| |
New technologies have given consumers worldwide access to a multitude
of entertainment and information services and have stimulated
the growth and development of audiovisual services and products
from around the globe. Digital compression is providing less expensive
means of creating audiovisual works while broadband capacity is
opening opportunities for lower-cost distribution. The audiovisual
sector today includes an international array of content producers
and program packagers utilizing not just traditional single channel
broadcasting, but new media, such as cable, Direct to Home satellite,
and digital networks to distribute content locally and also internationally.
At the same time as new technologies have transformed the audiovisual
sector, the audiovisual sector is playing a role in fostering
new technologies. Electronically delivered audiovisual products
and services, for example, which increase use of the network,
are helping to create an environment that will encourage investment
in the digital networks of tomorrow. The role of commercial entertainment
in the creation and maintenance of advanced telecommunications
infrastructure in turn benefits the development and distribution
of local culture.
The debate over the audiovisual sector in the WTO, whose four cornerstones
- the GATT, the GATS, TRIPs and dispute settlement -- apply to the
audiovisual sector, has sometimes been framed as an "all-or-nothing"
game. Some argue as if the only available options were to exclude
culture from the WTO or to liberalize completely all aspects of
audiovisual and related services. Presenting such stark options
obscures a number of relevant facts.
First is the fact that business and regulatory considerations affect
the ability to make and distribute audiovisual products, both to
domestic and foreign audiences. Creating audiovisual content is
costly, and commercial success is uncertain. Access to international
markets is necessary to help recoup production costs. Predictable
and clearly defined trade rules will foster international exhibition
and distribution opportunities and provide commercial benefits that
audiovisual service providers must have to continue their artistic
endeavors. Second, the argument implies that because the audiovisual
sector may have special cultural characteristics, the sector should
not be subject to the trade disciplines imposed on other service
sectors. Such an argument neglects that other sectors also have
unique characteristics for the purpose of fulfilling important social
policy objectives and that the GATS has shown the flexibility to
accommodate such specific concerns. For example, regulators were
given exceptional discretion to take prudential measures to ensure,
inter alia, the integrity of their financial system. Similarly,
in the basic telecommunications Reference Paper, regulators insisted
that the vital goal of providing universal service could not be
sacrificed in the name of trade liberalization.
The choices are not, nor have they even been, a choice between
promoting and preserving a nation's cultural identity and liberalizing
trade in audiovisual services. Especially in light of the quantum
increase in exhibition possibilities available in today's digital
environment, it is quite possible to enhance one's cultural identity
and to make trade in audiovisual service more transparent, predictable,
and open. Indeed, as indicated in the above discussion on the
role of the new audiovisual sector in helping to attract investment
for advanced infrastructure, the two objectives may reinforce
each other.
GATT provides a special, and unique, exception for cinematic
films to GATT national treatment rules. In 1947, in recognition
of the difficulty that domestic film producers faced in finding
adequate screen time to exhibit their films in the immediate post-World
War II period, GATT founders authorized continuation of existing
screen-time quotas. It is worth noting that the scarcity of outlets
available to local film producers to exhibit their films has in
large part been alleviated by multiplex cinemas and multichannel
TV, and will be further aided in the digital Video on Demand context.
Today, in the WTO, when governments schedule commitments for audiovisual,
or for any service sector, they have the flexibility to make full
or partial commitments, should they so desire. Even when countries
take commitments, they may continue to regulate services covered
by commitments, so long as the regulation is not administered
in a way that represents an unexpected trade barrier.
Additionally, in both the GATS and GATT, the general exception
for measures necessary to protect public morals provides further
reassurance for Members concerned that commitments relating to
content mean that they will not be able to apply regulations intended
to preserve public morality.
Finally, in its current form, the GATS does not prevent governments
from funding audiovisual services, a sensitive issue for many
Members where local theatrical film production, for example, is
dependent on government support. While the GATS provides for future
negotiations to develop disciplines on subsidies that distort
trade in services, there is no presupposition as to what those
provisions will contain.
Home
- info - about
- products - news
- reviews
|
|
