It is absurd to reduce the Australian decision to impose streaming quotas to a simple mechanical reaction to a decline in investment.
The claim that the decrease in audiovisual investments is the only driver deliberately ignores the complexity of legislative motivations.
An economic decline can serve as a catalyst, but it is by no means the fundamental cause of such a structuring policy, which is, in reality, rooted in deep cultural sovereignty imperatives.
For example, France has long applied quotas to protect its production, proving that political will often precedes economic fluctuations.
Confusing a symptom with the disease is a gross simplification that erodes the credibility of the analyzed argument.