Mobile TV Coverage - Optus Won

[Slattery_20]

Except ITunes pays commissions to musicians/artists etc?

They do, but you can store non-paid-for stuff on there too.
Perhaps iTunes is the wrong example.
But there are other places to store stuff in the cloud.

 

[PaulCat]

[/b]


ummm get a job maybe ?

I bought a new wireless fax/photocopier/scanner/printer for $99 last week. The standard of living is better than its ever been.

When i was a kid we were the only family that had a computer (bbc micro) in our whole town, now my 8 yr old niece has a mac, an ipad and an iphone, but none can apparently afford $5-10 to take a kid to the footy.

I dont get it.

Furn.......when was the last time you went to the footy????? It ain't 5-10 rods anymore. At Subiaco (read Perth) you are lucky to a ticket to start with.

Good luck watching the game on your printer!

A labourer with 3 kids and a mortgage or infact an unemployed parent should still get access to our great game. It is their children too that are the future of footy. All the other associated costs with going to a game these days puts it out of reach of such an example. So when the AFL has been making more money than ever, why has the game become less accessible to all, especially those of lower socio-economic status??????

Something is rotten in Denmark. Go OPTUS!!!!!!

 

[PaulCat]

Really?

MCG general admission is free for a kid under 6, and $2.50 for a kid under 15, for the H&A season. That's ridiculously cheap.

Fair Enough Slats,

Victoria does look after the punters far better but that is not necessarily the case in other states.

My case of going to see the mighty cats in Sydney is a prime point. Even when you are a member it is a gouge.

Have a look at who is running the NRL.........Isn't Gallop the bloke who was fronting Superleague??????? So with such monies is it now Superleague by default?????

Murdoch's filthy lucre doesn't necessarily make the game better.

 

[Baldur]

I don't get the difference bewteen this:

It's illegal for me to bit torrent a tv show off the internet to whatever device I like
But now it's legal for me to watch football in the same manner

anyone explain that?

Because you are not watching it in the same manner.

It is quite legal for you to record a program you can watch legally. Say a Free to Air broadcast of the AFL. Then upload that recording to a site in the internet. Then you download & watch that recording at some later time on whatever device you wish. There is nothing that says you cannot pay someone else to do the recording & storing for you.

What you cannot do is download somebody else’s recording & watch it. That is a breach of copy right.

Optus is making a separate recording for each person who requests it & providing that recording to that person. Basically they are acting as your home video recorder for a mobile phone for a fee.

I already access ebooks & computer games in a manner rather like this. I buy the ebook or game from an internet provider. Sometimes the ebook or game is even legally provided to me for free as a promotional gimmick.

At any time I am allowed to access & download my ebook or game from the internet provider. Indeed in some cases I will buy the rights though one internet provider, say Gamers Gate, but will access the game though another provider, Steam.

When you record or have Optus record for you a free to air broadcast you have in effect purchased limited rights. The advertisements are what pay for the broadcast. If Optus stripped out the advertisements or otherwise seriously altered the broadcast then they would be in breach of the copyright.

Telstra who have purchased downstream rights is quite entitled to seriously alter the broadcast. I have often watched a game from the Bigpond site that was Free to Air, Telstra removes the ads.

 

[Tas]

On SEN this morning they had some media guy on who explained that the phone must be connected to a TV for the user to record.

If this is the case then why would Foxtel not take the manufactures of VCRs, DVD Recorders, PVRs and HDD Recorders to court. They offer the same outcome with there devices.

The fact is if I want football on my phone I don't need to pay Optus $10 a month to do it. People will pay for live footy on there phone but I doubt many would pay for replays when the can get it for free.

Everyone and his dog took manufacturers of VCRs to court for breach of copyright, it is where the reasonable use clause has come in to copyright law which allows people the freedom to record things and watch them at their leisure as long as they are not distributing or profiting from it.

Optus just offers the recording/playback service. It is people who have to physically record and play back the shows they want to watch.

The community decides what is and what isn't law, they do that by influencing governments, courts just make decisions based on what the spirit of the law means, even if the government doesn't like the outcome of the court case they would have a hard time getting support to pass modifications to the copyright act.

Most people will not have much sympathy for Telstra, they want to maintain a monopoly through a lack of trying, not look to offer a great service. They have pissed their internet rights down the toilet for how long providing nothing but shabby quality ever since they got exclusive rights. They don't care about meeting the needs of the public, they just want to have the only option available, they can never compete when it is fair competition.

They can die in a fire for all I care, let someone competent come in to fill the void.

 

[Final Siren]

A labourer with 3 kids and a mortgage or infact an unemployed parent should still get access to our great game. It is their children too that are the future of footy. All the other associated costs with going to a game these days puts it out of reach of such an example. So when the AFL has been making more money than ever, why has the game become less accessible to all, especially those of lower socio-economic status??????

Wildly off-topic, but this is why there shouldn't be one set AFL ticket price. North Melbourne play to half-empty stadiums; why not make their games cheaper? You'd get better crowds, better atmosphere, and your labourer could take his three kids and even have enough left over for a pie.

 

[Tas]

I don't get the difference bewteen this:

It's illegal for me to bit torrent a tv show off the internet to whatever device I like
But now it's legal for me to watch football in the same manner

anyone explain that?

Bit torrent is distribution, in part or whole. You are not allowed to distribute copyrighted material. A lot of stuff on bit torrent that has come from FTA also has the advertisements and credits stripped out to make a smaller file.

TV Now isn't a distribution, only the person who records the show can play it back through TV Now.

The main sticking point is the near live replaying, there is nothing in the legislation that covers this and without modification to the legislation the courts will be forced to treat TV Now as they would VCRs or PVRs.

 

[Tas]

Wildly off-topic, but this is why there shouldn't be one set AFL ticket price. North Melbourne play to half-empty stadiums; why not make their games cheaper? You'd get better crowds, better atmosphere, and your labourer could take his three kids and even have enough left over for a pie.

AFL/Docklands do not allow us to give chunks of tickets out for promotion, even if it would likely result in more matchday revenue.

 

[Baldur]

The main sticking point is the near live replaying, there is nothing in the legislation that covers this and without modification to the legislation the courts will be forced to treat TV Now as they would VCRs or PVRs.

This is very much how I use my Foxtel IQ now. Begin to record, let it run for 30 seconds or so & then watch it.

The reason? Live pause is a pain, it stops you doing other things, you must exit live pause first. So if I say Live pause to answer a call of nature, then later recall I forgot to set record for a program on another channel that is about to come on. I must exit live pause & lose part of the game to record that other program.

Just watch the fools make me in theory a criminal for doing this.

 

[Tuco]

In the vcr analogy what if you owned the equipment (phone) but paid me to come around and press record for you every time your team played so you could watch it when you come home from work? I'm not on either side really but can see how it's a 50/50.

So true.

I guess the key is: where is the "cloud' here? Is it at the user's "home" in a private residence just like a VCR and Optus have no control over the process? Or is the recording in fact at the "home" of Optus. And they courier it over to you in return for fee?

I'd suggest you could make a case that the content is not going straight from the tv to you. It's going to you after passinfg via Optus who make money from providing this service.

So it's not as if it's 3 steps as it is with a VCR:

1. You buy a vcr

(VCR company's financial role ceases prior to any copyrighting infringements)

2. You press "Record" in a private capacity
3. You press "play" at a time that suits you and watch it in a private capacity.

You could argue it's really:

1. You pay Optus to set up a VCR at their place.
2. You ask Optus to Press record on your behalf
3. Optus records the content and stores it for you for a month
4. You tell Optus you're ready to watch it - equivalent to pressing "play"
5. Optus then sends the vcr recording to your house - equivalent to streaming to your device
6. Customer watches content in a private capacity

Fascinating question isn't it?

 

[The_Wookie]

Even the judge isnt sure on the streaming of the content. Hes basically said, recording is covered by the Act under timeshift provisions, but that streaming it back is another issue altogether. hence separate cases.

 

[Slattery_20]

Fair Enough Slats,

Victoria does look after the punters far better but that is not necessarily the case in other states.

My case of going to see the mighty cats in Sydney is a prime point. Even when you are a member it is a gouge.

Have a look at who is running the NRL.........Isn't Gallop the bloke who was fronting Superleague??????? So with such monies is it now Superleague by default?????

Murdoch's filthy lucre doesn't necessarily make the game better.

I don't know the full seating plan, but I'm guessing your tickets were some sort of "premium" tickets. You do pay for that... through the nose. But that's your choice.
ANZ stadium still has (AFAIK) family tickets (2 adults, 2 kids up to 15, and any number of under 4s), they cost pretty much the same cost as 2 adults.
Standard ticket is listed at about $20 per adult. Not much more than a movie.

 

[MYOB]

A very interesting take on the situation.

http://technologyspectator.com.au/i...n=3b9dc42f06-TECH_SPEC_DAILY&utm_medium=email

 

[Final Siren]

I may be naive here, but using the VCR analogy you could argue that Optus is like a guy who records movies off the tv and then charges people to come over and watch them. And that is not legal at all.

So the debate becomes: has Optus in fact made a recording of copyrighted material, stored it and then sold it? So far the Judge doesn't think so. He ruled that the user made the recording and then watched it, and merely paid Optus for the software/service that allowed him to do this. But if the former was proven it would have major consequences.

Watch this space

Good call.

Precisely the point on which the appeal was upheld.

A summary of the three-judge panel's decision that Justice Finn read to the court said that one of the primary issues raised in the appeal was who should be considered the maker of the recording.

"The primary judge's answer to this was that the maker was the subscriber - ours is a different conclusion," Justice Finn said.​