Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
The problem isn't with defining jurisdiction for actions online; it's with establishing *one, consistent* set of criteria for jurisdiction. Publishers want to punish the owners of websites hosted in Australia, but they don't want to sell ebooks to people who live in Australia.
|
So very true.
Consistent distribution is critical as well. Rip off prices, slow release (home media, cinema AND TV) here in Australia means a lot of fans download to see their favourite series instead of waiting six to twelve months. That is only part of the equation though with other factors, purely local ones, included.
Aussies have long paid much higher prices for just about everything. Books included at the top of the list.
These companies need to change as well, evolve, rather than continuously attempt to force the consumer market to comply with what they expect that market to be. ACTA, SOPA et al are all part of what they want to inflict on the outside market to ensure that aim is achieved.
They tried it on here as well, against ISP iiNet and were defeated in the original court case and two subsequent appeals. The final judgement against AFACT by the high court was even harsher than the first one. What did they do next? Not talk to consumer groups or the ISP's peak body about new methods of distribution. No, they demanded the Federal Government make changes to the Copyright act to protect their business model.
If only they would channel those misguided funds into funding that change rather than defending a defenceless, obsolete business model.
Rearguard actions indeed.