5 ms·

Canada demands 5% of revenue from Netflix, Spotify, and other streamers

43 points by Plasmoid 2y ago

phartenfeller 2y ago
Huge oligopolistic algorithms tend to homogenize consumer behavior, so I think it's not wrong to support local and small artists. Additionally, giants can even influence the algorithms to favor their new hits [0]. I am also not sure how much tax avoidance is happening in Canada. [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/2/21545958/spotify-artist-tiktok-promotion-rate-royalty-algorithm https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/2/21545958/spotify-artist-t...
- jc6 2y ago
  Well today the Supply side (of content) has outstripped Demand for content by a huge factor. Demand for content from people with disposable income and interested in creative output, has dropped below demand for content from corporates to play attention/market capture games. Cuz available global attention is finite and corporates will outspend everyone to capture it to peddle whatever. So creatives are basically front line troops in the wars for finite global Attention. Until we see global consensus on better attention allocation systems than the current garbage there are no easy paths ahead.
huygens6363 2y ago
Sorry, but Canada demanding "internet money".. you got to be kidding me. https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Department_of_Internet_Money https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Department_of_Internet_Mon... "In order to give the Canadians more money because, according to Stephen Abootman, Canada doesn't have enough money [...] They receive 10 million 'theoretical dollars', which ends up being useless for the Canadians." Anyway, I'm dumb and I'm not getting it even after reading it. What does Disney+ or Netflix have to do with "local news"?
- smcin 2y ago
  > Anyway, I'm dumb and I'm not getting it even after reading it. Per the article, they are proposing to tax streaming services in order to support local news, as they already do with licensed broadcasters.
  - huygens6363 2y ago
    Yes, but I don't understand why. Is Netflix damaging them ("local news")? I don't see the relation and I'm assuming there is one. This feels like taxing McDonalds to support struggling local artists.
    - hostyle 2y ago
      Its to level the playing field. Licensed national broadcasters already have to pay a fee which ends up supporting local news / content. International streamers charging money to Canadians for their attention do not currently pay this fee. It seems only fair that all broadcasters / streamers should have to pay the same fee to access the same market.
      - huygens6363 2y ago
        Ah. I can understand the argument the streamers should be handled like all broadcasters currently are. Still think it's an.. awkward way to handle things, but that's up to Cadana. Ok, thank you.
        smcin 2y ago
        Why shouldn't it (be treated the same as broadcasting)? Streaming is eating broadcasting alive. Streaming surpassed cable TV for the first time in July 2022 (in the US). (As to Canada levying a charge on them to fund local news, that's a whole other discussion.)
oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]
aksss 2y ago
Just a bunch of mafias that want their cut, and governments are the biggest.
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40576696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40576696
julien040 2y ago
France did something like that last month. To support the "Centre national de la musique", a new 1.2% tax was added on digital music streaming services. But rather than absorbing the cost, Spotify just raised its subscription cost. In the end, the government just taxes its citizens more instead of getting a bigger share of revenue from these companies. https://newsroom.spotify.com/2024-03-07/spotify-to-adjust-its-prices-over-new-tax-in-france https://newsroom.spotify.com/2024-03-07/spotify-to-adjust-it...
- gbanfalvi 2y ago
  That’s not necessarily always true. Spotify may very well pass costs on _right now_, but it may choose to lower its rates if it sees that enough people start unsubscribing. Companies are constantly adjusting subscriber count vs revenue per subscriber and will charge the absolute maximum they can get away with. Doesn’t make sense not to as a profit-driven company.
  - chrisandchris 2y ago
    That will be a first, a company lowering its subscription prices. I mean, Microsoft raised their prices last year substantually. And they had a "record year 2023".
  - bravetraveler 2y ago
    We're decades in on Netflix specifically ratcheting their prices like clockwork. One may say inflation, doubt - they adjust more often than anyone. It overwhelmingly goes in one direction. A new sucker is born every day The network effect of this is "the money machine must grow/demands more". They don't have to do this - everyone knows how well-paid their people are. It's a system of systems. There's an academic understanding and then the practical one. Everyone stands to benefit from a Boogeyman
    - foogazi 2y ago
      > They don't have to do this What is the economist term for (not) leaving money on the table? Revenue maximization? Netflix has it both ways: - Raises prices on its current customers - Sells ad space on its streams, devaluing the experience
Divver 2y ago
“The regulations exclude revenue from audiobooks, podcasts, video game services, and user-generated content. The exclusion of revenue from user-generated content is a win for Google's YouTube.” Yeah it also makes sure Montreal’s thriving video game industry isn’t negatively impacted either. And Google have branches in Canada employing Canada maybe Netflix doesn’t have as many I wonder about that. This is another reason why I hate it when countries do stuff like this because they always implement it very hypocritically too. They didn’t innovate the wildly popular product that has come into their country or “being dumped” into their country which is usually their word choice driven by envy and their local competition can’t compete so they pull nonsense like this to get at some of that revenue. India and China have done variations of this for years but now Europe and it looks like Canada are doing it or planning to and I’m sure soon other countries. Even here in America this has started with Biden’s recent moves on China and Trump wants to double those if elected. So both parties are moving into this mindset. Most American multinational companies generally thrive in a global marketplace, same with Japanese, Chinese, South Korean, and German companies. I know Spotify was Scandinavian but they moved to the US some time back right? I guess rest of the world got fed up with this small set of countries dominating the Consumer Tech and Entertainment marketplace and wants to grab at some of their revenue when it’s coming from people living within their borders using the international product. Companies will probably just pass these costs on to the consumers and try to minimize absorption.
err4nt 2y ago
I'm Canadian and I don't think this makes sense at all. Netflix (etc) isn't a TV station or a radio station broadcasting cultural programming on the airwaves, it's a self-serve library of digital content you pay to access for as long as you want to have access to whatever you choose to access. What makes that so different from a bookstore or membership-based physical library?

43 points by Plasmoid 2y ago

Huge oligopolistic algorithms tend to homogenize consumer behavior, so I think it's not wrong to support local and small artists. Additionally, giants can even influence the algorithms to favor their new hits [0]. I am also not sure how much tax avoidance is happening in Canada. [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/2/21545958/spotify-artist-tiktok-promotion-rate-royalty-algorithm https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/2/21545958/spotify-artist-t...

jc6 2y ago
Well today the Supply side (of content) has outstripped Demand for content by a huge factor. Demand for content from people with disposable income and interested in creative output, has dropped below demand for content from corporates to play attention/market capture games. Cuz available global attention is finite and corporates will outspend everyone to capture it to peddle whatever. So creatives are basically front line troops in the wars for finite global Attention. Until we see global consensus on better attention allocation systems than the current garbage there are no easy paths ahead.

huygens6363 2y ago

Sorry, but Canada demanding "internet money".. you got to be kidding me. https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Department_of_Internet_Money https://southpark.fandom.com/wiki/Department_of_Internet_Mon... "In order to give the Canadians more money because, according to Stephen Abootman, Canada doesn't have enough money [...] They receive 10 million 'theoretical dollars', which ends up being useless for the Canadians." Anyway, I'm dumb and I'm not getting it even after reading it. What does Disney+ or Netflix have to do with "local news"?

smcin 2y ago
> Anyway, I'm dumb and I'm not getting it even after reading it. Per the article, they are proposing to tax streaming services in order to support local news, as they already do with licensed broadcasters.
- huygens6363 2y ago
  Yes, but I don't understand why. Is Netflix damaging them ("local news")? I don't see the relation and I'm assuming there is one. This feels like taxing McDonalds to support struggling local artists.
  - hostyle 2y ago
    Its to level the playing field. Licensed national broadcasters already have to pay a fee which ends up supporting local news / content. International streamers charging money to Canadians for their attention do not currently pay this fee. It seems only fair that all broadcasters / streamers should have to pay the same fee to access the same market.
    - huygens6363 2y ago
      Ah. I can understand the argument the streamers should be handled like all broadcasters currently are. Still think it's an.. awkward way to handle things, but that's up to Cadana. Ok, thank you.
      - smcin 2y ago
        Why shouldn't it (be treated the same as broadcasting)? Streaming is eating broadcasting alive. Streaming surpassed cable TV for the first time in July 2022 (in the US). (As to Canada levying a charge on them to fund local news, that's a whole other discussion.)

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]

aksss 2y ago

Just a bunch of mafias that want their cut, and governments are the biggest.

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40576696 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40576696

julien040 2y ago

France did something like that last month. To support the "Centre national de la musique", a new 1.2% tax was added on digital music streaming services. But rather than absorbing the cost, Spotify just raised its subscription cost. In the end, the government just taxes its citizens more instead of getting a bigger share of revenue from these companies. https://newsroom.spotify.com/2024-03-07/spotify-to-adjust-its-prices-over-new-tax-in-france https://newsroom.spotify.com/2024-03-07/spotify-to-adjust-it...

gbanfalvi 2y ago
That’s not necessarily always true. Spotify may very well pass costs on _right now_, but it may choose to lower its rates if it sees that enough people start unsubscribing. Companies are constantly adjusting subscriber count vs revenue per subscriber and will charge the absolute maximum they can get away with. Doesn’t make sense not to as a profit-driven company.
- chrisandchris 2y ago
  That will be a first, a company lowering its subscription prices. I mean, Microsoft raised their prices last year substantually. And they had a "record year 2023".
- bravetraveler 2y ago
  We're decades in on Netflix specifically ratcheting their prices like clockwork. One may say inflation, doubt - they adjust more often than anyone. It overwhelmingly goes in one direction. A new sucker is born every day The network effect of this is "the money machine must grow/demands more". They don't have to do this - everyone knows how well-paid their people are. It's a system of systems. There's an academic understanding and then the practical one. Everyone stands to benefit from a Boogeyman
  - foogazi 2y ago
    > They don't have to do this What is the economist term for (not) leaving money on the table? Revenue maximization? Netflix has it both ways: - Raises prices on its current customers - Sells ad space on its streams, devaluing the experience

Divver 2y ago

“The regulations exclude revenue from audiobooks, podcasts, video game services, and user-generated content. The exclusion of revenue from user-generated content is a win for Google's YouTube.” Yeah it also makes sure Montreal’s thriving video game industry isn’t negatively impacted either. And Google have branches in Canada employing Canada maybe Netflix doesn’t have as many I wonder about that. This is another reason why I hate it when countries do stuff like this because they always implement it very hypocritically too. They didn’t innovate the wildly popular product that has come into their country or “being dumped” into their country which is usually their word choice driven by envy and their local competition can’t compete so they pull nonsense like this to get at some of that revenue. India and China have done variations of this for years but now Europe and it looks like Canada are doing it or planning to and I’m sure soon other countries. Even here in America this has started with Biden’s recent moves on China and Trump wants to double those if elected. So both parties are moving into this mindset. Most American multinational companies generally thrive in a global marketplace, same with Japanese, Chinese, South Korean, and German companies. I know Spotify was Scandinavian but they moved to the US some time back right? I guess rest of the world got fed up with this small set of countries dominating the Consumer Tech and Entertainment marketplace and wants to grab at some of their revenue when it’s coming from people living within their borders using the international product. Companies will probably just pass these costs on to the consumers and try to minimize absorption.

err4nt 2y ago

I'm Canadian and I don't think this makes sense at all. Netflix (etc) isn't a TV station or a radio station broadcasting cultural programming on the airwaves, it's a self-serve library of digital content you pay to access for as long as you want to have access to whatever you choose to access. What makes that so different from a bookstore or membership-based physical library?