Australian Internet policy remains years behind reality

The LNP has been entirely coherent and consistent in its approach to the internet during its term in power. It is a thing that threatens the established gatekeepers and rent seekers that define the Australian economy. It is a thing people use to download pron. Further, looking at events as evidence of donor based policy and the business of politics we find an approach that is again entirely coherent and consistent. If the nations security services didn't wan't to protect Australia by destroying its democratic foundations through 5-eyes and mass surveillance it is unlikely the LNP would tolerate the Australian internet even in its current crippled form.

For the record, I told The Register that suggesting how content could be more easily be made available was not within Internet Australia's charter. I did point out, however, that we have opposed the use of 'geoblocking' to price-gouge consumers.

"I've argued, in my own time, that Territorial copyright is encouraging piracy."

Of course it does.

There is only one reason why (e.g.) Netflix has a different catalogue in Australia than it does in the US: content license holders trying to maximise profit.

Oh, there are intricacies to this, like a local station buying exclusive rights to some content, but that's really only the result of seeking to maximise profit.

Companies are just that, and they are fully allowed to act in ways they perceive will generate the most profits. And that's fine, but they are attempting to artificially restrict the ability of customers to act in the ways that most benefit themselves.

These companies - and many others - have benefited immensely from the new distribution methods and global opportunities that a more connected world allows. At the same time, however, they are actively trying to prevent consumers making use of that same situation.

The one that really bothered me was a while ago when I was helping a client purchase a copy of Office through the MS store. That software was significantly more expensive for Australians to purchase than for Singaporeans. It was more expensive than many other countries as well, but I single out Singapore because it is geographically close and that was - at the time - where the MS data-centre was, and so where O365 was being run out of. Both locations are supported from the Philippines call centre.

So here is a product that requires no shipping (download), no shelf-space in a store paying rent and no local staff - for either sales or support - and yet it was considerably more expensive based solely on the country one was in. It was the exact same product, developed by the exact same people, sold from the exact same website and supported by the exact same team. the only thing that was not the same was the price. And yes, I was looking at the ex-GST pricing.

That is out-and-out gouging based on no better reason than: "because we can".

Content providers do this kind of thing all the time and it's greed, pure and simple. Illegally downloading content is, well, illegal, and it is something I don't condone. But I do understand it and I especially understand the anger and annoyance that can lead to it. While there are those who just wouldn't pay and those who just don't really understand the offence they are committing, there are also those who would, if able, be willing to pay a price on-par with our US cousins for access as easily and in as timely a fashion. Denied that opportunity through nothing but greed on the part of the providers, potential customers are turned into 'pirates'.

And it's not even just paid content. Ever gone to watch a video on and official channel on You-tube and seen 'this video is not available in your region'? This is free damned content you provide for everyone in the US, whether they have a subscription to the cable channel or not.

I wonder whether the much-maligned (and rightly so) TPP would have had provisions to prevent such geo-blocking. In the interests, of, you know, reducing barriers between providers and markets in different nations?

Considering the tightening of intellectual property laws, something tells me that would be wishful thinking. No, globalisation and easier trade goes one way - and that's the big companies.

Internet Australia's response

For the record, we told The Register that suggesting how content could be more easily be made available was not within Internet Australia's charter. I did point out, however, that we have opposed the use of 'geoblocking' to price-gouge consumers.

Copyright is government attempting to control markets

"Which is lovely, save for the fact that it is an attempt to control markets."

So it's okay for a private enterprise to attempt to control and regulate a market, but not for a government to regulate a market to ensure free trade by removing artificial restrictions such as geoblocking?

Copyright is government regulation designed to control markets. Copyright is not a natural right, it is a monopoly right assigned by government regulation. Removing government control of the market would mean removing copyright.

Parliament picture will need updating

To include the security fences, and machine gun totting guards. Makes it more Australian.

Something like this

http://mogaznews.com/en/collection/275921.html

Please learn to proofread your work and stop relying on a spellchecker alone. I kept stumbling over stupid mistakes that make your article awkward to read.