Does the Netflix Tax indicate it’s the end of an era for Deaf consumers who require captioned access and Blind consumers who require audio-descriptive access?
Recently Todd McClay Revenue Minister released a discussion paper on 18th August 2015 to charge GST on imported digital products and services.
Earlier this year the ‘Big 4’ (Sky, TVNZ, Mediaworks, Spark) threatened legal action against Global Mode. As a result of this, Global Mode ceased operations in NZ.
The bonus of using Global Mode allowed consumers who required captioning or audio description to be able to access a range of overseas online movies and TV shows through ISP’s that were offering this service.
The Big 4 do not offer any captioned or audio-descriptive access to their content in NZ.
Since Netflix has arrived to NZ shores, Netflix NZ has a limited range of titles available that’s captioned 100%. By using a geo-block bypass addon such as Hola, us-unblock etc. Consumers were able to access a greater range of accessible content through the main company in USA. Netflix US for example has more titles on offer than Netflix NZ.
(I don’t know how accurate these figures are, although I have noticed differences between different titles being offered on both Netflix US and Netflix NZ)
Since Netflix does not have a company in NZ, they’re offering titles online which doesn’t require paying GST.
Netflix is one of many thousands of companies that provide services online which don’t pay any GST at all.
The proposed changes to address this by the Revenue Minister will ensure all goods brought online within NZ will have GST added to this.
With the proposed Netflix tax, consumers who use programs to bypass paying GST are liable for a fine of $25,000 and $50,000 for each repeated offence.
Sounds good in theory?
Deaf consumers and Blind consumers will become victims of this as these sector groups use geo-block bypasses to access such content overseas that can’t be directly accessed from NZ due geo-blocking software these overseas companies use.
This sets the means of accessibility in NZ a step backwards.
The Big 4 want the NZ Government to pay for this access. If these Big 4 can’t provide the means of access, then why are NZers paying so much to these companies using out of date technology?
Through denying access to these disability groups, it is now holding a loaded shot-gun at their heads.
These disability groups who continue to use geo-blocking bypasses to access accessible content are not avoiding paying GST on purpose. It’s because NZ doesn’t provide the means of access here.
Are these disability groups supposed to become criminals if they want to fully participate in society or do they become ‘invalid’ by the system that created this mess?
This proposed law isn’t going to stop someone like me from accessing content via geo-blocking bypasses… I’ll continue to use them regardless of the threat of fines until the Big 4 becomes 100% accessible.
I’ll return back to society as a legal bidding citizen paying for 100% accessible services via those Big 4 as I will have means to pay that GST whereas geo-block bypasses don’t offer this option.
This needs to be pointed out to the Revenue Minister. The unfairness the online GST proposal and the impact it has on NZ’s disability sector.
The ideal outcome for everyone would be that the Big 4 and any NZ online video company making their services 100% accessible before the Netflix Tax kicks in. Yes – 100% accessible and not one percent less…
Have your say by 25th Sept 2015.
Kim Robinson is a disability activist
Hear, hear.
It used to be that copyright holders had to initiate legal action to enforce it, which meant it was only worth doing where someone was making significant money out of publishing someone else’s copyrighted materials. Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) technology allows the enforcement of copyright on everyone all the time, through technical means.
DRM, by design, also violates the rights of fair use/ fair dealing which are reserved for the public under copyright law (eg the right to quote with attribution for the purposes of education, review, criticism or political comment), which affects all of us. Bit it impacts especially on people who live with disabilities, who need special accessibility technology to get the same use out of information and entertainment technology the rest of us take for granted, and the geoblocking Kim describes here is a classic example of the problem.
For more about DRM and why we need to campaign for its abolition, check out the Defective By Design campaign run by the Free Software Foundation:
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/
Haven’t we been told that we’re in a globalised world with open competition?
So, why is the government then working to protect anti-competitive practices?
Comments are closed.