VOD service providers and regulation in the European Union: an audiovisual diversity approach

ABSTRACT

A firm step in order to impose a quota for the catalogues of video-on-demand service providers has been given by the EU through the amendment of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive in 2018. This paper aims to analyse the potential implications of this change, in relation to the way the promotion of European works has been implemented so far, since some comments can be made in light of this revision. It will be argued that more interesting than the obligation to comply with a quota, defined by the geographical origin of audiovisual works, is the idea of making VOD service providers part of every national audiovisual production and financing system via direct or indirect financial contributions. It is concluded that indirect obligations could offer a wider room for manoeuvre to better help focus public policy decisions.

KEYWORDS:

• Cultural diversity
• audiovisual policy
• VOD
• quota
• Netflix

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. In relation to the differences that audiovisual works may present, to define variety, balance and disparity one should turn to Andrew Stirling (1998, 2007), who understands diversity as a mix of these three components.

2. The revision was proposed by the EC in May 2016 and, since then, it was subjected to intense negotiations between the co-legislators. With the Commission’s support, these negotiations were concluded with the informal agreement on the proposed rules reached on 6 June 2018. On 6 November 2018, the European Council adopted the revised AVMSD reaching the final step in the legislative process. The directive entered into force in December 2018 and EU states have until September 2020 to transpose it into national legislation.

3. It is worth mentioning that the 2010 AVMSD (Recital 69), in some way, advanced the distinction between prominence and financial obligations when distinguished different ways to support European works.

4. Recital 42 provides guidance for the assessment, on a case-by-case basis, whether a broadcast by a media service provider is ‘wholly or mostly directed’ towards the territory of another Member State.

5. Being the other two the Taxe sur les éditeurs et distributeurs des services de télévision and the Taxe sur le prix des entrées aux séances organisés par les opérateur d’établissements de spectacles cinématographiques.

6. For more detail see Sections 150 and 153 of the FFG.

Additional information

Funding

This work is based on research undertaken for the project ‘Audiovisual diversity and online platforms: Netflix as a case study’ [CSO2017-83539-R], supported by the State Research Agency (AEI) within the National RDI Program Aimed at the Challenges of Society of the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) of the European Union.

Notes on contributors

M Trinidad García Leiva

M^a Trinidad García Leiva and Luis A. Albornoz are Associate Professors in the Department of Communication, Carlos III University of Madrid, where they do research within the group Diversidad Audiovisual/Audiovisual Diversity (diversidadaudiovisual.org). They have edited Audiovisual Industries and Diversity. Economics and Policies in the Digital Era (Routledge, 2019), El audiovisual en la era digital (Cátedra, 2017) and Diversidad e industria audiovisual: el desafío cultural del siglo XXI (FCE, 2017).