EU proposing new AV rules: More European streaming content, stricter Anti-Hate rules

[WMGroomAK]

The European Commission has issued a proposal today to update the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) to increase the responsibility of media distribution services in stopping hate speech and to have streaming content providers increase locally produced content.

 

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-1873_en.htm

Quote

A media framework for the 21st century
The Commission has conducted an evaluation of the 2010 Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and, on this basis, proposed:

 

• Responsible video-sharing platforms:Platforms which organise and tag a large quantity of videos will have to protect minors from harmful content (such as pornography and violence) and protect all citizens from incitement to hatred. Detailed measures include tools for users to report and flag harmful content, age verification or parental control systems. To make sure the measures are future-proof and effective, the Commission will invite all video-sharing platforms to work within the Alliance to better protect minors online, with an aim to come up with a code of conduct for the industry. On top of industry self-regulation, national audiovisual regulators will have the power to enforce the rules, which depending on national legislation, can also lead to fines.
• A stronger role for audiovisual regulators:The Directive will now ensure that regulatory authorities are truly independent from governments and industry, and can play their role best:ensure that audiovisual media act in the interest of viewers. The role of the European Regulators Group for Audiovisual Media Services (ERGA), composed of all 28 national audiovisual regulators, will be set out in EU legislation. ERGA will assess co-regulatory codes of conduct and advise the European Commission.
• More European creativity:Currently, European TV broadcasters invest around 20% of their revenues in original content and on-demand providers less than 1%. The Commission wants TV broadcasters to continue to dedicate at least half of viewing time to European works and will oblige on-demand providers to ensure at least 20% share of European content in their catalogues. The proposal also clarifies that Member States are able to ask on-demand services available in their country to contribute financially to Europeans works.
• More flexibility for TV broadcasters: Viewers annoyed by too many TV advertisements can switch to online ad-free offerings which did not exist a decade ago. The revised audiovisual rules respond to this, and other new realities. The revised Directive gives broadcasters more flexibility as to when ads can be shown – the overall limit of 20% of broadcasting time is maintained between 7 am and 11 pm, but instead of the current 12 minutes per hour, broadcasters can choose more freely when to show ads throughout the day. Broadcasters and on-demand providers will also have greater flexibility to use product placement and sponsorship, while keeping viewers informed. 

These different measures are expected to have a positive economic impact for media service providers – mainly TV broadcasters – and increase their capacity to invest in audiovisual content. This is important for the competitiveness of the EU audiovisual industry. 

While I can understand a lot of what they are trying to achieve with limiting hate speech and increase the amount of European produced content on platforms, I'm not sure how well they will succeed on the latter portion of this...  My guess is that this will play in with region locking of content so the content provider (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime) can say that their regional service is providing the quota of content, but I don't know how well it will work with producing new shows or content or what quality of content they will produce to meet this...  The article on Engadget mentions that the hate speech restrictions will be applied to recorded videos and not live streams interestingly, so that will still be an issue, especially with some of the Facebook livestream issues that have happened in recent months.

 

https://www.engadget.com/2017/05/24/eu-hate-speech-facebook-youtube-twitter-google/

Quote

If the law gets passed, this would mark the first European law that actively intervenes in social media. Interestingly, these regulations would only apply to recorded videos, not live streamed content. Still, given the rampant rise of hate speech and the EU's previous statements, its stance on the matter is fairly unsurprising. Yet for those who relish the autonomy afforded by the internet, the move could be seen by some as encroaching on people's freedom of speech.

 

Interestingly, the same proposals that were approved in a bid to help protect EU citizens also have a clause about European representation on video streaming services. If passed, the new laws would demand that streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video hit a content quota, ensuring 30 percent of their video catalog consists of European films and TV shows. Even more surprisingly, the law would also mean that video streaming companies have to help fund the production of shows and movies in the EU countries they operate in. Given the whole Cannes Netflix debacle, we're sure that France will be very keen to get this law passed.

Prior to becoming law though, this still has to pass the European Parliament.  So this leads to two questions that are on different topics.  How well will this curb hate speech in the online media and will this help to actually generate new, original and interesting content on a local basis in Europe by Netflix, Amazon and other online streaming services?  I think it might make a small dent on the first point, although hate speech can be a tricky topic to define at times, and on the second, I'm just not sure on myself.  I think it might lead to less streaming content overall being provided on the European markets as streaming providers play with ratios of material provided...

 

 

[PlayStation 2]

Oh boy, we can all guess where the anti-hate rules go.

[matrix07012]

And some people are still surprised when someone wants to leave the EU.

[WereCat]

7 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Oh boy, we can all guess where the anti-hate rules go.

I really hate these new rules... wait, am I allowed to do that?

[Majestic]

Anti-hate, not subjective and open to abuse at all.

[cj09beira]

the Eu needs reform, now!

it seems only the voices of the "big" countries are being listen to and the people have no way of participate is this :-|

[PlayStation 2]

24 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

the Eu needs reform, now!

it seems only the voices of the "big" countries are being listen to and the people have no way of participate is this :-|

It's basically the voices of bankers and Angela Merkel.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Majestic said:

Anti-hate, not subjective and open to abuse at all.

Yep, we are having major legal issues in Aus. right now with something called 18c.  Basically the definition of a violation of human rights is so vague that simply saying you don't agree with a rule or law can land you in very costly legal trouble.   It is a very delicate path to tread when making laws. 

[Trixanity]

These are distinctly German laws that they're trying to implement EU-wide.

 

It's quite evident that smaller member states have no influence and are merely sitting at the table pretending to have a say. In other words: fuck off with your opinions and ideas - the grown-ups are talking.

 

The EU needs to be reformed from top to bottom if this is ever going to work even remotely.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, matrix07012 said:

And some people are still surprised when someone wants to leave the EU.

Not really, since all countries did the same with their TV/cinema regulation on their own. 

 

With that said, it is ironic that they call it a regulation "for the XXI century", because it's not like "an Internet for the XIX century"... I mean, I can get the porn/hate/etc, there's no reason why the channel being internet instead TV/print/whatever should make a difference. But the 20% thing is stupid at so many levels... First of all it is indefensible. Just make shit worth watching and quit whining. Second, do they even understand the difference between enforcing blatant protectionism on air TV and enforcing it on the Internet? Do they even understand the difference between 20% of an airtime limited to 24hs a day and a 20% of an unbounded offering? That Netflix or YouTube could technically offer an infinite amount of content, or alternatively, all the content in the world? 

 

Maybe their next brilliant proposal will state that The Pirate Bay must offer at least 20% Swedish copyrighted content... 

[Taf the Ghost]

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Yep, we are having major legal issues in Aus. right now with something called 18c.  Basically the definition of a violation of human rights is so vague that simply saying you don't agree with a rule or law can land you in very costly legal trouble.   It is a very delicate path to tread when making laws. 

Not really that hard. Only have rules against planning crimes & inciting riots.  It's really fairly simple, though the trade-off is you have to learn to ignore idiots.

 

Unless, of course, the entire point is about Controlling people, then the law is working perfectly. Those in current Control are perfectly safe while everyone else can be ruined by them on the whim of those currently in Power.  Nah, that couldn't be the point. That would mean the people that pushed the laws are actually evil.  Heaven forfend!

[Dabombinable]

People do realise that the EU's definition of hate speech is vague and can be extended to criticism of governments?

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Not really that hard. Only have rules against planning crimes & inciting riots.  It's really fairly simple, though the trade-off is you have to learn to ignore idiots.

 

Unless, of course, the entire point is about Controlling people, then the law is working perfectly. Those in current Control are perfectly safe while everyone else can be ruined by them on the whim of those currently in Power.  Nah, that couldn't be the point. That would mean the people that pushed the laws are actually evil.  Heaven forfend!

 

Don't get me wrong, I am very much in favor of laws that prevent certain types of hate speech, incite hatred/discrimination or basically have the real potential to harm another person (I.E anti-vaxxer rhetoric in documentaries like vaxxed should be illegal). I just think it is a very dangerous area to tread and should be done a lot more carefully than most governments are. 

 

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

People do realise that the EU's definition of hate speech is vague and can be extended to criticism of governments?

 

Exactly why they have to be very well defined to allow people freedom of speech, but not freedom to be cunts. 

[Misanthrope]

Well Sweden has Pewdiepie on their hate list already on the strength of a single libelous hit piece from the WSJ, that's about as good as it's gonna get.

 

Spoiler

 

 

[Majestic]

48 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Yep, we are having major legal issues in Aus. right now with something called 18c.  Basically the definition of a violation of human rights is so vague that simply saying you don't agree with a rule or law can land you in very costly legal trouble.   It is a very delicate path to tread when making laws. 

Is it even more vaguely writtan than Bill C16? x'D

 

Usually when you write laws, you want them to be as precise as possible. I guess with the science of feelings, we've moved away from that.

[mr moose]

Just now, Majestic said:

Is it even more vaguely writtan than Bill C16? x'D

 

Usually when you write laws, you want them to be as precise as possible. I guess with the science of feelings, we've moved away from that.

 

Science of feelings is pretty accurate in this case, the basic rundown is this:

 

Students (white) were using a computer lab set aside for indigenous students.  A lecturer asked them to move on and one of the students said it was racist to have a computer lab setup only for one race and not another.   Weeks later that lecturer made a complaint to the human rights commission in Australia under 18c and the students were asked to pay  a $5000 fine to the lecturer while the other two fought it (fortunately a lawyer heard about the case and wanted to fight it pro bono due the nature of the case).   IT was eventually thrown out, however it still cost them a lot to defend (time from school, stress and sundry expenses) their right to what everyone would consider a non offensive opinion on a practice that effects them directly.

 

 

[TimeOmnivore]

Quote

Platforms which organise and tag a large quantity of videos will have to protect minors from harmful content (such as pornography and violence)

I hate this whole "protect the children" angle these proposed laws always seem to have. If you want to protect minors from pornography, first of all, give up, if they want to access it, they will, secondly, treat sex like alcohol - terrible when you're young, stupid when you're a teenager, good when you're an adult, but not without risks. If you want to stop them from witnessing violence, again, you should probably give up: violence is everywhere, better to inform them about it and how terrible it is, rather than hoping they never see it till they're 18 (they will) and having them grow up thinking it's something cool or exciting. Also, trying to block hate speech doesn't limit hate, it just makes people more creative in how they share it - maybe have these platforms implement a system whereby the user can enter words/phrases they don't want to see so comments/posts with those words/phrases don't show up on whatever platform they're using without the sender knowing they weren't seen.

 

Finally, regarding the part of the proposal that wants to increase European content by requiring a certain percentage - don't. If your content is good, great that means there is a lot of incentive for it to be on these services, but if you just require a percentage of their catalogues to be European, chances are they'll just put shit up there to fill the quota. I don't want to pay for shit.

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

Don't get me wrong, I am very much in favor of laws that prevent certain types of hate speech, incite hatred/discrimination or basically have the real potential to harm another person (I.E anti-vaxxer rhetoric in documentaries like vaxxed should be illegal). I just think it is a very dangerous area to tread and should be done a lot more carefully than most governments are. 

 

 

Exactly why they have to be very well defined to allow people freedom of speech, but not freedom to be cunts. 

If any speech is banned, then free speech is automatically lost.....

[suicidalfranco]

so where do i sign up for Italexit?

[Centurius]

1 hour ago, Trixanity said:

These are distinctly German laws that they're trying to implement EU-wide.

 

It's quite evident that smaller member states have no influence and are merely sitting at the table pretending to have a say. In other words: fuck off with your opinions and ideas - the grown-ups are talking.

 

The EU needs to be reformed from top to bottom if this is ever going to work even remotely.

For the Commission to pass a new directive more than 55% of the member states need to agree. The larger member states make up significantly less than 55% so small states having no influence is blatantly false.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

Don't get me wrong, I am very much in favor of laws that prevent certain types of hate speech, incite hatred/discrimination or basically have the real potential to harm another person (I.E anti-vaxxer rhetoric in documentaries like vaxxed should be illegal). I just think it is a very dangerous area to tread and should be done a lot more carefully than most governments are. 

 

 

Exactly why they have to be very well defined to allow people freedom of speech, but not freedom to be cunts. 

So you've already accepted 75% of the premise and are mostly just complaining about the color of the drapes.  The *problem* is that you can't see that your assumptions are the biggest issue.  There is no way to define "hate" speech without turning it into a tool of Totalitarianism.  In fact, that's the entire point of the "Hate Speech" codes. Low-level tyranny of the unconnected masses.

 

Which means you end up putting up with kooks & idiots, but you learn to ignore them.  Which is what Westerners did for on or about the previous 400 years.  Which is also why you enforce laws again sedition, treason, inciting riots or actively plotting crimes.  Because, otherwise, I can race/gender/nationality flip everything you're going to claim is "hate speech" and show that it's generally acceptable to say.  Tyranny knows no hypocrisy.

[JoseGuya]

This shit is getting Orwellian, really, really fast. 

[SeriousDad69]

I'm so happy that I live in a first world nation where freedom of speech is one of the highest laws in the land. Reminds me of the Scottish youtuber that's going to jail for years now because he taught a dog how to Sieg Hail lol.

Remember my brothers across the Atlantic to not commit wrong think.

[SeriousDad69]

3 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

snip

The only reason I can see for a Government to be anti free speech is if they're scared of honest discussion and facts, two things that any healthy society welcomes in all forms from all peoples.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

If any speech is banned, then free speech is automatically lost.....

Not really.  we already have laws about inciting a riot.  I am simply in favor of extendeding those laws to people whose speech has a
real and damaging effect on peoples health.

8 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

So you've already accepted 75% of the premise and are mostly just complaining about the color of the drapes.  The *problem* is that you can't see that your assumptions are the biggest issue.  There is no way to define "hate" speech without turning it into a tool of Totalitarianism.  In fact, that's the entire point of the "Hate Speech" codes. Low-level tyranny of the unconnected masses.

 

Which means you end up putting up with kooks & idiots, but you learn to ignore them.  Which is what Westerners did for on or about the previous 400 years.  Which is also why you enforce laws again sedition, treason, inciting riots or actively plotting crimes.  Because, otherwise, I can race/gender/nationality flip everything you're going to claim is "hate speech" and show that it's generally acceptable to say.  Tyranny knows no hypocrisy.

You don't like that someone else has a different opinion so you try to insinuate there is a problem with their view.  Maybe you should talk to the kids with measles becasue Andrew wakefield's freedom to preach means that their vulnerable mothers avoided the vaccine fearing their kids would become autistic.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/08/health/measles-minnesota-somali-anti-vaccine-bn/