The hole in the copy-proof fence


I Have To Agree

The fundamental mistake that the ARL/AFL made was to try and do an exclusive deal for the internet as a seperate delivery medium to the normal TV broadcast system.

I recently wanted to listen to the cricket test. The ABC normally broadcasts cricket but I had no radio where I was. That's not a problem however because the ABS also streams online.

Except for the cricket they don't and I assume that this is because they don't have the online streaming rights.

I gave up at that point and decided not to put in any more effort because I wasn't <i>that</i> interested and I know from past experience that the people who probably own "the rights" are Channel 9 (TV station) and their commentary is absolutely worthless without the accompanying video feed because they don't describe the cricket, they just talk crap about what they had for lunch and maybe mention noteworthy activity on the field when they get bored.

The fault for this state of affairs lies with Cricket Australia (as well as the AFL/ARL et al).

They should sell the complete set of rights to whoever pays the is the highest bidder.

The winning bidder then has an exclusive right to insert advertising into their presentation of the game.

From there on <i>it should not matter how the presentation is delivered to the viewer as long as the advertising remains intact</i>

When this happens this whole sorry subject becomes moot.


Back to the forum


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017