ATDHE.net domain seized by Homeland Security

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

I'm not sure if they have the rights to do that. They have the TV broadcasting rights, but I'm not sure if that also includes streaming it on the web.

For example, if SNet started a radio station, they obviously wouldn't be allowed to broadcast the game through that station because Fan 960 owns that right (although now that SNet bought Fan 960...). This was just to illustrate the point that their broadcasting right may only cover "TV" broadcasts.

But in your example a company already has the rights to broadcast the game on the radio. Currently there is no way for a Flames fan to legally watch a game streamed, while living in the Flames region. So they wouldn't be stepping on any toes and it would open up more viewers for Sportsnet and the NHLCI/GC package is left in place for those who want to see out of market games.

If your beef is you can't see regional games legally online you have a point but that is Sportsnet's issue, not the NHL. But if you think you should see every game for free and somehow the NHL can replace that lost revenue with some flashy banners you're day dreaming.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by HOOT

But in your example a company already has the rights to broadcast the game on the radio. Currently there is no way for a Flames fan to legally watch a game streamed, while living in the Flames region. So they wouldn't be stepping on any toes and it would open up more viewers for Sportsnet and the NHLCI/GC package is left in place for those who want to see out of market games.

If your beef is you can't see regional games legally online you have a point but that is Sportsnet's issue, not the NHL. But if you think you should see every game for free and somehow the NHL can replace that lost revenue with some flashy banners you're day dreaming.

I don't have beef with SNet or NHL. I personally think $200 for GC is worth it but I'm not just a casual fan watching one game a week.

This thread was about piracy and illegal streaming so I only proposed a way that NHL could use to adapt to combat the piracy.

Lets say an average subscriber watches 100 games through GC (82 to follow their home team and watching very little OOT games) which comes to $2/game. Obviously, they're not going to make $2 from advertisement per game from their current subscribers. But lets assume that for every 1 legit GC subscriber, there are 10 users who watches illegal streams (I have no idea what the ratio of GC vs. illegal stream users are, but I would assume its higher than 1:10).
If NHL offered the stream for free and gained those 10 viewers, to break even, they only need to gain less than 20 cents through advertisement per person. Not to mention if they did the Game Center Lite / Plus, there will still be demands for the Plus subscription, including myself, for the additional features it would offer.

Edit: Also, NHL is looking to expand its market in the US. I think there is no better way to expand the market than increasing the availability and exposure of NHL games. Even if streaming free games reduced their GC subscription revenue a bit, it would make sense from business perspective to gain as many new fans as they possibly could through availability and exposure of NHL games.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

This thread was about piracy and illegal streaming so I only proposed a way that NHL could use to adapt to combat the piracy.

Not really. That's like saying they are going to combat speeding by raising the speed limits. The way you proposed everyone loses except for the group of people that already steal the game.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Not really. That's like saying they are going to combat speeding by raising the speed limits. The way you proposed everyone loses except for the group of people that already steal the game.

Except speeding can be enforced through tickets, which act as a deterrence. Not sure how they can deter people from watching illegal stream. I honestly think its a losing battle for any industry to crack down on pirating, instead it would be better for the industry to be innovative and find a way to adapt instead of trying to squeeze every cent from legitimate paying users.

Can you explain? I don't understand how everyone loses except for the group that already steal the game.

This is the way I see it
NHL - Increased market, increased profit through user traffic (ads), higher availability and exposure of the games leading to increase in new fans
Broadcasters - Increased number of viewers, increased revenue through higher ad rates
Piraters - Better quality stream compared to illegal streams (although worse than subscribers), paid 0 cents to watch (even though the user isn't paying, advertisers are paying for his presences on NHL stream)
Legitimate Customers - Option to watch the limited stream or keep subscribing to higher featured game center, possible reduction in subscription price due to subsidizing advertisements


Edit: Just another point I want to make, look at companies like Google. Their main source of revenue is advertisements. I'm not saying NHL will be successful as Google in advertisement profit, but I'm saying that advertisements shouldn't be discounted as it can lead to a huge source of revenue.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Not really. That's like saying they are going to combat speeding by raising the speed limits. The way you proposed everyone loses except for the group of people that already steal the game.

The way that it is being proposed presents the potential for everyone but those who broadcast illegal streams to win. Don't get so fixated on this freeloader thing. If you watch a game on CBC, does that make you a freeloader? No, because it is the fact that you watch Hockey Night in Canada that allows CBC to make money through advertising. The same deal would apply here.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Edit: Also, NHL is looking to expand its market in the US. I think there is no better way to expand the market than increasing the availability and exposure of NHL games. Even if streaming free games reduced their GC subscription revenue a bit, it would make sense from business perspective to gain as many new fans as they possibly could through availability and exposure of NHL games.

I would argue that offering free streaming of games is one of the worst ways to gain new fans. This is because you have to actively hit NHL.com + whatever stream in order to access it. A "new fan" would NEVER go to NHL.com in the first place, so there would be no increase in market at all.

The only thing that offering streaming would do is to cannibalize your current crop of customers that no longer require GC, thus hurting your revenue, without actually gaining any new long term customers.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Would it though? They would still have a monopoly on what they broadcast on television locally, so that wouldn't change. The only thing that they wouldn't have a monopoly on would be the online stream, but they don't have that anyway considering the existence of illegal streams. I suppose there could be some concern if you believe that a local viewer that normally watches games on television would switch to watching online and would end up watching the opposing team's broadcast, but I have difficulty believing that this would be much of a sticking point.



This is a pretty good idea. You could also have it so that every time you open a free stream, you have to watch a 30 second commercial before the stream begins. This commercial could be a national ad or local based on your location. Revenue could also be based on the number of times it gets viewed, mitigating the risk for the advertiser while directly providing the league with revenue.

You guys might be right, this could be a poor business model, but I think if you look at it, you can see that, if done properly, there could be a lot of potential in something like this.

I definitely think there's potential, the only thing I'm full on rejecting is the idea that you can make the whole thing free and replace the lost revenues with increased advertising. That whole idea is premised on viewership numbers going through the roof, and there's nothing to indicate that would happen. There aren't millions of people watching every game via illegal stream and if all it takes is free exposure to the game to grow the fan base why do currently free local broadcasts not pull in massive numbers?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Except speeding can be enforced through tickets, which act as a deterrence. Not sure how they can deter people from watching illegal stream. I honestly think its a losing battle for any industry to crack down on pirating, instead it would be better for the industry to be innovative and find a way to adapt instead of trying to squeeze every cent from legitimate paying users.

Can you explain? I don't understand how everyone loses except for the group that already steal the game.

This is the way I see it
NHL - Increased market, increased profit through user traffic (ads), higher availability and exposure of the games leading to increase in new fans
Broadcasters - Increased number of viewers, increased revenue through higher ad rates
Piraters - Better quality stream compared to illegal streams (although worse than subscribers), paid 0 cents to watch (even though the user isn't paying, advertisers are paying for his presences on NHL stream)
Legitimate Customers - Option to watch the limited stream or keep subscribing to higher featured game center, possible reduction in subscription price due to subsidizing advertisements


Edit: Just another point I want to make, look at companies like Google. Their main source of revenue is advertisements. I'm not saying NHL will be successful as Google in advertisement profit, but I'm saying that advertisements shouldn't be discounted as it can lead to a huge source of revenue.

And again, ignoring the negatives.

NHL - Existing subscription base is canibalized. PVR features and watching non-live games appeals to a very small segment of the market. Why would the majority of people, fans who simply want to watch a game when it's on, pay when there's a suitable free option simply by clicking a different box? Is the free option going to be so poor in quality that people would rather pay? Well then why would piraters watch it? They'd find a higher quality pirated feed.

Broadcasters - Unless you install some sort of IP based directed advertising system local broadcasters in the majority of markets would obviously be negatively impacted. And if you do install such a system the revenue would then be split between the local broadcaster and the NHL, meaning the ad revenues that are supposed to keep this whole idea afloat are now segmented. Opening the free to air market would clearly have the potential to pull down local ratings, it's injecting additional legitimate competition into the market, and it sure as hell isn't something that will be done quietly. People in Nashville can make the choice to watch a Pens-Rangers game instead of the local Preds game without having to go through the effort of hunting down a quality stream. No local broadcaster will be responsive to a proposal that sees them paying increased fees for broadcast rights when they are also being told that they will no longer have exclusivity in their market.

Piraters - Here's the big WINNER!!! YAY!!! Why should we ever have to pay for anything?? If we just steal it for long enough they'll just give up and give it to us for free!!

Legitimate Customers - Also a winner, instead of paying $200/yr I can now watch an acceptable quality stream of every game for free.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

And again, ignoring the negatives.

NHL - Existing subscription base is canibalized. PVR features and watching non-live games appeals to a very small segment of the market. Why would the majority of people, fans who simply want to watch a game when it's on, pay when there's a suitable free option simply by clicking a different box? Is the free option going to be so poor in quality that people would rather pay? Well then why would piraters watch it? They'd find a higher quality pirated feed.

Broadcasters - Unless you install some sort of IP based directed advertising system local broadcasters in the majority of markets would obviously be negatively impacted. And if you do install such a system the revenue would then be split between the local broadcaster and the NHL, meaning the ad revenues that are supposed to keep this whole idea afloat are now segmented. Opening the free to air market would clearly have the potential to pull down local ratings, it's injecting additional legitimate competition into the market, and it sure as hell isn't something that will be done quietly. People in Nashville can make the choice to watch a Pens-Rangers game instead of the local Preds game without having to go through the effort of hunting down a quality stream. No local broadcaster will be responsive to a proposal that sees them paying increased fees for broadcast rights when they are also being told that they will no longer have exclusivity in their market.

Piraters - Here's the big WINNER!!! YAY!!! Why should we ever have to pay for anything?? If we just steal it for long enough they'll just give up and give it to us for free!!

Legitimate Customers - Also a winner, instead of paying $200/yr I can now watch an acceptable quality stream of every game for free.

Answer this very simple question. Do you think Hulu is going out of business because they offer free tv shows on their site. Do you think no one subscribe to their Hulu plus subscription because of their free service package?

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Answer this very simple question. Do you think Hulu is going out of business because they offer free tv shows on their site. Do you think no one subscribe to their Hulu plus subscription because of their free service package?

Will you please shut up about your stupid Hulu analogy that's not applicable to the NHL?

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Will you please shut up about your stupid Hulu analogy that's not applicable to the NHL?

Any reasons on why it's not applicable?

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Any reasons on why it's not applicable?

Because Hulu is a business with a long term goal of replacing the cable companies. They are owned by the people who have the broadcast rights for the programs that are available on their service. Most of the content is already freely available over the air to all their customers.

The NHL would be angering their broadcast partners by not only airing their content but also competing with them for viewership. Not to mention that some NHL franchises vigorously protect their broadcast territories and would be adamantly opposed to this.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

NHL - Existing subscription base is canibalized. PVR features and watching non-live games appeals to a very small segment of the market. Why would the majority of people, fans who simply want to watch a game when it's on, pay when there's a suitable free option simply by clicking a different box? Is the free option going to be so poor in quality that people would rather pay? Well then why would piraters watch it? They'd find a higher quality pirated feed.

This is a good question. How would one go about differentiating the paid subscription tier from the free stream tier? I guess this is where research and focus groups come into play. Why do people subscribe to GC in the first place? Is it because they are morally opposed to illegal streams? Because they don't realize that they exist? Because they aren't satisfied with the quality/reliability? Because they like being able to watch games that aren't live and being able to pause a live stream?

Then you have to consider what other features they might be interested in. How do they think GC could be improved and what they would be willing to pay for. I've never used GC, nor do I know anyone that does, so I really have no idea what the answers to these questions are.

I think the point is, if you can put together a package that you feel paid subscribers will see value in over a free stream, then this is something that you can work with.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Because Hulu is a business with a long term goal of replacing the cable companies. They are owned by the people who have the broadcast rights for the programs that are available on their service. Most of the content is already freely available over the air to all their customers.

The NHL would be angering their broadcast partners by not only airing their content but also competing with them for viewership. Not to mention that some NHL franchises vigorously protect their broadcast territories and would be adamantly opposed to this.

NHL is the one who's selling the product here. Broadcasters are coming to NHL for the rights not the other way around. NHL can dictate the terms of the broadcasting rights agreement.

Not everyone is going to get on board for any decision. Some parties are going to oppose it. That doesn't make an idea not feasible.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

NHL is the one who's selling the product here. Broadcasters are coming to NHL for the rights not the other way around. NHL can dictate the terms of the broadcasting rights agreement.

Not everyone is going to get on board for any decision. Some parties are going to oppose it. That doesn't make an idea not feasible.

Yep, and the broadcasters can laugh in their faces. The NHL is not NBC, it's not FOX, they do not have the market positioning or bargaining power to dictate terms.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

NHL is the one who's selling the product here. Broadcasters are coming to NHL for the rights not the other way around. NHL can dictate the terms of the broadcasting rights agreement.

Maybe in Canada but the same situation does not exist in the US which makes up 80% of the NHL.

Not everyone is going to get on board for any decision. Some parties are going to oppose it. That doesn't make an idea not feasible.

The only parties that would be on board with this idiotic idea are the ones who want everything for free. But I'm sure that alienating your broadcast partners and a significant number of your franchises would be a small price to pay in order to make the cheapskates happy.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Yep, and the broadcasters can laugh in their faces. The NHL is not NBC, it's not FOX, they do not have the market positioning or bargaining power to dictate terms.

I'm aware that NHL is not in any position to dictate the terms right now. But we're discussing a way that NHL can adapt to reduce piracy. Obviously the methods discussed in this thread isn't something that can change overnight.

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Maybe in Canada but the same situation does not exist in the US which makes up 80% of the NHL.

The only parties that would be on board with this idiotic idea are the ones who want everything for free. But I'm sure that alienating your broadcast partners and a significant number of your franchises would be a small price to pay in order to make the cheapskates happy.

That's purely your opinion. I bet that if the idea was done right and implemented appropriately, other parties would get on board as well. It could also lead to higher profit and reduction in piracy. It's obviously gonna have to be well structured. It's not at all the same as streaming illegal stream just directly from NHL's site.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

That's purely your opinion. I bet that if the idea was done right and implemented appropriately, other parties would get on board as well. It could also lead to higher profit and reduction in piracy. It's obviously gonna have to be well structured. It's not at all the same as streaming illegal stream just directly from NHL's site.

Exactly, and you'll notice that the people in this thread who have discussed the issues and proposed potential ways to work around them have been well recieved. You on the other hand have stuck to the 'just give it to everyone for free and we'll all be billionaires because of banner ads' plan. The whole point of the responses you are getting is that your idea is not at all well structured, it's horribly structured.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Exactly, and you'll notice that the people in this thread who have discussed the issues and proposed potential ways to work around them have been well recieved. You on the other hand have stuck to the 'just give it to everyone for free and we'll all be billionaires because of banner ads' plan. The whole point of the responses you are getting is that your idea is not at all well structured, it's horribly structured.

What are you talking about. No where in this thread have I said anything close to "give it all away for free and we'll benefit from ads alone". I guess you read what you want to.

I've said it like 3 times in this thread about how they can look at Hulu and how they structured their free and subscription services. If that's not structure enough for you then what is?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

What are you talking about. No where in this thread have I said anything close to "give it all away for free and we'll benefit from ads alone". I guess you read what you want to.

I've said it like 3 times in this thread about how they can look at Hulu and how they structured their free and subscription services. If that's not structure enough for you then what is?

Free GameCenter
-Allow anyone to view 1000kbps stream of live games for free with advertisements. Obviously local broadercaster feed is unaltered so their commercials get played while having additional banner ads on the page for NHL revenue.

You want to tell me what I'm supposed to get from that other than we'll give it away for free and benefit from ads alone?