Diversity Convention

March 18, 2007 5:17 PM

Today, the UNESCO Convention for the Promotion and Protection of Cultural Diversity enters into force. 148 signed the convention and 54 states have ratified (Brazil, Canada, China, France, and India to name a few). The ratification and entry into force took only 1 1/2 years - that is to say record time. Only 2 states decided to vote against it: the United States and Israel. The US and Hollywood are very unhappy that this convention will become effective. Meanwhile, party countries seem quite pleased.
posted by pwedza (98 comments total)

Thank you for this post. Its extremely timely and informative for a project I'll be starting next week which involves looking at the issues faced by women who stay home due to difficulties with the culture of their new homelands and how one can provide income sources and other support systems and services.
posted by infini at 5:23 PM on March 18, 2007

France supporting cultural diversity?
posted by smackfu at 5:43 PM on March 18, 2007

Which link explains what you are talking about? The "Promotion and Protection of Cultural Diversity" seemed like it should, but it, like this post apparently, assume I already know.
posted by DU at 5:44 PM on March 18, 2007

Oh wait, I suppose that France is on the protection side of it, to "protect" their own culture and exclude the diversity of the rest of the world. Yay?
posted by smackfu at 5:46 PM on March 18, 2007

Ah, cultural protectionism. God forbid french people should be allowed to watch as many American movies as they want.

(Is that all this convention is about? Surely not. But several of the linked opponents and proponents seem to be making a point of it.)
posted by grobstein at 5:47 PM on March 18, 2007

The horrifying dying-out of local music around the world...will this help? If so, count me in. And if the US and Israel are the only dissenters on the issue...count me worried.
posted by kozad at 5:52 PM on March 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

In October 2003, the Member States requested the Organization to pursue its normative action in the defence of human creativity.

How does one defend human creativity by taking action to normalize it?

That's some goddamned creepy and nebulous language right there.

Oh, and fuck defence! It's DE-fense. Awwww, yeah.
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:52 PM on March 18, 2007

There is a good reason why the US is against this, it is targeted against the US, and Hollywood specifically. There is also a lot of reason to believe this is a bad idea, or at least only an idea that beneifts countries that are part of large language groups, or from governments that want to limit freedome of speech.

Here is a paper on the subject from Carlton University that talks about the problems of the convention. I thought this part was interesting:

The position put forward in the NICD drafts is that unconstrained policy decisions by
each government are in every country’s interest. This is a particularly bizarre view in the cultural sector. In every country that we are familiar with, the cultural industries have a markedly closer relationship to the government than a typical industry. Support by the media and the artistic community is critical for attaining electoral success in democracies or for legitimizing incumbents in non-democratic regimes. International openness generally weakens a relationship between the cultural industries and the government that promotes protection of domestic interests, the extolling and subsidization of high-concept
producers serving small audiences, the denigration of foreign-sourced mass market content as base and “commercial” unless domestic producers or guilds get a piece of the action.
posted by blahblahblah at 5:53 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

This is an international treaty, not just a French issue. I noted that Brazil, China and India are signatories.

Many developing countries feel like they got screwed in signing the TRIPS Agreement (International intellectual property treaty). That is a good reason for why so many countries are enthused about this treaty.

Effectively, the treaty creates a fund to help preserve cultural diversity - in any form. State parties still have all the same WTO obligations.

DU: this is the text of the convention.

In any case, it was a massive diplomatic failure for the US.
posted by pwedza at 5:54 PM on March 18, 2007

On one side, I'm not surprised the US is not keen on this convention. After all, the entertainment media industry is one the United States' remaining key exports.

Although the US is comprised of many cultures and ethnicities as the US Ambassador says, it does tend to export the "American" culture. By finding criticism in the language of the convention, the US fails to notice this irony. McDonalds, Starbucks, Bruce Willis, and Brittney Spears are the icons. Not a lot of diversity there.

On the other side, the crap coming out of Hollywood does need to be checked. I've been out of the US a lot lately [currently in Thailand] and feel like Nick Cage's new film is following me wherever I go. What makes our species great is that the creativity is everywhere. In the US we get to film only in some art houses and via Netflix [or without a US distribution deal, via bittorrent]. Hollywood should not have an exclusive license on creativity. Nor should it be threatened by other countries' cultural efforts. If anything it will strengthen the markets. But like with the MPAA and RIAA and the internet, we see that Hollywood doesn't get it. But at least their lobbying dollars are being effective.
posted by birdherder at 5:59 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Does it work in places like Canada that mandate a certain amount of local content? Or do people just ignore it and watch the US stuff anyways?
posted by smackfu at 6:06 PM on March 18, 2007

smackfu writes "Oh wait, I suppose that France is on the protection side of it, to 'protect' their own culture and exclude the diversity of the rest of the world. Yay?"

I think the idea is that each country would protect their own culture, exclude other cultures, and, thereby, when all those cultures were then looked at, there would be diversity. This is in opposition to the situation where each country would not protect its own culture, and would not exclude other cultures, and, thereby, where Hollywood would take over and each culture would end out producing the same stuff (or not producing anything), thereby, when all those cultures were then looked at, there would not be diversity.

I'm not saying I agree with the idea (I really don't know), but the concept of "diversity through isolationism" isn't really as odd as it sounds. Think about the world nowadays: We have far less isolationism, thanks to television, aeroplanes, the internet, movies, newspapers, and fast trains. We also have less diversity. Isolationism generally decreases diversity locally, and increases it globally.
posted by Bugbread at 6:07 PM on March 18, 2007

The politics behind this were interesting. It seems like a number of countries (like the UK) promised not to ratify the treaty to the US. And, of course, the US is paying 22% of UNESCO's budget, regardless of whether or not it likes the treaty.
posted by blahblahblah at 6:07 PM on March 18, 2007

I believe it also touches upon cultural considerations. Regardless of how we may individually feel about things, I can see the validity of the point of view - as an example only, imho - that perhaps say the Indians, whose movies still have censorship regulations against kissing and sex on screen [and allowing them to show this is a good thing? it promotes freedom and democracy? I don't know] may object to the proliferation of movies and serials and sit coms that perhaps support cultural values very different from those required to live within the society and the values in which the viewers reside.

The argument has been brought up in numerous different ways - witness the Slow Cities movement in Italy.
posted by infini at 6:09 PM on March 18, 2007

So what this treaty says is that consumers of cultural products should not be permitted to decide for themselves what they consume.

They will be told what they will watch and listen to by their betters, and they will like it, whether they actually like it or not.

Since when has protectionism ever benefitted anyone except for failing producers? How is this any different from industrial protectionism?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 6:15 PM on March 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

While I intellectually applaud the notion of foreign nations making more films locally, I can't help but cringe at the oh-so-obvious unintended consequence: Making it harder for Hollywood to sell overseas means they will sell harder (or sell even more crap the same amount of hard) here in the US. Can't wait.
posted by DU at 6:16 PM on March 18, 2007

Monocultures hardly ever survive the long term.

We should take that into consideration when designing our societies.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:17 PM on March 18, 2007

I am all for cultrual diversity in the Arab countries. when does i take effect?
posted by Postroad at 6:19 PM on March 18, 2007

The UK's ambassador to the summit, Timothy Craddock, proclaimed it "a great day for UNESCO" on behalf of the EU, saying that they had "agreed to disagree" with "one country" on the matter.

And, of course, the US is paying 22% of UNESCO's budget, regardless of whether or not it likes the treaty.

Same as Japan's. Not sure what that proves.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:33 PM on March 18, 2007

Honestly, I think the whole Hollywood thing is played out at this point. That said, the MPIA and Jack Valenti are largely responsible for the reason we didn't ultimately sign. If one American interest strongly voices its opposition, we stay out. It also happend in the Convention on Biological Diversity -- a convention that US groups initiated and the US ultimately did not sign because of special interest groups.

The Hollywood issue is old news in many ways. Digital media is allowing many countires to produce their own movies. Take Brazil and West Africa. In the end, people like to see images of themselves anyways. Sure, Dallas has been a regular show on TVs throughout the world. Brazil and Argentina also export sitcoms and soap operas.

Also, the Diversity Convention specifically states that all other treaty obligations are to be respected -- namely WTO trade obligations. Therefore, no country is going to completely shut its borders to US movies or any product.

Meanwhile, the US doesn't hesitate to extend copyright protection to its own cultural products. Also, the US initiated TRIPS to be sure that computer software would be copyrightable and the enforcement thereof would be global.

The US simply lacks diplomatic skill. We only negotiate by force and then we wonder why everybody doesn't love US.
posted by pwedza at 6:34 PM on March 18, 2007

"They will be told what they will watch and listen to by their betters, and they will like it, whether they actually like it or not."

And you think that's not how it works now?
Anything that checks the flow of pure shit that's coming out of Hollywood right now can't be all bad.
And that fact that MONOCULTURE.INC and it's little bitch Israel is against it tells you all you need to know.
posted by 2sheets at 6:34 PM on March 18, 2007

The Canada system works pretty well. It encourages a lot of domestic TV and film production that helps the economy. We also help local talent develop via the radio rules. Overall, it is a positive for the country both economically and culturally.
posted by bhouston at 6:42 PM on March 18, 2007

My objection to this is that it is futile. In competitive systems which are close to zero sum (i.e. where the "sum" grows slowly if at all), there is a systemic tendency towards concentration and shakeout. It's an emergent property of how such systems operate, and every attempt I've ever heard of to try to prevent it has had pernicious consequences which were even worse.

If anyone's interested, I explained it here. (I also wrote about it in a series of five posts beginning with this one.)

But it's also a factor in the creation of power law curves. Clay Shirky talks about that in this marvelous article from a few years back.

The sad fact is that when it comes to competition among producers in a free market, "equality" is an unstable state that can't be sustained without artificial interference, which is to say, to not actually have a "free market".

Regarding this particular example, they may be able to mandate, by treaty and law, that a certain percentage of movies or TV programs or music is created locally, but they can't prevent empty theaters, unwatched programs, or unsold CDs. (Except at gunpoint. Which has been known to happen.)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 6:52 PM on March 18, 2007

In any case, the decision of the US not to sign the treaty is ultimately a decision against its proper interest. It has basically told the developing world that it could care less about their interests. A big F You. Thereby, giving developing countries no incentive - other than the brute force of TRIPS - to respect US intellectual property and other interests.

The treaty really doesn't change anything. It basically sayd "cultural diversity is good so lets get a treaty together and create a fund to throw money at it, whatever it might be."

The negotiations of the convention pretty much gutted it of any real bite. But, in the end, the US didn't sign.

I believe this decision can only hurt US interests.

The decision basically permits every country in the world to have parties and pat themselves on the back while looking down their noses at US.

We expect all countries to respect our copyrights and patents, no matter how poor. And, regardless of whether the knowledge that permitted those patents came from an indian tribe in the rain forest.

If I was a leader of a developing world country and I had the US telling me to get my copyright laws in line with international standards so that US fat cats can get their royaltly checks, I would say "hmmmm... I seem to specifically remember your campaign against the Diversity Convention and your effective message that you could give a f--- about our interests."

Why would I go out of my way to protect US IP interests?
posted by pwedza at 6:54 PM on March 18, 2007

how does this work in an internet age when increasingly, the cultural products of the world are available to anyone who wants them?
posted by pyramid termite at 6:56 PM on March 18, 2007

This convention works as intended only in the following situation: member countries have markets for their cultural productions, and they are being denied access to these markets by foreign competitors, i.e. Hollywood.

As to the question of whether member countries have markets or not, it's basically a question of whether their own populace thinks their films, music, etc. are any good.

If they don't, the only real effect is a worldwide chilling effect on artistic expression and exchange, as cultural works of merit are kept away from audiences in diverse countries.

It sounds like a terrible convention to me. If the rest of the world wants to stick it to the U.S., can't they at least pick a better arena for battle?
posted by rockabilly_pete at 6:56 PM on March 18, 2007

Meanwhile, the US doesn't hesitate to extend copyright protection to its own cultural products.

The law applies to any copyrighted works, not just American ones. A Bollywood film gets the same treatment as a Hollywood film in the US.

Although the US is comprised of many cultures and ethnicities as the US Ambassador says, it does tend to export the "American" culture.

Enough. Should the US start exporting other nation's culture? And is Arnold Schwarzenegger American culture? How about the Ring? Or Lord of the Rings?

On the other side, the crap coming out of Hollywood does need to be checked. I've been out of the US a lot lately [currently in Thailand] and feel like Nick Cage's new film is following me wherever I go.

Anything that checks the flow of pure shit that's coming out of Hollywood right now can't be all bad.

Boo hoo. You know why Hollywood sells overseas? Because they write the movies to cater to foreign markets in the first place. They know in advance that the movie has to to X in foreign markets, so they make sure there is something in the film to appeal to those markets.

That said, foreign movies do make it here, when the moveis are interesting to American audiences. Run Lola Run and Japanese Animation are two examples. As is the influx of Asian horror films.

This is nothing but protectionism. Perhaps the US should declare the airplane, the radio, and television all part of its cultural identity. Then we can protect those industries?

Oh, wait, this treaty applies only to intellectual property, the one industry the US continues to dominate. Can't allow that.
posted by Pastabagel at 6:57 PM on March 18, 2007

Why would I go out of my way to protect US IP interests?
posted by pwedza at 9:54 PM on March 18

If you're not an American, you shouldn't. And the US shouldn't go out of its way to protect yours at the expense of its own (which it doesn't). The difference is that the US is blind to the origin of content. If you create something in India and bring it here, it's given the same benefit under law as something created in the US.

This convention assures that US creative works are put at a disadvantage everywhere.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:02 PM on March 18, 2007

Steven C. Den Beste writes "They will be told what they will watch and listen to by their betters, and they will like it, whether they actually like it or not."

Er, no, they will be told what will be shown and played by their government. Whether they watch it or not is up to them. Whether they like it or not is likewise up to them. You've got good arguments for your position; no reason to foul them up with straw men.
posted by Bugbread at 7:05 PM on March 18, 2007

I dunno, Pastabagel. The way things are going for Airbus right now, Boeing may soon have a global near-monopoly. (Or find themselves competing against the Chinese.)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:06 PM on March 18, 2007

Rats. ...Or find themselves competing against the Chinese.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 7:06 PM on March 18, 2007

This convention assures that US creative works are put at a disadvantage everywhere.

No. US works are protected by the minimum standards set out in TRIPS. Except for in the least developed countries that don't yet have IP regimes.
posted by pwedza at 7:10 PM on March 18, 2007

No. US works are protected by the minimum standards set out in TRIPS. Except for in the least developed countries that don't yet have IP regimes.
posted by pwedza at 10:10 PM on March 18

Everyone who creates works in a country with an IP rights scheme gets the same protection. the only reason you are so focused on the US is because it a huge creator of intellectual property. Oh, and so is Israel, by the way. India and China, not so much.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:14 PM on March 18, 2007

Right. But if the US had signed the treaty it could have those rights enforced - just as it can now - but with a straight face.
posted by pwedza at 7:21 PM on March 18, 2007

I read a bunch of the damned thing and I can't figure out what it does. My summary is:

Countries have the right to make laws to protect culture and diversity. Countries also have the obligation to make laws to protect culture and diversity. We're setting up a charity for culture that countries can donate to, if they want.

The whole thing reads like a mission statement - I couldn't find much of substance that anyone was actually required to do. It's like all those resolutions telling the Israelis and Palestinians to stop fighting.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 7:27 PM on March 18, 2007

What are you talking about? Did you read the convention? It does not abrogate IP laws. US works are still protected by copyright in ratifying countries, it just means that the countries will have a state-sponsored support system for home-grown works and a way to block imports. But that doesn't mean that a blocked work can be copied.

What a lot of you seem to be missing is the true purpose of this law - eliminate the influence on local culture of American works. That's all well and good when you imagine it to be the typically villains Starbucks and McDonalds. They don't care about that. This is about the "developing" world making sure it can protect its citizens from dangerous American ideas like Jewish actors and financially independent and sexually liberated women.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:31 PM on March 18, 2007

Regarding this particular example, they may be able to mandate, by treaty and law, that a certain percentage of movies or TV programs or music is created locally, but they can't prevent empty theaters, unwatched programs, or unsold CDs. (Except at gunpoint. Which has been known to happen.)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 6:52 PM on March 18 [+]
[!]

You're assuming that these audiences understand Hollywood english in the first place?

check out this BBC report on the British Council sponsoring A Midsummers Night's Dream in a veritable patois of Indian languages and English.
posted by infini at 7:36 PM on March 18, 2007

This is about the "developing" world making sure it can protect its citizens from dangerous American ideas like Jewish actors and financially independent and sexually liberated women.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:31 PM on March 18 [+]
[!]

er...not quite.

Check out Fire, Water and Earth
posted by infini at 7:39 PM on March 18, 2007

You're assuming that these audiences understand Hollywood english

No, I'm assuming that Hollywood exports films overdubbed or subtitled in the local language, which is the truth. Hell, when you get a DVD in the US you have your choice of three languages.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:39 PM on March 18, 2007

This seems to be about encouraging home-grown cultural expressions. Between-the-lines I suppose that also means home-grown entertainment industries to either displace or take a chunk out of the foreign entertainment receipts.

Got no problem with that.

Article 7, Paragraph 1(b) also states that member states should try to keep access open to cultural expressions from outside the country.

Got no problem with that.

I have simply a tough time finding the real worth of this convention, though. It seems it's just an affirmation of national sovereignty with respect to cultural expression. There're no new rights I can see, other than some of the bits about international cooperation. If individual countries tend to interpret the convention to mean they should shut out Hollywood and only show BFE TV, then that was sort of their prerogative before as well; and where it wasn't allowed by treaty, it still won't be. So what's the point? And what's the hubbub?
posted by adoarns at 7:40 PM on March 18, 2007

Check out Fire, Water and Earth
posted by infini at 10:39 PM on March 18

Those are Canadian films. The director is Indian, but that doesn't matter. Canada is not a "developing" country. Under the convention, India could restrict the market for these and other foreign films, (or do something to price them out of a segment of the market which would find them the most controversial).

And this:

The first film in the series, Fire (1996), is set in contemporary India. It was a highly controversial film due to its explorations of gender, marriage, and sexuality.

supports my argument that this convention will allow developing countries to stifle what they deem is controversial.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:47 PM on March 18, 2007

The whole thing reads like a mission statement

Yep

The true purpose of this law - eliminate the influence on local culture of American works.

WTO still mandates no discrimination against like products. There could be screen quotas established, but countries are not necessarily going to spceifically bar US works.

What are you talking about? Did you read the convention? It does not abrogate IP laws.

Obviously, I am simply saying that the US position does not give any incentive to want to respect US IP interests because of its the disregard for the interests of others.
posted by pwedza at 7:47 PM on March 18, 2007

If individual countries tend to interpret the convention to mean they should shut out Hollywood and only show BFE TV, then that was sort of their prerogative before as well; and where it wasn't allowed by treaty, it still won't be.

They couldn't restrict them before because a lot of these countries signed onto intellectual property conventions where they committed to protecting IP, theirs and that which is imported. Because thisi treaty comes after the IP treaties, in a sense it supercedes any language guaranteeing unfettered access to markets. Every country had the equivalent of an NEA like in the US. The difference is now those bodies can reorder the market to give local content an advantage.

Also, this convention implicitly acknowledges that most countries censor their media quite aggressively.
posted by Pastabagel at 7:51 PM on March 18, 2007

pastabagel, your point about Canada only makes sense if you can demonstrate a similar support for contemporary social issues in other cultures in Hollywood. Deepa Mehta is supported by the state for some of her works, and there is a significant population in Canada [Mississuaga or Brampton anyone?] for whom these are issues they struggle with in their daily lives.
posted by infini at 7:51 PM on March 18, 2007

I don't understand why it is so wrong to monitor the content being beamed into my home and to give preference to local culture ?
posted by infini at 7:52 PM on March 18, 2007

Obviously, I am simply saying that the US position does not give any incentive to want to respect US IP interests because of its the disregard for the interests of others.
posted by pwedza at 10:47 PM on March 18

You're missing the internal contradiction here. Forget about the US position. "Respecting US IP rights" means having a decent domestic copyright law and enforcement mechanisms to back it up. It doesn't necessarily mean RIAA level tyranny, but it should at least stop open air mass market movie bootlegging. The contradiction is this - all this talk about local content being overpowered, drowned out, or otherwise disadvantaged by the Hollywood machine is meaningless. The reason the US wants copyright enforcement in these countries is because the local population are demanding bootlegged copies of Hollywood movies, not local films. The black markets in these countries have settled the question - they want Hollywood movies.

pastabagel, your point about Canada only makes sense if you can demonstrate a similar support for contemporary social issues in other cultures in Hollywood. Deepa Mehta is supported by the state for some of her works,

I didn't know that, that wasn't my point. My point is that the movie is made in Canada by a Canadian, not that the Canadian govt put up any money. Furthermore, I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of every movie ever produced in the US, so I can't say whether there is such a movie or not. I can't imagine one getting the 3000 screen treatment, but only because the audience isn't there for that. However, I would note that "Hollywood" is actually a bunch of different companies and thousands of production companies chasing down scripts and talent all over the world. I notice that Fox is distributing the movie down here.

I don't understand why it is so wrong to monitor the content being beamed into my home and to give preference to local culture

That's your job, not the government's. The problem is particularly egregious when you realize that the local content was probably produced with government money as well, so they had a hand in making it. Notice I say "content" not culture. This convention cannot control culture which is by definition from the people and not dictated from above. The convention is about content, i.e. the cultureal prodcuts that can be controlled.

So what we have here is the state influencing the content of cultural prodcuts and then blocking, censoring, or excluding the products from outside that are otherwise beyond its control.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:09 PM on March 18, 2007

The reason the US wants copyright enforcement in these countries is because the local population are demanding bootlegged copies of Hollywood movies, not local films. The black markets in these countries have settled the question - they want Hollywood movies.

I am not convinced that this is the case. As I mentioned above, local film and television is budding all over the world. With digital technology, the poorest countries can now produce their own media and they are doing so.

The real issue is that the MPIAA does not want to give an inch, regardless of what is happening. That is the power of lobbying.

Plus, there are other issues here. Namely traditional knowledge and folklore.
posted by pwedza at 8:19 PM on March 18, 2007

As I mentioned above, local film and television is budding all over the world. With digital technology, the poorest countries can now produce their own media and they are doing so.

In that case, if there's a lot of new sources springing up, and lots of local demand for it, then why do they need protection?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 8:26 PM on March 18, 2007

Yes, pwedza, whether its a textile or a way of living sustainably, these are so important to protect.
posted by infini at 8:27 PM on March 18, 2007

The real issue is that the MPIAA does not want to give an inch, regardless of what is happening. That is the power of lobbying.
Plus, there are other issues here. Namely traditional knowledge and folklore.
posted by pwedza at 11:19 PM on March 18

The MPAA doesn't want to give an inch because they don't get an inch in return. And these other issues are non-issues. Foreign cultural content does not in anyway affect traditional knowledge and folklore, except to the extent that it leads to greater understanding which may ultimately lead the local population to abandon its traditional knowledge upon realizing that it differs from reality. We know all about the traditional culture and folklore of the ancient greeks, except we now call a lot of it mythology.

I suspect that is the fear underlying the rush to protect folklore. What will happen if the local population realizes that their folk knowledge of X is wrong? etc.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:28 PM on March 18, 2007

smackfu writes "Does it work in places like Canada that mandate a certain amount of local content? Or do people just ignore it and watch the US stuff anyways?"

In tv there is a quite a bit of cheap filler, stand up comedy and news, that kind of thing. But there is also a lot of fairly good drama and sit coms that tends to be less LCD than American television. There is little doubt that without Canadian content laws we wouldn't have shows like the Rick Mercer Report or Made in Canada.
posted by Mitheral at 8:30 PM on March 18, 2007

Pastabagel: you think that the crap movies sold by hollywood all over the world will "lead to greater understanding which may ultimately lead the local population to abandon its traditional knowledge upon realizing that it differs from reality"?
Seriously?
posted by signal at 8:34 PM on March 18, 2007

This is about the "developing" world making sure it can protect its citizens from dangerous American ideas like Jewish actors and financially independent and sexually liberated women.

Is that why Sweden voted to ratify? Italy? Ireland?

This isn't about Norbit bringing down the Berlin Wall. I live in Australia, and tonight, my choice of prime-time commercial television consists of: Desperate Housewives, Brothers & Sisters, Boston Legal, Scrubs, CSI: NY, Cops, and Supernatural. That is to say, absolutely nothing which has any relevance to the actual world I live in. The only local productions on the commerical channels are two long-running soap operas, which offer almost the only regular paid employment for Australian actors, and a handful of reality TV shows, most of them Endemol formats devised by Dutch executives and sold to 30+ countries. Apart from the soap operas, only the two government-funded channels are showing completely locally produced content - most of it documentaries.

Can you imagine what it would be like if NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox all decided to devote 90% of their broadcasting time to Australian shows, set in Australia, with Australian actors talking about Australian events and places? How about if Hollywood basically shut up shop and devoted itself to importing German action movies to the exclusion of everything else? And every American actor and screenwriter had to go back to their day jobs, because nobody would produce anything they came up with unless they could speak German with a convincing accent? I'll tell you what it would be like: really weird and annoying. So weird and annoying that you might even start asking your government to fund some local productions, just so you could see what your country's artists have to say when given the opportunity.

Sadly, Australia apparently abstained from the vote. Disappointing but unsurprising.
posted by stammer at 8:35 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Oh, wait, I see. You mean traditional folklore, like ensuring that the only products that can be labelled "Champagne" are ones from Champagne, France? I see. Well, congratulations to the rest of the world for catching up to the States. You finally realize it really is all about money.

To be fair, perhaps every country on earth should pay double digit percentages of their GDP to Greece for inventing and disseminating democracy, tyranny, despotism, physics, and philosophy throughout the world, because all of these are still operative throughout the world.

Isn't it funny how some traditional knowledge lasts thousands of years and gets taught in universities as current knowledge, and other traditional knowledge is described solely in terms of carpeting?

/snark
posted by Pastabagel at 8:38 PM on March 18, 2007

What?
posted by stammer at 8:43 PM on March 18, 2007

Can you imagine what it would be like if NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox all decided to devote 90% of their broadcasting time to Australian shows, set in Australia, with Australian actors talking about Australian events and places?

You just described PBS's prime time lineup of 10-yr old BBC programming. And some Americans choose watch it over CSI: Wherever and Law and Order: Whatever.

Is that why Sweden voted to ratify? Italy? Ireland?

No, I think they voted to ratify for the "Champagne" reasons France did. In those countries, like in Canada, it ultimately will make no difference. Europe and American culture is functionally the same - just hte window dressing is different.

And for those people talking about the crappy Hollywood movies - Hollywood makes more money overseas than in the US. Please don't assume the LCD in the rest of the world is somehow more cultured than the LCD in the US. Ignorance is a universal constant.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:48 PM on March 18, 2007

[Foreign cultural content] leads to greater understanding which may ultimately lead the local population to abandon its traditional knowledge upon realizing that it differs from reality.

So african griots are going to stop telling stories after seeing Spiderman?

What will happen if the local population realizes that their folk knowledge of X is wrong?

It is not a question of wrong or right. The US does not hold the chalice of truth.

Pharmacuetical companies (US and European) have a nice "tradition" of finding local medicines to be effective, isolating and commercializing their findings, and excluding the population that revealed their knowledge and permitted the accomplishment from any economic benefit.

The MPAA doesn't want to give an inch because they don't get an inch in return.

The MPA makes no money abroad?



In that case, if there's a lot of new sources springing up, and lots of local demand for it, then why do they need protection?

The convention creates a fund to aid local production. States are simply acting multi-laterally and unifying to act together. The protection is the concerted effort. This convention is not specifically drafted against the US or for the purposes of barring media from entering countries.
posted by pwedza at 8:49 PM on March 18, 2007

I repeat, do you honestly believe that the crap movies sold by hollywood all over the world will "lead to greater understanding which may ultimately lead the local population to abandon its traditional knowledge upon realizing that it differs from reality"?
Simple question, yes or no answer.
posted by signal at 8:54 PM on March 18, 2007

metaMeta! : Ignorance is a universal constant.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:48 PM on March 18 [+]
[!]
posted by infini at 8:55 PM on March 18, 2007

Pharmacuetical companies (US and European) have a nice "tradition" of finding local medicines to be effective, isolating and commercializing their findings, and excluding the population that revealed their knowledge and permitted the accomplishment from any economic benefit

Another myth. Please cite one example of a local medicine that was commercialized as is into a patented drug. I'm not talking about a plant which was found to have healing properties but which was then studied at considerable expense until the active ingredient was identified, isolated, and a processes to synthesize it for mass production was created. Because that is very different than what you described.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:57 PM on March 18, 2007

You just described PBS's prime time lineup of 10-yr old BBC programming.

Yeah, I just described one channel. Did you read the sentence you were quoting?
posted by stammer at 8:57 PM on March 18, 2007

I repeat, do you honestly believe that the crap movies sold by hollywood all over the world will "lead to greater understanding which may ultimately lead the local population to abandon its traditional knowledge upon realizing that it differs from reality"?
Simple question, yes or no answer.
posted by signal at 11:54 PM on March 18

Depends on the movie, but yes. If bad movies have the power to corrupt culture, then good ones have the ability to elevate it or improve it.
posted by Pastabagel at 9:00 PM on March 18, 2007

Yeah, I just described one channel. Did you read the sentence you were quoting?
posted by stammer at 11:57 PM on March 18

Yes. FYI, Fox is run by an Australian, Rupert Murdoch.

I understand your point. IT would be annoying. But tell me, why have the British been able to solve this problem?
posted by Pastabagel at 9:03 PM on March 18, 2007

the british solved it by an arcane method unknown to the united states, you pay a license fee to the government for your TV or radio. this keeps the BBC going.
posted by infini at 9:12 PM on March 18, 2007

/begin blather

"Content" particularly film and television programming, is driven primarily by the advertising sponsors. Hence the name "soap" opera for daytime serials.

Content was thus nothing more than brand messaging shaped to support the values and view points of those whose money paid for it to be created.

After three or more generations of such 'social programming' so to speak, it is indeed considered "reality". But for those for whom such a blanketed cocoon of media, messaging and programming is not "daily life"; it is neither reality nor do they wish it to reflect 'reality'.

/end blather

more than that, I cannot bring myself to say.
posted by infini at 9:17 PM on March 18, 2007

dotslash: "The UK's ambassador to the summit, Timothy Craddock, proclaimed it "a great day for UNESCO" on behalf of the EU, saying that they had "agreed to disagree" with "one country" on the matter."

Yeah, but has the UK ratified it? The point the article made was that several countries agreed to vote for the convention but not ratify it. Regardless, of course the US failed diplomatically on getting opposition, but demonizing Hollywood works everywhere, and the only people who have anything to lose are in the US.

Anyhow, this is one of those litmus-test votes/FPPs. Don't like the US much? Yeah, Convention! Don't like Hollywood much? Yeah, Convention! Don't like IP protection pushed by the West? Yeah, Convention! The whole world can safely check one of those boxes. I don't see how the US could do anything but vote against, and I don't think that makes the US the bad guy here, nor does this agreement actually do much in the first place.
posted by blahblahblah at 10:12 PM on March 18, 2007

Vaccination against communicable disease is wrong because virulence is clear evidence of biological superiority. Might always makes right.
posted by FreedomTickler at 10:20 PM on March 18, 2007

The Canadian system, for better or worse, has proved an exceptional farm system for achieving American celebrity status. There are, it seems to me, an unlikely number of Canadian actors and singers who have succeeded on a massive scale south of the border. I don't really know why this is, or whether the Canadian content rules have anything to do with it.
posted by dbarefoot at 10:20 PM on March 18, 2007

Does it work in places like Canada that mandate a certain amount of local content? Or do people just ignore it and watch the US stuff anyways?

Canadian content laws (Cancon) have worked spectacularly well in radio/music. So well, in fact, that the predominant criticism is there are too many stars in Canadian music taking up Cancon room that "should" be going to up and coming acts. Considering how vocal the Steven C. Den Beste type free marketeers can be, that is saying something. Cancon hasn't yet worked as well in television, although there is some hint that it might one day, if the rules aren't completely castrated. Appart from news and sports, there haven't been many mainstream Canadian TV shows worth watching, really, but there is lots of good specialty station type stuff that wouldn't exist if it wasn't for Cancon.. Why make Holmes On Homes if you can just play This Old House. Why make Trailer Park Boys if you can just play Reno 911. Not to mention Kenny vs. Spenny!
posted by Chuckles at 10:33 PM on March 18, 2007

only 12 of the EU 25 have ratified it, apparently. Of those, only 14 of them are in Europe: the UK, Portugal, Belgium, and the Netherlands, amongst others, have not.
posted by infini at 10:44 PM on March 18, 2007

Actually - Rupert 'sold out' his Australian citizenship and became an American, in order to drown the rest of us with his American pap. Australian's are saturated with American culture.

Kids at my son's pre-school are actually getting American twangs in their accents. That bothers me. It's a fucking ZED not a ZEE, but more and more even adults are incapable of making the distinction.

It's not just the accent, it's the degradation of the lexical concepts that really bother me. American media is incredibly influential - the higher production values appeal to the more immature consumer - so the concept of a free market sounds good in theory, but doesn't give its poorer (parochial) cousins much of a chance.

As a consequential aside - when I travel, it's to revel in the diversity of a foreign culture - the more western (American) culture ekes into the fabric of these cultures, the less they remain foreign and interesting. I don't believe that's an overly long drawn bow in this argument.
posted by strawberryviagra at 11:27 PM on March 18, 2007

the crap coming out of Hollywood does need to be checked. I've been out of the US a lot lately [currently in Thailand] and feel like Nick Cage's new film is following me wherever I go.


Why shouldn't people in Thailand be able to watch a Hollywood movie if that is what they want to watch? Why should your entertainment preferences limit the entertainment preferences of others?

Nobody forced a number of Thai people to pay for Spiderman tickets. They liked it more than the Thai movie alternatives which could have occupied those screens had they not.


Can you imagine what it would be like if NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox all decided to devote 90% of their broadcasting time to Australian shows, set in Australia, with Australian actors talking about Australian events and places? How about if Hollywood basically shut up shop and devoted itself to importing German action movies to the exclusion of everything else?

If this is true, those stations make money in Australia because Australians are choosing to watch them. That foreign programming is more prominent in Australia than local programming because Australians are choosing to watch foreign programming over local programming. Just as I chose to eat at a Japanese restaurant tonight over a "hot dog" (or whatever some racist thinks my "appropriate" food choice "should" have been, because of my incidental ancestry or nation of birth)

If 90% of American TV programs were suddenly child porn, most people would stop watching them, because most people do not prefer that content, and they would start making TV programs they did prefer. Two weeks later TV would look exactly like it does now.


I don't understand why it is so wrong to monitor the content being beamed into my home and to give preference to local culture

Because the other way it is your choice what to watch, or to not watch anything at all.

If you don't like what's on TV, turn it off, watch something local, or make something locally that caters better to local tastes than what is currently available from foreign markets.


Vaccination against communicable disease is wrong because virulence is clear evidence of biological superiority. Might always makes right.

Freedom of choice is not a disease. Limiting choice is the act of coercion ("might"), not permitting it.

The terrible movies themselves are not 'right' or 'wrong' (taste is not a moral act), they just are. The ability to watch the movies you prefer is right, and it takes more violence to prevent such choices than it does to allow them.
posted by dgaicun at 1:53 AM on March 19, 2007

Meanwhile...
posted by surrendering monkey at 3:40 AM on March 19, 2007

If you don't like what's on TV, turn it off, watch something local, or make something locally that caters better to local tastes than what is currently available from foreign markets.

Yes - we're all cashed up and have access to the crews, equipment and distribution networks - who actually determine your loosely considered "freedom of choice". This is what this is all about - governments actually providing budgets to fund local content, rather than simply sucking on the American tit.

Present a kid with a carrot on a white plate, and they'll probably eat it - surround it with chocolate and multi-coloured lollies ... are they really exercising freedom of choice?
posted by strawberryviagra at 3:47 AM on March 19, 2007

pastabagel - What will happen if the local population realizes that their folk knowledge of X is wrong?

they'll quit supporting their government when it invades countries like iraq and vietnam and get stuck in them?

they'll quit acting like they live on a planet made from infinite amounts of oil and other resources?

they'll quit teaching their children that humans hunted dinosaurs 5,000 years ago?

they'll quit thinking that green pieces of paper can actually make one a fulfilled human being who is better than others?

they'll quit despising the people who do the shitty jobs that keep civilization going?

they'll quit looking on violence as entertaining and on sex as dirty?

there are many good arguments to be made against cultural protectionism ... this sure as hell isn't one of them

you seem to believe, for some mysterious reason, that we are more culturally knowledgable and sophisticated than most societies

we have our good points, but i don't think so
posted by pyramid termite at 5:01 AM on March 19, 2007 [1 favorite]

This is what this is all about - governments actually providing budgets to fund local content, rather than simply sucking on the American tit.

No, this is not what this is all about. Cultural "quotas" in France are not simply about the French government being a patron of the arts. Even more worrisome is that authoritarian and corrupt government limitations on the freedom of people in developing countries the world over is an ever present reality, and this convention essentially winks at them to pull a China in the dubious name of 'cultural preservation'. The rejected US amendments were valid points of concern.

Present a kid with a carrot on a white plate, and they'll probably eat it - surround it with chocolate and multi-coloured lollies ... are they really exercising freedom of choice?

Wait, except you are playing the role of the parent: taking away the tasty chocolate "higher production values", leaving them with the bland, yet patriotically correct carrot. Our "parochial cousins" (being "immature consumers") just won't know how delicious it is until you - their enlightened guardian elder - remove the chocolates.

The plate is sitting right there with both 'Zed' and 'Zee' on it, you just don't like which one the "child" is preferring to eat.

Hopefully mathowie will improve moderation here and delete the extraneous 'u's from phrases such as 'multi-coloured lollies', so that our innocent AMERICAN sons and daughters are not exposed to your foreign spelling filth and, ruled as they are by their humors, tragically emulate it as they do the alien jungle rhythms of New World Africans.
posted by dgaicun at 6:06 AM on March 19, 2007

Ironically, this is happening when the quality of American TV is the highest it's been for decades.

American Movies on the other hand ...
posted by fullerine at 6:17 AM on March 19, 2007

What is the point of signing some agreement between states on this? Canada doesn't need the US's approval to restrict foreign content in Canada.

Think of trade, where the international agreement try to stop protectionism. Now that's the kind of thing that needs a treaty.
posted by smackfu at 6:39 AM on March 19, 2007

Now that's the kind of thing that needs a treaty.

Yes. And they are in place.

But everybody is not necessarily happy with them.
posted by pwedza at 7:26 AM on March 19, 2007

One problem with this freedom of choice argument is that transmission spectrum is a limited resource that is controlled tightly everywhere around the world. Hence, there is no semblance of a free marketplace to begin with.

Another problem is analogous to dumping. All the costs are paid by the US domestic market, so the price attached to the exported product can be adjusted without regard to production costs. When there is no competition in a market, price will be high enough, because there is no reason not to extract maximum profit. When there is competition, price drops quickly to stamp it out. As distasteful as the Chinese DVD piracy business is, the existence of product designed to compete with it should be all the proof you need.

The free marketeers might argue that dumping should be allowed based on Friedman esque ideas of a completely free market, but those arguments bare as much resemblance with reality as Gandhi's ideas about WWII did.


What is the point of signing some agreement between states on this? Canada doesn't need the US's approval to restrict foreign content in Canada.

Sure we do.. Here's what appears to be a more thorough and academic look at the issue of split run magazines, though I only scanned the beginning.
posted by Chuckles at 7:29 AM on March 19, 2007

no tags!
posted by bhouston at 10:51 AM on March 19, 2007

The ability to watch the movies you prefer is right, and it takes more violence to prevent such choices than it does to allow them.

Yes, because there's nothing coercive about using monopoly power to saturate local marketing and distribution channels.
posted by FreedomTickler at 1:09 PM on March 19, 2007

The three armed dgaicun aliens descended on planet Earth horrified to find their poor earthly cousins toiling with their two inferior arms. "Oh my god! Oh my god! How do they manage??".

The dgaicun felt proud as they jetted back into the heavens, their transplanted third arm recipients waving their three arms madly in thanks to their benevolent superiors.
posted by strawberryviagra at 3:45 PM on March 19, 2007

with their two inferior arms. "Oh my god! Oh my god! How do they manage??"

Benevolent superior? I'm sorry, but you are clearly describing your comments, not mine. While I explicitly stated that I did not find any entertainment inherently superior or inferior, you repeatedly made the distinction between 'inferior' and 'superior' culture (extending even to "correct" letter pronunciations). While I grant that people have made the best choices for themselves, you repeatedly questioned their ability to think and make their own decisions (e.g. "parochial cousins", "immature consumers", "even adults are incapable"). Of course even Australians, with a higher standard of living than Americans, are somehow unable to make the best choices for themselves.

And if someone invents three arm surgery I hope it would be available to anyone with the means to afford it, regardless of their geography.
posted by dgaicun at 5:15 PM on March 19, 2007

I'd just like to thank pwedza. Thanks to everything linked here I have just received an invite to join an advisory board for one teeny tiny part of the unesco.
posted by infini at 6:09 PM on March 19, 2007

There is such a thing as 'normality' - parenting a child makes this abundantly clear. In my initial metaphor, I didn't 'take away' an already present cache of chocolate and lollies - it wasn't there to begin with, making the carrot a tasty option. Let's make it a carrot and an apple - there's the choice.

Now if you want to nit-pick - you're the one assuming that all locally derived content (in a protected sense) is going to be 'patriotically' inspired (leaving them with the bland, yet patriotically correct carrot)- well that may be the case for China, it certainly isn't for France, or Australia for that matter, or for a multitude of cultures who are only interested in protecting some semblance of their own narrative under the weight/flood of American content. Is American content devoid of American patriotism? Hmmm.

I should expand on my meaning of Governments providing budgets, I don't mean sponsoring and actually producing - I mean providing frameworks and incentives (through tax schemes, education, and measures of allowable foreign media), to help increase and maintain local production. They can then make a film about Western Sydney homeboys shooting each other with a rap inspired soundtrack - although I don't think anyone would. None of this should mean the annihilation of one over the other - but placing limitations and providing any country with some 'choice' of their own content.

There's probably another metaphor around here that you could deconstruct - but the moon is waxing and I need to go sacrifice a goat to keep my web connection running.
posted by strawberryviagra at 6:10 PM on March 19, 2007

Sadly, Australia apparently abstained from the vote. Disappointing but unsurprising.

Actually, when I read that the US & Israel voted against it, I assumed that Australia had also, but had just not been noticed. We've been siding with the other two an awful lot at the UN recently.

If this is true, those stations make money in Australia because Australians are choosing to watch them. That foreign programming is more prominent in Australia than local programming because Australians are choosing to watch foreign programming over local programming.

Terrible argument, and I think strawberryviagra smashed it pretty well on the head, above. It's not about choice, it's about cost & economies of scale that massively favour American production & distribution networks.

On the other hand, cultured Australians tend to watch only the government stations - the ABC & SBS, the latter of which was set up as a multicultural station, serving the variety of communities in the country, and broadcasting shows & movies from all over the world. It has had its funding massively reduced in recent years, and the Aussie government's decision to abstain from the convention is likely related to this.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:28 PM on March 19, 2007

There's probably another metaphor around here that you could deconstruct - but the moon is waxing and I need to go sacrifice a goat to keep my web connection running.
posted by strawberryviagra An hour ago

Its actually a new moon solar eclipse ;p
posted by infini at 7:54 PM on March 19, 2007

Its actually a new moon solar eclipse ;p

Damn... I already bought the goat, and named it Rupert!
posted by strawberryviagra at 7:58 PM on March 19, 2007

Sincere congrats infini!! That is excellent. Go get 'em!!!
posted by pwedza at 8:28 PM on March 19, 2007

Yes, thank you so much!! Now I hope I can truly make a difference in someone else's life. I think my dad's prouder than I am though ... "his little girl, noticed by them big 'uns" ;p
posted by infini at 8:51 PM on March 19, 2007

infiniji - don't forget that a foot in the door of the UN can also open up a world of opportunities for graft, corruption & organised crime, not to mention the possibility of deliberately undermining the United States with every single thing you do!
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:41 PM on March 19, 2007

I would only be in an honourary position. would that be so bad?
posted by infini at 11:06 PM on March 19, 2007

bad?
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:22 PM on March 19, 2007

the possibility of deliberately undermining the United States with every single thing you do!

It's interesting (to me) that the more paranoid USians tend to see the UN as this evil agent of "the Rest of the World" trying to undermine them, whereas the paranoid RestoftheWorldians see it as a puppet agent of the US used to undermine the R.o.t.W.
posted by signal at 10:37 AM on March 20, 2007

LOL what is "rest of the world?"
posted by infini at 10:43 AM on March 20, 2007

China, India, and miscellaneous.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:48 PM on March 20, 2007

I forgot Poland.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:54 PM on March 20, 2007