WIN and Nine’s live streaming standoff: are they heading for divorce?
With Nine and WIN duking it out in court over live streaming Nic Christensen looks at the implications of the case and asks if the partners are heading for splitsville.
Sitting in court over the last couple of days watching Nine Entertainment Co and WIN go at each other put me in mind of a divorce case on some cheesy US drama.
And like any marriage gone bad there were some interesting – and heated – moments that have played out so far.
Some TV industry executives have suggested that this court case is just a wily billionaire Bruce Gordon attempting to build “the great geoblock of Wollongong”, a requirement WIN is seeking that Nine not provide online streaming of its services in his licence areas, but in fact this case has broader ramifications than just one media mogul seeking to turn back the tide and switch off the internet.
Well done Nick – you have provided excellent coverage of this particular media story for some time.
It just seems extraordinary that the regionals did not understand the need to deal with the impending impact of live streaming long before 2015. WTF were they being paid for?
Excellent reporting and comments. Spot on Laurie.
In days or yore broadcasting (i.e. via the airwaves) was a synchronous event. You pumped the footy out and the consumer switched the TV on to watch. When internet access hit that content was able to be downloaded – clearly not a broadcast as the video stream was not synchronous. The consumer clicked on the link and a one-to-one stream started.
With live streaming we were back to a synchronous mode. Pump the footy put both over the airwaves and down a fat cable. The consumer either turned the TV or clicked on the live stream link.
So, on this basis I do see WIN’s point. But clearly some legal eagles were asleep at the wheel.
But this could set an ugly precedent if video downloads or delayed streams are caught up in this.
Consider that an enterprise like Sydney Water has the rights to provide water to all the homes in Sydney and trade at a profit. Turn the tap on – there is water. It is synchronous to all homes.
Also consider that you can get bottled water delivered to your own home – this is asynchronous. It is also the consumers right to choose to get that bottled water delivered.
I sure as hell hope that this law case doesn’t have unforeseen consequences on ‘rights’ beyond the narrow case of the provision of video entertainment.