★★★★★ 0/5

Networks push for copyright changes

This time it's not piracy that upsets networks, but the potential power of the NBN.

13
Leave a comment

2012-12-19_0144Not content with their permanent reduction in license fees and protection from a sixth network entering the market, free-to-air commercial networks are urging copyright law reforms, claiming  ISPs should pay them for retransmitting their content via the NBN.

The Australian reports Free TV members including Seven West Media, Nine Entertainment and the TEN Network are seeking to preserve the value of their content by adopting a hard-line approach to “retransmission” rights.

They have seized on comments by Communications Minister Stephen Conroy that the NBN will deliver “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds” of channels of new internet-protocol TV content, all without paying them for content.

A Free TV submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission argues, “Without the requisite copyright protection, broadcasters cannot control and monetise the use of their broadcasts by others, including new and emerging media platforms. This impedes their ability to operate as viable commercial businesses in the digital economy.”

The ALRC has been asked to report by the end of next year on the impact of copyright law on the digital economy.

Meanwhile, this week iiNet walked out of discussions with the government and industry over continued efforts to make ISPs responsible for the pirated transfers on their networks.

The government said yesterday it would wait for the ALRC to deliver its report.

13 Responses

  1. PJs Ronin hits the nail on the head. Networks have no choice but to deliver content to their audiences reliably and as soon as possible and then they may have a foot in the door with this complaint. Too often we are – as has been said before – left behind the rest of the world waiting for our favourite shows to air so any “retransmission” of a show could possibly be not a retransmission at all for many.

  2. It’s so tiresome seeing the old industry try and lobby for self-protection and seeking new punishments for their consumers. Will they ever try and join the revolution and start new methods of delivering content in quick and very cheap ways?

  3. They should consider themselves lucky if anybody wants to carry their rubbish content. But of course, the networks won’t have this epiphany until it’s a little too late.

  4. @Stephen, the commercial FTAs have paid a lot to be part of their oligarchy. They deserve to able to try to defend that investment. Especially for programs they’ve funded.

    Given the Optus/AFL decision, I’m not sure how the FTAs rights aren’t already protected.

  5. Pertinax: “As as the show is re-transmitted with ads it should be allowed, the same as is allowed by the law for cable.”

    FWIW, Australian FTA networks have to pay Foxtel etc to be carried on cable / satellite. Compare this to the rest of the civilized world, where Pay TV operators are either required by law to carry local FTA for free, or actually pay FTA networks for their programming.

  6. They tried this retransmission argument with cable tv a few years ago, but backed off once they realised they’d lose viewers.

    I find the FTA’s sense of entitlement remarkable.

  7. Commercial Networks are granted the right to advertise for providing a *free* service to the population.

    As as the show is re-transmitted with ads it should be allowed, the same as is allowed by the law for cable. And if it isn’t retransmitted on the NBN then they will lose a large chuck of what is left of their viewers so it is in their interests.

    If they want to charge for their service then they should just be treated the same as Foxtel and not get any discounts or subsidies.

  8. @Secret Squirrel – Yes, radio went the full circle, from “payola” to the music companies then wanting to charge radio stations for playing/promoting their music.

  9. So, let me see if I understand this – Free TV Australia are saying that free-to-air broadcasts should not actually be free. This smells very similar to when the big music companies started making noises about charging radio stations to play their songs.

    Why is it that the TV networks (and movie companies) are treading the same well-worn path and fighting the same futile battles that the music industry went through ten years ago? They could be embracing the inevitable change and making preparations to get the most out of it but instead they rail against it at every opportunity.

    Their commercial model is becoming irrelevant but, rather than change that to better compete, they go begging to the govt to ask that the rules be changed in their favour.

    I am reminded of a certain King of Denmark and England from nearly a millennium ago. He couldn’t hold back the tide either.

  10. Are BA & TXA (who own the majority of TV transmitters and broadcast sites in Australia) paying the commercial TV networks for carrying ‘their’ content?

    No? Then why should ISPs? In fact, why shouldn’t the networks be paying ISPs to carry their content, just like their agreements with BA & TXA?

  12. ” make ISPs responsible for the pirated transfers on their networks.” How & why? Why stop there then? Why not blame the ISPs for the illegal drug purchases? Are the ISPs “retransmitting”? It’s not like Optus and the NRL.
    Are they complaining about ” use of their broadcasts” or access to content outside Aust.?
    Now if only Telstra could give me a line and ADSL connection in suburban Wollongong so I don’t have to use wireless……..(cue a dropout) LOL.

Leave a Reply