessary instead of letting this stuff simply succeed on its own merit?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NX... [youtube.com]
The cold war is over.
I have an example elsewhere in this thread explaining that consumers have limited dollars and foreign mega-streamers exert pressure on local industry that is not proportionate. The lure of big-ticket franchises and heavily-advertised water-cooler-topic shows influences spending. This isn't a trade war or a culture war. It's enabling customers to be able to get what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
I have an example elsewhere in this thread explaining that consumers have limited dollars and foreign mega-streamers exert pressure on local industry that is not proportionate.
It's a very weak argument. If they really like the local content better, they'll simply opt for that instead of Disney, especially if it's a lower price. I personally dislike Disney. Not because of the whole woke thing, or the vastly overused multiverse trope (and not even in a fun way like Rick and Morty.)
Rather, I never really cared for superhero franchises, except the Christopher Nolan Batman series, the original two Tim Burton Batman movies with Michael Keaton, and the first two IronMan movies (haven't
Re: (Score:2)
I have an example elsewhere in this thread explaining that consumers have limited dollars and foreign mega-streamers exert pressure on local industry that is not proportionate.
It's a very weak argument. If they really like the local content better, they'll simply opt for that instead of Disney, especially if it's a lower price.
And yet, it doesn't work that way. The argument is - in fact - sound, because it has decades of ground under its feet. This is not new. It is merely new to AU.
I personally dislike Disney. Not because of the whole woke thing, or the vastly overused multiverse trope (and not even in a fun way like Rick and Morty.)
Rather, I never really cared for superhero franchises, except the Christopher Nolan Batman series, the original two Tim Burton Batman movies with Michael Keaton, and the first two IronMan movies (haven't yet seen the third.) The idea that superman can just defy physics at will and bounce off of literally nothing, or that a massive dose of gamma radiation turns a man into a green giant instead of simply killing him is a bit too far fetched for me. Sure, Batman and Ironman take extreme liberties with it, but at least those guys rely on technology that is in some way plausible rather than supernatural crap.
I also never particularly cared for Star Wars. I've always been more of a trekkie, and I basically see the whole series the same way that Harrison Ford does.
Outside those two, what the fuck does Disney have to offer aside from ruining copyright laws in America in their own image? Well...basically nothing, unless you like musicals. Their current biggest franchise that they didn't simply buy off from somebody else (Frozen) is literally, a fucking musical. Characters randomly breaking out into a song is what I loathed the most about Disney movies as a kid, and that's like the entire movie. They even openly took a massive shit on their classics like Snow White (which I never really cared for, either old or new) that their own fans adored. Even as a kid, I never particularly cared for Disney's live action movies, and that's what they're favoring the most. I honestly can't see why anybody would subscribe to Disney+. Even their theme parks are shit now -- who the fuck wants to stand in line for an hour, all for a ride that lasts all of 5 minutes? Oh, you want fastpass? That's another $200, and it still has all the same limitations that the free one used to have, except you wait even longer now. Disneyland will certainly take you for a ride alright.
That's quite the wall of text talking about what you like and don't like. Insight: the other eight billion-ish consumers on the planet are not you.
The bar that this local content has to reach to exceed Disney+ is honestly quite low, and you're thinking Disney can simply spend its way to the top? Yeah...not buying it.
You are incorrect. The bar is very high. Which is why the streaming leaders (such as Disney+) are dominant. And yes, advertising budget is huge. Not necessarily the most important factor, but it's g
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, it doesn't work that way. The argument is - in fact - sound, because it has decades of ground under its feet. This is not new. It is merely new to AU.
Then surely you can provide ample evidence of that.
That's quite the wall of text
By definition, a wall of text is unformatted. The proper term is rant.
talking about what you like and don't like. Insight: the other eight billion-ish consumers on the planet are not you.
They're not you, either. Yet you're sitting here trying to tell me, based on your own experiences and biases, that the local content is superior while also saying that the majority aren't going to care enough about it to pay for it. You're literally arguing against yourself. I'm not. I still remember talking to a few Aussies about this exact issue on reddit (or something, I don't recall e
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, I have enjoyed the few Canadian shows that made it to the U.S. (especially during the writer's strike).
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably going to start seeing a lot more of that. Hollywood jumped the shark during the dual strike period, and now the sound studios here are basically going unused. Nobody wants to film here anymore, and it keeps getting worse. The strikes are only part of the problem, the other part is the insane amount of red tape.
https://www.latimes.com/entert... [latimes.com]
Though, I do think the strikes succeeded in their goal of targeting the streaming companies, who seem to have mostly left. I've run across some people
Re: (Score:1)
Licence all the old soaps: Sons and Daughters, The Young Doctors, etc.. Hell, go for broke and add in The Sullivan's. It can be just like the 80s in UK all over again!
There's enough Prisoner: Cell Block H to probably cover 7.5% on its own. Then there's Neighbours along with Home and Away...
Re: (Score:3)
Tumbleweeds, dying reefs and spiders? We've had enough of that already.
You're so clever showing the world your ignorance. Australia used to have one of the largest film industries in the world. Even now on a per capita basis they release more local movies than the USA does with an average of one movie every 3-4 days. The local series industry is also quite massive though America has them beat on a per capita basis there.
I can't completely fault your ignorance, you're probably a Netflix subscriber and only know what Netflix chooses to show you, and guess what, they will prefere
Re: (Score:3)
You simply missed the entire (sarcastic) point, as expected of you.
If they're making so much content then if it was any good wouldn't the locals buy it? So why is this law needed?
It seems like at least one of the three claims is untrue:
* That there is lots of local content
* That it is any good
* Or that the law is needed
Perhaps it is just an attempted money grab aimed at foreign companies?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And show what? (Score:1)
Played that at a friend's house day before yesterday.
I forgot how stupid it was.
She liked it.
Re: (Score:2)
Now now. There's plenty of quality entertainment [imdb.com] produced in Australia.
(This one is a favorite of my wife and daughters.)
CanCon laws have been in place for an long time (Score:3)
CanCon laws have been in place for an long time
Re: (Score:2)
CanCon laws have been in place for an long time
My thoughts exactly. It would be interesting to see an analysis of just how much that's affected the Canadian media industry. I don't know how you'd figure that out given we don't have a counterfactual. One hopes the Australians did their due diligence.
And so.... (Score:1)
Reruns of Home and Away. Check.
Great, more reality garbage... (Score:2)
I seriously doubt any streaming provider is actually going to invest in the kind of quality Australian content that really should be made and instead will invest in more of the same cheap junk that infests our free-to-air networks.
They can post content... (Score:2)
Won't cost them much (Score:3)
You can bet they will do the same in Australia, manipulate the numbers to maximise their profit. I think the important thing is the Australians are only asking for action on the parts of the business that these companies do locally, not basing it on the total operations, making it a reasonable demand.
Re: Won't cost them much (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's explicitly not tied to profit, most likely for exactly the reason you state.
10% of total Australian expenditure
OR
7.5% of revenues (presumably revenue from Australia, though it's not explicit in the article)
to be spent on local original content.
Don't think there's a requirement for *new* content, so I suspect as long as it was (primarily) made in Australia then it would count, no matter how long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm reminded of the joke; A mathematician, engineer and account were asked what "2 + 2" is:
The mathematician answered "It can generally be assumed to be 4 in n
Will result in a 15% price increase... (Score:2)
Across the board. 7.5% to go to producing the local programming, and 7.5% for an "administrative burden fee"
Re: (Score:1)
They pay no tax, so this is another way to "tax" (Score:2)
Streaming companies pay almost no tax, given their ridiculous "transfer pricing" schemes. So I see this as another way to at least get some money out of them and into the Australian economy. It's not going directly to the Treasury, but at least it will support Australian industry and jobs, and therefore the Australian economy more than they are doing now.
I like good Autralian content (Score:2)
better than US content (Score:2)
There have been some great Australian Netflix shows/movies, far better than the typical US fare. Netflix would have been smart to do this even without being forced.