Current Insight Community Cases

Essential Datacenter Tips On Application Performance Monitoring

The Importance Of Skilled Immigrants To The American Economy

Help A New Kind of Music Label Revolutionize The Industry

Mandates To Buy American Should Be More Carefully Considered

Navigating The New Business World After This Recession

CwF + RtB

-- get "looooots of t-shirts"

Brought to you by Floor64 and the Techdirt crew.

stories about: "justin.tv"
Culture

Culture

by Carlo Longino


Filed Under:
rights deals, sports

Companies:
justin.tv, premier league



Will Justin.tv Destroy Sports TV Rights Deals?

from the learn-to-serve-the-demand dept

Last month, Mike wrote about how the English Premier League was making threatening overtones towards Justin.tv, after it discovered some users on the site were streaming broadcasts of its soccer matches. It's the usual stuff from sports leagues, complaining that the sites aren't doing enough to stop piracy, and that their safe harbor shouldn't protect them, and that the DMCA takedown process isn't good enough. Now, a piece in The Guardian wonders if the large-scale piracy, along with a spending slowdown, will hit the value of TV rights deals when they come up for renewal, with broadcasters unable to justify the same level of spending should viewer figures fall.

This scenario isn't hard to imagine, but should it occur, it will be thanks to a lack of business acumen, not piracy. These sites exist, and thrive, because they serve demand untapped by the Premier League and its rightsholders. For instance, the rights situation means that in England -- where the league's based and its games played -- fewer games are broadcast on TV than in many places in the world. Here in the US, nearly every match is broadcast each weekend; just a handful make it onto UK TV screens. British pub owners tried to serve the untapped demand for this by buying satellite systems from foreign countries, but the EPL shut that avenue off in the courts. Likewise, users in the UK and elsewhere turn to sites like Justin.tv because they don't have other options. The match they want to see isn't available on television, or they're not near a TV set when the match is being played. I'd argue this drives use of the services much more than a desire for free content does.

The rights situation domestically in the UK is the way it is because of the long-held view that putting games on TV will hold down attendance; but the small stadium sizes and increasingly geographically distributed fan bases (along with high ticket prices) do this already. And indeed, the experience of other sports leagues around the world would indicate that giving fans the ability to watch their teams' games on television does little, on its own, to hurt attendance. That sort of view seems to color the entire TV rights situation for the Premier League: it tries to manufacture some sort of scarcity in an attempt to increase its revenues. But the popularity of sites that make broadcasts available online makes it clear they'd be better off answering this demand with services of their own.

Here's a novel idea: instead of trying to crack down on the likes of Justin.tv, why not require rightsholders to offer free streams of games as parts of their deals? Then, the Premier League and its broadcast partners get to serve this demand, instead of Justin.tv or Chinese P2P services, and get to capitalize on it through advertising or other means. It might have some effect on pay services by giving fans with the least willingness to pay a free service to use, but again, I'd argue that most people would still prefer to watch their teams' games on a bigger screen and in higher quality enough to pay for it. And the additional fans the services would reach could make new converts to paid services as well. Whatever the EPL decides to do, it's impossible to understand how it thinks it can benefit by alienating fans and making it difficult, if not impossible, for them to follow their teams.

Carlo Longino is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Carlo Longino and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

12 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Legal Issues

Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
copyright, lifecasting

Companies:
justin.tv, premier league



Who Will Be The First Person Sued For Copyright Infringement Over Lifecasting?

from the it's-a-series-of-tubes... dept

The Premier League, the UK based football (or soccer, for those of us on this side of the Atlantic) league has a long history of misunderstanding the internet, and often that seems to involve having its lawyers lash out at the wrong people. First, back in 2005, the league blamed broadband providers for allowing fans to stream games live online, rather than recognizing that fans streaming such games showed a real demand for such a service. Then, in 2007, the league sued YouTube for hosting some clips of Premier League matches. This was boneheaded for a variety of reasons. First, YouTube was not the guilty party if it was copyright infringement. The liable party would be whoever uploaded the clips. Second, given YouTube's limits, people could only post relative short clips of games, which, if anything might help attract more fans to the matches.

The latest is that the Premier League is suing Justin.tv, the popular online service that helps people "lifecast," allowing them to broadcast a live streaming video from their computer camera. The Premier League noted that some Justin.tv lifecasters happened to point their cameras at a Premier League game on television, which the league considers to be infringement. Of course, the lawsuit is (yet again) mistargeted. Even if this is infringement, it's not Justin.tv's liability, but whoever the lifecaster is who pointed his or her camera at the screen.

Either way, this raises some more interesting questions about lifecasting. Specifically, pretty much anyone lifecasting their regular day is probably guilty of many, many copyright violations based on current interpretation of copyright law. If you hear a song, that's infringement. If you walk past a TV, that's infringement. Hell, reading a book could be infringement too according to some. Just the fact that you're letting someone else see what you see is basically infringement, which, when you think about it, highlights just how ridiculous copyright laws are these days. So when will start to see lawsuits against lifecasters?

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

 
Search Techdirt
And now, a word from our Sponsors..



Popular Posts
Poll

Which Internet Concern Worries You The Most?

 

 

 

 

 

 


Add Techdirt RSS To Your Reader
rss Add Techdirt to your Bloglines
Add Techdirt to your Google Add Techdirt to your My Yahoo
Add Techdirt to your Netvibes Add Techdirt to your Newsgator
Subscribe to Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Techdirt's Daily Email Newsletter

Older Stuff

Monday

7:30am: Prosecutors Ending Lawsuit Against Lori Drew (13)
6:06am: Dear Rupert: You Don't Succeed By Making Life More Difficult For Users (70)
4:20am: ESPN Writer Suspended From Twitter (59)
2:10am: School Can't Handle Critical Community Message Board; Sends Legal Nastygram (21)

Friday

7:39pm: Liberian Laws Are A Secret Due To Copyright; Even The Gov't Doesn't Have Them (43)
6:56pm: Lily Allen: It's Ok To Sell My Counterfeit CDs, Just Don't Give My Music For Free (97)
6:10pm: EFF Looks To Bust Bogus Podcasting Patent; Needs Prior Art (34)
5:28pm: Google Blocking Set Top Boxes From Showing YouTube Unless They Pay Up? (64)
4:44pm: Entertainment Industry: Yes, Please Keep Negotiating Secret Copyright Treaty To Save Our Asses (43)
4:02pm: If Google's Book Scanning Violates Copyright Law, What About The AP's Book Scanning? (21)
3:05pm: iPhone App Developer Backlash Growing (49)
2:14pm: Norwegian Band Told It Can't Post Its Own Music To The Pirate Bay, Even Though It Wants To (24)
1:08pm: If You Only Share A Tiny Bit Of A File Via BitTorrent, Is It Still Copyright Infringement? (79)
12:00pm: UK Digital Economy Bill As Bad As Expected; Digital Britain Minister Flat Out Lies About ISP Support (25)
10:57am: NPR's Daniel Schorr Blames The Internet For Ft. Hood Shootings (37)
9:49am: No, ACTA Secrecy Is Not 'Normal' -- Nor Is It A 'Distraction' (28)
8:33am: Murdoch's The Times Accused Of Blatant Copying, Just As It Tells The World You Should Pay For News (28)
7:15am: Copyright Extension Moves To Japan (24)
5:46am: Canadian Ebook Store Offers 'Free' Public Domain Ebooks -- Claims Copyright Says You Can Only Make 1 Copy (26)
4:01am: There Are Lots Of Ways To Fund Journalism (14)
1:49am: Winner Takes All, Long Tails And The Fractilization Of Culture (10)

Thursday

10:37pm: The Lobbyists' Ability To Control The Message (29)
8:11pm: In Going Free, London Evening Standard Doubles Circulation While Slashing Costs (27)
6:10pm: Senate Exploring Med School Profs Putting Names On Ghostwritten Journal Articles In Favor Of Drugs (22)
4:52pm: What Does It Say When A Comedy Show Does More Fact Checking Than News Programs? (56)
3:33pm: Nordic Music Week: Optimism Galore And Found Songs (11)
2:10pm: Would Top Sites Really Opt-Out Of Google Based On A Microsoft Bribe? (37)
12:57pm: Intel Lawyers Again Go Too Far In Trademark Bullying (24)
11:43am: Mandelson Wants Gov't To Have Sweeping Powers To Protect Copyright Holders (40)
10:47am: Once Again, Walmart Stops People From Printing Family Photos Due To Copyright Law Claims (42)
More arrow
Quick Links
Close
E-mail It