Carlos Garcia

The idea that the decline in audiovisual investments has triggered the implementation of streaming quotas is a misleading simplification of the regulatory process. Such drastic measures are never solely the result of a single statistical event but are the product of a long-standing political will. To claim otherwise is to ignore the inherent complexity of legislation and the intense lobbying that precedes such decisions. For example, discussions to support Australian local content have been ongoing for years, well before this specific decline, illustrating that the decrease was only an opportunistic pretext, and not the decisive cause, to advance a matured legislation.

Trace the feedback loop: the idea that the 18% decrease in investments is the unambiguous trigger for quotas ignores a much broader cultural policy regime.
This percentage is more of a second-order effect of a dynamic where global platforms operated without significant structural constraints, making government intervention inevitable.
The real bottleneck is not this temporary decline, but the lack of local obligations for these actors, creating a systemic imbalance.
The Australian decision is a response to this structural failure, and not merely a reaction to a conjunctural event.
For example, France implemented funding obligations for audiovisual platforms long before observing a drastic drop in national investments, which shows that political will often precedes quantified crises.

What we observe here is a feedback loop, not an isolated event, which suggests a simplified view if we see the decline in investments as the only starting point of the quota announcement. The Australian regulatory regime is built on pre-existing objectives to support local production, making this decline a catalyst in a system already oriented towards such measures.
France, for example, established quotas for its film and television production decades before any investment crisis, illustrating that such decisions are often the result of a structural cultural policy.
The decline in investments is a signal but not the only bottleneck; the issue lies in the systemic capacity to support local creation, a dynamic that preceded this fluctuation.
It is a second-order effect rather than a primary trigger for such a significant regulatory change; it fits within a broader framework.

Il est curieux de voir comment l'on peut si facilement confondre un symptôme avec le mal lui-même quand il s'agit des investissements audiovisuels australiens.
Affirmer qu'une simple baisse d'investissement "déclenche" des quotas de streaming réglementaires ignore la complexité de l'élaboration des politiques.
La décision d'imposer des quotas, comme ceux affectant Netflix et Prime Video en Australie, n'est pas un réflexe à une fluctuation mais une action gouvernementale délibérée, souvent ancrée dans la protection de la création locale et d'objectifs culturels plus larges.
Pour preuve, la France a mis en place des mécanismes de soutien réglementaires bien avant toute crise d'investissement, démontrant que la régulation est une stratégie politique proactive, non une simple réaction mécanique à un chiffre économique.

Who bears the cost when asserting a direct link between local content regulations and institutional research without nuance?
For the small player, such generalizations mask the biases inherent in research, which often prioritizes what is visible and funded by established powers.
A regulation protecting a minority language or an indigenous art form will rarely have the same impact on the CEIM as a pan-European directive on streaming.
The link is conditional, depending on political visibility and available resources, and not an automatic consequence.
Thinking that each regulation is automatically subject to study is to ignore the unequal distribution of academic interest and funding.

Trace the feedback: the decline in investments is not an exclusive direct trigger of streaming quotas, but a symptom that has exacerbated an already latent systemic regulatory pressure. It is a second-order effect that accelerated the implementation of a policy, rather than a primary cause. The desire to support local creation is often a closed loop in cultural policy, reinforcing regimes like France's, where quotas were established long before any investment crisis. The bottleneck was not financial failure, but the opportune political moment for action.

Treating AI and musical intellectual property as just an "element" in a broader analysis ignores the legal reality on the ground.
The judgments on generative AI like the Heart on My Sleeve case show that this is not just a technological trend, but a new legal frontier.
The potential damages and the redefinition of the author are issues too fundamental to be subsumed under existing categories.
It's not a matter of existing regulation; it's a rewriting of legal precedents.
Ignoring this is to dismiss the shockwave of AI on copyright with a wave of the hand.