3 ms·

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 garbag

by setr 8y ago

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.

threeseed 8y ago
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.
- setr 8y ago
  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.
- true_religion 8y ago
  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.
Bjartr 8y ago
For smaller countries, could a service small up exclusive rights to most feature length media, effectiy locking out competitors?
- setr 8y ago
  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.

by setr 8y ago

threeseed 8y ago

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.

setr 8y ago
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.
true_religion 8y ago
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.

Bjartr 8y ago

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

setr 8y ago
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.