(联合国)欢迎客人:跨国视频点播和意大利新的欧洲作品配额

IF 1.4 Q2 COMMUNICATION
Alessandro D’Arma, G. Gangemi
{"title":"(联合国)欢迎客人:跨国视频点播和意大利新的欧洲作品配额","authors":"Alessandro D’Arma, G. Gangemi","doi":"10.1386/jdmp_00078_1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Programming and investment quotas in favour of ‘European works’ are an important element of the audiovisual ‘cultural policy toolkit’ in Europe. In reasserting their role, the revised 2018 Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) has updated these rules in\n response to the rise of transnational video-on-demand (VoD) services across the continent. This article examines why and how Italy embarked on a reform of its domestic regime on quotas in 2017, in parallel with the revision of the AVMSD. It shows that Italian policy-makers sought to adopt\n a system of quotas that was far more stringent than the one previously in force and that also departed from the EU approach in significant ways. The evidence presented here shows that while national broadcasters managed to get the government to water down its initial proposals, Netflix and\n the other VoD providers were not involved in the formal discussions with the government until at late stage and were unable to shape policy outcome to their advantage. We argue the Italian case is a prime example of the continued commitment to quotas as a core element of the audiovisual cultural\n policy toolkit seen across Europe.","PeriodicalId":40702,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Digital Media & Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"(Un)welcome guests: Transnational video-on-demand and the new European works quotas in Italy\",\"authors\":\"Alessandro D’Arma, G. Gangemi\",\"doi\":\"10.1386/jdmp_00078_1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Programming and investment quotas in favour of ‘European works’ are an important element of the audiovisual ‘cultural policy toolkit’ in Europe. In reasserting their role, the revised 2018 Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) has updated these rules in\\n response to the rise of transnational video-on-demand (VoD) services across the continent. This article examines why and how Italy embarked on a reform of its domestic regime on quotas in 2017, in parallel with the revision of the AVMSD. It shows that Italian policy-makers sought to adopt\\n a system of quotas that was far more stringent than the one previously in force and that also departed from the EU approach in significant ways. The evidence presented here shows that while national broadcasters managed to get the government to water down its initial proposals, Netflix and\\n the other VoD providers were not involved in the formal discussions with the government until at late stage and were unable to shape policy outcome to their advantage. We argue the Italian case is a prime example of the continued commitment to quotas as a core element of the audiovisual cultural\\n policy toolkit seen across Europe.\",\"PeriodicalId\":40702,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Digital Media & Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Digital Media & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp_00078_1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Digital Media & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1386/jdmp_00078_1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

有利于“欧洲作品”的节目编排和投资配额是欧洲视听“文化政策工具包”的重要组成部分。为了重申其作用,修订后的2018年视听媒体服务指令(AVMSD)更新了这些规则,以应对非洲大陆跨国视频点播(VoD)服务的兴起。本文探讨了意大利为什么以及如何在2017年开始改革其国内配额制度,同时修订AVMSD。这表明,意大利决策者试图采用一种比以前严格得多的配额制度,这种制度也在很大程度上偏离了欧盟的做法。这里提供的证据表明,虽然国家广播公司设法让政府淡化了最初的提议,但Netflix和其他VoD提供商直到后期才参与与政府的正式讨论,也无法形成对他们有利的政策结果。我们认为,意大利的案例是继续致力于将配额作为欧洲视听文化政策工具包的核心要素的一个典型例子。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
(Un)welcome guests: Transnational video-on-demand and the new European works quotas in Italy
Programming and investment quotas in favour of ‘European works’ are an important element of the audiovisual ‘cultural policy toolkit’ in Europe. In reasserting their role, the revised 2018 Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) has updated these rules in response to the rise of transnational video-on-demand (VoD) services across the continent. This article examines why and how Italy embarked on a reform of its domestic regime on quotas in 2017, in parallel with the revision of the AVMSD. It shows that Italian policy-makers sought to adopt a system of quotas that was far more stringent than the one previously in force and that also departed from the EU approach in significant ways. The evidence presented here shows that while national broadcasters managed to get the government to water down its initial proposals, Netflix and the other VoD providers were not involved in the formal discussions with the government until at late stage and were unable to shape policy outcome to their advantage. We argue the Italian case is a prime example of the continued commitment to quotas as a core element of the audiovisual cultural policy toolkit seen across Europe.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信