It's only just making the normal news[0], but their pettiness has plagued the sharing of small clips and highlights.
Do they really want me to wait for an incident to be televised before I can discuss it online? Should I have to track down specific moments in a game using my own recording in order to be able to discuss it? FIFA, the World's Most Corrupt Organisation™, should realise that fans enjoying and discussing their events adds a lot of value and will drive more viewers.
[0] https://inews.co.uk/video/fifa-delete-twitter-video-of-boy-c...
Yes. They sold the exclusive right for lot's of money. In some countries even with a Multi-Laser approach where one station is allowed to transmit live and another station is the first one being allowed to use snippets for summaries.
> Should I have to track down specific moments in a game using my own recording in order to be able to discuss it?
No. You are not supposed to track it. You are supposed to see the programs so they get high ratings and refinance their license.
That's how the deal works and it's a constant battle, whether this is a private entertainment event or something of newsworthy character ... intermixed with international copyright law.
That's the thing though, I do watch the games live. I also like to follow and discuss key events on Reddit match threads (which are fantastic, informative, funny and insightful).
They wouldn't be possible without easily accessible clips; there are no official alternatives and with the rights situation the way there are, it's unlikely to happen legally (even with a fee) any time soon.
FIFA (and UEFA, and the FA) are simply unable to compete without rethinking the way their licencing works. They are simply being left behind.
This is not true for Germany and maybe other national license holders. In Germany the public broadcasters ARD and ZDF have the whole matches and summaries online for free (i.e. https://www.sportschau.de/fifa-wm-2018/video/index.html ) But that's geo-blocked from other countries as they only have a national license.
At least over here streaming is a large part of this (best way to reach people in offices for matches in the afternoon) and they pay a lot of money for that to FIFA, where FIFA then ensures the exclusivity.
It ain't nice and too much money involved to really free that up.
They have gone to great lengths to ensure the only way I can view live F1 GPs legally is to pay 25€/mon subscription to the cable company. If I had a choice, I would actually be happy to subscribe to UK's Sky Sports F1 channel, who for 20€/mon have much more extensive coverage of the whole GP weekend, with world-class commentators in studio and on track-side, including retired F1 drivers' title holders. The cable company broadcasting in my country has lower quality and less content, so I don't feel like paying them each month more than I pay to my ISP.
But of course, due to the very same geo-blocking rules, Sky Sports F1 is unable to sell their subscription to my country, because they only have rights for UK broadcasting. Same thing applies to Netflix etc., where some content may be available in one EU country but not in another.
This is actually a violation of the EU's core single market principle (customers should be able to freely procure services from providers in any EU country, not just providers in their home country). And a few years ago, the EU Parliament was actually bullish about abolishing the whole practice of digital content geo-blocking within EU.[1] They eventually did pass new digital market regulations, but of course the content industry was able to water it down so that it doesn't actually apply to them at all![2]
[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/europe-will-abolish-geo-blocking-an...
[2]: https://juliareda.eu/2018/02/eu-did-not-end-geoblocking/
That, and the crap Vettel pulled to get past Webber in Malaysia in ... 2013? How time flies..!
No surprise that the NBA is huge and fast growing in younger demographics!
Go out and create your own content. Until that becomes predominant they have no reason to care. And frankly neither do I; it has never been easier to make videos, take photos, make podcasts and broadcast them.
This whole copyright-law furore has really highlighted the entitled attitude of most Internet users nowadays.
Make my own international football sporting competition? Or buy tickets and stream on Periscope, a practice that is heavily frowned upon and The Premier League are actively looking to ban.
Anyway, the reason I hold my viewpoint is that FIFA are meant to be a non-profit organisation. They are meant to exist for the good of the game; to most people that means the more people watching, playing, engaging with and talking about it, the better.
It's clear that over the last thirty or forty years FIFA officials became more interested about lining their pockets. That's how Russia and Qatar managed to buy World Cups; it's how decision makers at every level received bungs and suitcases full of cash; it's how FIFA's rights management division went on the warpath; it's even responsible for the swathes of empty 'VIP' seats you see in prime positions at high profile games (even more after half time while prawn sandwiches are on sale in the exclusive bar).
It's disgusting behaviour, they need to get back to their original ethos and allow the game to flourish.
In a democracy, that usually is a far away parliament, that removes the elected individual out of touch with the worries of those elected, so he/ she is not reelected.
Fifa should give every fan a vote.
Though in that particular case the "fishiness" led to rather a lot of journalists reporting on the general hilarity of the situation, which probably helped it fail. The bad guys will have learnt from that and will probably avoid any obvious fish-connections in future.
Hilarious, but this is how they should have done it properly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGBZnfB46es
# How much is the fish!? The bigger fish keeps eating all the smaller ones. It's not like anyone cares. Nah, let's just go watch some football, shall we.
Might've been just me.
I don't quite see how the World Cup is more than a small news story. Why isn't it one item in News and then all the detailed stuff in Sport section.
(Yes, I'm watching it, yes I enjoy it, yes I love football; no I don't think the BBC should devote half the resources they are to it.)
On June 25th the Ten O'Clock news running order was Heathrow, Grenfell, Migrants, Student Suicide, Swansea Lagoon, NHS, Turkey (1m20), Prince William doing something, then finally the World Cup which was 3 minutes at the end of the program (England had played the previous day)
On June 26th I don't think there was any world cup.
The Ten's running order (tweeted daily by https://twitter.com/paulroyall) is an indication of what the BBC thinks was important that day (where Today's running order is what the BBC thinks will be important that day)
That's the most number of viewers for anything since the 2012 olympics. 1 in 3 people in the UK was glued to their screen watching, and that was the first round. Tomorrows quarter final I'm sure will be even higher.
This world cup is major news for the UK - even for those like me that don't watch football. My understanding is that the BBC coverage is better than ITVs too.
(BTW, the BBC's facilities in Moscow are dwarfed by Fox Sports, and the U.S. isn't even in the competition!)
This is the bbc news page I see. World Cup is below the fold: http://imgur.com/c2mkpAkl.png
This isn't unusual and it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to see a pattern. In fact, if you don't want too much public scrutiny, this is exactly what you would want to do. Actually Germany provides a good example for where this might work because historically Germany always made it past the group stage and Germans in general tend to follow their World Cup coverage fairly closely -- and it would have worked this time, too, hadn't it been for those meddling South Koreans.
why the downvotes?
You don't pay millions in to Tory funds, employ MPs and give pensions to ex-MPs and not get your way.
What was desired by these leading anti-EU folks was not a victory, but a very close loss. They get to keep blaming the EU for every problem (useful, when the biggest gripe--immigration--was entirely under the control of the UK, not the EU). They get to demonstrate that they have too much support to be ignored, but they don't have the responsibility of actually enacting the agenda.
I did not downvote you, but I think you are getting beaten because you brought up a potential hot topic (brexit) in a way that is unrelated to the discussion topic (copyright). The argument that parties could have been using similar tactics is IMO irrelevant even if true (and that is not clear to me either).
Which pretty much mirrored the actual result. It was very close.
(But either all the current disorganisation is keyfabe or this lot couldn't plan their way out of a paper bag, which is going to result in us taking whatever we can get)
Edit: apparently I'm not surprised. Or not allowed to be.
As we've seen with GDPR, not being in the EU wouldn't actually help much with this because almost all websites would still want to sell into (or even be run from) the EU.
The Labour MEP on the legal affairs committee voted in favor of the copyright directive. The conservative member abstained.
It is also a dry subject that most people don't care about until they get a sour letter from some lawyer because Timmy discovered bittorrent.
The "value gap" argument used to justify the EU copyright directive is right there in the 2017 Labour manifesto: https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/labour-mani...
The conservatives have used similar but more general language as well.
How dare Europe even try and protect the rights of private individuals. /s
As best i can tell, you can draw clear EU sentiments based on age and education. Younger and better educated are largely pro-EU as they are in a position to seek employment within the euro-sphere virtually at will (and may had friends all over thanks to various EU education programs).
Others have watched local industry either moving their activities abroad, or simply running a skeleton crew between contracts. And when a contract hits, most of the people working there may not even speak a language the locals understand.
Yes that may sound like racism, and the extremists can score some cheap points on it, but for the most part the issue is one of livelihood.
Where as previous generations could count on their industrial or service job to carry them through setting up a home and starting a family, now they can't. And they see the EU as the reason why by eroding their access to jobs.