Submitted by Sisiwakanamaru t3_10oxrvx in movies
Comments
hitmyspot t1_j6hkyrj wrote
Reality tv is cheap to make and previous quotas seem to be based on hours of broadcast tv, so low cost, churn it out model works best.
This seems to be a quota of production based on revenue rather than time, so it seems it would make most sense to make shows that are most valuable internationally. I would expect generic dramas or comedies, but some high quality content too.
CptNonsense t1_j6idedh wrote
>This seems to be a quota of production based on revenue rather than time, so it seems it would make most sense to make shows that are most valuable internationally.
Still reality slop
hitmyspot t1_j6jjd2w wrote
Yes, maybe, but there is less incentive for reality tv than when a certain quota of hours was specified.
Certain_Associate581 t1_j6hlubr wrote
Oh nice. Thats good news. So there saying "Yeah we will fund you but we need returns"? I like this idea as the art's are a minefield of conmen. Big fan of Comedy. Check out this dude Aaron Chen. This guy is Australia's next comedy ledgend and is totally underated :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHJFTWX-Kv0
hitmyspot t1_j6hm48n wrote
No, I think it’s just that they will be required to invest a certain amount in local programming. Making it local focused will make it less valuable for overseas markets. I expect the only shows with Australian focus will be wildlife or travel. However, there may still be Australian filmed shows where they are set in Australia, but it is not the sole focus.
purplewigg t1_j6hufmr wrote
Pretty sure that's one of the reasons Netflix keeps renewing Emily In Paris
CptNonsense t1_j6idk22 wrote
This means The Bureau of Magical Things will never end
Certain_Associate581 t1_j6hrxkr wrote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lantana_(film)
I would say this is my most favourite Australian movie. This next one is also the worst movie I have ever watched https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outback_Vampires#:~:text=Outback%20Vampires%20is%20a%201987,%2C%20Australian%20Capital%20Territory%2C%20Australia.
We will get some gems and some real turds.
SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j6kc31x wrote
There's strong cultural cringe in this post.
hitmyspot t1_j6l3688 wrote
Yep, as exporting stereotypes will play well overseas. And that's the point. If they are forced to produce Australian tv, they'll get maximum bang for their buck of its palatable to overseas audiences.
We can also get popular shows like glitch or rake that are set in Australia but not Australian focused.
The rise of streaming has made it more of an international market rather than a UK or American market with each country having their own seperate market. Korean shows are doing well. Dark was a big success. Nine perfect strangers did ok and was more of an overseas show than Australian.
It did start with scandi crime as the streamers were just getting started.
I hope we get more scripted drama than reality tv as the inventive pushed more in that direction.
Certain_Associate581 t1_j6hntsk wrote
I got you. Did you like Aaron?
[deleted] t1_j6jiv5j wrote
[removed]
_kellythomas_ t1_j6hg5h8 wrote
Hopefully we get something better for streaming services, reality tv ages like milk - who wants to watch an old season? Other genres will add more value to their catalogue.
Not-a-Dog420 t1_j6i5fg5 wrote
I wonder why Australia has this problem but not Canada?
shpydar t1_j6ip1fb wrote
Canadian here.
So while a show or 3 produced here that meet our "Canadian Content" rules and are good enough to find an international audience they are the exception not the rule. We get a ton of crap dumped on us due to our quota system, the rest of the World just doesn't see all the garbage on Canadian airwaves so it makes it appear only quality content comes from Canada. It does not.
Yes we have the advantage of a really robust film and television infrastructure as many U.S. produced films and TV are made in Canada, the truth is our requirements to be "Canadian content" makes the majority of what is created in Canada not eligible to be considered "Canadian". So what happens? Streaming services don't invest in protectionism countries, instead they reduce the content from other locations to meet our quotas.
Content protectionism does not increase production of local content, instead it reduces content from other countries. Canadian Netflix has significantly less content than either U.S. or U.K. Netflix simply to meet our quotas.
Canada is not a good example of content censoring due to protectionism. We are a cautionary tale not an epitome.
cancerBronzeV t1_j6iz204 wrote
> Canadian Netflix has significantly less content than either U.S. or U.K. Netflix
That's just not true, even from the source you linked. Canada Netflix has the 3rd most extensive library, with 2.66% fewer titles than US Netflix. Sure it's a little less, but it's far far far from "significantly less content"
TheWaterBound t1_j6jg883 wrote
5,609 - 5,460 = 149
That's the relevant number, not the percentage. Is 149 significant? Honestly, I'm inclined to agree (anything over 200 would be significant), but the point is that you can't use a percentage to measure this.
Mirororim t1_j6jhgge wrote
>the point is that you can't use a percentage to measure this.
Why not? Seems somewhat arbitrary to say this. It sounds more like cope than anything honestly. "Oh the content library is so large that you should ignore the percentage because then it doesn't make the point I might want it to."
TheWaterBound t1_j6jklig wrote
Because huge numbers with tiny percentage differences are massively different.
Suppose the content library was 10,000 properties. You reduce that number by 2.66% and you're removing 266 properties. If you supposed the difference was 20% films, 40% short series and 40% traditional US style series, that would be, say, .226690+.4266360+.4266946 = just under 2,400 content hours.
What determines significant in this context is how much less stuff you've got to watch. I think having 200 fewer shows and movies is a significant difference.
>It sounds more like cope than anything honestly. "Oh the content library is so large that you should ignore the percentage because then it doesn't make the point I might want it to."
Search: construct validity.
Percentages are not a good way of measuring a lot of things. This is one of them.
Mirororim t1_j6oaab9 wrote
> Percentages are not a good way of measuring a lot of things.
True.
>This is one of them.
Not true, and you've failed to show that.
You could've made this argument on a quality front, like maybe the 2.66% that's missing on Netflix Canada but is available on Netflix US is the content that everyone watches, but you failed to do so (likely because I suspect that you'd be wrong to make this argument).
Just going "Total too big so no percentage please" means nothing.
>What determines significant in this context is how much less stuff you've got to watch. I think having 200 fewer shows and movies is a significant difference.
Why 200? Why not 250? Why not 5000? Why not 10? I want my 10 movies. If I don't have those 10 movies Americans have I'll scream. Give them to me.
TheWaterBound t1_j6oaohn wrote
>Why 200? Why not 250? Why not 5000? Why not 10? I want my 10 movies. If I don't have those 10 movies Americans have I'll scream. Give them to me.
Congratulations, you have made the argument for me.
cancerBronzeV t1_j6jgyep wrote
The exact number becomes less and less relevant as there's a greater total. If there were (I'm making up an absurd scenario), 1 million titles in one service, and 1 million + 149 in another, no one would call that a significant difference. On the other hand (another absurd scenario) if there were 1 title in one service and 150 in the other, everyone would say one is way way way way better.
While the exact number of titles is relevant, I would say percentage offers a more accurate picture. An even more thorough picture would be painted by seeing exactly what kinds of titles are in each; for example US Netflix has only 1 (one) more movie than Canada Netflix. The other 148 come from shows only. Now are those shows mostly reality garbage? Is it quality US TV not licensed in Canada? idk, the article doesn't say fully. 149 only seems big ignoring all other context.
TheWaterBound t1_j6jomxw wrote
>The exact number becomes less and less relevant as there's a greater total.
The percentage difference becomes less and less relevant as there's a greater total.
1,000,000 - 1,000,000 * ((100-2.66)/100) = 26,600
That is five times the size of the content library that Netflix has. It is an enormous number.
Now, you might argue that with over 900,000 things to watch are you really going to miss 26,600 properties? Obviously not because you wouldn't be able to keep track of everything in the first place. But if you didn't have a single hit show, then you'd miss that.
It is only the absolute numbers that matter because people don't watch the percentages, they watch the absolute numbers.
It's like with elections. A lot of US jurisdictions have automatic recount boundaries. They use numbers like 0.5 percentage points, which is a fifth of the difference we're talking about. The thing is that closeness doesn't scale. An election with a margin of 50 is just as close if 6,000 people voted for the winner as if 600,000 people voted, even though the percentage point difference is (assuming two candidates) 0.41841004 and 0.00416684. More to the point, the chance that the recount is going to change the election depends on the absolute margin, not the percentage point difference.
Percentages and percentage differences aren't always relevant to what you care about.
Consider batting averages. In baseball they're just a percentage. In cricket it really isn't but you could create an analogy... percentage of balls faced which result in runs... but that number is utterly meaningless. Similarly, you might express batting averages as a percentage of the best batting average in the team. This sounds kind of useful until you remember you care about batting averages because it gives you a guide to how likely a player is to help your team beat another team. You could add up the batting averages in your team and the other team and get an idea of which team is favoured (i.e. the one with the highest cumulative total) but not if you used percentages.
You have to choose a measurement that is appropriate for what you're trying to measure. This is called construct validity.
cancerBronzeV t1_j6jp8un wrote
Ya sure, the hit titles are all that's gonna be missed. Guess what? The hit Netflix shows are in both US and Canada. The ones that are not in both are older shows that have licensing issues in one of the countries. Those 149 titles that aren't in both are not the big shows that get constantly talked about on the internet as the hot new release you can't miss. If the hit titles are all that matters, that 149 number matters even less than I said before.
TheWaterBound t1_j6jqiy6 wrote
i.e. you reject your previous position entirely and agree that the percentage difference is utterly uninformative.
whollymammoth2018 t1_j6j6i93 wrote
I did like the Canadian content rules when I lived there for radio programming. I got introduced to stuff I never would have heard otherwise.
Mirororim t1_j6ji3yv wrote
I came into your comment somewhat willing to see you make this point, you have like 30 links, and not a single one of them actually shows that the definition of "Canadian content" could impact the size of Netflix Canada's library versus the US.
You finally have one post that at least makes this argument... But with no evidence whatsoever. "Cautionary tale" how? Where's the proof? How do I know the fact I can't watch Paranormal Activity on Netflix while an American can is a result of content rules versus some streaming rights issue?
wildskipper t1_j6i9q1s wrote
Canada presumably doesn't care because so many shows are filmed there anyway.
nalydpsycho t1_j6ibmuo wrote
Canada has similar quotes and agreements with services. But this likely does explain why Canadian shows are more likely scripted content rather than reality. The infrastructure is there, American shows film there anyway etc... (and, I could be wrong, but I think for streaming at least, filmed in Canada but produced and owned elsewhere counts to quotas)
CptNonsense t1_j6idrh4 wrote
With the death of the CW, Canada is going to have to find a new way to prop up its film industry
Not-a-Dog420 t1_j6im76a wrote
Plenty of Netflix/Amazon/etc shows are still shot there
alaricus t1_j6j9hr0 wrote
Paw patrol can fund it all
TheAmorphous t1_j6ji6e0 wrote
Syfy too.
insaneHoshi t1_j6jqa1d wrote
Why do you think so many shows are filmed there?
goteamnick t1_j6k1jyt wrote
Reality TV isn't counted under Australian content quotas. They have quotas for dramas, documentaries and children's TV. Reality TV isn't on because of quotas. It's on because it's popular.
Rare-Juice2765 t1_j6k482u wrote
It’s not popular on any historical standard though. It’s just cheap.
And it is absolutely coming at the cost of actual local content
blankedboy t1_j6l6xyf wrote
I genuinely can't watch anything other than ABC and SBS - everything else ranges from either "Godawful" to "absolute shite that makes me want to lose my sight"...
JackdeAlltrades t1_j6lh2qe wrote
I can’t watch those two either. The ABC’s latest stuff is just cheap soap opera crap or bottom shelf comedy. It’s fallen so far
bnetimeslovesreddit t1_j6hk9ac wrote
Strangely there ones lobbying for it.
Certain_Associate581 t1_j6hkkbz wrote
Oh yeah. I didnt put that together. So if its reality its local content ? Hmm, maybe put a science quota in ? hahaha good point :)
JJJSchmidt_etAl t1_j6ib2d4 wrote
I love when the government decides I’m not virtuous enough with my watching/listening habits, so they feel they need to force change. Canada is notorious for having awful radio stations full of Justin Bieber, Avril Lavigne, and tons of shitty covers.
If you want to listen to African Music, or watch French Cinema, then I am not going to get offended and write letters to my representative.
TheChrisLambert t1_j6j4f1h wrote
But this isn’t that? It’s the government trying to get these companies to create and/or platform local productions that benefit the local film and TV industries. They don’t give a fuck if you watch it.
Les-Freres-Heureux t1_j6jlwtp wrote
That's the goal, but that's usually not what ends up happening.
Usually, streaming services will just reduce the amount of American content available until the local content hits the quota
Perpete t1_j6jmhq0 wrote
French Cinema exists in part because France is similarly protecting its movie industry.
JJJSchmidt_etAl t1_j6nknsl wrote
If you think that French Cinema is so bad they cannot survive without crony protectionism, then you think their movies are terrible.
I think French Cinema is perfectly good. Sorry you disagree, that doesn’t mean your opinion trumps that of every other French cinema viewer in the world. Like, say, the French.
Perpete t1_j6o3ewh wrote
Je tiens à vous faire savoir que je suis français monsieur et que je peux avoir l'opinion que je souhaite quand bien même cela irait à l'encontre de votre pensée.
ascagnel____ t1_j6ke9u0 wrote
There’s a reason for that: Canada doesn’t want to have its unique cultural identity subsumed beneath the much stronger American view.
The problem is that some musicians (most ignobly, Nickelback) used those minimum requirements as leverage to get a ton of radio and TV play.
[deleted] t1_j6ixzok wrote
[deleted]
oryes t1_j6j40c9 wrote
I wouldn't attribute that to CanCon. Canada has always punched above its weight in that regard. Most of the artists they play the most (Bieber, Drake, The Weekend, etc.) became famous by promoting their stuff online and by signing with big labels in the USA. There were plenty of Canadian music icons before the rules also.
CanCon is just a way of our government giving more handouts to all the legacy media corporations who would otherwise fail.
Neolife t1_j6k1cq0 wrote
When were the Cancon rules established? The 90s had Shania Twain and Alanis Morissette, who had 2 of the 3 best-selling albums of the decade, and Come On Over has become the best selling album by a solo female artist of all time.
It would probably be tough to find a period since the 60s where no Canadian artists were heavily played in the US. Between The Band, Joni Mitchell, Rush, Gordon Lightfoot, Bryan Adams, Neil Young, Shania Twain, Alanis Morissette, Celine Dion, Michael Bublé, Arcade Fire, Drake, Justin Bieber, Shawn Mendes, and The Weekend, you've covered a massive span with huge artists.
oryes t1_j6k2pzm wrote
I don't deny that Canadian musicians have been extremely successful, I just would struggle to credit CanCon for that. Most of the artists you mention that were successful did so by moving to the States and signing with big American music labels.
laxar2 t1_j6k6whu wrote
Canada doesn’t have shitty radio cause of can-con. We have shitty radio because most major stations are owned by a couple big companies.
Independent stations like CKUA make great content.
SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j6kbho2 wrote
Exactly.
These people's problems aren't that the content laws aren't working. It's that they're too lazy to seek out the content they claim to want...
...if they really want it. Which I doubt.
ApprehensiveIce6006 t1_j6ipvex wrote
Lop wtf are you talking about with Canadian Radio. Theres normal top 40 stations just like everywhere else.
oryes t1_j6j1x58 wrote
There is a law that a certain percentage has to be CanCon (Canadian content). There are top 40 stations but they have to abide by these rules.
ApprehensiveIce6006 t1_j6j8wtu wrote
Yes but I have a classic rock station I listen too and Ive listened to plenty of radio and its like a normal radio station, you dont feel like your getting blast withshitty Canadian music constantly. That guy was exaggerating.
oryes t1_j6jhx2s wrote
It's 35% Canadian by law. Perhaps you think that because there is such a large proportion of world-famous Canadian musicians anyways.
ChrisOz t1_j6lzd65 wrote
Isn’t it 30% Nickelback and 5% Shania because big CanCon hates you.
ApprehensiveIce6006 t1_j6n1g62 wrote
You have no idea what your talking. I listen to radio all the time and it not like what you describe.
orangutanoz t1_j6jhww3 wrote
Same in Australia. Luckily Australia has a lot of talented musicians.
RoncinanteAmoroso t1_j6idagl wrote
So don't watch it. But it's unfair all the money of the local market going to some foreign country.
JJJSchmidt_etAl t1_j6ies4h wrote
Why in the world would it be unfair to give your money to the person who made the movie that you want to see?
You're saying it's unfair that some people want to watch certain movies. Their tastes are "unfair.” I disagree with that view, I would suggest that tastes in art are inherently subjective and I respect your personal tastes.
extra_specticles t1_j6hdasa wrote
Oz has some great tv shows and movies. It's a shame we can't see more right now.
DarthKava t1_j6hklsa wrote
We are watching Utopia right now. It’s a pisser and a more intelligent show than most of the crap we get from US or UK.
W2ttsy t1_j6i0z9s wrote
Fucking Utopia. That show is scarily accurate to the point that my ex girlfriend’s boss thought someone In Their office was feeding the production team inside stories.
She works in government town planning and you would swear that Natalie was a carbon copy of her right down to the clothing and hair style choices. Even the pointed attitude was 100% on point.
I worked in govt for a while and I couldn’t watch the show for the longest of whiles because it gave me panic attacks about working in that type of lunacy.
But yeah, it’s top notch and the writers did an amazing job selling the fucked up nature of our government’s actions on infrastructure and planning.
DarthKava t1_j6jjdx1 wrote
Thank you. It did seem frightfully authentic. I only wonder if the current project Andrews (VIC premier) conceived behind closed doors will be later basis for a spy thriller or a horror movie.
Torenza_Alduin t1_j6hl5i9 wrote
if you like utopia, and you can find them ... check out Frontline and The Hollowmen
DarthKava t1_j6hme28 wrote
I remember watching Frontline when it first came out. Awesome show. Feels like Utopia is written by the same people. Rob Sitch probably. Never watched Hollowmen. I’ll check it out. Thank you. I remember another one based on preparation for Sydney olympics called “The Game”. It was so funny. In the same style as Utopia.
sambodia85 t1_j6hrgow wrote
Working Dog Productions had an incredible run, so many of Australia’s cultural touchstones were made by them.
SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j6kaztk wrote
Frontline had the laziest writers...
...they didn't have to dream up anything because they pretty much ripped stunts from ACA and other "current affairs" drivel.
That one where they were being "chased" by cops was all from the Skase affair.
hastur777 t1_j6i3rjq wrote
Protectionism is silly.
SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j6kcgbo wrote
You Americans really ought to be banned from commenting on global threads - saves you embarrassing yourselves further.
hastur777 t1_j6kdo6z wrote
He said, without a hint of irony.
SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j6l4a50 wrote
I specifically avoided irony because we all know you Americans don't get it anyway.
hastur777 t1_j6l4dwi wrote
Adorable
SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j6l80ri wrote
Hey, at least I'm not commenting on stuff I don't understand.
Signed, an Australian working in Australian media and who has deep ties to the Arts sector.
What was your qualifications again? A deadshit Yank who wants to feel smart by commenting in global thread but doesn't actually have any frame of reference for anything outside of the lower 48?
throwawayreddit6565 t1_j6lbb9e wrote
Another Australian here, I promise we aren't all like this guy 😅
[deleted] t1_j6lmfbz wrote
[removed]
throwawayreddit6565 t1_j6lmm8m wrote
We don't need content laws though, as multiple people have pointed out it always ends up leading to more garbage reality tv getting created because it's cheap and easy to make. There are better ways to encourage the creation of Australian content without ending up with another variant of 'the farmer wants a wife'.
SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j6lmy7j wrote
And what's your suggestion to fix it, eh?
There's plenty of Seppo shit on air here that's just as bad.
throwawayreddit6565 t1_j6lo1ui wrote
The easiest way historically is to use a combination of grants and tax breaks. ABC used to pump out some amazing content but sadly the network had a huge amount of its funding continuously stripped over the 12 or so years that we had libs in power federally. At the very least they really need to specify the sort of content that they want to mandated because "More Australian content" is incredibly vague and as I mentioned inevitably leads to more reality garbage getting pumped out.
Either way, the government is attempted to fix this issue without spending money which just isn't an effective way to reach desirable outcomes with respect to encouraging quality content.
hastur777 t1_j6lengg wrote
If your media can’t compete, just say that.
SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j6lm8iw wrote
It's not competition if it's an unfair playing field.
And we're fixing that.
I mean, look how desperate your are to maintain a cultural hegemony. You're so afraid of the outside world you're paranoid of people telling their own stories for themselves. Look how angry you are at a country you're never going to live in wanting to make its own art.
Imagine feeling threatened by that- wait. You don't have to imagine.
hastur777 t1_j6lmcjd wrote
I couldn’t care less about some cultural hegemony. I just find it funny that your own populace prefers entertainment made thousands of miles away. Seems more of a you problem.
SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j6ln9nh wrote
If you couldn't care, why comment?
Of course you find it funny other countries watch stuff from other countries.
You're American. The only time you're aware of other cultures is when you're looking at them through a bombsight. And even then you don't know what you're looking at.
You're mad other countries don't treat the outside world like you do, with fear, suspicion, and ignorance. And that's why you had to weigh in.
America is unique in its xenophobia.
hastur777 t1_j6lpi9c wrote
k
SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j6mcylg wrote
Yeah, you really suck at this. Good that you're bowing out.
Maybe stick to what you know best, like banning abortion, or perhaps free market health care, since you love competition so much.
You know. Stay in your lane so you're not reduced to pretending to "not care" when you get your arse handed to you.
I'm sure your mum thinks you're cool.
SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j6lma89 wrote
It's not competition if it's an unfair playing field.
And we're fixing that.
I mean, look how desperate your are to maintain a cultural hegemony. You're so afraid of the outside world you're paranoid of people telling their own stories for themselves. Look how angry you are at a country you're never going to live in wanting to make its own art.
Imagine feeling threatened by that- wait. You don't have to imagine.
[deleted] t1_j6kf7bi wrote
[removed]
GetToSreppin t1_j6icnft wrote
Yeah, why try to protect local culture when we really know locals just want imported pop culture that has no significance regionally. Why tryto help local artists when we could keep giving the rich Hollywood talent more money and a louder voice! You're absolutely right, if it doesn't sell there's no purpose to art!
RoncinanteAmoroso t1_j6icw3m wrote
But necessary.
spanishrelease t1_j6hp3ir wrote
Ah, the good old government racket to get private companies to buy old, outdated, forgotten, made for public television content that will never be seen by anyone on those streaming services. This shit happens everywhere.
W2ttsy t1_j6i1mtw wrote
Countdown to the entire home and away back catalogue on Netflix.
But to be fair, a lot of Aussie dramas have had success overseas, especially the European markets.
Neighbours only continued on for so long because it was going gangbusters in the UK to the point the poms know the storylines better than us Aussies.
Plus Heartbreak High was translated into French, Spanish, and German as part of its export. It’s also streaming now on Netflix AU (and maybe other regions) and is still 100% on point for teen high school drama now as it was when I was a teen in the 90s watching it the first time around.
At least Stan will be covered here given they’ve produced a lot of local content originals already.
jmdg007 t1_j6ht5je wrote
I hope this at least accounts for platforms made for foreign produced content.
Ok_Double7983 t1_j6i4riz wrote
I don’t get this. For FTA it’s part of their broadcast license. If they want to use the frequencies they have to make the Aussie content. But streaming. No airwaves. It’s not broadcast. Why the hell do they have to do that.
Not-a-Dog420 t1_j6i5spp wrote
It's a way to promote local culture, local industry and fight Americanization
Ok_Double7983 t1_j6jryse wrote
Oh I get that part. Always have but with FTA you watch what is on not what you choose. With streaming you can watch what you choose to watch. They’re not the same thing and I don’t think they should be treated the same
Kavbastyrd t1_j6ifkkp wrote
FTA content has to compete with streaming content. The argument is that local content is unfairly restricted by content restriction rules that streaming companies don’t have to worry about. Same thing is happening in Canada, but we haven’t done anything to combat it yet
EvenDranky t1_j6irbq7 wrote
Brace yourself for more bloody mako mermaids guys
BlishBlash t1_j6j1nyo wrote
Just get Peter Weir to make another movie.
bnetimeslovesreddit t1_j6hk6vf wrote
Just not the broadcasting companies whom operate fta
[deleted] t1_j6hrtit wrote
[deleted]
Whomastadon t1_j6i207z wrote
Australian reality tv is just the step influencers take to become mediocre media presenters.
Agariculture t1_j6js8id wrote
WTF does that even mean?
kobayashimaru85 t1_j6k7730 wrote
So THAT'S why Amazon bought Neighbours
worm600 t1_j6kgvu5 wrote
Is there a good argument that this approach is better than simply slapping a large tax on foreign streaming operators and distributing the proceeds to public services or even individual Australians?
In practice, this seems to have a similar effect but directs all the subsidies to a specific niche industry.
atomicsnarl t1_j6leuc4 wrote
Bill and Doug McKenzie should be in high demand as advisors.
AltCtrlShifty t1_j6lsezu wrote
I’m watching Kath and Kim rn 😂
pm-me-ye-asshole t1_j6m2ukw wrote
Ugh this is how streaming dies. There's a reason we use these services. We don't want local content. As a Canadian, I avoid most Canadian made content like the plague. A glance at any CBC show proves it. I've heard of this law coming to YouTube and Netflix here and if it does it'll be awful.
av1dmage t1_j6i3xh2 wrote
“It’s nice… it’s different…. It’s unusual!”
pilken t1_j6jvqnj wrote
It looks like Aussies' "PBS" is getting its own app
SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j6kbqoc wrote
We already have that.
Lots of American Lensing going on in this thread.
[deleted] t1_j6i6syv wrote
[deleted]
desepticon t1_j6igi5h wrote
I don’t know about Austin, but NY benefits immensely. Jobs coming out the ass.
TylerDurdenUMD t1_j6igtew wrote
And depending on the roles, sometimes IN.
Certain_Associate581 t1_j6hkg3w wrote
For me this is just awsome news. I kind of feel these big corporations just take huge amounts of our cash and don't pay tax. It's a great way to get around these sneaky accountants and make sure they give back to the community that is supporting them.
iDuddits_ t1_j6ht9jm wrote
Canada did this. Don’t expect better content
JackdeAlltrades t1_j6he3s8 wrote
Unfortunately, local content quotas on free to air have degenerated into a stream of cheap reality shit