The Periscope effect on the Pacquiao-Mayweather fight

WASHINGTON–The boxing match billed as the fight of the century is over, but the battle over smartphone video streaming of the Las Vegas showdown is just beginning.

Revelations that dozens of smartphone users streamed the Manny Pacquiao-Floyd Mayweather weekend fight have raised questions about how new technologies can get around copyright restrictions imposed at live venues such as sporting events and concerts.

There are no reliable figures, but thousands of people may have watched the fight via the Twitter-owned app Periscope, which allows any smartphone user to “broadcast” live video, and independent app Meerkat.

These viewers avoided the $100 fee for official pay-per-view video — as long as they did not mind reduced picture quality.

Twitter chief executive Dick Costolo appeared to boast about the feat when he tweeted at the end of the match, “And the winner is… @periscopeco.”

It highlights the conundrum copyright holders could face if they lose control of their rights to fans with smartphone apps.

Similar questions arose last month when HBO sent notices to Periscope over piracy of its “Game of Thrones” series. And these issues are expected to multiply as smartphone streaming gains popularity.

Acting ‘expeditiously’

Under US copyright law, tech firms have a responsibility to remove copyrighted content “expeditiously” when notified of a violation. But at a live event, it’s not clear how fast is fast enough.

“The law really does not have the tools for copyright owners to go after platforms that have content that is live streamed,” said Bradley Shear, a Washington-area attorney specializing in social media and copyright issues.

The debate over these streaming apps “is going to restart the conversation about copyright protection in the digital age,” Shear told AFP.

Periscope and Meerkat say in their terms of service that they do not allow streaming of copyrighted content. But because there is no clear definition of “expeditious” the law may have been rendered useless by technology, according to Shear.

“This demonstrates the need to revisit our copyright law,” he said.

Eric Goldman, co-director of the High-Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara University, agreed that when Congress wrote the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, “it did not contemplate live streaming.”

Goldman noted that copyright holders could in theory sue those who carry out the streaming, the viewers and the platforms such as Twitter.

But such litigation is unlikely after the fact, especially since the law allows tech firms “safe harbor” protections if they respond to takedown requests.

Goldman said some technology firms have gone beyond the law to help copyright owners, by setting up filters and using other means to block illegal videos or at least prevent them from being discovered in a search.

‘We were ready’

Periscope founder Kayvon Beykpour said at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference Tuesday that his team was “completely prepared” for the welterweight mega-fight, with a team of people scanning for emails about potential problems.

“We had 66 requests for takedown and we took down 30 of them, all in a matter of minutes,” Beykpour said. The others could not be removed, he said, because they had ended by the time the team could deal with them.

“We were ready, we knew we had to be well-staffed,” he said.

On the broader question, Beykpour said the issue of copyright infringement is overblown because of the relatively poor quality of video on these feeds.

“No one wants to watch ‘Game of Thrones’ on Periscope,” he said.

HBO and Showtime, which managed pay-per-view television for the Pacquiao-Mayweather clash, declined to comment.

But sources familiar with the matter said the newer platforms like Periscope lack the systems adopted by YouTube and others where copyright owners are allowed to log in as special users and instantly remove content.

That means each request must be managed individually, which can often mean action is taken too late.

Fight promoter Top Rank meanwhile said it takes the issue seriously and is considering legal action.

“We are always pursuing, watching out for piracy,” Top Rank president Todd duBoef said.

“We think anyone redistributing unauthorized streaming is cheating. They don’t have the right to distribute. We want a thorough report on how many streams are out there.”

source: technology.inquirer.net

Label goes to war with MP3 reseller

Record label EMI have launched a legal battle against a startup business which is reselling MP3s.

ReDigi, which opened last year, offers fans the opportunity to sell on downloads they’ve paid for but no longer want. Tracks usually on sale for $1.29 can be found for 59c on their website.

But Capitol Records, a US division of the giant label, believes it’s nothing more than piracy, and have applied to the courts to have ReDigi shut down.

Larry Rudolph, the fledgling firm’s boss, believes the case will strike at the heart of the legal concept of ownership – particularly US copyright law, which states that anyone who buys a creative work can resell the copy they bought.

Rudolph tells Technology Review: “You buy it, you own it. You should be able to sell it. If you steal it, you shouldn’t be able to sell it. It’s very simple.

But Capitol say the company is nothing more than “a clearing-house for copyright infringement,” insisting: “While ReDigi touts its service as the equivalent of a used record store, that analogy is inapplicable. Used record stores do not make copies to fill up their shelves.”

ReDigi software verifies whether an MP3 was purchased fair and square before presenting users with the option to sell it on. If the system flags any doubt regarding a track, they will not offer to resell it. Once the data has been transferred, ReDigi then deletes all copies from the previous owner’s computer system. It only offers a track for sale when it has completed that routine – if one person has made a transaction for a particular song, then only one copy of the song will be available for second-hand purchase.

It’s thought the argument will focus on whether a copy of a song is made when ReDigi transfer the file to their server, and whether a track originally downloaded from an online store constitutes a transfer of ownership of that copy of data.

Digital copyright executive Jason Schultz believes the firm could win the case based on current copyright law. He adds: “It strikes at the heart of the future business model of creative industries.

“Are we shifting to a world where every single time you want to use some copyrighted content or media you have to pay, like on a toll road? Or do you actually own something, and you decide how you want to use it?”

source: classicrockmagazine.com