Forget, Mayweather v. Pacquaio: The Big Fight Was Apparently Hollywood v. Periscope Streaming
from the oh-make-it-stop dept
Remember, just last week, when HBO and Showtime were flipping out about a couple of streaming sites promising to broadcast live streams of the big Floyd Mayweather/Manny Pacquiao fight? Apparently, they had the wrong target.Just a few weeks earlier, we had noted that Hollywood seemed to be losing its mind over the latest round of livestreaming apps. Never mind that livestreaming apps have been around for ages, but because there were two new shiny ones (Periscope, which is owned by Twitter, and Meerkat), suddenly it was a "big deal" again. Especially when it came to sporting events. We'd already discussed the NHL's silly ban on reporters, saying they couldn't use Periscope. All of that came together this weekend in a collective mess.
First, many of the big pay TV providers experienced outages, meaning that people who paid $100 to see just this one fight found themselves completely locked out. Looking for a solution, they turned to Periscope. And they apparently found what they were looking for.
Either way, given how popular the bogus storyline is that there's some sort of existential struggle between Silicon Valley and Hollywood, the resulting news story practically writes itself. Once again, we hear of big bad technology completely tearing down pure hearted big copyright holders, and how "something must be done!"
It will be absurd for Twitter to mount the defense that it complies with any takedown notices filed over copyright-infringing content. Because by the time the compliance occurs the livestream is already over, the company is going to need to figure out a better way to combat piracy on the fly. Periscope may require something like Google’s Content ID system, technology capable of identifying forbidden streams in an instant, and maybe even converting them to transactional opportunities for legal alternatives to the content in question.Wait, it would be absurd for Twitter to say, "Look, we comply with the law, what else do you want us to do?" Why? Why is it Twitter's responsibility here? Why not the promoters of the show to make sure that their partners supplying the paid streams actually have technology infrastructure in place that works? Or why not Showtime and HBO for creating additional reasons for people to sign up for its service, rather than signing on to one of the Periscope streams?
Why, again, does Hollywood always seem to (1) blame the tech industry for its own failures and (2) then demand that the tech industry magically stop what is unstoppable? Why not, instead, recognize that the technology is really useful, that people like it, and look for ways to take advantage of that? Why not offer an official Periscope stream or partner with others who are Periscoping on their own to offer different/better commentary? There are many things that they could do to embrace things rather than complain about it (or threaten to sue).
Technology keeps advancing. Pretending that you can stop that technology is not a productive path towards the future. Hollywood keeps having to relearn this lesson with every new major technological advancement. It tried to stop the radio, the television, cable TV, the photocopier, the VCR, the MP3 player, the DVR, YouTube and more. One day, you'd think they'd learn that this is a bad strategy.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dick costolo, floyd mayweather, livestreaming, manny pacquaio, streaming, takedowns
Companies: hbo, periscope, showtime, twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Will those people be paid a refund. Don't hold your breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"But you applied for an injunction and stopped the streaming!"
"Um... yeah, but we still asked for damages to cover the irreparable damage we asked the court to stop. Until we get them we'll hold onto your money."
"Hey guys, what's up? I just watched the fight for free on Periscope."
"FUUUUUUUUUUUUU - "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But...but...it's MAGIC!!!!!!
Want another ridiculous one? My GAS PUMP was advertising the tonight show last night...at 11PM Eastern, 10PM central! Do they really go to bed earlier in Chicago???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...because that's easier than identifying the actual causes of piracy and combating them instead of the platforms that some pirates use (right up until they move to the next one we're not attacking at that moment.
It's the same old story, and it seems to have the same answers. For example, I notice that the screenshot says "Global" as a heading. So, where were the people actually situated? I'm going to guess not all in the US, although the usual morons will claim they were. Were there any local options at all, since this varies wildly from region to region? Were they actually accessible to everyone (and not, say, on an option only available to a small percentage of the population at a fortnight's salary?. Were there any technical or other issues that caused people who *had* paid legally to see it to seek out other avenues?
Of course, it's easier to say "they must do something" rather than find the root cause. But that will only last until the next technology. Because if demand is not served by those who control access, others will find a way. It's been like this since before Napster, but I'm going to guess we'll have to endure the same lies and attacks until something is done to address the existing supply issues.
"Periscope may require something like Google’s Content ID system"
ContentID, the system that continually attacks not only legal uses of content, but takes down artists' own streams based on false positives? The one where the people who actually own the content have to jump through hoops to stream their own work if it wasn't sold to a corporation, which often takes weeks or months with no guarantees of it not happening again once it's unblocked?
That sounds about right for them - "it's too hard to police our content, so we'll make someone else do it at the expense of every media type we don't own".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It also shows that they don't give two craps about the many demonstrably flaws that ContentID has, because the lawsuits means that all errors favour them. Anyone who understands the issues would see that adding a live time-sensitive element to censorship is going to be disastrous - for non-**AA members, of course, since they'll be the ones controlling what was automatically "legit". They'd rather have a million innocent people fighting against Twitter after losing their own revenue than have to police their own live events - and if that means paying lip service in Google's favour then so be it.
Normal propaganda will resume shortly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what are they afraid of?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you the same person that refuses to watch a DVD version of a movie because the bluray is somehow superbly better?
I have news for you - high definition isn't always important to everyone (probably not even most people), and some of us are happy to purchase your old video games and old DVDs that are now "substandard".
As for TV - I don't bother to pay for HD content - SD is plenty for my needs, and it's relatively cheap these days as long as you don't care much. TV is for idle entertainment when i'm too lazy to do something more interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-Hollywood probably
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
To hold as Masnick does that new gadgetry trumps the rights of persons to what they've made (besides to privacy) is more similar in principle to "scientific" Nazi-ism and communism than to humanism. Disparaging private property even when it's an "intellectual" kind leads only to authoritarian surveillance state based on "technology".
Masnick yet again throws in a list of gadgets as if those are responsible for the value of creations, and not the recognition and maintaining of rights over the creation.
Viewers as such are not worth anything: only those who PAY are. So far as Twitter now enables destructive infringements of the values that others make, it needs to be suppressed.
But beyond that, so long as people are stupid enough to pay $100 (or even the time) to see two athletic brutes competing at savagery, there's no hope for civilization.
We're living the dystopian future where gadgets are more dangerous than opiates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
"But beyond that, so long as people are stupid enough to pay $100 (or even the time) to see two athletic brutes competing at savagery, there's no hope for civilization."
So... your argument is that rather than address the two parts of that which can be controlled by the media corporations you're defending, you choose to attack the person writing about the alternatives?
Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Reality-based criticism will always get you further here. try it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
Masnick yet again throws in a list of gadgets as if those are responsible for the value of creations, and not the recognition and maintaining of rights over the creation.
Actually he is merely saying that the services and gadgets ADD value to the creation. A creation that's only known by their creator or a select few is useless and will die with time. The great creations from the past of human kind are not known and spread nowadays because they were protected by some pseudo right, they are known because they were copied and made available to everyone.
Viewers as such are not worth anything: only those who PAY are. So far as Twitter now enables destructive infringements of the values that others make, it needs to be suppressed.
And you, sir, should be shot for even thinking such absurd. Good thing there are laws and that I do respect your right to hold a different opinion as imbecile as it is. As if there aren't tons of people making their work available for free all over. If anything needs suppression it's the MAFIAA and friends who actively try to erode people rights and destroy new, useful tools.
But beyond that, so long as people are stupid enough to pay $100 (or even the time) to see two athletic brutes competing at savagery, there's no hope for civilization.
As much as I agree that these events are lame you and I are NOT in the position to judge if something is stupid or not. I smell the small totalitarian tyrant in you. And it sure smells bad.
We're living the dystopian future where gadgets are more dangerous than opiates.
Opiates, derivatives or substances based on them are largely used for medicinal purposes. Sure they CAN be dangerous but it doesn't mean they are. But again, you have the right to yell at the cloud so keep going if it satisfies you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
What century did you crawl out from under? This newfangled printing press thingy is like, I dunno, the opiate of the masses eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
Pay attention to the actual words, and not what your paradox filter claims them to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mock people if they pay, you mock people if they don't.
Since you have such an anti-hardon for technology why are you even online if you hate it so, so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
Pretty good parody of the property rights side. Kudos!
Or, were you serious? Remember about a century ago when a pianist would go up on a stage in front of an audience and it was grand for everybody? Then some techie a-hole invented player pianos and anyone who bought one could buy a roll of paper from the artist and recreate their performance at will, any time and anywhere, over and over, only having to pay for it once. Artists screamed it would be the end of performers, despite the fact they were making a killing off all those copies of their performances they were selling to people who never had a chance to get anywhere near a live performance.
Here we are a century and a half later and you're still grumbling about the same thing. I see Roger Waters (of Pink Floyd) is accusing his fans of being filthy pirates now too, despite the fact I've been buying his LPs, cassette tapes, and CDs of their works all along.
I love his music, despite the fact he appears to be an idiot savant.
I too think it's pretty silly for anyone to shell out a hundred bucks for a boxing match (once you've seen one, you've seen 'em all), but that's hardly relevant to the article we're discussing here, except for the fact that those who shelled out for the authorized performance were the ones who got ripped off when the distributor failed to come through on their side of the bargain. Charming. Way to support your committed fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL. Douchebag Nation defined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you seriously think your business model is being threatened by shitty cams...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think how much money was lost!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We are so far removed from the idea that we are here to sell things to consumers, we demand everyone else figure out how to make us more money.
We need a magic wand to fix everything, or just give us the power to shut down the whole net so we can sleep at night not terrified that some new technology will show once again we forget that customers are more important than the dollars we imagine we deserve.
We need everyone to support our failing industry, pay no attention to our earnings statements and raises at the top levels... that is all just Hollywood accounting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It should go to say something about the state of things when legacy cultural lockup groups are saying it's good. If it were good, they wouldn't like it at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All this piracy
Viola - no piracy just like in 1810.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not a losing strategy. They aren't trying to stop the technological inevitables, just to delay. Every day they keep the status quo they rake in more sweet lucre. And if they hold the tide back long enough they may just have enough time to figure out how to profit from the new "big thing" as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
t is all the platforms that allow people to self publish and to find content that interests them will eventually kill them. The only hope the legacy content industry has in the long term is to either gain control over, or to kill the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In a world where everyone can publish without a gatekeeper, the prize goes to the person who can get the most attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That direction of interest is based on their ability to influence people through the channels that they control, as more and more people cut the cable, their ability to direct attention becomes less and less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry.
It most certainly is content and it's competing with the legacy content creators for eyeballs and time.
Your snobbish disdain isn't going to make that fact change anytime soon. Sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well said. Even if what he said was true, I'd rather be watching cat videos than whatever the Kardashian family is being paid to whore themselves out for this time. I also have the option to watch neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True! At least the kitties make me smile. This will be my go-to comparison from now on. Thank you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nor is it most of what's being uploaded to YouTube.
Either your subscriptions suck or - yet again - you base everything on a convenient fantasy. I know it makes your constant defence of the indefensible easier if you pretend that no worthwhile content is produced unless they're paid for by a media conglomerate with rights assigned for infinity+1 years, but reality is catching up with you again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just like the color gray, there are many shades of hate. I like YouTube, but unlike that Fenderton guy, I don't use it for kitten videos.
I've never created an account there so don't even login. I've only once bothered to read the comments there, and that was just to see if it really is the worst example of a comment forum (no, it's not). I also don't go there to learn about new music. I long ago gave up on the idea that anyone was going to create new music today that I'd appreciate. The stuff I look for is decades old.
Sometimes, I click on links and play them from there. For stuff I really like, I use it as a search engine to find links I can hand to "youtube-dl".
Almost everything I use it to get, I've owned paid for copies of it in the past which I've either lost or the media they were on wore out or were damaged.
No, I couldn't care less what the Kardashians are up to, ever, and I'm very particular in the things I hate and at what level I hate them. YouTube, I hate very little of, and that's very easy to avoid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You do realise that doesn't matter to the **AA cartels, right? Doesn't matter whether you paid for it before or not, whether there's a legal copy available or not, both you and YouTube are dirty pirates in their minds and you both need to be shut down. That's why these discussions are important and why their side is not always the right side.
I'll never understand the attitude of "nothing good has been created for decades so I won't even bother looking", but YouTube certainly does seem to be working better for you than traditional media outlets. Why so negative about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The feeling's mutual. I don't care what they think.
It's more the fact that my plate's already full. I've been wanting to dig deeper into the stuff I already like, not find more to pile on top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not only can the internet be killed, Gizmodo detailed one way to do it.
I would argue that it's even easier, depending on what you mean by "kill the internet". When I use the phrase, I'm not talking about eliminating the ability to move packets from one place to another. The internet stopped being just a network of networks a long time ago. "Killing the internet" to me means to eliminate it as a way for anyone to communicate freely and easily with the entire world.
If some corporations get their way and turn the internet into a communications system that only the wealthy and powerful can use to full effect, that is killing it just as much, if not more, than cutting every network cable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A pirates life for me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not Twitter's job anyways. Twitter doesn't work for you MPAA, if you want to buy the company then you can make demands. Until then STFU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If (true == true) {
blockStream(ID_ALL_STREAMS);
}
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Learning denotes intelligence, but Hollywood is driven by GREED and power. There never has been and never will be any actual learning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]