iplayer LIVE is different to watching via TV, how?

FoxEye

FoxEye

FoxEye

Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
l7pJ87X.jpg


If you try to watch anything decent on iplayer LIVE, this is what you will doubtless encounter.

My question is, why is the legality of live, scheduled online streaming different to live, scheduled TV broadcast?

Everyone has a recording device hooked up to their TV, and arguably it's more difficulty to set up recording an iPlayer stream.

We're not talking "on demand" either - we're talking watching live broadcast TV on your PC, as it's broadcast.

Yet it seems the content owners can find a difference, and obviously they want more money to let anything be broadcast online.

It just shows how backwards all content owners are, and how they are trying desperately to fight against technology (it's not even modern technology!)
 
NoNameNoNumber said:
I've never seen that and I don't have a TV... All I watch is iplayer and 4OD
Click to expand...

Happens when you try to watch just about any film via iPlayer LIVE.

Eg try watching Indy Jones and the Last Crusade on BBC3 via iPlayer right now. It's an ancient film too.

But I could just turn on my TV and watch it on BBC3 with no problem at all.
 
Generally because the rights the BBC have to show whatever programme is live, doesnt extend to internet streaming - its like why some programmes cant be shown on +1 channels...

Perhaps the BBC just dont think its value for money to extend that service - I agree its annoying but we are slowly but surely getting there - content providers are well aware how much their programming is worth...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Last edited:
ps3ud0 said:
Generally because the rights the BBC have to show whatever programme is live, doesnt extend to internet streaming - its like why some programmes cant be shown on +1 channels...

ps3ud0 :cool:
Click to expand...

Which is because content owners want extra money for every conceivable method of broadcast. It's really daft.

As we go forwards and more people get their TV via the 'net (already the norm in other countries), what the heck are they going to do then? Double the license fee to pay the content owners twice for all content?

It's absurd.
 
Sorry I edited my reply afterwards as it was obvious I didnt read your OP properly. I agree, unfortunately any value that the content providers can attempt to fake theyll try and take.

Tough for us trying to transition between traditional live channel viewing then picking and choosing the specific content we want to watch; when we want to watch; and how we want to watch...

I dont know what the solution is, the worry is while we try and attempt to improve how such content is charged we could also be shooting ourselves in the foot by affecting how willing these content providers are to producing/investing in new content...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Last edited:
its due to the bbc not having enough cash to buy online repeat streaming rights after that bloody tumble show.
 
ps3ud0 said:
Tough for us trying to transition between traditional live channel viewing then picking and choosing the specific content we want to watch; when we want to watch; and how we want to watch...

I dont know what the solution is, the worry is while we try and attempt to improve how such content is charged we could also be shooting ourselves in the foot by affecting how willing these content providers are to producing/investing in new content...

ps3ud0 :cool:
Click to expand...

OK, but as stated we're not talking about iPlayers on-demand capabilities.

I was referring strictly to the LIVE streaming of what's currently being aired by the broadcast TV stations. We're not talking about content that's made available on iPlayer after it's been aired on TV.

You can also listen live to all the BBC's radio stations, and they are not affected in the same way. Again, the record industry appears to be light-years ahead of the film industry. At no time when you're listening to a BBC radio station online does it say "Sorry, this song is only available via AM/FM/digital radio broadcast."

It seems bizarre that different mediums of live broadcast can be subject additional licenses. There should be a license to broadcast LIVE over any medium.

I can tolerate/understand/see the logic in a separate license arrangement for on-demand content.

But having multiple licenses for LIVE broadcast per medium used is really just greed.
 
As has been said rights for film/tv etc vary depending on all sorts of factors, from the top of my head they include:
First run in the country regardless of delivery method (terrestrial, cable, satellite) and sometimes if it's encrypted or not (IE Sky vs freesat).
If it's on a +1 channel.
First run on Terrestrial
VOD
Streaming and first run streaming.

Chances are that one of the other broadcasters of VOD companies may well have the streaming rights fully tied up, IIRC at one point years before Sky did internet streaming they were buying up exclusive rights for the streaming of content knowing that by doing so they were going to in theory make more people sign up for Sky satellite where they might be showing the programme on a regular basis.

"Live" streaming for a prerecorded show or film is no different to streaming it from say Netflix as far as the rights are often concerned.
There are also issues that the BBC for example face that netflix/sky don't when it comes to streaming in that you don't need any login for the iplayer, so as far as some rights holders are concerned it's much more likely for someone outside of the licensed region to watch the content (in theory netflix etc could easily lock their content down to the region the payment card is registered to, and IIRC Amazon do that for some of their downloads).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom