The TV rights thread part II

[docbrown]

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?

So how much accessability at a whim should make it illegal?

You can stop/pause/fast forward/rewind with this. Also unless you delete it, the information will remain on their servers so yes you can watch it again later, you're not necessarily bound by one viewing session only.

Essentially it is just a file on a server that you remote access. To be honest I think you're getting hung up on pure semantics here.

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".

Well the concept of cloud networking has been around for 50 years it's only now that we have the technology to make it mainstream. Does that make it a "buzzword"? Not really. I mean it's just a way of differentiating it from a more traditional form of owning your own storage space. It's just a description of having "floating information" that can then be accessed by multiple devices.

Call it a "storage server service accessible by remote parallel devices" if that makes you more comfortable - but honestly cloud is just easier to say.

If I am wrong, it is because I have presumed to know how the content will be delivered, ie like the Youtube model

Well if you think the youtube model is 100% legal then you need to read more into the issue. They're constantly dealing with their own copyright breaches and likewise they take the stance of "we're just a storage service, we're not responsible for our user's activities".

 

[docbrown]

...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.

If you think the bittorrent comparison is unfair then why don't you explain how you view them differently?

 

[some11]

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.

You can use a program that sniffs out the source of streaming videos, I've used it to get NRL games off Bigpond.

 

[rygrco]

I tried to imply with my last post that I was done with my silly argument about semantics. Well I'm done with it, apart from one thing.

I said nothing about Youtube being 100% legal. I merely using it as an example of what I would have presumed Optus' method of delivering the TV Now content to the end-user would be like, a stream via web access, or something similar. Clearly I presumed wrong, which you pointed out and I conceded several posts ago.

 

[rygrco]

And I'm not sure why you are implying that my argument has anything to do with the legality of what Optus is doing. I did say this a few posts ago, so we're on the same side there.

...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.

 

[unforgiven]

Doc brown is quite correct in his understanding of what optus is doing. They have argued that they are simply recording the video content for their users, just like many people record programs using a pvr or harddrive recorded. They have argued that these 2 things are the same, so if it is legal for someone to record free to air television on a personal recorder than it should be legal for someone to have the program recorded for them and stored online (cloud). Without reading the ruling I can't see why they wouldnt be able to provide a device that allows this to be shown on a television.

The only point that im not sure about, and maybe doc can shed some more light on this, I was under the impression that they would be making a recording of the program/ match for each indvidual user that requested it.

Im shocked that this ruling was made. Could have massive implications for the free to air networks in Australia.

 

[Luc]

The only point that im not sure about, and maybe doc can shed some more light on this, I was under the impression that they would be making a recording of the program/ match for each indvidual user that requested it.

Optus has said that they are making a unique recording for each user.

 

[unforgiven]

Optus has said that they are making a unique recording for each user.

Yeah that was my understanding of it aswell, but in a previous post doc stated that the system optus will be using only makes 1 recording for mutiple users. Doc is fairly accurate in his understanding of these types of things, so i was just looking for some clarification.

 

[docbrown]

I tried to imply with my last post that I was done with my silly argument about semantics. Well I'm done with it, apart from one thing.

I said nothing about Youtube being 100% legal. I merely using it as an example of what I would have presumed Optus' method of delivering the TV Now content to the end-user would be like, a stream via web access, or something similar. Clearly I presumed wrong, which you pointed out and I conceded several posts ago.

I saw you say that, I was just explaining moreso in general how the technology works because you had already asked about it.

Re: youtube, I just find it interesting that one type of "streaming" is illegal whilst another is legal.

 

[docbrown]

Okay I will clarify how the system was explained to me. This is the process in basic terms:

Lets say 1,000,000 request one particular program.

Does the Optus server immediately copy 1,000,000 files to each user's account?

No.

Can you imagine the implications of that?

What the system is designed to do is to detect similarities in data requests in order to conserve space. It works out a % of how many master copies it needs to store on the central server for later transferal in order to minimise the amount of drainage on the network.

Nothing appears in the users mailbox until they click play. At that point a copy of the master copy is made and transfered. Think of it a bit like a mail box with two doors on it. As they put bits of the file in, you take it out. Or if you pause, it keeps stacking up inside until you take it out. I do think though that there is a time limit, about 60 seconds.

If you never click play it is never transferred. So by that logic, Optus aren't making a personal copy upon original request, they are copying a copy that they have already made.

Now take this one step further and remember that all of this copying upon copying and the imaginary boxes and everything else involved is all taking place inside the one interconnected server system - one giant device.

You tell me how that's not mass distribution with intent.

 

[BunniesMan]

The AFL and the NRL will fight Optus on this and Optus will lose. ANYONE that knows ANYTHING about the subject will tell you it was an awful awful awful ruling that will be struck down as soon as sanity prevails. Or at the very least the government will change the laws asap.

If not both the AFL and NRL will be farked in the long term.

 

[El Diablo]

not just the AFL and NRL

every sport

did any Aus telco buy exclusive rights for the Olympics?

 

[docbrown]

The AFL and the NRL will fight Optus on this and Optus will lose. ANYONE that knows ANYTHING about the subject will tell you it was an awful awful awful ruling that will be struck down as soon as sanity prevails. Or at the very least the government will change the laws asap.

If not both the AFL and NRL will be farked in the long term.

The law will be changed after the convergence review is finalised in March. Conroy has already said that an exemption needs to be made for sports coverage to prevent people exploiting loopholes like this.

To be honest the government knew the timeline for this case. They were just sitting back hoping the judge would make the other decision.

They should have just sped up the review to preempt it. In effect they've just wasted everyone's time.

I'm not sure when the case for the streaming aspect is expected to be assessed. Hopefully the law actually outruns the lawyers for a change.

Everybody needs to get off the doom and gloom bandwagon. This is a 6 week hiccup at most.

 

[docbrown]

That said, perhaps fans in WA, SA, NT, VIC & TAS should hope it doesn't get overturned so they can actually watched a match on a 2 minute delay...

Heck, the NRL should remind the networks of how much money they would lose if they did let Optus run the carriage service. Perhaps there is a positive in this stupidity.

 

[unforgiven]

Okay I will clarify how the system was explained to me. This is the process in basic terms:

Lets say 1,000,000 request one particular program.

Does the Optus server immediately copy 1,000,000 files to each user's account?

No.

Can you imagine the implications of that?

What the system is designed to do is to detect similarities in data requests in order to conserve space. It works out a % of how many master copies it needs to store on the central server for later transferal in order to minimise the amount of drainage on the network.

Nothing appears in the users mailbox until they click play. At that point a copy of the master copy is made and transfered. Think of it a bit like a mail box with two doors on it. As they put bits of the file in, you take it out. Or if you pause, it keeps stacking up inside until you take it out. I do think though that there is a time limit, about 60 seconds.

If you never click play it is never transferred. So by that logic, Optus aren't making a personal copy upon original request, they are copying a copy that they have already made.

Now take this one step further and remember that all of this copying upon copying and the imaginary boxes and everything else involved is all taking place inside the one interconnected server system - one giant device.

You tell me how that's not mass distribution with intent.

All the reports I have read, say they were going to have individual files for each user. I was hoping this was the case and would make it difficult to implement

 

[docbrown]

All the reports I have read, say they were going to have individual files for each user. I was hoping this was the case and would make it difficult to implement

I suspect it's pure spin for the media/public who just repeat it (and thus make it appear to be true).

Think about the logic involved.

If the "individual copy" in the user's mailbox is written over every 60 seconds so it's never a complete file (this is the single file they're referring to), then to be able to watch it long after the match is finished means there's another master copy elsewhere. The partial file in the mailbox is a copy of a copy.

Does anyone really think that there's only going to be one master copy when potentially thousands of people are trying to access it at once? There will be multiple copies made waiting to be copied again to the mailboxes.

Also the master information can't be deleted after copying to the mailbox because of the pausing/rewind etc involved. I will have to ask how that bit works but I suspect that the master copies must get deleted as the users clear out the fake shortcut of the file in their mailbox.

Also I don't know if it expires after a time limit. I think it's 20 Gb of transfer a month so maybe it does get deleted if it goes unviewed.

 

[rygrco]

I saw you say that, I was just explaining moreso in general how the technology works because you had already asked about it.

I got that. Thanks.

As for what I was blathering on about, no-one was set to gain anything from the point I was trying to labour, so I really had to stfu. My apologies.

 

[docbrown]

I got that. Thanks.

As for what I was blathering on about, no-one was set to gain anything from the point I was trying to labour, so I really had to stfu. My apologies.

No dramas.

Like I said this is a flash in the pan so we've probably talked enough about it as is.

 

[nrlnrl]

For now it looks like being cash in the hands of lawyers - rather than players, fans & other more deserving components of the game as the inevitable appeals from the NRL & AFL will be lodged.

This article about the Federal Government's possible intervention from today's SMH seems positive

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/conroy-signals-safeguard-for-sporting-tv-rights-20120202-1qvoq.html

Conroy signals safeguard for sporting TV rights
Lucy Battersby, Bianca Hall
February 3, 2012

"The technology has now jumped ahead of the law" ... Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy. Photo: Andrew Meares
THE Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has given a clear indication the government is considering legislation to protect sporting bodies' television rights after a court judgment that allowed Optus to transmit coverage to its customers' phones.

The Copyright Act allows viewers to ''time shift'' their individual viewing and Justice Steven Rares's judgment found that Optus's TV Now service fitted within this exemption. The service allows customers to record sport screened on free-to-air television and watch it on mobile devices in near-live conditions.

Mr Conroy told radio yesterday that the government would wait for any legal challenge to the ruling, but indicated his preference was to ''redress the imbalance''.

''The technology has now jumped ahead of the law … so what we've got now is a situation where one side has probably got a big jump on the other, and it's a bit out of balance,'' Senator Conroy said. ''So we've got to try and find a way to get it back in balance.''

The Greens communications spokesman, Scott Ludlam, expected the matter to be the subject of extensive litigation, but ''you don't sandbag the technology''.

The National Rugby League and Australian Football League are expected to lodge an appeal next week against this week's decision in favour of Optus.

The AFL chief executive, Andrew Demetriou, said the league had spent millions creating its football content and would ''do everything'' to protect its copyright. ''Because that's what it is - it's ours,'' Mr Demetriou told ABC Radio.

The AFL, NRL, Telstra and Optus return to the Federal Court in Sydney today to discuss Justice Rares's formal orders. A full court judgment could be delivered within six weeks.

''The full court of the Federal Court will hear an appeal within a very short time if satisfied there are compelling reasons to do so,'' a court spokesman said yesterday. Last year a full bench of the court delivered a fresh judgment within 50 days, after an appeal was lodged in a case between Samsung and Apple.

 

[skeepe]

Conjob wouldn't know technology if it bit him in the portal