Hacker News Reader

Comment by aktiur | Hacker News Reader

In the specific case of France, there are at least two reasons:

- there is a stringent legal regime ("media chronology") that sets compulsory delays for publishing a movie on alternative mediums after it has got into theatres : publishers have to wait 4 months to get DVDs out, free TV channels won't be able to screen the movie before 30 months, and VOD subscription services have to wait 36 months (!)

- Moreover, exclusivity on the national territory is a common practice for TV series, and a lot of the popular ones have been sold to major TV channels. Ironically, Netflix had already signed such a contract with Canal+, a French channel, for its signature series House of Cards, which is thus not available on the French version of Netflix !

View on HN

>that sets compulsory delays for publishing a movie on alternative mediums after it has got into theatres

Is there supposed to be some kind of benefit somewhere here?

What was the pitch for such a bill? I can't think of any reasoning that benefits the consumers of france.

Usually for laws like that the pitch is that there's some indirect benefit to the populace, like a healthier film industry which produces more quality films, keeping theaters open which allow you to continue to buy that huge screen/sound theater experience or heightening France's importance to foreign movie studios. That kind of thing. As for whether the tradeoffs are worth it... well, I'm pesimistic.

French cinema is incredible and world-renown, and the theater is part of that cinematic culture. Culture is as important or more important than economy in France. The opportunity to make a billion dollars on one film is valued less than the opportunity to break even on something beautiful.

I can see clear advantages to that. Although there are disadvantages as well.

That doesn't make any sense. How are you promoting culture by preventing people from experiencing it?

How are you helping the industry by restricting them from earning money?

By giving theaters the right of way in terms of distribution.

To the first question, they consider the experience surrounding the theatre to be a part of the culture, not just the film. The second... you probably aren't.

> What was the pitch for such a bill? I can't think of any reasoning that benefits the consumers of france.

Obviously, consumers don't benefit from bills like that, but they're not meant to either.

France has many laws intended to protect their culture and the creators of French culture. For example, France is a supporter of and has implemented film quotas so that the majority of films shown in theaters/on tv must be from France[0]:

    "Television Without Frontiers" directive and quotas implemented by
    the French Government limit the number  of American films shown in
    French theaters and on French Television. The EU  Broadcast
    Directive was passed inOctober 1989 in an effort to protect and
    promote  the Europeancultural identity. The directiverequires that
    EU member-states reserve  a majority (51 percent) of entertainment
    broadcast transmission time for programs  of European origin.
    France lobbied hardest to pass the EU directive and has since 
    implemented the most stringent quotas within its national system.

[0] - http://www1.american.edu/ted/frenchtv.htm

So, in france you have to wait 36 months after a film's release to stream it online.

Does that enable more french content to be produced?

Does it enable better french content to be produced?

Does it enable more french content to be consumed?

Does it benefit the creators of french films?

I simply am not seeing what positive impact such a law has. I can plainly see the negative impact, both on creators and consumers. I have a difficult time imagining a law banning your movie from being streamed for 3 years is of benefit to a french filmmaker.

Keep in mind that the specific rules of the media chronology legal regime are set through interprofessional agreements. The specific delays for VOD services were added in 2009 and are mostly the result of an attempt by incumbents to protect their market share against internet entrants. The state agency (Conseil National du Cinéma) is actually pushing for a shorter period for subscription VOD (24 months), but only for actors involved in "French artistic creation" (basically all of them except Netflix).

All of this may seem hard to understand from a foreign perspective, but you have to realize that numerous rules apply to cultural industries in France. For example, channels must respect a minimum ratio of French movies and series in their programming. They also have an obligation to invest 3 % of their turnover in funding european and French movies. Thus, these French actors feel that Netflix's foreign status allows it to escape these obligations and they resent what they see as an unfair competition.

Aaaand that's why I don't use my ISP's VOD services.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com