This provision of the GATT, allows for a specific circumstance for which quotas on foreign media products may be in place. The stipulations are specific to the point that it would be incredibly difficult to regulate them in a manner that would ensure that they are meeting the letter of the statute. Instead, it is a generally accepted exception to allow the domestic film markets to flourish, avoiding competition whenever it may be difficult to protect them otherwise. It was much easier for regulators to control the flow of physical media: filmstrips, VHS, DVD, CDs, etc. With the emergence of streaming media platforms, it becomes even more difficult to uphold one of the crucial pieces of the puzzle when it comes to abiding by Article IV, the screen quota. Under the 1947 and 1994 iterations of the article, there has yet to be the prevalence of in-home entertainment that exist today. Services like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, and others provide nearly endless numbers of screens to be accessed from the same copy of a file on a server in a remote location. Long gone are the regulatory conveniences of ensuring that only 10 copies of a filmstrip are allowed into the country for distribution. Now, it must be on the streaming services to ensure that there is only a set number of screens playing a piece of media at a time. However, it is an opportunity for the GATT to be updated to reflect the new reality of media consumption in the internet-era. While it may not be feasible to regulate individual screens, it could be still possible to regulate what number of distribution companies have access to the digital media piece. This would also provide an opportunity for an extension of rights sharing between companies, allowing greater competition between these entities when obtaining foreign media.
PDFPDFStay tuned for news on sustainable development, environment and climate change, international trade and human rights, Chinese issues and much more!
.png)
