UK plans regulations affecting Apple TV+, other streaming services

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
Streaming services like Apple TV+ face more regulation in the United Kingdom, with the government planning to bring video on-demand apps under the same rules as broadcasters.




A whitepaper by the UK government intends to force streaming services providing video content to adhere to rules and standards that broadcasters like ITV and Channel 4 must follow. Apple TV+, Netflix, Disney+, and other apps currently don't have to deal with the Broadcasting Code, but if implemented, those roles could apply in the future.

Under the proposals, regulator Ofcom will monitor and enforce guidelines on streaming services, similar to how it does the same to broadcast channels, reports Deadline. Ofcom would create a new Video-on-demand Code that could function similarly to the Broadcast Code.

The rules in question would require streaming services to make sure audiences are protected from material deemed to be harmful or offensive. Principles relating to privacy, fairness, and accuracy would also have to be adhered to.

Streaming apps breaking the code could invoke fines of 250,000 pounds ($314,000) or up to 5% of an organization's revenue, whichever is bigger.

The rules would also only apply to larger streaming apps. "Respecting issues of free speech and proportionality, smaller, lower risk on-demand services in the UK will continue under existing rules," the executive summary of the whitepaper reads.

It is unknown when Ofcom would have to create and implement a VOD Code, if the plan goes ahead. However, the usually slow nature of introducing legislation and regulation could result in a wait of a few years.

Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    I don’t see why it needs be a different code myself, rather than an extending modification of the broadcast code, but aside from that this all makes sense. 
  • Reply 2 of 18
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,251member
    Let’s make everyone comply with broadcasting codes, not just the ones with money you’re trying to extort. I imagine Apple TV+ is actually a minority streamer, especially compared to the others. Is there an equivalent to Comcast, Verizon and other streaming companies in the UK? Will they be required to comply?
  • Reply 3 of 18
    AppleishAppleish Posts: 691member
    The massive cost of Brexit is forcing the UK to scramble for money anywhere they can.
    lkruppindieshacknerdragetdknox
  • Reply 4 of 18
    crowley said:
    I don’t see why it needs be a different code myself, rather than an extending modification of the broadcast code, but aside from that this all makes sense. 
    Yeah, it seems that the code should be the same as it already is, just covering another medium. It’s not like the rules of the road are different for trucks than they are for cars. It also wouldn’t surprise me if the streamers are already following the same rules. 

    I don’t get why it would be different for smaller players, though. 
    avon b7
  • Reply 5 of 18
    I’m not sure why this makes sense. It sounds like from the article that they are calling for censorship. This makes sense for free over the air broadcasting because people are being exposed to content that they are not asking for. But if you are subscribing to a service and that service is providing content that is offensive to you then you can choose to unsubscribe from that service or not subscribe in the first place. What is offensive to one person may not be offensive to someone else. Why not let the market decide?
    gilly33tdknox
  • Reply 6 of 18
    gilly33gilly33 Posts: 434member
    crowley said:
    I don’t see why it needs be a different code myself, rather than an extending modification of the broadcast code, but aside from that this all makes sense. 
    Why does it make sense?
  • Reply 7 of 18
    gilly33gilly33 Posts: 434member
    I’m not sure why this makes sense. It sounds like from the article that they are calling for censorship. This makes sense for free over the air broadcasting because people are being exposed to content that they are not asking for. But if you are subscribing to a service and that service is providing content that is offensive to you then you can choose to unsubscribe from that service or not subscribe in the first place. What is offensive to one person may not be offensive to someone else. Why not let the market decide?
    Thank you very much. That’s exactly what it sounds like. I’m subscribing to a service I want come into my home. I get to decide if I wish to see content or not. Also what do they mean by harmful and offensive? As long as content isn’t exploiting people especially minors I don’t need the morality police to tell me what to watch. 
    edited April 2022
  • Reply 8 of 18
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    gilly33 said:
    crowley said:
    I don’t see why it needs be a different code myself, rather than an extending modification of the broadcast code, but aside from that this all makes sense. 
    Why does it make sense?
    Because content not being broadcastable via TV networks but fine when carried via streaming networks is an inconsistency that doesn’t make sense. I would think that was clear.
  • Reply 9 of 18
    22july201322july2013 Posts: 3,573member
    Until now, online streaming services were not controlled or monitored because they didn't use the public airwaves. If the UK wants to change the rules and start applying controls to private communications, that opens up a can of worms. For example, will books being sold on Amazon's Kindle service be monitored and controlled the same way? No? Because they are "books?" What if some of the books contain video clips? What about audio books? Is streaming audio exempt from this monitoring system? What about podcasts... lots of podcasts now contain videos. What about music? A large portion of all music on the Apple Store are labelled with an "E" for explicit lyrics. Are they going to be monitored too?

    Since they said that "smaller services in the UK" are exempt, this looks like unfair trade rules. The WTO could step in and declare that the rules have to be applied equally.
    appleinsiderusertdknox
  • Reply 10 of 18
    mfrydmfryd Posts: 216member
    Over the air broadcast is a limited public resource.  In the USA broadcast stations don't pay for use of the airwaves.  Instead they agree to abide by broadcast standards and include public service programming.  

    The idea behind meeting standards is that people flipping through the channels could come across a broadcast, and therefore the broadcast must meet public decent standards.

    Streaming services have not been required to meet those standards.  First of all, they do not use a limited public resource.  Secondly, people have to actively choose to subscribe to the streaming service. 


    Where this new rule will really be an issue is pornography.   There are a number of free services that stream porn.  Most of that port doesn't meet decency guidelines.  I suseect this is just a backhanded way of fighting porn.

  • Reply 11 of 18
    petripetri Posts: 118member
    Those shocked that an entirely optional subscription service could be expected to comply with this code should know that in the UK (like most places) we’ve had optional subscription broadcast tv over cable and satellite for decades, and for all that time those channels have also been subject to the broadcast code, just like any free to air broadcaster.

    The fact that streaming services weren’t held to the same standard is just an anomaly.  When Netflix was just a means to stream movies rather than rent DVDs it made sense, but now all these services have matured to the point where they’re commissioning huge amounts of their own programming and becoming the default content provider for many people, things are different, they’ve become broadcasters in all but name.
  • Reply 12 of 18
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 2,000member
    crowley said:
    gilly33 said:
    crowley said:
    I don’t see why it needs be a different code myself, rather than an extending modification of the broadcast code, but aside from that this all makes sense. 
    Why does it make sense?
    Because content not being broadcastable via TV networks but fine when carried via streaming networks is an inconsistency that doesn’t make sense. I would think that was clear.
    That is what doesn't make sense.  That you equate free over the air broadcasts (using the public airwaves) with private paid service (not over public airwaves) that you have to choose to receive (not just flip channels).  There is no inconsistency.   Totally different medium and parameters.  
  • Reply 13 of 18
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    chadbag said:
    crowley said:
    gilly33 said:
    crowley said:
    I don’t see why it needs be a different code myself, rather than an extending modification of the broadcast code, but aside from that this all makes sense. 
    Why does it make sense?
    Because content not being broadcastable via TV networks but fine when carried via streaming networks is an inconsistency that doesn’t make sense. I would think that was clear.
    That is what doesn't make sense.  That you equate free over the air broadcasts (using the public airwaves) with private paid service (not over public airwaves) that you have to choose to receive (not just flip channels).  There is no inconsistency.   Totally different medium and parameters.  
    Not at all. Read the broadcasting code and understand what it is trying to achieve. The distinction between subscription and free to air is pretty much irrelevant.  
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 14 of 18
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,295member
    Great posts from everyone but I think there are obvious differences between the content policing of over the air 

    First of all, the public airwaves are generally considered a public good, is the internet private or a public owned entity.

    Streaming is a subscribed service (including pornography) which involes some degree of a contract.  It is not available to anyone with access to a device like a television, it involes a log-on process which implies consent.
  • Reply 15 of 18
    nerdragenerdrage Posts: 15member

    The concept behind broadcast censorship is that the spectrum that broadcast uses is limited, therefore it is a public resource and the government has to regulate it for the public good. The internet doesn't work like that. Does Ofcom propose to regulate YouTube and Facebook, which are far more pernicious as a source of bad stuff than Disney and Apple? The internet is full of porn right now, and stuff worse than porn, what is Ofcom going to do about that? 

    Netflix, Disney+, AppleTv+, etc are not broadcast TV. They're stuff you find on the internet, and far from the worst stuff too. They're pretty mild. Both Disney and Apple have valuable brands to protect. They can be trusted to self-censor far more thoroughly than practically any other entity on the internet. Netflix doesn't seem to care quite as much about its pristine brand, but I haven't noticed really awful stuff there like I could easily find on YouTube. Gwynneth Paltrow's silly Goop show is about as bad as it gets.

    But that's okay, because this is going to be very entertaining. About half a second after Ofcom censors something on Netflix etc., Brits (who haven't been paying attention for the most part) will find out about it in a predictable Twitterpocalypse. The Streisand Effect will kick in as Brits access the "offending" material via VPN or plain ole piracy and whatever got censored will be the new Squid Game, deserving or not. So go ahead Ofcom, I've got the popcorn ready.

  • Reply 16 of 18
    nerdragenerdrage Posts: 15member
    rob53 said:
    Let’s make everyone comply with broadcasting codes, not just the ones with money you’re trying to extort. I imagine Apple TV+ is actually a minority streamer, especially compared to the others. Is there an equivalent to Comcast, Verizon and other streaming companies in the UK? Will they be required to comply?
    When I watch Netflix and Disney+ on my RokuTV, they sit right next to the YouTube app. Why go after those two and not YouTube, which is rife with Nazis ranting and covid misinformation and all sorts of really bad stuff I've never noticed on Netflix and Disney wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Their mistake is in thinking Netflix etc are parallel to broadcast when in fact they are internet apps, just like YouTube, Twitter and much worse things. 

    But of course the real issue here is that Netflix, Disney+ and AppleTV+ are producing professional content while YouTube and Twitter don't. Ofcom is actually worried about economics here - that British content isn't being produced and viewed in the same proportion as before. YouTube and Twitter aren't economic threats in that way.
  • Reply 17 of 18
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    nerdrage said:
    rob53 said:
    Let’s make everyone comply with broadcasting codes, not just the ones with money you’re trying to extort. I imagine Apple TV+ is actually a minority streamer, especially compared to the others. Is there an equivalent to Comcast, Verizon and other streaming companies in the UK? Will they be required to comply?
    When I watch Netflix and Disney+ on my RokuTV, they sit right next to the YouTube app. Why go after those two and not YouTube, which is rife with Nazis ranting and covid misinformation and all sorts of really bad stuff I've never noticed on Netflix and Disney wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Their mistake is in thinking Netflix etc are parallel to broadcast when in fact they are internet apps, just like YouTube, Twitter and much worse things. 

    But of course the real issue here is that Netflix, Disney+ and AppleTV+ are producing professional content while YouTube and Twitter don't. Ofcom is actually worried about economics here - that British content isn't being produced and viewed in the same proportion as before. YouTube and Twitter aren't economic threats in that way.
    Ofcom has no economic purview.

    YouTube and Twitter are user-generated content and present different problems.
  • Reply 18 of 18
    OctoMonkeyOctoMonkey Posts: 311member
    crowley said:
    I don’t see why it needs be a different code myself, rather than an extending modification of the broadcast code, but aside from that this all makes sense. 
    Yeah, it seems that the code should be the same as it already is, just covering another medium. It’s not like the rules of the road are different for trucks than they are for cars. It also wouldn’t surprise me if the streamers are already following the same rules. 

    I don’t get why it would be different for smaller players, though. 
    Depending on where you live, trucks certainly may have different rules of the road.
    - Different speed limits
    - Not able to utilize certain lanes
    - Off limit roads
    ...
Sign In or Register to comment.