Commonwealth Games in Australia - another media stoush that looks eerily familar

Forums › Online streaming services › Commonwealth Games in Australia - another media stoush that looks eerily familar

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#225869 8-Dec-2017 19:45

Furore over Commonwealth Games video rights down under

Details

Rebecca Hawkes

| 07 December 2017

News Corp Australia and Fairfax Media are threatening to boycott the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games if organisers fail to relax restrictions on the use of online video during the event in April 2018.

In 2014, Australia’s free-to-air TV network Seven secured exclusive multiplatform rights for the sporting spectacle, which will see more than 6,000 athletes competing from 70 Commonwealth nations and territories.

The deal, thought to be worth A$30 million to $50 million, covered not only free-to-air broadcasting of the Games but also for its coverage on subscription, online, radio, social media, mobile and HbbTV platforms.

The restrictions require all other media outlets to wait 30 minutes before broadcasting content from a news conference at the event. Digital news bulletins must also be restricted to a maximum of 60 seconds a day in no more than three bulletins a day, according to the rights agreement from the Commonwealth Games Federation.

If video does not air on Seven at all, rival media outlets cannot use it until the following day.

News Corp, which publishes The Australian, and Fairfax, publisher of the Sydney Morning Herald, independently claim these restrictions on video use are out-of-step with modern digital news reporting, and are refusing to accredit their reporters in protest.

“In a nutshell, it means that we as the news services that Australians turn to are unable to provide the [same kind of coverage as] somebody sitting in the stand with their iPhone,” said News Corp executive Campbell Reid.

Seven will commit 1,200 staff to next year’s Commonwealth Games, which is the biggest sporting event to be hosted by Australia this decade.

Source: rapidtvnews.com

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

stinger

628 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1915447 8-Dec-2017 21:35

End of the day, Seven have the rights (and are the host broadcaster), and they are free to set the terms on how it is used. When the Rio Olympics games were on (Seven had the rights), ABC News 24 and ABC TV had to cut off the live stream many times to comply with the restrictions.

I assume Sky have put the same restrictions on New Zealand broadcasters too, Funny thing is that Prime News is produced by Mediaworks, so will be affected by this restriction.

Tradepub

Free professional, reference and technical white papers (affiliate link).

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1915450 8-Dec-2017 21:49

stinger:

End of the day, Seven have the rights (and are the host broadcaster), and they are free to set the terms on how it is used. When the Rio Olympics games were on (Seven had the rights), ABC News 24 and ABC TV had to cut off the live stream many times to comply with the restrictions.

I assume Sky have put the same restrictions on New Zealand broadcasters too, Funny thing is that Prime News is produced by Mediaworks, so will be affected by this restriction.

I think there is still a fair-use legal stoush before the courts in NZ. Something about Fairfax and NZME displaying video for the Olympics. I think that there might even have been a few media companies that didnt bother to send media teams to Rio given the restrictions.

With TVNZ having the Commonwealth Games next year will Fairfax and NZME push the rights envelope again let alone anyone else??? Everyone wants the eyeballs but only one party has the rights - and has restrictions usually set by the Organising Committee to protect their value as the rights seller.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

stinger

628 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1915453 8-Dec-2017 21:54

ockel:

With TVNZ having the Commonwealth Games next year will Fairfax and NZME push the rights envelope again let alone anyone else??? Everyone wants the eyeballs but only one party has the rights - and has restrictions usually set by the Organising Committee to protect their value as the rights seller.

I didn't even know TVNZ had the rights.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1915472 8-Dec-2017 22:04

stinger:

ockel:

With TVNZ having the Commonwealth Games next year will Fairfax and NZME push the rights envelope again let alone anyone else??? Everyone wants the eyeballs but only one party has the rights - and has restrictions usually set by the Organising Committee to protect their value as the rights seller.

I didn't even know TVNZ had the rights.

Announced in early 2016. TVNZ One, Duke and TVNZOnDemand - and something called TVNZ Games Extra.

One 9am-6pm, 7.30pm - 1am Predominantly Live / Delayed
Duke 24/7 Coverage Live / Delayed + repeats overnight
Dedicated Commonwealth Games Hub
Games Extra 7am - 1am Live / Delayed
TVNZ OnDemand 7am - 1am Live / Delayed

* TVNZ1 Commonwealth Games footage breaks for 1 News , Breakfast, Seven Sharp/ Duke ACC Show / Te Karere

But of course the potential bidder for rugby rights and the most vociferous opponent of the VodaSky merger would tell you that there is no ability to compete for sport rights....... and the ComCom believed them. Hahahahaha. Just like the ComCom believed that Z-Caltex merger wouldnt reduce competition at the pump. Hahhahaha.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

rlevis

347 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1915526 9-Dec-2017 00:45

So the bulk of it will be in low definition. Great.

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1915529 9-Dec-2017 07:29

rlevis:
So the bulk of it will be in low definition. Great.

but it's free (it's even being funded within Tvnz's budget albeit 2 years of near zero profit will result)! Although how sport of "national significance on Fta" being possible without the politicians interfering I will never know.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

richms

27963 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1915537 9-Dec-2017 08:02

So these news companies are ok with taking someone elses copyrighted content for themselves, but get all crazy if you include a 25 second portion of their news broadcast in a youtube video.

The same companies that will rip your youtube video off, watermark it, down-res it to grotty SD and stick it on their website and steal your views.

I have zero sympathy for either side. I just hope they all spend lots of money and get nowhere and die off TBH.

Richard rich.ms

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1915575 9-Dec-2017 08:52

richms:
So these news companies are ok with taking someone elses copyrighted content for themselves, but get all crazy if you include a 25 second portion of their news broadcast in a youtube video.

The same companies that will rip your youtube video off, watermark it, down-res it to grotty SD and stick it on their website and steal your views.

I have zero sympathy for either side. I just hope they all spend lots of money and get nowhere and die off TBH.

So you would be perfectly happy for other media companies unfettered use of rights for their commercial gain in the hope that they all eventually whither and die?

And said companies, when they are gone, are replaced by social media with only spectators and athletes providing the coverage of their sport/events for your viewing?

Great plan and further evidence of myopic views.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

richms

27963 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1915592 9-Dec-2017 10:01

ockel:

So you would be perfectly happy for other media companies unfettered use of rights for their commercial gain in the hope that they all eventually whither and die?

And said companies, when they are gone, are replaced by social media with only spectators and athletes providing the coverage of their sport/events for your viewing?

Great plan and further evidence of myopic views.

No, I would rather they stopped being so two faced about it and had a consistant position on either allowing others to use their content without paying or to stop using other peoples content without paying.

Richard rich.ms

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek

#1915617 9-Dec-2017 11:36

richms:

ockel:

So you would be perfectly happy for other media companies unfettered use of rights for their commercial gain in the hope that they all eventually whither and die?

And said companies, when they are gone, are replaced by social media with only spectators and athletes providing the coverage of their sport/events for your viewing?

Great plan and further evidence of myopic views.

No, I would rather they stopped being so two faced about it and had a consistant position on either allowing others to use their content without paying or to stop using other peoples content without paying.

So you'd be supporting Seven in enforcing its rights as the content holder (and similarly TVNZ) in making other parties pay for the right to use footage other than in a manner stipulated by the content rights seller?

Or non-payment (and lets even go to the extreme of rebroadcasting (which one could say that ondemand replays of events are essentially delayed rebroadcasting)) for use of someone else rights, leading to the eventual wither and die that you'd advocated previously? Quote "I just hope they all spend lots of money and get nowhere and die off TBH."

Which is it? Your view here is entirely as inconsistent as those that your commenting on.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"