Kultur in Gefahr - ITI

62 Artistic Expression in a Corporate World
Artistic Expression in a Corporate World 63
latter also show other films of lower commercial value from the same
distributor. The blockbuster is in this way licensed as part of a package
deal to saturate the screens. In many jurisdictions, this practice violates
competition rules. Arguably, the audience’s demand is therefore largely
irrelevant since the market relationship takes place between the majors as
producers and distributors (offer) and film exhibitors (demand). The
dominant market position of the majors’ oligopoly leaves almost no screen
capacity for content other than for blockbusters from one single cultural
origin, unless governments intervene on a national and regional level by
way of cultural laws and policies aimed at promoting diversity in the
audiovisual offer.’ (Germann 2003)
It would make sense to tax the excessive marketing budgets of
blockbusters, bestsellers and stars and transfer this collected money to
the marketing budgets of other cultural productions. This would bring
them to an equal position and would make sure that falsification of the
competition no longer exists. (Ibid.)
(i) Oligopolistic ownership claims may be limited as well by the
reduction of our excessive copyright system. This has an octopus-like
character. It will last almost forever, and everything that looks like a
specific content may also be owned. Copyright has become less of an
instrument to pay artists but turned more into a control mechanism of the
cultural industries with as much content as possible. The time is near
when our entire cultural heritage from the past to the present will be in the
hands of only a few owners. It goes without saying that this is not
democratic. Such a monopolistic control on artistic expressions has never
existed before in history and in no other culture other than in present
Western societies.
Lower copyright protection standards are likely to reduce excessive
investments in stars, blockbusters and bestsellers. This has a
consequence that cultural industries will no longer produce “contents”
that are meant for and able to dominate cultural markets all over the planet.
At the same time, this may result in the possibility of many, many more
artists and their creations finding audiences, not being hindered by the
dominant market forces. (Smiers 2003: 207-216).
This is exactly the purpose of all ownership regulations discussed thus
far. A second category of regulations concerns the cultural “content”.
Content regulations
Having a great number of decision makers concerning artistic expression
does not automatically guarantee that audiences, buyers, and listeners can
benefit from the rich diversity of artistic creations and performances that
artists produce. The offer might tend towards a limited range of products.
Why? For instance, because they are cheap, or it is sure that they will
attract a mass public, or they are uncontroversial, or they are more in line
with the political or aesthetic convictions of owners and programme
makers.
An even more important reason to have content regulations is the
reality that we might not succeed immediately in restraining the size and
power of cultural conglomerates and turning them into small or medium
sized enterprises, as mentioned above. A third reason to have content
regulations is that nobody in any society has an equal voice and the
possibility to be heard in public; this also applies to the cultural field. The
consequence of this is that many artistic expressions do not count in
public debate and experience, for instance about taste, about language,
design, kinds of music, theatrical imaginations, narrative structures in film,
or on television. This would be a democratic loss. It will be an
impoverishment if cultural products come from only one foreign country
(with a little from the own country), and not from many other sources,
countries, and cultures.
In general, content regulations are meant to provide access to a
wide range of diverse content via appropriate and relevant distribution
channels. This immediately calls to mind what has already been discussed:
many countries do not have the capacity to let artists create, for example
audiovisual works that are of such quality that they can compete with
foreign products coming from huge cultural industries. This said, these
countries should get the financial means to build production and
distribution infrastructures while giving artists the chance to develop their
craft.
Content regulations can make sure that cultural industries cannot
go on to dump their wares on markets that do not have the economic and
infrastructural clout to resist these cultural invasions, and that would
otherwise never be able to produce artistic expression which is more
costly. Many countries are small. So, it would be wise, for such countries
to cooperate on a regional level with neighbouring countries in the