Feeds

The hole in the copy-proof fence

The Optus TV Now decision

Security for virtualized datacentres

The value of live sports sponsorships isn’t going to collapse overnight, regardless of the dire predictions made in the wake of last week’s decision in the Optus TV Now case.

The judgment, that TV Now is legal, has been greeted with the usual response from the plaintiffs (the Australian Rugby League and the Australian Football League), that they will take the case off to the High Court.

The theme of the remaining commentary is that the decision will destroy the value of TV sports sponsorships. It’s no surprise, given the reach of television executives into Canberra, that communications minister Senator Stephen Conroy should go public saying that the law may need review.

All of which is a little overblown, in my opinion.

Whose PVR?

First, let’s explore the idea that content could somehow be ring-fenced from services like TV Now.

The judge decided that since a user gave the “record” instruction, and since the recording is made for private use (as is spelled out in the terms and conditions), there was no difference between customers using their own recorder and personally controlling infrastructure owned by Optus.

If an infringement exists, it’s the user that infringes, not Optus; but the Copyright Act specifically exempts personal recordings made for the purpose of time-shifting, so long as the user does not then communicate that recording “to the public”.

The shift from recording on your own device to one owned by Optus has, the TV networks argue, opened up a dangerous loophole in the Copyright Act which, if allowed to stand, would destroy the business model of sports broadcasting (at least on free-to-air channels).

Consider this, however: there are hundreds of thousands of Australians who already record TV programs on devices they don’t own. Anybody with a Foxtel IQ box (for non-Australians – a Foxtel-supplied device that includes PVR) is recording shows on a device they don’t own, but do control. As Foxtel’s FAQ puts it: “FOXTEL iQ remains the property of FOXTEL, which allows us to offer it at a low price. This also means that we will continuously update the software for the period of your FOXTEL subscription.”

So how do you prevent someone using a hard disk owned by Optus as your recording device, while permitting them to use a hard disk owned by Foxtel?

Old-world thinking

What about the supposed wholesale destruction of the value of broadcast rights?

The aggrieved parties in the case were the two football codes and – as the offstage motivator – Telstra, which forked out $AU153 million for exclusive rights to broadcast games to mobiles.

Broadcasters have their business model worked out: they pay the sports codes for broadcast rights (more than a billion dollars in last year’s AFL deal, for example), which they recoup from advertisers.

If viewer eyeballs matter to advertisers, the direct impact on broadcasters isn’t catastrophic. The advertisers (and broadcasters) get eyeballs otherwise lost: Optus subscribers who aren’t in front of their TV sets (for a rebroadcast running two minutes behind the “live” broadcast, ad-skipping isn’t the viewer’s main concern).

I note with interest that while broadcasters are making all the right noises in public, none of them felt it worth their while joining their names to the AFL/ARL lawsuit.

Right now, it’s all about Telstra and that pesky $AU153 million that it wanted to recoup from its customers.

The mistake the football codes made was to try and apply an old broadcast-exclusivity business model to the online world. A feed available for a fee to all mobile carriers (and maybe to other players like FetchTV) would, in retrospect, be less immediately lucrative, but more strategic. Instead of antagonising someone with the resources to launch a service and then defend it, the codes could have aligned the carriers’ interests with their own.

It would have also bought the football codes a bit of breathing space, to try and work out what the next business model will be. Hiring lawyers to put their fingers in the leaking dam wall won’t work. ®

Choosing a cloud hosting partner with confidence

More from The Register

next story
Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know
'Missy' Cummings on UAVs, smartcars and dying from boredom
Facebook, Apple: LADIES! Why not FREEZE your EGGS? It's on the company!
No biological clockwatching when you work in Silicon Valley
The 'fun-nification' of computer education – good idea?
Compulsory code schools, luvvies love it, but what about Maths and Physics?
Doctor Who's Flatline: Cool monsters, yes, but utterly limp subplots
We know what the Doctor does, stop going on about it already
'Cowardly, venomous trolls' threatened with TWO-YEAR sentences for menacing posts
UK government: 'Taking a stand against a baying cyber-mob'
Happiness economics is bollocks. Oh, UK.gov just adopted it? Er ...
Opportunity doesn't knock; it costs us instead
Sysadmin with EBOLA? Gartner's issued advice to debug your biz
Start hoarding cleaning supplies, analyst firm says, and assume your team will scatter
Don't bother telling people if you lose their data, say Euro bods
You read that right – with the proviso that it's encrypted
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Cloud and hybrid-cloud data protection for VMware
Learn how quick and easy it is to configure backups and perform restores for VMware environments.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.