Panic over scope of TV quota law

Date: 28/03/1996

By Fiona McHugh

THE European Commission has sought to scotch rumours that fledgling online services have been included in the scope of revised EU broadcasting rules, insisting that, contrary to recent press reports, new services are not covered by the controversial legislation.

Panic swept through Brussels last week following a series of articles suggesting that the Commission, pandering to MEPs' demands, had extended the scope of the TV Without Frontiers Directive to cover new services such as video-on-demand as well as traditional television broadcasts.

Lobby groups representing music firms, the film industry, and computer and broadcasting companies clamoured to condemn DGX (the Directorate-General responsible for media affairs) for imposing such a heavy legislative burden on such a new industry. The load would, they predicted, lead to the premature demise of the emerging information society.

But senior Commission officials, hoping to quell the storm, stated categorically this week that the revised rules, which have not yet been made public, would not apply to new services.

The revised directive has been causing a rumpus since it first emerged from DGX more than a year ago, proving particularly unpopular with American filmmakers and European broadcasters. Top of their most-hated list is a controversial system which aims to keep Hollywood blockbusters off European screens by forcing EU television stations to screen 51&percent; home-made programmes.

The Parliament, going against the wishes of culture ministers, voted earlier this year to make that system mandatory by removing a legal loophole which had allowed broadcasters to skirt quota obligations.

But the Commission has rejected all of the assembly's amendments aimed at tightening the existing regime, pushing France's dream of protecting Europe's ailing audio-visual industry from foreign competition further out of reach.

The war of words over the scope of the revised directive now looks set to become equally contentious, despite Commission assurances that new services would not be covered. “The directive defines broadcasting as 'the transmission of television programmes for reception by the public', which means that, for example, television used for closed groups or for training purposes would not be affected,” explained one senior official.

“More importantly, it explicitly states that communications served on an individual-demand basis are not covered. All computer or 'new' services are served on an individual-demand basis, so I do not know why certain people are getting so worried.”

While the directive also includes a definition of a television programme as “a moving or non-moving sequence of images which may or may not be accompanied by sound”, as feared, the official was at pains to stress that concern over the implications of such a definition was unfounded. “I think there has been a lot of hysteria about this whole issue and, frankly, the latest panic is based on nothing,” said the official.

“Let's face it, it is very difficult to say a television programme is not a moving or non-moving sequence of images which may or may not be accompanied by sound.”

The official confirmed that a recital had been written into the directive calling on the Commission to make future legislation on new services compatible with the spirit and objectives of the broadcasting directive, but played down the significance of this addition. “The spirit of the text is to ensure the free circulation of programmes, not to impose quotas or anything else,” he said, adding that the Commission had, in any case, softened the Parliament's proposed line.

The recital has prompted fears in the communications industry that new services would be forced to comply with quota restrictions currently imposed on television stations. Despite the Commission's assurances, certain industries remain ill at ease with the latest text.

“We welcome the desire to keep new services out of the scope of the directive, but we remain worried that the new definitions of broadcasting will inadvertently link new services to broadcasting in the future,” said a spokesman for the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry. “There is a danger that by using loose definitions, the market for new services will be constricted.”

The Council must now agree on a common position and, while it is not obliged to consider the rejected amendments, it will be aware of the likelihood of these changes being reintroduced during the Parliament's second reading.

Although ministers have the last legislative word, they can only overturn MEPs' amendments which have won the Commission's backing by unanimity.