9 ms·

Let's look at it the other way. Launching a movie cost a ton of money. So to keep a diverse culture ( we all agreee diversity is great isn't it?) and diverse wa

by di4na 10y ago

Let's look at it the other way. Launching a movie cost a ton of money. So to keep a diverse culture ( we all agreee diversity is great isn't it?) and diverse way to think, you need to help less mainstream way to think. You spend years elaborating complex way to let mainstream exists and makes money, without disturbing it too much, but still keep a working amount of culture disruptor and new ideas growing. And you even create way for the mainstream to do that, enabling cross pollination. Then suddenly, a group that know nothing about your rules and believe that "all rules are bad anyway" come and control the main way to consume mainstream culture, rendering all your organisation void, cutting the money and support for the smallest groups. Woops, you have to rebuild everything. Except that this time around, you have no grasp on that "mainstream" to get cooperation and build a working ecosystem. The "market" is well and all. But an ecosystem need rulers and law enforcement. Too much rules is not good and i may agree that France and Europe was a bit too much (is a bit too much) coercive right now. But there is probably a middle ground that can be found. Well now, i still believe lawmakers and rulers are decade behind the need of today technology. But it is not just "regulating consumption". It is also about future and keeping an healthy pool of new and fresh ideas.

strictnein 10y ago
> "rendering all your organisation void, cutting the money and support for the smallest groups." How does Netflix not offering enough French TV shows do that? Did the government just stop giving them money once Netflix showed up? Also, encouraging Netflix to take on more local content is one thing. I'm sure they'd love to. Forcing them to fund the creation of local content is another thing completely. These governments are looking to require that a foreign company fund domestic businesses to be able to access their markets. Seems like something that would run afoul of the WTO, or similar body.
- kuschku 10y ago
  > These governments are looking to require that a foreign company fund domestic businesses to be able to access their markets So, like the All-American clause for almost all US govt. contracts? Or the US punishment for VW, requiring them to produce specific cars in the US? > Did the government just stop giving them money once Netflix showed up? Where is the government supposed to get the money from, once they can’t make money with TV anymore?
  - strictnein 10y ago
    Netflix isn't filling government contracts Nor has Netflix lied to governments for years about the efficiency of their products and purposefully built devices to defeat government tests. VW is either facing massive multi billion dollar fines or has to reach other agreements. VW has had access to the US for decades. Them building electric cars in the US has nothing to do with access to the US market. Netflix will, in fact, be paying to license domestic content. And the more their customers watch domestic content, the more they will pay the content providers. The government itself will be cut out of the loop and that's really the problem here.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      > VW has had access to the US for decades. Them building electric cars in the US has nothing to do with access to the US market. That’s literally wrong. The US government continually blocked VW from the US market, including the EPA sometimes taking 3 years for a single emission test. As soon as a VW plant in the south of the US was built, somehow all that stopped. > The government itself will be cut out of the loop and that's really the problem here. Yes, and that’s the entire issue. We’re getting a world where companies (which are basically dictatorships of the rich) are getting more power over governments. That doesn’t help anyone but the already rich.
JoshTriplett 10y ago
> But there is probably a middle ground that can be found. There's a common failure mode (of both governments and other decision makers) of assuming that given two positions, the truth must lie somewhere in the middle. Sometimes one position is just wrong, and another is just right; the persistent presumption towards compromise allows wrong positions to chip away at the right one. If you want to change laws, for instance, you need to provide evidence that the new position is actually better, not just that it's a compromise between what you proposed (and also didn't provide evidence for) and the status quo. Otherwise, the status quo should remain.
sievebrain 10y ago
So to keep a diverse culture ( we all agreee diversity is great isn't it?) No, we don't all agree. Not when the "diversity" is someone looking at the market and saying "there are too many good movies. we need some shit ones". Nobody needs to diversify away from quality, which is essentially what the French laws do. Don't mistake the bizarre fetishes of a small number of French elite with some kind of natural law or elegant philosophy. The French government have to protect their cultural industry because it produces bad stuff that even the French don't want to watch. There is no justification for this: every attempted justification boils down to sophistry.
- hodwik 10y ago
  There are examples of more difficult media which don't get mass-media popular, not because of their quality, but because of their difficulty. These types of works make up part of the 'secret handshake' of the upper class -- it is how they identify each other. France has the noble, but mistaken, idea that they can force lower and middle class people to take in high culture, and in so doing, will be able to make their country more egalitarian. Sorry guys, cultural class isn't something you can just legislate away. The upper classes (culturally, not economically) have spent generations training themselves to be very critical connoisseurs -- you're not going to undo that with some government-funded arthouse flicks and a Netflix tax.
- verroq 10y ago
  >Not when the "diversity" is someone looking at the market and saying "there are too many good movies I take it you are against affirmative action?
- wfo 10y ago
  And so we are to take your definition of "good" and "shit" as gospel -- obviously, we want more movies that you think are good and less movies that you think are shit. Would you like to take the position of cultural czar and pre-review every piece of art to decide if it's worth publishing? Or perhaps you'd like us to just assume the market is the best judge of what is good art? That was a joke -- the notion is laughable, the market is a clumsy and incompetent tool in almost all human affairs, especially where art is involved. Every justification boils down to referring to something that is difficult to understand (culture, art, subjectivity, the point of view of another person) which you have chosen to label as sophistry.
marcoperaza 10y ago
Shouldn't it be up to individual French people to decide what they watch on TV or the internet? Why should the coercive authority of the state have any say?
- bleuarff 10y ago
  Probably because without these regulations, there would be no visibility for niche productions, no way for them to reach the few people who want to watch them. That may run contradictory to capitalist beliefs, but the system intends to allow existence of films/music/cultural products which (regardless of quality) have too few customers to survive in a non-regulated market. If you wish to keep having diversity in your cultural industry, that's not a bad thing.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Unfortunately, due to the way broadcast television works, it's just not possible to cater to minority tastes. There's just no way to have the people who enjoy niche productions to pay the creators of those productions directly. If only there were some sort of global system for distributing niche productions to those subscribers who want to see them. Perhaps some sort of system using minicomputers to transmit the information - we could call it "Minitel". But seriously, are you really trying to claim that the internet is making it harder for niche producers and consumers to connect?
    - wfo 10y ago
      Broadcast television can and has been catering to minority tastes for many, many years as we all know. It just can't bankroll itself by doing this, so it requires public funds or regulations to prop it up. But sometimes making room for minority viewpoints/culture/attitudes is worth interrupting the all-consuming capitalist neoliberal worldview for a moment, if just long enough to allow someone to point out its many flaws.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
AlgorithmicTime 10y ago
If the people want diversity, they can choose to watch those diverse films. Then the money they pay to watch those films will encourage others to watch those films. But it seems the people don't want to watch those films.

by di4na 10y ago

strictnein 10y ago

> "rendering all your organisation void, cutting the money and support for the smallest groups." How does Netflix not offering enough French TV shows do that? Did the government just stop giving them money once Netflix showed up? Also, encouraging Netflix to take on more local content is one thing. I'm sure they'd love to. Forcing them to fund the creation of local content is another thing completely. These governments are looking to require that a foreign company fund domestic businesses to be able to access their markets. Seems like something that would run afoul of the WTO, or similar body.

kuschku 10y ago
> These governments are looking to require that a foreign company fund domestic businesses to be able to access their markets So, like the All-American clause for almost all US govt. contracts? Or the US punishment for VW, requiring them to produce specific cars in the US? > Did the government just stop giving them money once Netflix showed up? Where is the government supposed to get the money from, once they can’t make money with TV anymore?
- strictnein 10y ago
  Netflix isn't filling government contracts Nor has Netflix lied to governments for years about the efficiency of their products and purposefully built devices to defeat government tests. VW is either facing massive multi billion dollar fines or has to reach other agreements. VW has had access to the US for decades. Them building electric cars in the US has nothing to do with access to the US market. Netflix will, in fact, be paying to license domestic content. And the more their customers watch domestic content, the more they will pay the content providers. The government itself will be cut out of the loop and that's really the problem here.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    > VW has had access to the US for decades. Them building electric cars in the US has nothing to do with access to the US market. That’s literally wrong. The US government continually blocked VW from the US market, including the EPA sometimes taking 3 years for a single emission test. As soon as a VW plant in the south of the US was built, somehow all that stopped. > The government itself will be cut out of the loop and that's really the problem here. Yes, and that’s the entire issue. We’re getting a world where companies (which are basically dictatorships of the rich) are getting more power over governments. That doesn’t help anyone but the already rich.

JoshTriplett 10y ago

> But there is probably a middle ground that can be found. There's a common failure mode (of both governments and other decision makers) of assuming that given two positions, the truth must lie somewhere in the middle. Sometimes one position is just wrong, and another is just right; the persistent presumption towards compromise allows wrong positions to chip away at the right one. If you want to change laws, for instance, you need to provide evidence that the new position is actually better, not just that it's a compromise between what you proposed (and also didn't provide evidence for) and the status quo. Otherwise, the status quo should remain.

sievebrain 10y ago

So to keep a diverse culture ( we all agreee diversity is great isn't it?) No, we don't all agree. Not when the "diversity" is someone looking at the market and saying "there are too many good movies. we need some shit ones". Nobody needs to diversify away from quality, which is essentially what the French laws do. Don't mistake the bizarre fetishes of a small number of French elite with some kind of natural law or elegant philosophy. The French government have to protect their cultural industry because it produces bad stuff that even the French don't want to watch. There is no justification for this: every attempted justification boils down to sophistry.

hodwik 10y ago
There are examples of more difficult media which don't get mass-media popular, not because of their quality, but because of their difficulty. These types of works make up part of the 'secret handshake' of the upper class -- it is how they identify each other. France has the noble, but mistaken, idea that they can force lower and middle class people to take in high culture, and in so doing, will be able to make their country more egalitarian. Sorry guys, cultural class isn't something you can just legislate away. The upper classes (culturally, not economically) have spent generations training themselves to be very critical connoisseurs -- you're not going to undo that with some government-funded arthouse flicks and a Netflix tax.
verroq 10y ago
>Not when the "diversity" is someone looking at the market and saying "there are too many good movies I take it you are against affirmative action?
wfo 10y ago
And so we are to take your definition of "good" and "shit" as gospel -- obviously, we want more movies that you think are good and less movies that you think are shit. Would you like to take the position of cultural czar and pre-review every piece of art to decide if it's worth publishing? Or perhaps you'd like us to just assume the market is the best judge of what is good art? That was a joke -- the notion is laughable, the market is a clumsy and incompetent tool in almost all human affairs, especially where art is involved. Every justification boils down to referring to something that is difficult to understand (culture, art, subjectivity, the point of view of another person) which you have chosen to label as sophistry.

marcoperaza 10y ago

Shouldn't it be up to individual French people to decide what they watch on TV or the internet? Why should the coercive authority of the state have any say?

bleuarff 10y ago
Probably because without these regulations, there would be no visibility for niche productions, no way for them to reach the few people who want to watch them. That may run contradictory to capitalist beliefs, but the system intends to allow existence of films/music/cultural products which (regardless of quality) have too few customers to survive in a non-regulated market. If you wish to keep having diversity in your cultural industry, that's not a bad thing.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Unfortunately, due to the way broadcast television works, it's just not possible to cater to minority tastes. There's just no way to have the people who enjoy niche productions to pay the creators of those productions directly. If only there were some sort of global system for distributing niche productions to those subscribers who want to see them. Perhaps some sort of system using minicomputers to transmit the information - we could call it "Minitel". But seriously, are you really trying to claim that the internet is making it harder for niche producers and consumers to connect?
  - wfo 10y ago
    Broadcast television can and has been catering to minority tastes for many, many years as we all know. It just can't bankroll itself by doing this, so it requires public funds or regulations to prop it up. But sometimes making room for minority viewpoints/culture/attitudes is worth interrupting the all-consuming capitalist neoliberal worldview for a moment, if just long enough to allow someone to point out its many flaws.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago

AlgorithmicTime 10y ago

If the people want diversity, they can choose to watch those diverse films. Then the money they pay to watch those films will encourage others to watch those films. But it seems the people don't want to watch those films.