Forget, Mayweather v. Pacquaio: The Big Fight Was Apparently Hollywood v. Periscope Streaming
from the oh-make-it-stop dept
Remember, just last week, when HBO and Showtime were flipping out about a couple of streaming sites promising to broadcast live streams of the big Floyd Mayweather/Manny Pacquiao fight? Apparently, they had the wrong target.
Just a few weeks earlier, we had noted that Hollywood seemed to be losing its mind over the latest round of livestreaming apps. Never mind that livestreaming apps have been around for ages, but because there were two new shiny ones (Periscope, which is owned by Twitter, and Meerkat), suddenly it was a “big deal” again. Especially when it came to sporting events. We’d already discussed the NHL’s silly ban on reporters, saying they couldn’t use Periscope. All of that came together this weekend in a collective mess.
First, many of the big pay TV providers experienced outages, meaning that people who paid $100 to see just this one fight found themselves completely locked out. Looking for a solution, they turned to Periscope. And they apparently found what they were looking for.
Either way, given how popular the bogus storyline is that there’s some sort of existential struggle between Silicon Valley and Hollywood, the resulting news story practically writes itself. Once again, we hear of big bad technology completely tearing down pure hearted big copyright holders, and how “something must be done!”
It will be absurd for Twitter to mount the defense that it complies with any takedown notices filed over copyright-infringing content. Because by the time the compliance occurs the livestream is already over, the company is going to need to figure out a better way to combat piracy on the fly. Periscope may require something like Google?s Content ID system, technology capable of identifying forbidden streams in an instant, and maybe even converting them to transactional opportunities for legal alternatives to the content in question.
Wait, it would be absurd for Twitter to say, “Look, we comply with the law, what else do you want us to do?” Why? Why is it Twitter’s responsibility here? Why not the promoters of the show to make sure that their partners supplying the paid streams actually have technology infrastructure in place that works? Or why not Showtime and HBO for creating additional reasons for people to sign up for its service, rather than signing on to one of the Periscope streams?
Why, again, does Hollywood always seem to (1) blame the tech industry for its own failures and (2) then demand that the tech industry magically stop what is unstoppable? Why not, instead, recognize that the technology is really useful, that people like it, and look for ways to take advantage of that? Why not offer an official Periscope stream or partner with others who are Periscoping on their own to offer different/better commentary? There are many things that they could do to embrace things rather than complain about it (or threaten to sue).
Technology keeps advancing. Pretending that you can stop that technology is not a productive path towards the future. Hollywood keeps having to relearn this lesson with every new major technological advancement. It tried to stop the radio, the television, cable TV, the photocopier, the VCR, the MP3 player, the DVR, YouTube and more. One day, you’d think they’d learn that this is a bad strategy.
Filed Under: copyright, dick costolo, floyd mayweather, livestreaming, manny pacquaio, streaming, takedowns
Companies: hbo, periscope, showtime, twitter
Comments on “Forget, Mayweather v. Pacquaio: The Big Fight Was Apparently Hollywood v. Periscope Streaming”
“First, many of the big pay TV providers experienced outages, meaning that people who paid $100 to see just this one fight found themselves completely locked out.”
Will those people be paid a refund. Don’t hold your breath.
Re: Re:
“Sorry, but we can’t let you watch the fight you paid for. Pirates streaming the fight have irreparably damaged us monetarily.”
“But you applied for an injunction and stopped the streaming!”
“Um… yeah, but we still asked for damages to cover the irreparable damage we asked the court to stop. Until we get them we’ll hold onto your money.”
“Hey guys, what’s up? I just watched the fight for free on Periscope.”
“FUUUUUUUUUUUUU – “
Re: Re:
Hell fucking no. But you can bet your bottom dollar they WILL be prosecuted if they were to find alternative, non-legal ways to view their legally-paid-for event that they can’t watch due to the failure of the broadcasters to provide him what he paid for in the first place. Money flows one-way: from the consumer, to Big Media. Prosecutions flow one-way: from Big Media, to the consumer. Until this changes, there WILL be “piracy” and other forms of disobedience to balance the equation.
But...but...it's MAGIC!!!!!!
So of course the magic wand can be waved and it all made better, that is like it was…crooked accounting, arbitrary power, and all!
Want another ridiculous one? My GAS PUMP was advertising the tonight show last night…at 11PM Eastern, 10PM central! Do they really go to bed earlier in Chicago???
“the company is going to need to figure out a better way to combat piracy on the fly”
…because that’s easier than identifying the actual causes of piracy and combating them instead of the platforms that some pirates use (right up until they move to the next one we’re not attacking at that moment.
It’s the same old story, and it seems to have the same answers. For example, I notice that the screenshot says “Global” as a heading. So, where were the people actually situated? I’m going to guess not all in the US, although the usual morons will claim they were. Were there any local options at all, since this varies wildly from region to region? Were they actually accessible to everyone (and not, say, on an option only available to a small percentage of the population at a fortnight’s salary?. Were there any technical or other issues that caused people who *had* paid legally to see it to seek out other avenues?
Of course, it’s easier to say “they must do something” rather than find the root cause. But that will only last until the next technology. Because if demand is not served by those who control access, others will find a way. It’s been like this since before Napster, but I’m going to guess we’ll have to endure the same lies and attacks until something is done to address the existing supply issues.
“Periscope may require something like Google’s Content ID system”
ContentID, the system that continually attacks not only legal uses of content, but takes down artists’ own streams based on false positives? The one where the people who actually own the content have to jump through hoops to stream their own work if it wasn’t sold to a corporation, which often takes weeks or months with no guarantees of it not happening again once it’s unblocked?
That sounds about right for them – “it’s too hard to police our content, so we’ll make someone else do it at the expense of every media type we don’t own”.
Re: Re:
It is amusing to see the MAFIAA admitting Google does it right…
Re: Re: Re:
Not really. It just means that their boogeyman isn’t named “Google” this time.
It also shows that they don’t give two craps about the many demonstrably flaws that ContentID has, because the lawsuits means that all errors favour them. Anyone who understands the issues would see that adding a live time-sensitive element to censorship is going to be disastrous – for non-**AA members, of course, since they’ll be the ones controlling what was automatically “legit”. They’d rather have a million innocent people fighting against Twitter after losing their own revenue than have to police their own live events – and if that means paying lip service in Google’s favour then so be it.
Normal propaganda will resume shortly.
I wonder why they are so worried about some shaky, low quality videos. I mean, if given the choice I would go for the channel that can offer me high resolution, quality and multiple angles. Unless, of course, they charge outrageous amounts of money for it or can’t deliver the experience.
So what are they afraid of?
Re: Re:
They are afraid that the cozy cartel which are the media middlemen will lose their income as they are replaced by direct to customer channels.
Re: Re:
They are afraid that many people don’t really care about the quality of the content, but the outcome of the fight…
Are you the same person that refuses to watch a DVD version of a movie because the bluray is somehow superbly better?
I have news for you – high definition isn’t always important to everyone (probably not even most people), and some of us are happy to purchase your old video games and old DVDs that are now “substandard”.
As for TV – I don’t bother to pay for HD content – SD is plenty for my needs, and it’s relatively cheap these days as long as you don’t care much. TV is for idle entertainment when i’m too lazy to do something more interesting.
Re: Re:
Probably of the same danger that blurred/shaky cam rips of new movies supposedly do their bottom line.
“Twitter HELPS piracy…which is basically one step away from aiding and abetting terrorists and child pornographers. We must ban Twitter!”
-Hollywood probably
Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
That’s the right statement.
To hold as Masnick does that new gadgetry trumps the rights of persons to what they’ve made (besides to privacy) is more similar in principle to “scientific” Nazi-ism and communism than to humanism. Disparaging private property even when it’s an “intellectual” kind leads only to authoritarian surveillance state based on “technology”.
Masnick yet again throws in a list of gadgets as if those are responsible for the value of creations, and not the recognition and maintaining of rights over the creation.
Viewers as such are not worth anything: only those who PAY are. So far as Twitter now enables destructive infringements of the values that others make, it needs to be suppressed.
But beyond that, so long as people are stupid enough to pay $100 (or even the time) to see two athletic brutes competing at savagery, there’s no hope for civilization.
We’re living the dystopian future where gadgets are more dangerous than opiates.
Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
Hark! Mike is claiming this fictional fact that I made up my head! heed my personal attacks and not demand any evidence! I won’t even present arguments that contain internal logic, I just need to attack someone writing on this site!
“But beyond that, so long as people are stupid enough to pay $100 (or even the time) to see two athletic brutes competing at savagery, there’s no hope for civilization.”
So… your argument is that rather than address the two parts of that which can be controlled by the media corporations you’re defending, you choose to attack the person writing about the alternatives?
Yeah, makes perfect sense.
Reality-based criticism will always get you further here. try it.
Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
What in the seven hells have I read here?
Masnick yet again throws in a list of gadgets as if those are responsible for the value of creations, and not the recognition and maintaining of rights over the creation.
Actually he is merely saying that the services and gadgets ADD value to the creation. A creation that’s only known by their creator or a select few is useless and will die with time. The great creations from the past of human kind are not known and spread nowadays because they were protected by some pseudo right, they are known because they were copied and made available to everyone.
Viewers as such are not worth anything: only those who PAY are. So far as Twitter now enables destructive infringements of the values that others make, it needs to be suppressed.
And you, sir, should be shot for even thinking such absurd. Good thing there are laws and that I do respect your right to hold a different opinion as imbecile as it is. As if there aren’t tons of people making their work available for free all over. If anything needs suppression it’s the MAFIAA and friends who actively try to erode people rights and destroy new, useful tools.
But beyond that, so long as people are stupid enough to pay $100 (or even the time) to see two athletic brutes competing at savagery, there’s no hope for civilization.
As much as I agree that these events are lame you and I are NOT in the position to judge if something is stupid or not. I smell the small totalitarian tyrant in you. And it sure smells bad.
We’re living the dystopian future where gadgets are more dangerous than opiates.
Opiates, derivatives or substances based on them are largely used for medicinal purposes. Sure they CAN be dangerous but it doesn’t mean they are. But again, you have the right to yell at the cloud so keep going if it satisfies you.
Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
Read it three times and, wow, just wow…
What century did you crawl out from under? This newfangled printing press thingy is like, I dunno, the opiate of the masses eh?
Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
Hilarious! Tagged that as funny.
Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
I agree. Hollywood should disband and the industry should refocus on live theater. They could perform in an intense EM field to minimize the likely hood of technology enabling pirates to somehow record the performance. Only this way can modern society truly focus on intellectual pursuits unabated by space age nazi-communist technobabble like “entertainment” or “accessibility”. Verily, science has gone too far this time.
Re: Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
Theaters are on the way out in coming years. Once VR replaces the theater experience with a similar experience without the annoying people, there will br little reason to go to the theaters.
Re: Re: Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
You missed the part where it said “live theatre” where going to see live people is the whole point.
Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
No, that’s not true at all, you moron.
Pay attention to the actual words, and not what your paradox filter claims them to be.
Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
Terrorism. You forgot to say that the straw man you’re arguing against is akin to terrorism. And puppy-kicking. You’re not very experienced with inciting moral panics, are you?
Re: Re:
Funny that you think not sticking to words that have the letters “tor” in them is somehow going to prevent people from knowing it’s you, out_of_the_asscrack.
You mock people if they pay, you mock people if they don’t.
Since you have such an anti-hardon for technology why are you even online if you hate it so, so much?
Re: Technology is not a productive path towards the future.
Pretty good parody of the property rights side. Kudos!
Or, were you serious? Remember about a century ago when a pianist would go up on a stage in front of an audience and it was grand for everybody? Then some techie a-hole invented player pianos and anyone who bought one could buy a roll of paper from the artist and recreate their performance at will, any time and anywhere, over and over, only having to pay for it once. Artists screamed it would be the end of performers, despite the fact they were making a killing off all those copies of their performances they were selling to people who never had a chance to get anywhere near a live performance.
Here we are a century and a half later and you’re still grumbling about the same thing. I see Roger Waters (of Pink Floyd) is accusing his fans of being filthy pirates now too, despite the fact I’ve been buying his LPs, cassette tapes, and CDs of their works all along.
I love his music, despite the fact he appears to be an idiot savant.
I too think it’s pretty silly for anyone to shell out a hundred bucks for a boxing match (once you’ve seen one, you’ve seen ’em all), but that’s hardly relevant to the article we’re discussing here, except for the fact that those who shelled out for the authorized performance were the ones who got ripped off when the distributor failed to come through on their side of the bargain. Charming. Way to support your committed fans.
“Another apologized as he tried his best to hold the view steady, earning scorn from the viewers as he tried to keep the phone pointed at the television.”
LOL. Douchebag Nation defined.
Re: Re:
Shitty view is a shitty view.
If you seriously think your business model is being threatened by shitty cams…
Think how much money was lost!
I am going to have to side with Comcast and Time Warner on this one. Think about how much money they lost because people were using Periscope rather than cable television. People were not using cable television since they could get it for free, and the cable companies are the big losers. In fact so few people actually watched it on cable that big cable may have to refund their money. A sad situation all around and another win for the pirates. Expect a surge in sales for eye patches.
“Periscope may require something like Google’s Content ID system, technology capable of identifying forbidden streams in an instant, and maybe even converting them to transactional opportunities for legal alternatives to the content in question.”
We are so far removed from the idea that we are here to sell things to consumers, we demand everyone else figure out how to make us more money.
We need a magic wand to fix everything, or just give us the power to shut down the whole net so we can sleep at night not terrified that some new technology will show once again we forget that customers are more important than the dollars we imagine we deserve.
We need everyone to support our failing industry, pay no attention to our earnings statements and raises at the top levels… that is all just Hollywood accounting.
ContentID? The thing that’s widely abused for censorship, malicious intent and circumstantial stupidity that the bigger YouTubers are unanimously frustrated with and are all asking for a fix? Yeah, not a prime example of a shining beacon of technological marvel.
It should go to say something about the state of things when legacy cultural lockup groups are saying it’s good. If it were good, they wouldn’t like it at all.
Re: Re:
They like it because all the screwups are in their favour, and they can use it to force Google to take care of all the responsibility and complaints. If they had half the problems other people have been having, it would be the worst thing ever invented and they’re be suing Google for implementing the system they demanded in the first place.
All this piracy
This is so lazy on the part of the piracy victims. If they wanted to they could eliminate all piracy completely. Here’s how: Sell tickets to the event. Ensure that no electronics are allowed into the building – say every attendee has to change clothes into an event jumpsuit along with a good strip search – the TSA could help here (some off duty hours to those dedicated airport security mavens.) Cell phone jammers and some of that nice fake cell tower technology the FBI won’t admit to using would prevent anything from leaking out. Cut off all the phone, DSL, Cable, Internet from the building, and jam all radio transmissions during the event.
Viola – no piracy just like in 1810.
. It tried to stop the radio, the television, cable TV, the photocopier, the VCR, the MP3 player, the DVR, YouTube and more. One day, you’d think they’d learn that this is a bad strategy.
It’s not a losing strategy. They aren’t trying to stop the technological inevitables, just to delay. Every day they keep the status quo they rake in more sweet lucre. And if they hold the tide back long enough they may just have enough time to figure out how to profit from the new “big thing” as well.
Re: Re:
You are wrong for one reason, the Internet means that it is no longer possible to control access to the means of copying and distribution , at least not without destroying the Internet. The Legacy content industries are built on control of physical copying and distribution, and that gave them a monopoly on what content was put before a mass audience, and they have lost that control. Piracy will not kill them, and if anything will prolong their life but putting their content before new audiences.
t is all the platforms that allow people to self publish and to find content that interests them will eventually kill them. The only hope the legacy content industry has in the long term is to either gain control over, or to kill the Internet.
Re: Re: Re:
There is still another aspect where they retain control and can do so even with the internet and that’s directing masses of people to be interested in their product over any other product. This fight is a great example.
In a world where everyone can publish without a gatekeeper, the prize goes to the person who can get the most attention.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That direction of interest is based on their ability to influence people through the channels that they control, as more and more people cut the cable, their ability to direct attention becomes less and less.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Yes, but it’s likely that someone will always control cultural influence – either the current gatekeepers or the gatekeepers of tomorrow. That control might be temporary or intangible but it will always be worth something.
Re: Re: Re:
The internet isn’t something you can “kill”. It was invented by the US military. If it sees regulation to bring it into compliance with laws already on the books, that would be something brought on by a-holes trying to take advantage of others, not the “legacy content industry”, which, you might notice, also happens to be the current, contemporary content industry.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
300 hours a minute uploaded to Youtube alone, the legacy Industry is no longer a major producer of content. Also, by making every site exercise editorial control over any content on their site and/or being able to shut down any site that they do not like, the legacy Industry could kill the Internet as we know it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
300 hours a minute of babies smiling/barfing, cat’s being cute and bad karaoke isn’t the content industry.
Sorry.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
300 hours a minute of babies smiling/barfing, cat’s being cute and bad karaoke isn’t the content industry.
Sorry.
It most certainly is content and it’s competing with the legacy content creators for eyeballs and time.
Your snobbish disdain isn’t going to make that fact change anytime soon. Sorry.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You don’t get to YouTube much, do you?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
There is some content not worth watching on Youtube that competes with the content not worth watching on cable, and at least people are not paying for it to be created, unlike the cable channels.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
“There is some content not worth watching on Youtube that competes with the content not worth watching on cable”
Well said. Even if what he said was true, I’d rather be watching cat videos than whatever the Kardashian family is being paid to whore themselves out for this time. I also have the option to watch neither.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
” I’d rather be watching cat videos than whatever the Kardashian family is being paid to whore themselves out for this time.”
True! At least the kitties make me smile. This will be my go-to comparison from now on. Thank you!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
You mean the content industry who uploaded their own content to YouTube, then called it infringing and demanded that YouTube pay through the nose/shut down for not taking down the content the instant it was uploaded? That content industry?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“300 hours a minute of babies smiling/barfing, cat’s being cute and bad karaoke isn’t the content industry.”
Nor is it most of what’s being uploaded to YouTube.
Either your subscriptions suck or – yet again – you base everything on a convenient fantasy. I know it makes your constant defence of the indefensible easier if you pretend that no worthwhile content is produced unless they’re paid for by a media conglomerate with rights assigned for infinity+1 years, but reality is catching up with you again.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
The Youtube haters don’t actually use Youtube.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Just like the color gray, there are many shades of hate. I like YouTube, but unlike that Fenderton guy, I don’t use it for kitten videos.
I’ve never created an account there so don’t even login. I’ve only once bothered to read the comments there, and that was just to see if it really is the worst example of a comment forum (no, it’s not). I also don’t go there to learn about new music. I long ago gave up on the idea that anyone was going to create new music today that I’d appreciate. The stuff I look for is decades old.
Sometimes, I click on links and play them from there. For stuff I really like, I use it as a search engine to find links I can hand to “youtube-dl”.
Almost everything I use it to get, I’ve owned paid for copies of it in the past which I’ve either lost or the media they were on wore out or were damaged.
No, I couldn’t care less what the Kardashians are up to, ever, and I’m very particular in the things I hate and at what level I hate them. YouTube, I hate very little of, and that’s very easy to avoid.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Sounds like you don’t hate Youtube at all. Sounds like you use it for exactly what it’s for – a place to watch videos that interest you.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
Yeah. 🙂 It doesn’t always work and a lot of requests to just dl something complain about something then fail. That’s fair. I wonder how it’s possible/allowed these days but nobody’s sending me angry demands, so far. I believe something in Canada’s laws may allow it, though I’ve vaguely heard that’s no longer quite true due to recent updates to the law. Dunno.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“Almost everything I use it to get, I’ve owned paid for copies of it in the past which I’ve either lost or the media they were on wore out or were damaged.”
You do realise that doesn’t matter to the **AA cartels, right? Doesn’t matter whether you paid for it before or not, whether there’s a legal copy available or not, both you and YouTube are dirty pirates in their minds and you both need to be shut down. That’s why these discussions are important and why their side is not always the right side.
I’ll never understand the attitude of “nothing good has been created for decades so I won’t even bother looking”, but YouTube certainly does seem to be working better for you than traditional media outlets. Why so negative about it?
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
The feeling’s mutual. I don’t care what they think.
It’s more the fact that my plate’s already full. I’ve been wanting to dig deeper into the stuff I already like, not find more to pile on top.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“The internet isn’t something you can “kill”.”
Not only can the internet be killed, Gizmodo detailed one way to do it.
I would argue that it’s even easier, depending on what you mean by “kill the internet”. When I use the phrase, I’m not talking about eliminating the ability to move packets from one place to another. The internet stopped being just a network of networks a long time ago. “Killing the internet” to me means to eliminate it as a way for anyone to communicate freely and easily with the entire world.
If some corporations get their way and turn the internet into a communications system that only the wealthy and powerful can use to full effect, that is killing it just as much, if not more, than cutting every network cable.
This is not a copyright issue. Sporting events cannot be copyrighted as there is not underlying script. The professional broadcast can be, but if you are independently filming then what’s the issue?
A pirates life for me
Yo ho, yo ho
Content ID works by having the content already and scanning it in it’s entirety. Live content can’t be scanned in this fashion. It would take tremendous computing resources to scan live stuff and it would introduce a delay, making it no longer Live.
It’s not Twitter’s job anyways. Twitter doesn’t work for you MPAA, if you want to buy the company then you can make demands. Until then STFU.
Re: Re:
Plus, under the best of circumstances, Content ID doesn’t work very well at all.
I’m trying to figure out how companies are supposed to be able to create a contentID system for a live event. I know!
If (true == true) {
blockStream(ID_ALL_STREAMS);
}
Can’t believe people paid $100 for the fight, it was $33.22 in the UK at today’s exchange rates.
Re: Re:
“The land of the free” is an obsolete slogan. We’re “the land of the overcharged” now.
The whole fight was a circus.
The big problem is that you have a divided society and everyone wants to feel included. One class is able to pay for seats another for the stream and then another group would have to for go food to see it.
Hollywood keeps having to relearn
Learning denotes intelligence, but Hollywood is driven by GREED and power. There never has been and never will be any actual learning.