Netflix, we hardly knew ye. Censors are lonely, and want more power.

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › Netflix, we hardly knew ye. Censors are lonely, and want more power.

1 | 2 | 3

11199 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2226869 28-Apr-2019 16:59

Do we want to become like China, where "Winnie the pooh" is banned?

"The Chinese name for and images of the plump, cute cartoon character are being blocked on social media sites in China because bloggers have been comparing him to China's president."

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-40627855

Or Indonesia's banning "Dragon Ball" for violence, and blurring "SpongeBob SquarePants" Sandy the squirrel bikini?

https://www.nst.com.my/world/2017/12/319975/indonesias-tv-censors-go-overdrive-even-cartoons-are-sanitised

BlakJak

1275 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#2226871 28-Apr-2019 17:02

No, and that's not what's being suggested.

No signature to see here, move along...

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2226920 28-Apr-2019 17:45

The article @kingdragonfly linked to has a link to the full discussion document. This document tells you how to make submissions on the three proposals which have been put forward. If you have cogent arguments for and/or against any of the proposals I suggest you take the opportunity to make a submission - you have until 26 May 2019.

rugrat

3107 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2227046 28-Apr-2019 21:38

How much is this going to cost Netflix and others per program?

From a 2016 article looks like $160 + GST and cross rated items up to 2 hours $15+GST, looks like cross rated can be done for up to classification M in Australia, or up to 12/12A in UK. For higher ratings if it as to go to the Office of Film and Literature Classification starts at $977.80+GST,

Just worried that it will result in less content being provided, or more costs to subscriptions.

From the Light Box link in article:

"But Niblock said those official ratings cost Lightbox "a great deal of money".

"If we can get the same outcome in a different way, then clearly we are going to want to not spend that cash," she said

In same article Light Box questioned how Netflix had got all it's start programs rated for under $150,000 when it had cost them more then that.

I'd prefer company's put their own rating on things with something like the broadcast standard authority for people to contact if not happy.

If a company doesn't take the rating system seriously and keeps under rating then more serious consequence for them.

Forgot link:

https://www.classificationoffice.govt.nz/blog/classification-fees/#classification-costs-for-distributors

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2227062 28-Apr-2019 23:24

rugrat: I'd prefer company's put their own rating on things with something like the broadcast standard authority for people to contact if not happy.

This would be the sensible way forward. Sensible is a dirty word so I for one won't be holding my breath that it'll be the approach taken.

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2227447 29-Apr-2019 15:42

Personally I think that now that you don't have to go anywhere to access content (eg cinema, video shop) any form of censorship is a pointless exercise. Same as any web site that asks if you are over 18. Reminds me of the question on the immigration card that is along the lines of 'have you ever been a member of a terrorist organization'.

Also what may be unacceptable to one person may be fine with somebody else.

Some of the most violent and disturbing imagery I have ever seen was in the documentary 'The World at War', possibly the finest documentary ever made. It should be mandatory viewing for young adults to show them what mass murder is actually like. Far removed from the version dished up by Hollywood movies, video games or the news media.

BarTender

3606 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2227476 29-Apr-2019 16:15

SJB:

Personally I think that now that you don't have to go anywhere to access content (eg cinema, video shop) any form of censorship is a pointless exercise. Same as any web site that asks if you are over 18. Reminds me of the question on the immigration card that is along the lines of 'have you ever been a member of a terrorist organization'.

Also what may be unacceptable to one person may be fine with somebody else.

Some of the most violent and disturbing imagery I have ever seen was in the documentary 'The World at War', possibly the finest documentary ever made. It should be mandatory viewing for young adults to show them what mass murder is actually like. Far removed from the version dished up by Hollywood movies, video games or the news media.

So by all means go out and promote child abuse images and distribute the Christchurch terrorist video / manifesto. You could even get into the insulation business as I hear there is an opening. See how that works out for you.

If you don't like the laws of the land then either change the government / laws or move elsewhere. As I am more than comfortable with the very reasoned approach the Office of Film and Literature Classification is taking.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2227483 29-Apr-2019 16:18

As above. In today's world, 'community standards' are skewed. People get hysterical over a four-letter word in print, or a bare bosom on TV, but few object to the constant stream of violence that permeates nearly all programming. The example of Sandy the Squirrel's bikini is not as ridiculous as it seems. My objection to censorship is to the kinds of things that get censored. A lot of advertising content really offends me, but I am unlikely to get it banned. Censorship is inherently ridiculous and censors always end up tying themselves in silly knots. We can all apply common sense and agree on what is truly reprehensible. Anything else, however unpleasant, should be allowed, possibly with restrictions on times to minimise exposure to children, though that is really the job of the parents.

Edit: I was referring to the post by SJB.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#2227532 29-Apr-2019 17:32

I said that any censorship laws were pointless (ie unworkable) not that they were necessarily undesirable. Enforcement is a major obstacle.

kingdragonfly

11199 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2227704 30-Apr-2019 07:33

BarTender:So by all means go out and promote child abuse images and distribute the Christchurch terrorist video / manifesto.

So Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney future streaming service would devolve into child porn and livestream terrorist videos unless New Zealand censors?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2227723 30-Apr-2019 08:44

SJB:

I said that any censorship laws were pointless (ie unworkable) not that they were necessarily undesirable. Enforcement is a major obstacle.

I would say definition is the major obstacle. It is like the bad old days when books like Lady Chatterley's lover and Ulysses were declared obscene and debates erupted about the definition of art.

What about videos of sex with animals? As far as know, those are considered objectionable and are censored here. I think most people would find them unwholesome at best, but what is the basis of censoring them if the animals are not being hurt and the humans are willing adults?

Walk past any confectionery shop in Amsterdam and you will see chocolate penises standing proudly erect in the shop window. Would they be considered obscene here? I don't like censorship because it is too easily misused to satisfy the moral hangups of one group or another. Remember the catholics protesting the exhibition at Te Papa of a plastic virgin Mary covered by a condom? Give them the power to censor and they will abuse it. If it bothers them, they don't have to look at it. That doesn't give them the right to prevent me from looking at it.

Some things, like the Christchurch video, are so objectionable that few normal people would object to it being banned. I don't. But that is where I think the standard for censorship should lie: where something is so evil that the entire community rises up against it. I think child abuse images also qualify, so using them as a counter-example doesn't work. But anything else is a matter of subjective personal distaste and must be treated with suspicion.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2227811 30-Apr-2019 10:28

This is the kind of thing censorship inevitably leads to.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79294 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#2228235 30-Apr-2019 21:28

Moved to more appropriate sub-forum. Here's today's press release:

The Government is looking to make the classification of on-demand video content mandatory to bring it in line with other media and provide better guidance and protections to families and young people, says Internal Affairs Minister Tracey Martin.

The Minister made the announcement today at the start of consultation on options for classifying content on Commercial Video on-Demand (CVoD) services such as Netflix and Lightbox.

“The way in which New Zealanders access entertainment has changed and New Zealand’s classifications system is not keeping pace,” the Minister said.

“Our children and young people are at risk of harm from this, which is why we are consulting on proposed changes to quickly fix this problem.”

Research from the Chief Censor’s office shows 76% of New Zealanders are concerned about children and teens’ exposure to visual media content. 59% of New Zealanders are also worried that the wide range of media platforms makes it easier for children to access harmful media.

The Minister said that the current classification system was built around traditional platforms such as cinema released films and broadcast television programmes. The Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act was passed in 1993.

Lightbox began in New Zealand in 2014 and Netflix launched its service here in early 2015. A survey at the end of 2016 showed that nearly two in five households had subscription video on demand in the home

“Many Commercial Video on-Demand services do self-classify content under a voluntary scheme provided by the New Zealand Media Council,” Mrs Martin said.

“However, these classifications are not always consistent with New Zealand’s official classification regime and some CVoD providers choose not to participate in this voluntary scheme.

“This inconsistency means it can be confusing for parents trying to pick something for their kids to watch or that helps young people make informed choices. We want to make sure New Zealand has a system in place that is recognisable and understood by viewers.”

The Minister said that the reaction to the show ‘13 Reasons Why’ was an example of this issue and the public concern around it that a new, standardised classifications system would address.

“As with many services and media that have developed from the internet, this issue of classification is one that many countries are looking at and the Censor has told me that there is international interest in what we are doing,” the Minister said. “Our work will also be informed by the steps being taken in Australia and the United Kingdom.”

The Chief Censor has started exploring self-classification options and tools with industry. This would allow content providers to gain official New Zealand classifications without a lengthy submission process.

Self-classification is one of the proposed options in the consultation document. Consultation closes on 26 May and the document is available and submissions can be made at:

https://www.dia.govt.nz/Resource-material-Our-Policy-Advice-Areas-Censorship-Policy.

Davy

196 posts

Master Geek

#2228256 30-Apr-2019 21:55

It's idiotic, isn't it?

This government thinks that parents still sit down and decide (using state guidance) what their children get to watch on the old family TV That might have been true in the 50s and 60s, but not now.

This madness will drive quality content away from people who have every right to watch it. No thank you!

kingdragonfly

11199 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2228321 1-May-2019 08:05

It sounds like Tracey Martin has already decided, and she's just checking a box that says "public consultation" on a form.

It's a bad sign with the form first question:

"1. Do you support making CVoDs subject to current classification processes? Why or why not?"

The acronymn meaning is not given on the form: ("CVoD" = "Commercial Video on-Demand")

It doesn't make it clear what is the "current classification processes" (Does it involve sweaty priests sitting in a darkened room, with handcream and a box of tissues?)

1 | 2 | 3