One of the mainstays of sporting finance is the fee from negotiating television rights to show the games live on television. In particular, all the television networks tender big money to secure the contract to exclusively show live AFL and NRL games because these sports draw big audiences - and consequently - big advertising revenue.
All that is now in doubt since a Federal court ruled that Optus had not breached copyright by sending to air AFL and and NRL games - with a few seconds delay - on their Mobile TV Now service.
It seems that this Federal court decision revolves around the concept that citizens are free to record programmes of their choice on the recording equipment available from any electronics shop - and play back the content recorded at a time of their choice. The court sees no difference between a commercial operator doing exactly the same - and stipulates that as there is at least a few seconds time delay - this recording does not infringe the contract holders right to show instantaneous play on their channel.
In this instance, the loser is Telstra, who has paid about $ 150 million for the exclusive rights to show such games live on free to air television.
The court is drawing an extraordinary long bow in equating what a citizen can watch and do in their own home with what a commercial organisation can show on free to air TV channels. No money is involved when a citizen records a show for his or her own entertainment, but a commercial channel charges advertisers for air time interspersed with play - and the nature of the entertainment has a bearing on the rates charged.
If this decision stands, all sporting codes seem certain to lose a substantial source of revenue. The fact that sporting content is divided between free to air television - and what can be viewed on a mobile device such as a mobile phone is simply splitting straws.
It also opens a Pandora's box by questioning all areas of exclusivity. What else will become fair game for predators who decide to ignore contractual rights to some form of copyright. Most citizens have a printer with scanning capacity sitting beside their computer. Does this decision mean it is now permissible to copy any writer's work - free of charge - and make this available to others - without the permission of either the author or the original book publisher ?
If this decision falls within the letter of the law, then it is time for the law to be changed to protect not only all sporting codes, but the principle of copyright conferring reward for those who originate something that is of value to others.
As it now stands - that has become worthless !
No comments:
Post a Comment