White House Can't Stream Biden's Speech; So Uses Justin.tv Instead

from the good-for-them dept

Here's a nice surprise. Apparently Vice President Joe Biden is visiting Israel, and giving a speech at Tel Aviv University. However, without the official White House television crew, they didn't think they'd be able to stream the speech live on the web -- until they decided to just use Justin.tv, one of a few excellent online services that make it drop dead simple to stream live video online. This may be an even bigger deal than you'd imagine, as Justin.tv has been targeted by some politicians because some users have streamed TV shows and live sporting events via the service, potentially infringing on copyrights. And, of course, Joe Biden tends to be pretty close with the entertainment industry, and typically seems to favor that industry over the technology industry. But, perhaps, he'll start to see the light on how technology like this is useful, rather than a threat.

Filed Under: israel, joseph biden, streaming
Companies: justin.tv

Performers See Tiny Revenue From Streaming... But How Much Do They Make From Radio?

from the you're-measuring-it-wrong dept

Copycense points us to a Billboard/Reuters article over the fact that music performers are not making very much money from online streaming services. The article is designed to be "shocking," but seems to leave out some rather important facts. For example, in the US, if Billboard did the same calculation, it would find that performers make even less from radio. That's because performers make nothing from radio in the US, because Congress realized a while back that radio is advertising for musicians, and it seems ridiculous to force radio stations to pay musicians to advertise for them. In fact, the repeated stories of record labels illegally paying radio stations via payola showed that the market actually valued things in the other direction.

It seems quite odd that Billboard would leave this out of its analysis, instead, trying to position the streaming revenue as being so low as to be problematic. Yes, the numbers are low, but streaming radio acts as advertising for musicians that let's them make money in lots of other ways.

This is the same discussion we had last week when some people got too focused on the question of whether or not Spotify was making people buy more music. That's not the point. The point is whether or not streaming services make people buy more of anything that helps fund those musicians. Narrowly looking at just whether or not those streaming services pay musicians is really missing the point. It's like asking how much NBC paid BMW to air BMW commercials. The answer is nothing. The money went in the other direction, because that's where the real value was.

Filed Under: musicians, revenue, streaming

NBC Continues To Do The Exact Wrong Thing When It Comes To The Olympics Online

from the you-can't-be-serious dept

Is it any wonder that NBC Universal keeps having trouble? If you painted them a map that explained how to clearly provide people what they wanted, the company would do the exact opposite. Two years ago, during the summer Olympics, NBC Universal severely limited online offerings. It didn't let people embed videos. It only made events that people weren't as interested in available online, and even then, would delay much of the content online. The backwards thinking here was that if they blocked the "good stuff" out and made it only on TV, it would drive people to the TV. Of course, NBC's own research showed that the more people watched online, the more they watched on TV. But, of course, by limiting access, not that many people watched online through legal channels (a lot more watched elsewhere). And, at NBC, they considered this a success. Seriously.

And to prove it, NBC Universal is apparently going to make things even worse this time around. TorrentFreak points us to a MediaWeek piece that describes NBC Universal's "plan to fight piracy," that makes so little sense it makes the whole Jay Leno fiasco look well-organized.

Rather than giving people a choice, NBC is limiting its live streaming even more. There are 300 events at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver, and NBC is going to stream a grand total of two of them live online: curling and hockey. And, then its spending a ton of wasted effort getting lots of other sites to try to block live streams of Olympic events. You know what would have stopped those live streams in a way that NBC could have profited from? Providing those live streams directly. What sort of company sees that there's demand for a product and then purposely decides to not offer it and to actively stop others who are trying to offer it? Wow!

NBC's explanation for all this is just as bizarre:

"One of the things we learned in Beijing is that people really go to the Web for highlights," said Perkins Miller, svp, digital media at NBC

Perhaps that's because you didn't offer much live streaming last time around, and the only events you did so on were the events no one cared about.

But, of course, the best comes from Rick "oh-those -poor-corn-farmers-decimated-by-piracy" Cotton, NBC's general counsel, who seems so fixated on "stopping piracy!!!" that he seems oblivious to the concept of providing real value:

"Our aim is to make access to pirated material inconvenient, low quality and hard to find," said Rick Cotton, NBC's evp and general counsel. In terms of Web piracy, "you are never going to go to zero. But there has been a sea change in terms of recognition of the problem."

Again, you solve the problem of people going elsewhere by giving them what they want, not purposely deciding not to give them what they want and then getting upset when they go find it elsewhere.

And you wonder why, for the first time ever, a broadcaster is expected to lose money on the Olympics?

Filed Under: olympics, streaming, web
Companies: nbc, nbc universal

Warner Bros. Gets Netflix To Delay Movies; You Don't Save Your Business By Pissing Off Your Customers

from the this-is-a-mistake dept

While not a huge surprise, it's worth discussing just how bad an idea it was for Warner Bros. Studios to get Netflix to delay renting DVDs of its movies for 28 days in order to offer up more streaming content. To recap, the very, very, very confused movie studios seem to think that the way to deal with increasing competition is to just add more windows to releases -- and one way to do that is to delay when you can rent a movie. In the studios' incredibly short-sighted thinking, they believe this will make more people buy DVDs -- the one area of the movie business that has been on the decline of late. At the same time, the studios have been pissed off at Netflix for routing around them and getting rights to stream movies from Starz, and as such, have been denying requests to stream more movies.

So, the compromise is getting Netflix to delay the rentals in exchange for more streaming content.

It's hard to express just how bad an idea this is for Warner Bros., and how far out of touch with their customers they must be to think this makes any sense from a business standpoint. What they are saying is that they are not going to give in to customer demand and offer them what they want, but actually make it more difficult, more annoying and more confusing for them to get what they want -- and (at the same time!) screwing up basic marketing plans as well. Now, when movies are released on DVD and the large group of people who prefers renting to buying goes online to their Netflix account to do so, they won't be able to. Four weeks later, they'll be looking for something else. And, for those who simply want to see it right away, they're now more likely to get it in an unauthorized manner.

Under what set of logic would it ever make sense to give the customer less of what they want in an era when increased competition from other sources is causing them to already wonder if they should buy your product?

Filed Under: business models, dvds, hollywood, movies, rentals, sales, streaming, windows
Companies: netflix, warner bros.

UFC Plans To Sue Individuals, Despite The Cost Being More Than Any 'Loss'

from the someone-want-to-give-them-a-recap-how-that-worked-for-the-RIAA dept

There's something that just drives some executives nuts about the idea that someone might access their content "without paying" directly for it. We saw this last year when music industry execs kept saying they had to stop going to war against consumers, but immediately followed that up by saying that none of that mattered if they couldn't stomp out "piracy." It's as if the second any sort of unauthorized use occurs, the entire "cost-benefit" analysis goes out the window. If it's costing you more to try to stop unauthorized access, and it's not working, and there are ways to embrace it that makes you more money, the solution should be simple: you stop worrying and start embracing.

Apparently that message hasn't gotten through to the folks who own Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC). Perhaps it's not too surprising that such a group's only reaction is to fight, but when they even admit that fighting unauthorized access will cost more than any "losses," you have to wonder how any executive at the company keeps his job. That's a recipe for getting fired: "Hey, I'm going to undertake an action that will cost us more than not taking this action -- oh, and it's likely to piss off a bunch of our biggest fans as well."

This isn't a huge shock. Last month, a UFC exec was at that Judiciary Committee hearing about unauthorized access to live streaming sporting events, and played the role of the RIAA/MPAA lobbyists claiming "them stealers are destroying our business." Given that, it's no surprise that UFC is gearing up to go after both sites like Justin.tv and the individuals themselves. Apparently, UFC's fight-first, think-later execs haven't noticed how badly similar plans have backfired. Most of the streaming websites have pretty strong DMCA safe harbor protections, and suing users hasn't worked out particularly well for the RIAA. Furthermore, pissing off your fans? Yeah, not such a hot move.

Meanwhile, the Torrentfreak article above does a really nice job breaking down just how many people willingly pay huge sums to watch UFC events on Pay-Per-View, and how that number keeps on growing. There was apparently a dip in a recent fight, but TF notes that it probably had more to do with one of the headlining fighters having to back out. What does become clear is that UFC has no problem convincing huge numbers of people to pay up huge amounts to watch its events. Pissing off a lot of fans with ridiculous lawsuits doesn't make anyone more likely to buy.

Hell, even Joe Rogan, the comedian (and notorious hater of "joke stealers") who also acts as commentator for UFC seems to think this is a bad idea, saying: "I think that kind of stifles innovation. It stifles the direction the internet is going. I like things being out there. I think people are always going to buy UFC pay-per-views. You're going to get a much better experience watching it on your television than all stretched out looking fuzzy and pixilated. They're trying to protect their money, but the internet is a strange animal."

Filed Under: copyright, lawsuits, sporting events, strategy, streaming, ufc
Companies: ufc

Oh Look, People Are Already Looking At Expanding How Selectable Output Control Will Be Abused

from the no-surprise-there dept

For quite some time we've been covering how the MPAA has been pushing to get the FCC to allow them to use "Selectable Output Control" (SOC) to stop you from being able to record certain movies. In theory, the Hollywood studios claim that this will let them put movies out on video-on-demand offerings earlier than they do now. In actuality, there's nothing stopping them from putting these VoD offerings out now (and some do already). The studios' claim that this is needed to stop "piracy" of these movies also makes little sense, since even the studios admit that all of their movies are quickly available through unauthorized means around the time they're released in the theaters (i.e., well before they would be available on TV).

The real issue, of course, is that Hollywood wants more control over your TV and what you can do with it. But when people suggest this, the MPAA and the studios scoff and say that's ridiculous. They just want this one tiny exemption and nothing else. Except, that's not true at all. Remember that recent Congressional hearing about live streaming and sporting events? Well, the folks at Public Knowledge noticed that one of the speakers there was already noting how the FCC exemption on SOC could be useful in stopping "piracy" of sports broadcasting -- which of course is totally outside the realm of what the MPAA is asking for. But, of course, once the FCC allows someone to break your DVR or other consumer electronics device, it's not hard to see everyone else asking for their own "exception" as well... How about rather than breaking the devices that everyone purchased for a reason, the content providers stop freaking out about technology, and start learning how to use it to their advantage?

Filed Under: drm, hollywood, live broadcasts, selectable output control, soc, sports, streaming, tv

Is Streaming Infringing Content Still Considered Piracy?

from the just-wondering... dept

There's been some buzz about a recent research report claiming that streaming services are popular. There have been a few such reports, and there's not much surprising in them. They basically point out that if people can stream certain content, that's often easier than firing up a non-user-friendly file sharing service to get the same content. But, does that necessarily lead to the conclusion pushed by many in the industry and the press that "streaming kills piracy"? Not at all. As the folks at Freakbits note, this particular study didn't even bother to separate out authorized streaming services and unauthorized streaming services -- and includes YouTube in the calculations, which (as Hollywood keeps trying to let us know) often has a fair amount of unauthorized content. So, perhaps, people are suggesting that if the content is just "streamed" it doesn't count as "piracy." And, as someone who doesn't like the term "piracy" in the first place, perhaps that makes sense. But it does not appear that this is what's being argued. Instead, people are just assuming that all streaming is authorized, when that's hardly the case.

Filed Under: piracy, streaming

Netflix Claims Americans Don't Want Standalone Streaming Movie Service

from the say-what-now? dept

Netflix's streaming movie service has been pretty successful according to most of the analyses I've seen, but it's still tied to the DVD rental service. So it's a bit surprising to find out that, while Netflix is readying a streaming-only service, it won't be available in the US because (according to CEO Reed Hastings):

"the company hasn't seen much interest in something of that nature in the States."

Karl Bode, over at Broadband Reports, has the appropriate response:

Wait, What? 42% of Netflix users have streamed at least 15 minutes of one TV show or movie during the last quarter, up from 22% just one year earlier. Personally, my DVD queue has sat unused for months, with the majority of my film and HDTV viewing now occurring via the far more efficient Xbox 360. The demand is certainly there, it's just not quite mainstream yet. So what's really going on?

His guess... and it's a good one, is that Hollywood isn't really thrilled with the situation, and is holding back the licensing that would enable such a service.

Filed Under: netflix, streaming, us
Companies: netflix

Forget Piracy Or Boxee... Could Netflix Take Down Cable?

from the submarine-innovation dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in the recent Wired Magazine article talking about how Netflix's online streaming offering may be a disruptive innovation that takes down cable. The thinking is that, with Netflix service being built into lots of different settop devices, and the ability to watch various TV shows that are offered via DVD (and the Netflix streaming service, as well), why would people need cable any more? They can just wait until the "video" is out, and stream it via Netflix. The article may go a bit far in proclaiming Netflix as the winner of this battle right now, but it does suggest that (whether it's Netflix or some other provider) the model that cable television has relied on for so many years is certainly facing a pretty big disruption, one way or another.

Filed Under: cable, dvds, movies, streaming
Companies: netflix

Israeli Judge: Watching Streaming Games Online Is Fair Use

from the wow dept

The entertainment industry has, in the past, accused Israel of not properly respecting copyright, but Israeli officials, rather than bending to the will of Hollywood lobbyists hit back with a long and detailed response, noting that its copyright law has already been influenced too much by American-style copyright law -- and just because they didn't go completely draconian and implement a version of the DMCA, it doesn't mean they don't have strong copyright laws. You have to imagine, however, that Hollywood's lobbying community is about to go ballistic after reading a recent decision (sent in by a ton of people -- including one of the lawyers involved in the case!) concerning an attempt by the Premier League to unveil the owner of a website, LiveFooty, that allowed people to watch streaming football (soccer for folks on this side of the Atlantic) matches.

Now, we've already covered incredibly aggressive legal strategy of suing any site that lets people stream its matches. Quite often, it goes after service providers rather than the actual users, and also goes after services in places where the games aren't viewable anyway (so it's not even taking away any real revenue). Either way, the judge in an Israeli district court was not impressed and tore apart the Premier League's arguments:

the Tel Aviv District Court ruled that it was a case of "fair use" since no profit was made from the broadcasts and that, in Israeli law, breach of "broadcasting" copyright only referred to cable or wireless transmission and not streaming over the internet.

The judge, Michal Agmon-Gonen, furthermore ruled that the site had important social aims -- "watching sports events is socially important and should remain in the realm of mass entertainment, and not just be for those who can afford it" -- and argued that those who view online were not damaging the revenues of broadcasters. She said they were mainly "those of small means or who are not sufficiently interested in sport to pay".

That's the report from the Guardian, but the full ruling from the judge gets a lot more interesting. In refusing to reveal the name of the owner of the site, she talked about the importance of not giving in to the chilling effects of copyright infringement claims, and the importance of setting a very high bar on such things:

"Someone who claims breach of copyright must meet two conditions. The first is to present prima facie evidence of a breach, that will lead with a high degree of probability to proof of it. Secondly, the breaches claimed must be especially severe, wrongs committed in aggravated circumstances," the judge said. This is because "unintentionally, millions of people infringe copyright every day; there are no grounds for disclosing their identities in such cases, but only when it is a matter of blatant and severe infringement."

As far as I know, this is the first time I've seen a judge highlight unintentional infringement, and the chilling effects of making it such that anyone needs to constantly look over their shoulder and be afraid that almost anything they do may be judged to be a violation of copyright laws.

The Premier League will certainly appeal, and you can bet that Hollywood lobbyists will soon come out with yet another report claiming that Israel is a "haven for pirates" or some ridiculous claptrap along those lines. One hopes that this thoughtful ruling that focuses on the public's rights will stand up and get recognized for recognizing that copyright isn't just about the rights of the copyright holders, but about the rights of the public too. However, given the history of the entertainment industry lobby, it seems unlikely.

Filed Under: consumer rights, copyright, fair use, israel, streaming
Companies: premier league