NZRU and the Media
-
Sounds a fair enough clause to me. The NZRU aren't saying they can't show a short clip of tries or major incidents to support their story just that they can't provide an extended highlights package that they don't pay for.
News media website are grabbing whatever content they can for free to bulk out the paucity of product they make or pay for themselves.
I'm sure that in the future, should the NZRU retain ownership of the product for broadcasing, this will be imposed with them having to buy highlights to put on their sites.
News should be freely gathered but I can't see how that should extend to freely taking something that others have paid for and own. -
-
@Tim Sky are fluffybunnies, but I expect the Stuff people are fluffybunnies too...
-
-
@taniwharugby Fairfax are complete fluffybunnies. Them taking the moral high ground on anything is laughable. But we've always known Sky are fluffybunnies.
I don't envy NZR.
-
@Tim said in NZRU and the Media:
The other side of this is that newspapers have narrow margins, and anyone can get extended highlights in five seconds by visiting youtube.
How is that Sky’s problem? If they can’t afford to use someone else content, bad luck.
There is a provision that allows them to use highlights for free.
-
-
@Tim said in NZRU and the Media:
@Kirwan If you negotiate with partners you have to take their ability to pay and their situation into account. Saying "too bad get fucked" is juvenile and does nothing for your business.
They aren’t partners, they are competitors to the entity that bought their broadcast rights. If they want partners to continue to give them a good price for those rights they have to help protect them.
Otherwise they get less cash and we start losing players.
-
@Kirwan They are their media partners. They promote Sky's content by covering it, whether they explicitly pay for highlights access or not. This is a clear relationship.
If Sky tell media organisations that their conditions are not important in determining access and prices then that is fine. It's pretty unlikely that they will get the most beneficial relationship with their media partners by doing this though.
It seems clear to me that Sky is used to doing what it wants. Increasingly they are not the only game in town, and neither is rugby. Being petty when dealing with authorised channels, when pirates and scoff-laws are free to profit, seems rather short-sighted.
The NZRU aren't the only ones with a moral case or stake. Acting like it won't help anyone.
-
@Kirwan said in NZRU and the Media:
@Tim said in NZRU and the Media:
The other side of this is that newspapers have narrow margins, and anyone can get extended highlights in five seconds by visiting youtube.
How is that Sky’s problem? If they can’t afford to use someone else content, bad luck.
There is a provision that allows them to use highlights for free.
@Kirwan said in NZRU and the Media:
@Tim said in NZRU and the Media:
The other side of this is that newspapers have narrow margins, and anyone can get extended highlights in five seconds by visiting youtube.
How is that Sky’s problem? If they can’t afford to use someone else content, bad luck.
There is a provision that allows them to use highlights for free.
I think that is the point.
I read that article as saying that the original document presented to Fairfax said that by accepting the accreditation the media outlets are giving up any claim to any highlights/footage whatsover under the fair dealing provision of the copyright act.
That was a bridge too far for Fairfax. By signing the document they would have been giving up something that they are entitled to do under copyright law. Why would they sign it in that case?
The amended wording seems better, but still sounds vague. A simple definition of x minutes of highlights per game would be in everyone's interests I think.
