When free (to air) really isn't (26 Jun, 2014)

Have your say on today's Aardvark Daily column

When free (to air) really isn't (26 Jun, 2014)

Postby aardvark_admin » Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:39 am

This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2014/0626.shtml

Surely, if a TV broadcast is freely available from the ether and the broadcaster works very hard to encourage maximum viewership, it makes little sense to charge those who would extend your audience by converting that broadcast into a stream available via the Net.

Will this double-dipping backfire on the FTA broadcasters who are stomping on Aereo -- or does it (somehow) make sense?
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5178
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: When free (to air) really isn't (26 Jun, 2014)

Postby decibel » Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:06 pm

This is the same as Sky wanting to show the FTA channels here in NZ.
If Sky can offer EVERYTHING, then those customers who were holding out because they couldn't get Coro Street would no longer have a excuse.

While TVNZ and TV3 didn't lose any revenue as you suggest, SKy would get a benefit and TVNZ & TV3 wanted a share of that benefit.

(actually, it's how CATV got started in the USA and look how cable has a stranglehold now.)
decibel
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 12:08 pm

Re: When free (to air) really isn't (26 Jun, 2014)

Postby paulw » Thu Jun 26, 2014 12:28 pm

I suspect that Aereo will come back but they will charge more as I suspect that they will make a deal with the OTA broadcast networks same as the cable and sat companies do. Greed is the best way to describe it as the OTA broadcasters get eyes on the commercials via Aereo as they do normally so I don't know what their gripe is .
paulw
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 8:33 am

Re: When free (to air) really isn't (26 Jun, 2014)

Postby Anaru » Thu Jun 26, 2014 1:01 pm

Just another example of how screwed up the copyright laws are, the nuances in the laws effectively force them to accept any argument where a breach is claimed. I think the biggest flaw is the concept of burden of proof, effectively anyone who has a breach claimed against them is forced to prove otherwise and even then that breach has virtually no threshold. What it ultimately boils down to is how much money is involved rather than facts, ethics, morals, or anything really other than money.
Anaru
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 3:20 am

Re: When free (to air) really isn't (26 Jun, 2014)

Postby Wetherman » Thu Jun 26, 2014 2:05 pm

Totally senseless, BUT I'll support anything that keeps real-time streaming off the internet. There's a place for broadcast and there's a place for time-shifting and all the other grey areas, but I don't want the greatest communications and data sharing technology that has been invented since radio to be swamped by 35000 copies of Coro Street just because each of those people wants to watch it at a slightly different time.
Wetherman
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 7:47 am

Re: When free (to air) really isn't (26 Jun, 2014)

Postby mad » Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:19 pm

Surely, if a TV broadcast is freely available from the ether and the broadcaster works very hard to encourage maximum viewership, it makes little sense to charge those who would extend your audience by converting that broadcast into a stream available via the Net.


By that logic, the FTA TV networks would give their content to Cable and satellite companies for free (services like Direct TV have much more geographic coverage than FTA) , - They don't, they charge around $3 billion a year in the US for this,

If the Cable companies throught that they could have gotten away with doing it for nothing, they would have tried this long ago.

If Aereo were just enabling this by selling hardware they probably would have gotten away with it,
But by running it as a subsciption based service, and thus having an enduring relationship with the actions of the customer, they were just sitting ducks to get slapped for copyright infringment.
mad
 
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 9:43 am

Re: When free (to air) really isn't (26 Jun, 2014)

Postby roygbiv » Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:01 pm

Mr Mad is quite (nail - head etc), free to air is actually owned by the TV company, it is their property, the product of their work, and they choose to broadcast freely as they make money on advertising. Aereo, is then taking that property and then on selling it. So, in effect, as far as Aereo is concerned the TV company is working for them for nothing.
Nothing to do with greed, it is to do with property (copyright).
User avatar
roygbiv
 
Posts: 310
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: When free (to air) really isn't (26 Jun, 2014)

Postby aardvark_admin » Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:12 pm

But surely -- if you're broadcasting something that *anyone* can receive without payment (ie: an FTA broadcast) and you actively work to encourage as many people as possible to watch that broadcast (so that you have better ratings and can charge more for advertising) then it would follow that any company or person who is willing to extend the size of your audience for *free* is doing you a favour -- regardless of whether they might also make a little money in the process.

If you don't want to give your content away -- give up FTA and only make it available via subscription -- surely?
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5178
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm


Return to Today's column

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron