Amazon Looking To Expand Prime Into Live-Streamed Major Sports

from the play-ball! dept

For some time now, I've been ringing the warning bell for cable television providers that the cord-cutting trend has only thus far been prevented from becoming a deluge by live sporting events. It's one thing to watch TV dramas and reality programming either in binge-fashion or streaming days after the original television airing, but live sports is still a major draw for cable TV audiences. Because of the combination of broadcast partner deals many of the leagues have worked out with cable providers and the nature of the sports product, this may be the last bastion of hope for cable TV as we know it today.

But that thread of survival continues to unravel. In the past two years or so, we've seen the major athletic leagues begin to open up on the concept of live-streaming games. The NFL was among the first of the major players to ink toe-in-the-water streaming deals, but the NBA and MLB have followed closely behind. And while those deals are meager and fragmented in terms of the streaming providers in question, it's worth noting that Amazon is reportedly targeting sports streaming generally as a way to expand its Prime product.

Amazon apparently never stops thinking about possible perks it could add to its annual $99 Prime membership, and the next feature could be live sports. A report from The Wall Street Journal suggests that Amazon is in talks with professional sport organizations including Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, and the National Football League to negotiate the rights to stream live games and events.

According to the report, Amazon is looking at creating a premium sports package that it could include in Amazon Prime memberships. If it comes to fruition, a sports package could draw a lot of new customers to Prime, which already offers free two-day shipping, Amazon Video streaming of TV shows and movies, music streaming with Prime Music, the Prime Reading library of free e-books, and more. It would also be a big way for Prime to stand out among other streaming services, particularly Netflix, which has steered clear of sports since most people don't want to watch a football game after it's over.

The barrier to all of this, of course, is that those leagues already have broadcast deals in place with television providers. That is particularly the case with the MLB and the NBA, which both rely heavily on cable networks to broadcast their games. The NFL, on the other hand, has long partnered with the "local" national networks, CBS, NBC, and Fox. It therefore may have more room in which to wriggle into streaming sports, demonstrated by the fact that it has already done so in its Yahoo! deal. Regardless, one of the streaming titans getting into sports streaming, should it happen, should be setting off all kinds of warning bells for the cable companies.

In a time when streaming services are incredibly popular, live sports is a major reason people still pay for pricey cable packages. A good example is DirecTV, which saw a big subscriber bump when it began offering the premium NFL Sunday Ticket package.

With the market penetration for smart TVs and devices that allow streaming to be beamed to non-smart TVs, this interest by Amazon represents a major landshift in the cable TV market. Streaming services like Prime can be more nimble with pricing, as well, as they don't have to adhere to the practices of packaging undesirable content along with the channels and shows that consumers actually want. And, what's more, Amazon's interest here is likely to spur its competition to get into sports streaming as well, if only to keep up with the Amazonian Joneses.

Even if this takes a while to get rolled out due to existing broadcast contracts, the end may be nigh for cable television as it currently exists.

Filed Under: live sports, sports, streaming
Companies: amazon

Prince Estate Sues Tidal, The Streaming Service That's Kind To Artists, For Copyright Infringement

from the wave dept

When Jay-Z's music streaming service launched nearly two years ago, it put forth two key selling points. One was exclusive releases that would only be available on Tidal. The other was a promise as to how artist-friendly it would be. In the wake of the froth-filled mouths of many other streaming services like Spotify and Pandora, Tidal would be a shining example of how a streaming music platform could be built that would be successful while being fair to the musical artists whose work it streamed. This has failed on both levels. On the question of being successful, Tidal's launch was a fizzle, and the news into this year isn't particularly encouraging, with subscriber accounts reportedly being a fraction of that of other streaming services. And, of course, because Tidal is a music streaming service, lawsuits and claims by artists that they were not being fairly compensated began rolling in almost immediately.

And they haven't ended. According to reports, the estate of Prince is suing Tidal for copyright infringement, claiming that Tidal is streaming Prince's catalog without authorization.

Prince’s estate is suing Roc Nation for copyright infringement, claiming that Tidal does not have permission to stream large portions of Prince’s catalog. The lawsuit, first reported by the StarTribune, accuses Jay Z’s company of illegally adding 15 additional albums from Prince’s catalog to its offerings back in June.

Both Roc Nation and Prince’s estate acknowledge the initial agreement between Prince and Roc Nation that gave Tidal the right to exclusively stream HitNRun: Phase 1 for 90 days, but that’s where the agreement ends.

Now, Roc Nation claims that it received authorization to stream the fifteen albums in question, both verbally and in writing. And, hey, maybe that's true. But if it is, it's clear that Prince's estate has not been shown any of this paperwork. In addition, the estate is claiming that an advance owed to Prince by Tidal was never paid, either. It would be strange for the estate to have the paperwork that everyone agrees authorized some Prince music, but somehow not have the paperwork authorizing the other fifteen albums.

Which isn't really the point. The real point is that setting up a streaming service on claims that it would be so friendly to artists so as to avoid this kind of thing was doomed to fail from the beginning. It's in the nature of the music industry and its convoluted business arrangements and licensing terms to pull the rug out from internet streaming services. You can set your watch by it. Perhaps now those at Tidal might have some sympathy for their competition.

Filed Under: copyright, jay z, prince, streaming
Companies: tidal

Netflix CEO Wary That AT&T's Latest Merger Could Hurt Streaming Competitors

from the now-witness-the-firepower-of-this-fully-armed-and-operational-battle-station dept

"We want to require that for AT&T customers, that HBO and Netflix are treated the same," said Hastings in an exclusive interview with CNBC at the WSJ D Conference. "Now that they're going to own HBO we think that any special treatment for HBO data would be inappropriate, but I think that's pretty basic."

"There's a lot of AT&T investment in content, that could make things tougher," said Hastings. "On the other hand it's probably going to get easier for us to recruit Time Warner executives, which are a very talented bunch."

"That's what made us successful for the last 14 years is we've done no M&A. We've stayed out of all those discussions. We don't do bankers meetings. We're very old school in that way," said Hastings. "Let's just build the greatest service on earth, and again, it's done very well for our shareholders."

Filed Under: gatekeepers, merger, streaming
Companies: at&t, netflix, time warner

US Chamber Of Commerce Complains About People 'Pirating' The Presidential Debate

from the really-now? dept

Millions watched the presidential #debates on illegal streams. The harmful #piracy trend must end

VFT Solutions tracked 420 live streams of Sunday’s debate and recorded 22 million views. This includes accessing legal streams from media sources like the New York Times and Fox News, which streamed the debate on live-streaming platforms. But it also includes massive views of illegal streams. According to VFT’s CEO, Wayne Lonstein, “Perhaps what is most interesting is that 41% of these views were from illegal live-streams, also known as nano-piracy.” That’s about 9 million nano-pirate views, and this is just a sample.

Why are viewers watching these debates on illegal live streams despite having plenty of free legal options? What does this signal for copyright owners who expect to get paid for their content?

Live-streaming the presidential debates in platforms like Periscope and Facebook Live is great for politics, but it should also raise a big red flag about the emerging threat that nano-piracy on these same platforms poses for artists and entertainers.

Within the current system, where copyright holders have to request the take-down of every single piracy source, it has been an uphill battle to keep up with download piracy infringers. Nano-pirates are making things worse, with the aggravated fact that live streams leave less trace than downloads. Ironically, illegal live-streaming of the presidential debates is rampant, so hopefully the winner will be motivated to take matters into his or her own hands.

Filed Under: copyright, nano-piracy, nelson granados, piracy, presidential debate, streaming
Companies: us chamber of commerce

Theater Association Boss Reminds Theater Owners, Netflix To Stay In Their Own Lanes

from the don't-gingerly-nibble-on-the-hand-that-feeds-us dept

Guess who's bringing back "broken windows" policing!

The National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) is sounding the alarm over a recent deal between Netflix and iPic, in which the luxury-theater chain will screen 10 movies simultaneously with their release on the streaming service.

You would think that a theater owners' association would represent theater owners first, rather than the studios that have long battled any sort of innovation/disruption in its windowed release schedules. Of course, theaters are first on the food chain traditionally, so that probably explains the NATO head's statement, which comes across as a strange mixture of veiled threat and Stockholm Syndrome.

In a statement, NATO chief John Fithian warned that while iPic was free to make its own decisions, “We all should tread lightly and be mindful that over the years, the film industry’s success is a direct result of a highly successful collaboration between film makers, distributors and exhibitors.”

Yes, let's tread lightly and be mindful that creating artificial scarcity is a fool's errand, but creating an experience that people will leave the house for is something that can't be delivered over an internet connection. This defense of the way things have always been done -- phrased the way it is here -- sounds like NATO distancing itself from iPic, the way one distances themselves from close relatives with multiple indecent exposure arrests.

NATO head Fithian goes on to claim that day-and-date releases won't work because they've never worked in the past.

“Simultaneous release, in practice, has reduced both theatrical and home revenues when it has been tried,” Fithian said in a statement. “Just as Netflix and its customers put a value on exclusivity, theater owners and their customers do too.”

Conveniently ignored is the fact that past day-and-date releases have never been fully embraced by studios and, as a result, have been handled ineptly and cluelessly. These have been done on an extremely limited basis and almost always with an exorbitant price tag attached.

There's probably a tad more defensiveness than usual in NATO's statement. Now that there's a group containing respected directors and producers backing a day-and-date release startup, the "threat" is more substantial than a few streaming providers whose libraries have been stripped to nearly nothing by major studios over the last few years.

Theaters aren't going to go away completely. Under-performers who can't offer an experience worth leaving the house for will fall by the wayside, but day-and-date releases will only slightly hasten their demise. If there were more experimentation, everyone involved might find new ways to make money. But as long as people like Fithian are in charge, nothing will move forward. It a small roll out of Netflix films to theaters -- solely for the purpose of allowing the streaming company to get some entries in the Oscar race -- results in these sorts of statements, any chance of studios and theaters moving on from traditional windowed releases is still a long way off.

Filed Under: competition, day and date, movies, streaming, theaters
Companies: ipic, nato, netflix

Gizmodo Completely Misses The Point Of Cord Cutting

from the missing-the-forest-for-the-trees dept

"So, let’s see, if you pay for Hulu Plus (which is now just Hulu, since they’re dropping their free tier) that sets you back about $8 per month. And if you go subscription free that’s $12 per month. And Netflix is another $10. And HBO Now is another $15. And obviously you’re going to get the new commercial free CBS, so that’s $10 per month. What are we up to? About $47 before tax? And then you toss on your high-speed internet bill, which you’re probably paying to the cable company anyway. Yeah, this whole cordcutter thing sounds like it liberated consumers alright, doesn’t it?

So............................................. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯"

"Cable TV might seem cheap when you first sign up, but that’s only because you’re getting a short-term promotional deal, and the advertised price rarely factors in hardware rental and other hidden costs, such as regional sports fees and broadcast retransmission fees. Keeping your payments down requires constant vigilance, and you’ll never actually pay the advertised rate anyway."

Filed Under: broadband, bundles, cable tv, cord cutting, options, streaming, tv
Companies: amazon, comcast, hulu, netflix

CBS Announces New Ad-Free More-Expensive Streaming Service...That Includes Ads

from the subtract dept

Some terrestrial TV stations and cable stations are better at internet-ing than others. While Netflix has built an empire upon streaming ad-free shows, for instance, other services like Hulu have gone the route of a tiered structure, with a price point for streaming with ads and one for streaming without ads. One of the interesting things is seeing other traditional broadcast networks watch how these models play out and then go about offering their own. Take CBS, for instance. It's very clear that CBS is enamored with the idea of streaming its content advertising free, but likes Hulu's tiered structure better than that of Netflix.

At CBS' site, you can see that it is now offering two tiers of its "All Access" platform. The existing service is offered with "Limited Commercials", while a service that costs $4 more is labeled "Commercial Free." I'd like to focus on the commercial free offering for a moment, because it's a bold step that includes giving viewers a way to stream CBS shows "commercial free", except where there are both commercials and where CBS is choosing to call "commercials" by the term "promotional interruptions" instead.

There are some caveats to CBS’ “commercial-free” option. CBS isn’t spending much time highlighting these asterisks, but they tell you interesting things about the TV ecosystem in 2016:

-If you stream a CBS show live, when it first airs, you’ll still see ads — the same ones you’d see on conventional TV, depending on the local TV market you’re in.

-CBS says “select on-demand shows will include promotional interruptions.” I talked to a CBS rep for a translation: The “promotional interruptions” will be brief, but un-skippable, promos — 15 seconds at most, and no more than two promos per half-hour — for other CBS shows. They’ll show up in about 10 percent of CBS’ episodes, and about 20 percent of its titles — generally its newer shows. That’s because CBS has sold on-demand rights to some of those shows to subscription services like Amazon or Netflix, and in some cases those services have exclusive rights to an ad-free “window” for those shows.

It appears CBS has been taking its cues from the mobile network industry, which absolutely loves calling its plans "unlimited", even though they are very much limited. In this case, the streaming service is "advertising free", except for all the ads on live shows and all of the promotional interruptions on streaming the older library. I had once thought that coming up with new business models to appeal to the public was hard. Turns out it's not! You just have to call one thing by another name and insist the entire world play make believe!

The folks over at Recode appear to think that CBS doesn't even really want people to use this option.

The big picture is that CBS is still very much in the advertising business, and will be for a very long time. So it is presumably betting that the ad-free option will only be interesting to a subset of its All Access subscribers, who are a small subset of its total audience.

It's breathtaking in its cynicism. CBS decides to claim a service is something it isn't while hoping most customers don't use it or want it and instead use the other level of service. It's an insight into how the company sees its viewers, as little more than money-levers waiting to be pulled in the right order to extract the maximum amount of revenue, regardless of whether it has to engage in double-speak and obfuscation in order to do so.

We at Techdirt want to play along with CBS on this sort of thing, which is why we're proud to say that this post is offered to you vulgarity free! On an unrelated note, CBS' advertising free offering is bullshit.

Filed Under: ad free, ads, promotional interruptions, streaming, streaming tv
Companies: cbs

Hulu Ditches 'Free' Model Without Giving It A Chance To Succeed

from the the-illusion-of-disruption dept

"For the past couple years, we’ve been focused on building a subscription service that provides the deepest, most personalized content experience possible to our viewers,” Hulu senior VP and head of experience Ben Smith said in a statement. “As we have continued to enhance that offering with new originals, exclusive acquisitions, and movies, the free service became very limited and no longer aligned with the Hulu experience or content strategy."

Filed Under: free, streaming, tv
Companies: hulu