Comments on: Premier League vs YouTube – a misguided attack on the wrong target

By: Toby

Toby — Tue, 08 May 2007 09:33:24 +0000

YouTube for me is the opportunity to see goals that I was never going to see anyway because:

a) I don’t subscribe to any subscription sports channels at home
b) I couldn’t make it to the game
c) I couldn’t make it to the pub

This means often I was never going to subscribe to view this EPL content through any of the channels through which they were available. I would simply have given it a miss, therefore no revenue to EPL from me.

What difference does it make then if the content is made available to me to view often 2-3 days after the game.

The EPL also need to understand that it’s a huge job to monitor the copyright of every one on the billions of vids on there. If they feel hard done by they should see how many whole episodes of shows are put up there.

By: Karl

Karl — Tue, 08 May 2007 07:48:01 +0000

I don’t quite understand the legality of this… (forgive my ignorance).
If I pay to watch a game on TV (TV license or subscription), and especially if the game have been televised to the ‘public’, then surely I can record that game? If I record it, then surely I can show it to anyone afterwards without breaking any copyright laws if I don’t charge people to watch it?
I have not seen one game where it states before the game “The folloing game is the copyright material of the English Premier League. Any copying of this game is strictly prohibited. Should you record it, you will be prosecuted”. Is that not a pre-requisite for copyright?

By: Ahmed Bilal

Ahmed Bilal — Tue, 08 May 2007 05:22:52 +0000

And i’d probably pay a few bucks to skip the ads, especially if I’m watching a couple of dozen clips every weekend.

By: EPL - The Biggest Threat to Youtube? at of cats and dags

EPL - The Biggest Threat to Youtube? at of cats and dags — Tue, 08 May 2007 01:13:10 +0000

[...] for any other form of entertainment from video hosting sites like Youtube. I had posted this on Soccerlens, but feel it to be fairly general to be posted here too. One doesn’t need to know football to [...]

By: Gareth

Gareth — Mon, 07 May 2007 23:58:24 +0000

What’s the problem? It is not eating in to their revenue as it usually takes a day or two for someone to upload the match goals / highlights. People will not stop watching matches on Sky Sports because they can get it at a later date on YouTube! It looks like YouTube is going the same way as Napster did, but as with Napster, if YouTube ends up having to impose lots of restrictions then some more obscure site will take over.

By: Red Ranter

Red Ranter — Mon, 07 May 2007 23:28:26 +0000

[Ahmed]
Okay about the value addition thing. But the whole point of making the service paid is what drives people to Youtube doesn’t it? Even if you charge a penny a year, people tend to look for free options. Instead, I wouldn’t mind having a 20 second ad slot for a 5 minute clip. Advertising like what the big networks are doing at the moment, can help here.

By: Ahmed Bilal

Ahmed Bilal — Mon, 07 May 2007 23:04:32 +0000

RR,

I’d disagree with one thing you’ve said – providing match clips on the site DOES add value to the users (us fans) AND it is potentially expensive in terms of bandwidth (unless the PL acts smart and puts them up on YouTube in a branded channel).

If they’re putting it up on their own sites, let them charge for it. It allows them to create a membership base which in itself has long-term value. ManUtd.com charges a small fee per month for online access to MUTV, right?

Let the PL do the same. A lot of people will pay for it, and it will make life a lot easier for both sides.