Getting rid of Sky Sport 101

It's not stealing, because stealing implies the removal of something from one person's possession and into another's. What it is is copyright violation - making copies of or accessing information that someone else has legal rights over. If I steal your car, you go from having a car to not having a car. If someone illegally streams a football game then Sky is not materially worse off than if they hadn't. You could make an argument that they lose potential income but only if the streamer was willing to pay in the first place.

I agree with what you are saying about better online offerings though. Illegal operators are often actually the forerunner of legal versions- Napster came before iTunes, torrents came before Netflix, etc. Unfortunately SkyGo is plagued with errors, FanPass doesn't have all the sports channels for some unfathomable reason, and who knows what the hell is happening with beIN connect.

the last couple of weeks i have used fanpass to watch the a league games instead of using streams, my only problem was i did not realize how much broadband gets used with fanpass compared to streams the difference was huge, over 3 night i used around 23 gb which is one third of my broadband for the month if i wanted to do that every weekend for the month i would use all my broadband and have to pay for the extra, which does not work when you are living on a budget.

"It's not stealing, because stealing implies the removal of something from one person's possession and into another's. What it is is copyright violation - making copies of or accessing information that someone else has legal rights over. If I steal your car, you go from having a car to not having a car. If someone illegally streams a football game then Sky is not materially worse off than if they hadn't. You could make an argument that they lose potential income but only if the streamer was willing to pay in the first place"

Sorry making my own quoting as it sucks on this app with my phone.

Just on this point above, you are still stealing, in this case your stealing revenue if you are the person who posted up the stream.  Harder to argue for those who view the stream.

Some people won't care about loss of revenue for a big company like SKY or duco but in the eyes of the law it dosnt matter if it's Nana's Smith's golf or The Parker fight, it's stealing.

it's not technically "stealing" but the person streaming the content or showing it without permission is doing so illegally and infringing copyright. 

CT is correct. 

If the law viewed copyright violation and theft as categorically similar then copyright violation would be a criminal matter rather than a civil one.

Edit: had a quick look and there are provisions for criminal prosecution in NZ copyright law, but looks like only if you profit off it. So viewing an illegal stream would not carry a criminal conviction, just payment for damages

Just to be clear, I'm not endorsing copyright violation, but I don't think it's equivalent to physical theft in most instances, including illegal streaming of sport. Especially as sport isn't creative content in the same way a song or book is, for instance. I also think that the litigation approach to dealing with it is like trying to stop the Nile with a teaspoon. Create better legal options - that's the best way to deal with it

I understand and accept the person making the stream is breaching copyright, but do you accept that the act of a person playing the stream here in NZ has not been tested in court and ruled illegal. 

yes i will accept it has not been tested in court - however i remain confident that if and when it is it the result will favour rights holders.

The rights holders of what jursisdiction?

If the groups supplying the streamarent based New Zealand there is zero chance of those viewing the stream being prosecuted as the holders of the content eg duco would first need to take those groups to court to prove their software/program was illegal. I mean take kim dotcom for instance the us government have spent millions trying to extradite him back to the usa to face criminal charges and as far as I know he is still free to roam around nz. Groups providing content to international markets is almost impossible to prosecute hence those watching the content also will never be prosecuted.

Lots of Sky stuff in the media over the past few days. 

They are losing 200 subscribers per day, shares are plummeting, the Vodafone merger has been legally denied, their entire platform is based on an out-dated concept, and their limited attempts at establishing themselves online have really only caused them brand damage through poor performance. 

It's hard to see how they will exist in the NZ market for many more years without an ambitious overhaul of their entire offering. The last time they spoke about that, they showed zero desire for it. They actually came across as if they were in complete denial of the situation. 

I think that's it, they are in denial and clinging to their existing model. There are more and more cord cutters and they should have years ago split up their packages so you can get different channels without all the stuff you don't want and invested in better online viewing but even if they started to do that now, I do wonder if it will be too little to late. 

For me it is the fact that every time someone mentions unbundling their packages (Sky Basic, Sports etc) the response is: 

"We bundle it because it is cheaper for consumers like that, and most would end up paying more if separated"

They don't seem to understand that what consumers want is choice, also not sure that them saying "people would pay more" is not seen as genuine because as a company that'd give them more revenue so why wouldn't they want to do it is a way some see it.

What I don't get is commcomm rules it's not ok for Vodafone to own all the sports content, as that'd give them a huge advantage in their market - yet it's been ok for Sky to own it all, bundle their offerings, and have such a monopoly for all these years. 

Very hard to undo a monopoly position that has occurred through normal business means ie Sky buying all the rights over the years. Easy to stop that monopoly transferring to another entity

It's not quite what they meant - very close and I get it's not a major difference but they were concerned that if Vodafone had control of Sports contents that they would force people to get Vodafone to get the sports (like Optus with EPL in Australia) - if it was a transference of rights from SKY to Vodafone that is no different from now (I don't think it's monopoly but that's an argument for another day perhaps)

Edit: Just a thought - I don't think it was SKY or Vodafone's plan to force customers to VF to see sports but apparently the risk of that happening was too much for Commcomm

Just one other thing - for those who are SKY sport subscribers check out a new free app called SKY Sport Highlights (available on android and on IOS) for free access to highlight clips for all sorts of sports and interviews etc - launched today!

holy shark this app is awesome! love it

Thanks for the tip chopah, just downloaded, this looks fantastic. 

lol

http://i.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/898904...

Talking with the High Performance Manager of NZ Football, I asked him how long he reckoned it would take for the SS Premiership to be fully broadcasted. Apparently it costed NZ Football 200k+ to broadcast the games with a viewership of low thousands. The insane prices they have to pay to get the SS Premiership televised won't change unless someone like Duke, Lightbox Sports etc. came to the rescue. It was an interesting discussion. 

so, why put it on Sky? Why not broadcast via youtube? 

This. Have one marquee game per week on Sky, and then do a single camera on halfway streamed over the Internet for the rest, (hell, even a half decent smartphone can stream to YouTube these days).

If amateur clubs can manage it for the Chatham Cup...

Important to have games and highlights on Sky for the exposure of the league though.

why is exposure of the league important? And how does that exposure equate to $200k+ benefit? 

Agreed on this... I wonder if it's just major sponsors preferring it to be on tele rather than online? Other than that I'm honestly not sure why it hasn't gone online. 

Better yet, why not put it on Prime? Wouldn't hurt showing the odd live game on Prime too given they are being paid to broadcast it.

Some interesting points that counter the popular view of SKY - and this from a former competitor too (CEO of PLP)

http://thespinoff.co.nz/media/25-02-2017/what-the-commerce-commision-got-wrong-sky-vodafone-wasnt-about-broadband-it-was-about-rugby/

Very interesting piece Chopah

 

I guess it's to do with not wanting to 'cheapen' the league with an inferior broadcast product.

Sure, you could 'facebook live' or whatever the games with a phone but it's technology that, at this point in time, is more suited to Patrick's e-sex habit than it is to watching live sport. It's not very consistent with what I'm sure is a 'this is our flagship league' message that NZF is selling to sponsors.

To do live streaming well would also cost a pretty penny, and still not be proper broadcast quality.

The live streams of the 2014 and 2015 Chatham Cup finals were perfectly acceptable quality for this standard of football, I thought.

Well that's a level below National League though isn't it...


Some of the costs for production don't change much when you compare Broadcast vs Streaming, costs for presenters, a graphics guy, camera's are probably the same for either type - it's just the on air cost that you reduce significantly.


Also food for thought - would some of these grounds have internet/network capacity to do a stream? 

I'd bet a lot of people playing in the NL give a million more sharks about winning the Chatham Cup.

I don't know if this has been posted, 
https://bgr.com/2016/08/10/netflix-for-sports-dazn...

https://www.dazn.com/en-DE

I've had a look. They enforce credit card checking, so you'd need to think about how to acquire a Austrian/Swiss/German CC number / address. Not impossible, just tricky. Cheaper than Vader Streams :> but doesn't have all PL games

Interesting article:

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/10795317/premier-league-granted-court-order-to-stop-streaming-of-games

sort of related

NZ First MP's bill to make national sporting events free-to-air doesn't have the numbers

We wanted to let you know about some changes we’re making to the passes available on Fan Pass. We wanted Fan Pass to give Kiwis the freedom to dip in and out of sport by offering short-term flexible passes. However, sports rights aren’t cheap and it’s just not stacking up for us as much as we’ve tried to make it work. So we’ve had to make the following changes which will affect you: - From 24th May, you’ll no longer be able to get a Day or Week pass on Fan Pass. - The cost of the Month pass will increase from $55.99 per month to $99.99 per month from 24th May. - We’ll be introducing a 6 Month pass which will be a one-off payment of $329.99. It’s a big payment upfront but it still works out as less than $2 a day which is pretty good value. That could give you the entire All Blacks Season from kick off to the final whistle. If none of these changes are your cup of tea, SKY have got an offer where you can join SKY with no joining fee and get a $150 account credit on a 6 month Basic contract. If you want further information, call SKY on 0800 800 759. The team at Fan Pass will still be working hard on the side line to make sure you’ve got a great sport streaming service to watch SKY Sport 1-4 and Pay-Per-View Events. Thanks

The team at FAN PASS

There goes the other streaming option, being a football fan in NZ is really costly for us considering what gets given compared to other sports. Pretty much all the football I watch has increased in price (A-league, SSprem, All Whites) and considering most of the content gets shafted to Popup Channels I can't justify investing into this ponzi scheme. Sky basically pay nothing for the rights of the sports I watch yet because Rugby and NRL is so expensive we have to pay more. Worst part is that its only for 4 sport channels you might aswell just get a Sky subscription.

Sky never wanted Fan Pass to work! They would rather not offer the product where customers can pick and choice what they want. Look at this, you can get this for a min 6 months at the moment for the same cost a month that Fan Pass will now be.

Sky Basic + Sky Sport + MySkyPlus is $99.81 a month...why would anyone use FanPass? (You also can currently get free til June 1 month, or $120 credit as well)