The TV rights thread part II

[CC_Roosters]

Who would want to watch sports on a mobile device anyway? Tiny device, shit quality and unreliable service. HDTV every time for me

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

Yes.

And what really amuses me is that the journos/papers/idiots online saying that the NRL is going to lose tens of millions of dollars are typically the same ones who were previously claiming that the NRL would struggle to scrape together much of anything.

Which lie is the correct one? :roll:

Yeh i agree Doc..just another contradiction .

I see people are worried about the NRL deal coming up, but isn't it better that this has happened right now (to the AFL no less :lol before the deal is done so the NRL can actually go into the negotiations with some actual knowledge of what's going on and work a way around it to maximise the $$$$?

I thought the same thing...
Hopefully when the hard negotiations start,then things will be a bit clearer..& having an IT expert(John Grant) in our corner cant hurt either.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

What's to stop the NRL selling all games to as many Telcos who want it without exclusivity seeing as that seems to be dead now?

How many Telcos are out here in Aus atm and how many would love to be able to show the highest rating sport?

 

[eozsmiles]

Foxtel began airing their replay of the 20/20 cricket game last night before it had completed its live broadcast on channel 9. There was still about 25% of the match to go.
How does that relate to what has happened in the courts in the last couple of days?

 

[docbrown]

Who would want to watch sports on a mobile device anyway? Tiny device, shit quality and unreliable service. HDTV every time for me

As I understand it there is nothing stopping anyone from taking their cloud content and using it on another device. Worst case a USB cable from phone to TV. Still HD quality.

What's to stop the NRL selling all games to as many Telcos who want it without exclusivity seeing as that seems to be dead now?

How many Telcos are out here in Aus atm and how many would love to be able to show the highest rating sport?

Nothing, it's just how much they would be willing to pay. I'd say considerably less given that if everyone's selling what you've got then it doesn't make your product unique/attractive.

The whole point of exclusivity is to tie one brand to another.

 

[docbrown]

Download a TV show from an Internet Bit Torrent after the show has finished airing - illegal

Download a TV show from an Internet Cloud whilst the show is still playing on a 1 minute delay - legal

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

As I understand it there is nothing stopping anyone from taking their cloud content and using it on another device. Worst case a USB cable from phone to TV. Still HD quality.



Nothing, it's just how much they would be willing to pay. I'd say considerably less given that if everyone's selling what you've got then it doesn't make your product unique/attractive.

The whole point of exclusivity is to tie one brand to another.

Well we got 5/5ths of f**k all last time lol.

Using Teltras last deal, we got 4 million a year compared to the 150 million the fumblers got this time, 5 carriers each paying 4 million a year would be a lot better that what we get now.

 

[docbrown]

Well we got 5/5ths of f**k all last time lol.

Using Teltras last deal, we got 4 million a year compared to the 150 million the fumblers got this time, 5 carriers each paying 4 million a year would be a lot better that what we get now.

Again that's just an example of the NRL not understanding the value of their own material. If you wanted proof that the internet is a growing market, well the Optus cloud is evidence enough.

Exclusive rights for the internet for the NRL should be around the $100 - $125 million mark over 5 years.

Honestly though, they need to go to open market on the naming rights as well. I can think of a dozen companies who'd knock Telstra out of the ball park.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Who would want to watch sports on a mobile device anyway? Tiny device, shit quality and unreliable service. HDTV every time for me

THose who work night shift etc like me. Means I can watch the game, and work at the same time.

 

[beave]

I'm sure your boss would be over the moon with that............

 

[Dogs Of War]

I'm sure your boss would be over the moon with that............

As long as your doing your work it's all fine. My job gives me a lot of downtime, so when I am waiting for actions to be completed, I can watch the game. This Optus solution is actually better for me, as I can pause the game when I have to do a task, and get back to it when I have time. So this is something that I would use, cause trying to avoid footy results till a period when I have time to watch the game is pointless.

 

[bobmar28]

I like the usb phone to TV idea. Thanks Doc.

 

[rygrco]

Download a TV show from an Internet Bit Torrent after the show has finished airing - illegal

Download a TV show from an Internet Cloud whilst the show is still playing on a 1 minute delay - legal

This is not an argument with your above assertion. It's pretty much true, considering what we have just seen with the court ruling in Optus' favour. However, I don't agree with the way you've worded it. Presuming the Optus delayed game service would be something akin to the way we use Youtube, wouldn't it be better to say "Stream a TV show from a webpage whilst the show is still playing on a 1 minute delay - legal"??? Not that it makes much difference to the discussion at hand, granted.

 

[Perth Red]

Isn't stream just another term for download? Differnce is one you are usually saving the file for access at a later point, other you are watching as it downloads. HAving said that if you then pause the stream you are in fact saving the information for access at a later time so no different really. It is a very strange ruling and hard to belive that Govt legal dept's are so far behind technology, not like streaming and cloud storage hasn't been around for some time!

 

[rygrco]

Isn't stream just another term for download?

Sure, it's just semantics. When we "download" media, we usually, to avoid confusion with alternative methods, use that term to mean a file(s) we download that we can further use at our own whim, ie copy to our friends, etc. With "streaming", while techinically speaking we are still downloading information, the vendor has much more control over how we use that media.

The problem I have with Docbrown's earlier comparison, while, technically speaking, not untrue, he has painted a picture that the two scenarios are much closer than they would be in reality.

cloud storage

I don't see what data storage services has to to with it. And Docbrown used the term "Internet Cloud" and I'm still really unsure about what that is supposed to mean in relation to what Optus' plans are. Are y'all just using buzzwords to sound legit? Please don't be offended, but it's a pretty cringe-worthy term.

 

[docbrown]

This is not an argument with your above assertion. It's pretty much true, considering what we have just seen with the court ruling in Optus' favour. However, I don't agree with the way you've worded it. Presuming the Optus delayed game service would be something akin to the way we use Youtube, wouldn't it be better to say "Stream a TV show from a webpage whilst the show is still playing on a 1 minute delay - legal"??? Not that it makes much difference to the discussion at hand, granted.

Even when you stream you are actually downloading data so I think it's moot to be honest.

The cloud concept is what it is. It's more than just an ownerless webpage - it's a system of servers that store information for other parties. In this case that information originally belonged to other companies that owned the original copyright. Optus is claiming that it is not responsible for the specifics of that content, that it is merely offering in effect an external hard drive for a singular - not redistributing. However they advertise it as TV Now - they are perfectly aware of what it is going to be used for.

And that said I have been reliably informed that the system is clever enough that if there are requests for the same particular program that it actually only makes one copy and then distributes that to all those that request it (obviously to save server space rather than making thousands of copies). So in effect despite what they claim they are indeed distributing copyright material to multiple parties.

So how is that different to a bit torrent system?

 

[docbrown]

Sure, it's just semantics. When we "download" media, we usually, to avoid confusion with alternative methods, use that term to mean a file(s) we download that we can further use at our own whim, ie copy to our friends, etc. With "streaming", while techinically speaking we are still downloading information, the vendor has much more control over how we use that media.

The problem I have with Docbrown's earlier comparison, while, technically speaking, not untrue, he has painted a picture that the two scenarios are much closer than they would be in reality.

I don't see what data storage services has to to with it. And Docbrown used the term "Internet Cloud" and I'm still really unsure about what that is supposed to mean in relation to what Optus' plans are. Are y'all just using buzzwords to sound legit? Please don't be offended, but it's a pretty cringe-worthy term.

Read the above reply, it addresses your understanding of the terminology involved.

 

[rygrco]

Even when you stream you are actually downloading data so I think it's moot to be honest.

I realise that. All I was trying to point out is that when you use that term it sounds like end-users will be downloading a file that they can use at their whim (like Bittorent). Is that what the Optus method will be like? A file?

The cloud concept is what it is. It's more than just an ownerless webpage - it's a system of servers that store information for other parties. In this case that information originally belonged to other companies that owned the original copyright. Optus is claiming that it is not responsible for the specifics of that content, that it is merely offering in effect an external hard drive for a singular - not redistributing. However they advertise it as TV Now - they are perfectly aware of what it is going to be used for.

I believe "cloud" is just a buzzword, a modern branding concept (for existing technology) that can used to describe many things (the way I've see it bandied about). The infrastructure the term describes; networks/servers/storage and how those things are applied as a service to businesses and end-users have been around a lot longer than the word "cloud".

And that said I have been reliably informed that the system is clever enough that if there are requests for the same particular program that it actually only makes one copy and then distributes that to all those that request it (obviously to save server space rather than making thousands of copies). So in effect despite what they claim they are indeed distributing copyright material to multiple parties.

Sounds like you know more about what Optus plan to do than I.

So how is that different to a bit torrent server system?

If the TV Now technology is as you have been "reliably informed" then, I agree. The concept and method is much the same. If I am wrong, it is because I have presumed to know how the content will be delivered, ie like the Youtube model, or streaming but through an App offered by Optus (requiring registration/authentification from the end-user, naturally).

 

[rygrco]

...anyway, in effort to prevent any more straying from the topic at hand, what I think (that Docbrown's comparison is, unwittingly, or not, misleading) does not change the fact that what Optus are doing is grossly unfair and a mockery to those businesses who have paid good money to have exclusive rights to live NRL broadcasts.

 

[grobbelaar]

Good to see that the AFL and NRL are brothers-in-arms on this issue. Let us make love, not war.