The CRTC has provided the breakdown of where that bounty will go.

For online video services:

• 2% to the Canada Media Fund and/or direct expenditures towards certified Canadian content;
• 1.5% to the Independent Local News Fund;
• 0.5% to the Black Screen Office Fund, the Canadian Independent Screen Fund for BPOC creators, and/or the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund;
• 0.5% to the Certified Independent Production Funds supporting OLMC producers and producers from diverse communities; and
• 0.5% to the Indigenous Screen Office Fund.

• 2% to FACTOR and Musicaction;
• 1.5% to a new temporary fund supporting local news production by commercial radio stations outside of the designated markets;
• 0.5% to the Canadian Starmaker Fund and Fonds RadioStar;
• 0.5% to the Community Radio Fund of Canada;
• 0.35% to direct expenditures targeting the development of Canadian and Indigenous content and/or a variety of selected funds; and
• 0.15% to the Indigenous Music Office and a new fund to support Indigenous music.

Well, I hope they don't pull a Meta and just write Canada off. I just heard an analyst on AM640 talking about this move and he worries there's no proof there's an audience for the kind of programming this money will go to. 

Also, I thought about the possibility of the U.S. guys raising their prices, but that won't help - if they make more, that will just add to the 5% of their revenues they have to contribute. So if they're not willing to pay the extra levy, then the only answer is to decide to pull their service out of Canada altogether. 

Callers to the show were saying this is a huge mistake and they're worried about being cut off from their favourite service. And the host opined that they could use our lack of access as a warning to other countries considering similar legislation by leaving Canada out in the cold. 

Or maybe nothing will happen. 

The uncertainty, though, is troubling. 

This could all blow over and just be accepted as the cost of doing business - or it could begin a sea-change many here might not like. 

RadioAaron wrote:

Having said that, this just comes across to me as punitive. Why on earth should Spotify be paying for the production of local news?  

Well, technically Spotify is paying into a different fund, one that goes to support Canadian music, but despite that, I couldn't agree more. In what universe is a foreign private company competing for audience eyeballs forced to help finance programming for their local competitors?

Imagine if Coke had to give money to Pepsi, because the latter soft drink was in trouble and was struggling to stay in business in Canada. And yes, I know that comparison isn't exact, but it's the principle of the thing. I know many will disagree with me but I think it's ridiculous.

paterson1 wrote:

In the EU 17 countries have imposed financial obligations on foreign streamers either in the form of paying into national TV and film funds and/or investing in production.  https://www.screendaily.com/features/the-us-streamer-squeeze-why-europe-is-taking-on-the-svods/5185829.article

I do agree it is off base that the government said much or most of the money would be invested in local news.

However having the streamers invest in Canadian media or be part of domestic production is not ridiculous at all.  And as was mentioned earlier, the 5% committment could very well have been agreed upon between the government and streamers.  But I am sure some will voice their opposition, as should be expected.  

They already were! The Canadian production industry has never been healthier, mostly thanks to Netflix and company.

paterson1 wrote:

And this helps to ensure the healthy production continues.  Netflix and company are also investing here because it's good business.

It will most likely backfire. Netflix isn't just going to absorb this without cutting elsewhere. It's disrupting a quite functional system with no regard to results in order to fix a non-existent problem.

Netflix would have been likely to re-invest their money because their endevours are profitable, instead the money is going to go down a black hole of content that nobody consumes and is otherwise unsustainable. 

Last edited by RadioAaron (June 4, 2024 9:08 pm)

paterson1 wrote:

In the EU 17 countries have imposed financial obligations on foreign streamers either in the form of paying into national TV and film funds and/or investing in production.  https://www.screendaily.com/features/the-us-streamer-squeeze-why-europe-is-taking-on-the-svods/5185829.article

I do agree it is off base that the government said much or most of the money would be invested in local news.

However having the streamers invest in Canadian media or be part of domestic production is not ridiculous at all.  And as was mentioned earlier, the 5% committment could very well have been agreed upon between the government and streamers.  But I am sure some will voice their opposition, as should be expected.  

I'm not surprised you took that tact and I'm really only concerned with what we do in Canada, not elsewhere. But here's my problem with it. 

I can almost get my head around why Canadians should subsidize a national broadcaster like the CBC with tax dollars. I'm not fan of it, but it makes sense because it's by Canadians for Canadians, even though ratings show not a lot of people are watching their English TV output. So fair enough.

But in what world does one competitor have to give money to their poorer challenger to help keep them afloat? That's crazy. And I can't think of another single business that is forced by government fiat to operate this way. 

Can you imagine if American Airlines had to give part of its profits to help out Air Canada, because the Canadian carrier is forced to fly to more remote destinations the U.S. airline doesn't have to serve?

Or how about an American conglomerate like Wal-Mart being forced to dole out money to Longos because it's not as big across the country and thus "it's not fair."

It would be absolutely absurd. Why is broadcasting subject to such a different standard? If the streamers are beating our guys at their own game, well, that's business. It's up to them to figure out a way to compete and not take a handout from a very reluctant competitor. 

I think what we're really seeing here - and I hate to say it, because I still love over-the-air TV and the old system a lot - is the early death throes of a dying industry. I have no love for Disney - they're one of the greediest and most predatory companies on the planet - but if they've built a better mousetrap (and I don't mean Mickey), why should they have to give any of it away? 

I'm sorry but this does not make sense to me. 

RadioAaron wrote:

The Canadian production industry has never been healthier, mostly thanks to Netflix and company.

Netflix made some interesting observations about this very thing to the Commission during the hearings on this legislation. They pointed out they already contribute a lot to the Canadian industry by shooting so many of their shows here, a benefit not only to the country but helping to employ those working here. 

They, along with other streamers like Amazon and Tubi, "requested that their current expenditures on Canadian programming be deducted from base contributions. They stated that they preferred to directly invest in production rather than contribute to funds that will subsequently serve their Canadian competitors and to which they do not have access."

(Quoted from the CRTC decision)

And finally, "Netflix, The Walt Disney Company, including Buena Vista International, Inc., and Paramount Global opposed directing base contributions to support news programs, given that they do not produce this type of content."

None of which ultimately made any difference. The Commission was determined to find a way to make them pay for things they're not involved in and so here we are. Again, I'm not a huge fan of any of these guys and I don't subscribe to any streaming service. But I honestly would not blame some of them if they looked at the numbers, took their ball and went home. 

"It would be absolutely absurd. Why is broadcasting subject to such a different standard? If the streamers are beating our guys at their own game, well, that's business. It's up to them to figure out a way to compete and not take a handout from a very reluctant competitor. "

Broadcasters are saying, why should streamers be unregulated and have no obligations. Why are they subject to such a different and preferred standard?  Streamers and broadcasters are in the same business correct?    Up until the last few years, the streamers were not even paying HST or any taxes.

So I think before everyone get all wrapped up in a coil, let's see how this actually plays out and let's hear the response from Netflix, Disney etc.. 
 

Last edited by paterson1 (June 4, 2024 10:06 pm)

To be fair why would Crave not be forced to pay the 5% too ? They are exactly the same as Netflix.

I can't remember the last time a Globe & Mail editorial centered on broadcasting. This one attacks the CRTC's recent edict demanding foreign streaming services that make above a certain threshold pony up 5% of their revenues to support certain Canadian media. 

It's a thought-provoking read that predicts somewhat dire consequences from the new rule - and what it might portend for the future in Canada. 

"Beyond the practical issues, there are more fundamental questions that Ottawa is simply ignoring. Why should online streaming platforms fund Canadian content? Isn’t that a broader social good? Imagine if Ottawa imposed a special tax on tire makers to fund highway maintenance, or on sports equipment makers to fund recreational centres. Such policies would rightly be looked at as bizarre."

Ottawa’s levy on streaming services is no screen saver

paterson1 wrote:

Couldn't read the editorial, blocked by the Globe. 

Sorry about that. I didn't get any paywall at all when I went there and I still don't. And I'm not a G&M subscriber. Funny how some get it and some don't. But I noticed someone archived this 23 hours ago, so here's the unblocked version.

paterson1 wrote:

These are multi billion dollar organizations with huge influence and power.  If it was Rogers or Bell all we would hear about is how greedy they are and how they screw their customers, and are always laying off people.  But never any criticism of Netflix, Disney or Amazon etc.  I guess streaming is somehow pure and more honest or honourable than broadcasting?...

To their credit, most of the biggest players are now taking part and investing in productions and being part of the Canadian media landscape.  However this was largely because they were pressured and almost shamed into participating.

I have no skin in the game since I'm not a streaming customer (yet), but the Globe's point seems to be that this will ultimately wind up costing subscribers more, which the CRTC surely did not want but has no control over - and should have realized. And whoever the government in power is will surely hear from already overburdened Canadian taxpayers, blaming them. 

Also, as you and they noted, a company like Netflix already produces a ton of its stuff here in Canada, employing everything from actors and writers to technical unions. Is that not contributing to the Great White North? I believe I read it also has a number of shows that centre on Canada and Canadians, so it can reasonably argue it's already doing its part without an additional financial burden. 

There is also a perception - rightly or wrongly - that Canadians don't always watch shows aimed at them or about them. So the streamers may wonder why they're being forced to fund shows very few will ever see, that they can't monetize and which their far larger American audience may not watch.

paterson1 wrote:

I find it a little strange that we haven't heard from any of the streamers so far.  I thought someone or a group of streamers would have responded by now.

The new rules don't officially kick in until September. We may well hear from them when the money has to start flowing. 

paterson1 wrote:

 New Canadian programming will only add to this.  

Only if it's good Canadian programming. People don't watch based on where a show is made. We'll have to wait and see what they produce. 

For once we agree. Who cares if it's Canadian as long as it's good? But no company should be forced to make programming of any kind by fiat. Produce quality stuff, and who cares if it was made in Canada or Hollywood? It really doesn't matter to most viewers. 

paterson1 wrote:

And also don't penalize a program just because it is Canadian.  

The corollary is don't make a show just because it's Canadian. 

paterson1 wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

paterson1 wrote:

And also don't penalize a program just because it is Canadian.  

The corollary is don't make a show just because it's Canadian. 

But don't refuse to watch or decide that you already won't like it just because it is Canadian. 

Being honest here. I have been guilty of this.