The TV rights thread part II

[El Diablo]

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opi...r-change-in-copyright-law-20120207-1r33t.html

Sport chiefs lobby PM for change in copyright law
Richard Willingham
February 7, 2012 - 3:44PM

The chiefs of Australia's major sporting codes met the Prime Minister and senior ministers to express concerns over the recent court ruling that allows Optus to broadcast delayed video of matches to its mobile phone network.

Last week, Optus won a landmark copyright case in the Federal Court, when the court ruled the telco could record and transmit free-to-air television coverage of football and cricket matches over the internet to its customers.

The AFL, NRL and Telstra were seeking an injunction against Optus' TV Now service, that allowed Optus to transmit TV footage - such as live football matches - on delays of one to two minutes to Apple mobile devices.

The decision infuriated Telstra and major sports who have exclusive billion dollar broadcast rights deals.

Today the chief executives of the AFL, Cricket Australia, NRL and Tennis Australia met Communications Minister Stephen Conroy, Sports Minister Mark Arbib and Attorney-General Nicola Roxon to propose a ''simple'' amendment to the copyright act. The PM's spokesman said Ms Gillard "stopped by the meeting".

The four sports, along with netball, rugby and soccer, form the Coalition of Major Participant and Professional Sports. Executive director Malcolm Speed was also at the meeting and told The National Times the meeting was very positive.

''The government understands the problems the sports face,'' Mr Speed said.

The group, which also met the opposition to seek bi-partisan support, are seeking to clarify a provision in the copyright act for sports to maintain the right to exclusively sell their digital content to broadcasters.

Mr Speed said a major concern of the decision was the impact it would have on the future broadcast rights fees that would flow back to the sporting codes.

The meeting included AFL head Andrew Demetriou, Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland and NRL boss David Gallop.

 

[flippikat]

in an article in the FIN today the new Fox Sports boss says they have no plans for an NRL channel

thinks AFL is the only 24/7 sport fans like

This is nuts - if Fox made an NRL channel, I'd campaign for Sky over here in NZ to carry it as part of their sports package.

I doubt anyone in NZ would give two hoots about an AFL channel, but I think 24/7 NRL would be fantastic over here. Especially if it showed lots of classic matches.

 

[carlosthedwarf]

I'd say the only reason they wouldn't do an NRL channel is they don't think they could drive enough new subscriptions.

Obviously Foxtel are betting the house on this AFL deal bringing in a boatload of new subscriptions.

 

[joshie]

Both sports would probably bring the same amount of subscriptions IMO.

 

[Brutus]

I'd say the only reason they wouldn't do an NRL channel is they don't think they could drive enough new subscriptions.

Obviously Foxtel are betting the house on this AFL deal bringing in a boatload of new subscriptions.

They used this excuse for giving the AFL more money than RL in the last TV deal...and it didn't really work.

They are revisiting old ground and the AFL continues to benefit.

 

[supercharger]

"NRL boss David Gallop wants to introduce Sunday night football, with a 6.30pm kick-off, in a new weekend schedule.

He's talking to the bosses at Channels 9, 7 and 10 and Fox Sports about including the timeslot in the next TV deal.

"Sunday evening is one we're exploring at the moment," Gallop told What's the Buzz.
"

Hey Rothfield, stop saying David Gallop wants to introduce this and that regarding Tv negotiations. Either say the NRL, the IC or whatever the new body is to be called. Gallop apparently does not call the shots so STOP IT!!![/QUOTE]

Wow!who cares

 

[Perth Red]

Might be a blessing, for now. I reckon live internet TV rights will be worth a bomb in 3-5 years time as the NBN changes TV viewing habits and how people access content. If Telstra offer a crap deal tell them to stick it and go back in 3 years when watching the internet on your TV in the loungeroom in HD will be the norm!

 

[docbrown]

Might be a blessing, for now. I reckon live internet TV rights will be worth a bomb in 3-5 years time as the NBN changes TV viewing habits and how people access content. If Telstra offer a crap deal tell them to stick it and go back in 3 years when watching the internet on your TV in the loungeroom in HD will be the norm!

If it came to that - and I don't think it will - and Telstra offered a poor deal, then the NRL should gear up the NRL site for subscription streaming and send a message to Foxtel & Telstra. Ian Elliott is smart enough to set it up. They should align with rival ISPs and sell their own ad space.

 

[carlosthedwarf]

If it came to that - and I don't think it will - and Telstra offered a poor deal, then the NRL should gear up the NRL site for subscription streaming and send a message to Foxtel & Telstra. Ian Elliott is smart enough to set it up. They should align with rival ISPs and sell their own ad space.

They should be doing it regardless. There's money to be made and at worst you've set up a content delivery system which means less reliance on the traditional media that seem to run the game.

 

[adamkungl]

In this day and age you should be able to watch live football on the internet.
I should be able to pay for a service which allows me to watch live or stream delayed any NRL, SL, NSW Cup, QLD Cup, even fking French or Kiwi football if i feel like it.

And ESPECIALLY world cup qualifying matches ffs.

I would gladly pay for the privilage.

Would it significantly impact ratings? Marginally. Given the current quality of internet in Australia, TV will always be the first choice where available. I think it could potentially bring in more cash than it takes from the TV deal though.

For the next broadcast deal things could change up significantly. I suspect the significance of broadcast television will be continually diminishing, at an even faster rate than now, as internet media takes hold.

Would it have massive value both in dollars and exposure for Rugby League? Shit yes.

NOTE: It should be a service provided by the sport's governing bodies and partners, not some dodgy workaround to get through copyright loopholes. There is serious money to be made here, and from a consumers point of view a new era of Rugby League accesibility.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

In this day and age you should be able to watch live football on the internet.
I should be able to pay for a service which allows me to watch live or stream delayed any NRL, SL, NSW Cup, QLD Cup, even fking French or Kiwi football if i feel like it.

And ESPECIALLY world cup qualifying matches ffs.

I would gladly pay for the privilage.

Would it significantly impact ratings? Marginally. Given the current quality of internet in Australia, TV will always be the first choice where available. I think it could potentially bring in more cash than it takes from the TV deal though.

For the next broadcast deal things could change up significantly. I suspect the significance of broadcast television will be continually diminishing, at an even faster rate than now, as internet media takes hold.

Would it have massive value both in dollars and exposure for Rugby League? Shit yes.

NOTE: It should be a service provided by the sport's governing bodies and partners, not some dodgy workaround to get through copyright loopholes. There is serious money to be made here, and from a consumers point of view a new era of Rugby League accesibility.

Agreed.

The NRLs attitude to online rights is fundamentally flawed IMO. They seem to see them as something to be sold for cash to a company like Telstra, who'll them use them as a tool to drive more Telstra subscription services. The problem with this approach is it does nothing to utilise the potential of the internet to reach new markets or improve the game's exposure.

 

[rygrco]

In this day and age you should be able to watch live football on the internet.
I should be able to pay for a service which allows me to watch live or stream delayed any NRL, SL, NSW Cup, QLD Cup, even fking French or Kiwi football if i feel like it.

And ESPECIALLY world cup qualifying matches ffs.

I would gladly pay for the privilage.

Would it significantly impact ratings? Marginally. Given the current quality of internet in Australia, TV will always be the first choice where available. I think it could potentially bring in more cash than it takes from the TV deal though.

For the next broadcast deal things could change up significantly. I suspect the significance of broadcast television will be continually diminishing, at an even faster rate than now, as internet media takes hold.

Would it have massive value both in dollars and exposure for Rugby League? Shit yes.

NOTE: It should be a service provided by the sport's governing bodies and partners, not some dodgy workaround to get through copyright loopholes. There is serious money to be made here, and from a consumers point of view a new era of Rugby League accesibility.

I'm in that boat! I'm one of the strange (but growing) minority who does not even own a TV. Everything I consume is via a computer (and, yes, I still do watch some TV shows). At the moment, if I'm not at my local pub to watch games, I'm usually watching them at home over an unauthorised stream. I only do this because I have no alternative (there's no fekkin' way in the world I'm going to buy a TV and get a Foxtel subscription, it's a simple as that) and I'd much rather pay the NRL for an authorised stream than what I am currently doing (provided it isn't mega-expensive... $25-30 a month or ~$100 a season sounds about right).

 

[carlosthedwarf]

I would wager the NRL would get more revenue from someone paying $200 directly (using NBA League Pass as a basis) for a seasons viewing than they would from 10 people subscribing to Foxtel.

 

[El Diablo]

they need somethng like this https://ilp.nba.com/nbalp/secure/registerform

 

[rygrco]

I would wager the NRL would get more revenue from someone paying $200 directly (using NBA League Pass as a basis) for a seasons viewing than they would from 10 people subscribing to Foxtel.

Without trying to detract from your clearly made point, $200 is a lot. What do you think a season, all games live, should be worth? I think it would be important for the NRL to avoid the whole MPAA and RIAA fiasco where their business model basically encourages piracy. I would rather see the NRL not price themselves out of this market (by that I mean, it must be ultra competitive compared to the TV/subscription model, if only for the fact that the stream quality, pre-NBN, is still going to be pretty shite in comparison. It's like, who wants to pay CD prices for MP3's? It's robbery).

 

[adamkungl]

Foxtel costs what, $600 a year including sports?
I'd gladly pay $100-150 for a good quality NRL service, more if it included things like internationals, Super League, back-catalogue of matches. Throw in advertising and distribution rights it could revolutionise Australian sport.

 

[rygrco]

Foxtel costs what, $600 a year including sports?
I'd gladly pay $100-150 for a good quality NRL service, more if it included things like internationals, Super League, back-catalogue of matches. Throw in advertising and distribution rights it could revolutionise Australian sport.

Oh. My bad. I recently browsed Foxtel subscription prices and you're right, it can be around $100 month. So, in comparison $200 would be competitive. I still, personally, think that's too much. ~$100 should be right.

 

[carlosthedwarf]

$200 a year for the ability to watch any game live, on pc/tablet/phone, whenever you want with live pause/rewind etc... isn't that much. Season runs March-September, that's less than $30 a month. If it included representative matches and Toyota Cup that's a good deal I believe.

I pay $180 a year for NBA after a returning susbcriber discount, which is completely worth it as I don't have to pay for Foxtel/ESPN. The advantage they have is a bigger market for their service, any NRL service will need to be priced accordingly here.

$200 was just a number I threw out, but they'd need to price it so that it's not too attractive to draw large number of viewers away from the people paying for the TV deal.

 

[Haffa]

I pay $180 a year for NBA after a returning susbcriber discount, which is completely worth it as I don't have to pay for Foxtel/ESPN. The advantage they have is a bigger market for their service, any NRL service will need to be priced accordingly here.

I did the same for NFL this season and it was only $160 for the season. Every game Live onto my computer and iPad (which was handy at work) in HD.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

How would they get content?

Would we basically make FOX/FTA pay for it and then tell them we're gonna use their efforts to sell it ourselves and cut out their viewers?

This isn't me putting down the idea - it's a serious question. Is this how it would be done?