Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 321 posts

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#151

Post by forgtpasswd »

dharmab wrote: post #75
guiomie wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My key take away from your comment is F1 has non geo-fenced service. I just went on their website, and I'm blown away. You can select a cockpit to stream, you have a bunch of geeky data, all while you can watch the GP in it's traditional way. I might get back into F1 just for this.

Liberty Media has also done a really good job with the F1 YouTube channel in recent years, providing an avenue for casual fans to keep up with the season. Too bad the 2019 season is shaping up so poorly...

Liberty Media has indeed done well. I can now easily keep up with highlights and also purchase/stream races live which are affordable and available by race/entire season at reasonable prices.

World Rally Championship (WRC) is doing this too.

Cricket caught up too, ICC cricket world cup that occurs once every 4 years and this tournament is going on right now, ICC is now offering highlights packages on the official youtube accounts. There wasn't a way to purchase/watch highlights of games even if one wanted to pay for it before.

Even French open tennis had highlights packages available on their official youtube accounts.

Provide some basic stuff out for free, in interest of promoting the sport, consider it cost of user acquisition. And, then provide options to stream/additional access for a reasonable cost. Seems to work well for some sports, wonder when others will catch up.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#152

Post by batiudrami »

schnevets wrote: post #104
myself248 wrote: post #93

I've never been in a bar where the TVs had their audio on. The sports games are on screens but muted, and some have closed-captioning turned on. Wouldn't that defeat this? Slightly off-topic but I feel like relating it: When I was a kid, we'd watch baseball games on TV, but muted. Then we'd turn on the radio and tune in whatever station was simulcasting the game. Because the radio announcers assume you can't see the…

Sports in bars is a very different experience with sound on vs. off. Without sound, it's a background distraction that a few folks may be interested in. With sound on (even if the commentary is indecipherable), it's a collective experience that holds everyone's attention. Usually the bar will mute or put on music during commercial breaks. I do wonder if alternative commentary would ever catch on. Imagine if instead o…

It used to be reasonably common to mute commercial TV and listen to the ABC (public radio)'s broadcast for commentary in AFL and cricket in Australia.

I don't hear about it much anymore which I would guess is due to the encoding delay of digital TV vs analogue radio broadcast and the general lack of AM/FM radios in the living area.

Foxtel (pay TV) also trialed an alternative commentary track with a more parochial commentator for Collingwood games.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#153

Post by cco »

monksy wrote: post #129
munk-a wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression that a business would need to pay a screening fee for showing the game - I'd assume that illegally in this case doesn't mean via bitorrent but instead means playing content from a residential cable subscription to an audience. I tend to side strongly with bars in most of these cases as broadcasters absolutely must be aware that bars frequently want to show sports games and they have failed…

HBO has gone after bars showing GOT as well. In Chicago, I've seen bars charge $30 a person for entry to see a PPV fight.

Last time I looked a UFC PPV fight was around 3,000 for a bar to show.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#154

Post by ashtonian »

IP law in this country need to go away. It doesn't help the market as a whole, it doesn't encourage content creation it encourages legal spending and manipulation.

You shouldn't get paid for having and idea you should get paid and be excited to create content to be first to market and have an consumer base. If somebody can come along and do it better there should be no legal barriers. The result is a highly competitive iterative market that grows exponentially and benefits the consumer. The only protections should be around branding ie you say you are who you are. Everything else can be accomplished with trade secrets. This is especially true when you consider the world is shrinking and the lvels of control are local only. So all of your competitors abroad are benefiting from it while locally we waste millions arguing in court over who is allowed to bring product to market. It creates things like the epi pen markup. There was an alternative, cheaper within a few days but they were blocked from marketing and change the applicator to avoid a broad patent on it.

Also would like to point out that there is a reason why patents and io don't exist in some of the oldest markets (food/clothing). Because otherwise there would be no industry or growth. They live on brand protection and secrets..

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#155

Post by pgm8705 »

xnyan wrote: post #132
egd wrote: post #130

Someone I met tried to figure out how to actually legally stream the NBA playoffs recently - apparently there's basically no way to do so without an existing cable subscription or without paying for the entire season. I'm guessing the licensing structure around all of that would make the US tax code look readable, but the result is that it's effectively impossible to decide you want to watch a specific game on a comp…

It’s so much easier to stream the NBA finals from a pirate site than it is to pay - if there even is a way to pay. I’m looking at waiting 10 days for a cable installer and at least 50 a month plus multiple calls to setup and then cancel to watch the one event I want to watch via cable, or 2 clicks and an ad-free 1080p 60 fps stream on my browser. I’m not saying piracy is legal or moral, but the difference in cost ben…

You could sign up for YouTubeTV, Hulu, SlingTV, etc. I'm not saying the cost is worth it for just a few basketball games, but it definitely is easy to get access.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#156

Post by brewdad »

xnyan wrote: post #132
egd wrote: post #130

Someone I met tried to figure out how to actually legally stream the NBA playoffs recently - apparently there's basically no way to do so without an existing cable subscription or without paying for the entire season. I'm guessing the licensing structure around all of that would make the US tax code look readable, but the result is that it's effectively impossible to decide you want to watch a specific game on a comp…

It’s so much easier to stream the NBA finals from a pirate site than it is to pay - if there even is a way to pay. I’m looking at waiting 10 days for a cable installer and at least 50 a month plus multiple calls to setup and then cancel to watch the one event I want to watch via cable, or 2 clicks and an ad-free 1080p 60 fps stream on my browser. I’m not saying piracy is legal or moral, but the difference in cost ben…

Streaming "cable" providers (Sling, Youtube TV, Playstation Vue, etc.)can get you up and running in minutes and usually come with a 7 day free trial. It doesn't solve every issue with trying to get legal, but it at least solves the "sit around all day for the installer to show up" problem.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#157

Post by vageli »

brewdad wrote: post #156
xnyan wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s so much easier to stream the NBA finals from a pirate site than it is to pay - if there even is a way to pay. I’m looking at waiting 10 days for a cable installer and at least 50 a month plus multiple calls to setup and then cancel to watch the one event I want to watch via cable, or 2 clicks and an ad-free 1080p 60 fps stream on my browser. I’m not saying piracy is legal or moral, but the difference in cost ben…

Streaming "cable" providers (Sling, Youtube TV, Playstation Vue, etc.)can get you up and running in minutes and usually come with a 7 day free trial. It doesn't solve every issue with trying to get legal, but it at least solves the "sit around all day for the installer to show up" problem.

> Streaming "cable" providers (Sling, Youtube TV, Playstation Vue, etc.)can get you up and running in minutes and usually come with a 7 day free trial. It doesn't solve every issue with trying to get legal, but it at least solves the "sit around all day for the installer to show up" problem.

Doesn't sling require a cable subscription?

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#158

Post by lftl »

vageli wrote: post #157
brewdad wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Streaming "cable" providers (Sling, Youtube TV, Playstation Vue, etc.)can get you up and running in minutes and usually come with a 7 day free trial. It doesn't solve every issue with trying to get legal, but it at least solves the "sit around all day for the installer to show up" problem.

> Streaming "cable" providers (Sling, Youtube TV, Playstation Vue, etc.)can get you up and running in minutes and usually come with a 7 day free trial. It doesn't solve every issue with trying to get legal, but it at least solves the "sit around all day for the installer to show up" problem. Doesn't sling require a cable subscription?

It does not. You just need internet access.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#159

Post by jdietrich »

orf wrote: post #126
jdietrich wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But what if you are pirating a legal stream? The glass only appears on the (vastly more expensive) pub licensed feed, not on the consumer feed. The higher cost and much smaller pool of licensed customers reduces the likelihood of someone pirating the feed and vastly simplifies the process of identifying the leak. A pirate could burn in the right logo to a standard consumer feed, but they'd need daily information fro…

That makes sense, thanks! But I can't help but ask again: why would a simple lookup of address -> registration work here? Why would you need a vast array of subtler, hidden data in the feeds? If you're playing live sports in The Temeraire, and The Temeraire doesn't have a license, then boom. You're knicked. Pubs are licensed and not readily movable things owned by specific (and licensed) people. Walk in the door, if…

It's a surprisingly complex legal situation. It's very clear that using a domestic Sky subscription in a pub is a breach of copyright, but it's less clear if using a foreign satellite subscription is legal - recent court cases have gone both ways and involve both British and EU law. The fact that a pub is showing a football match without a suitable license from Sky isn't necessarily evidence of wrongdoing.

The glass provides an instant clue for inspectors, but also the general public. A busybody (or a rival publican) can instantly spot if a pub is using a dodgy satellite feed.

There's also the underlying tension between Sky Television and the English Premier League, who both have slightly different incentives around rights enforcement. The pint glass allows Sky to easily audit pub landlords, but it also allows the Premier League to audit Sky.

It's not a comprehensive anti-piracy system in itself, but it's a really useful and really simple tool.

Re: Shazam-like technology used to identify bars illegally streaming soccer games

#160

Post by Fripplebubby »

kevinmchugh wrote: post #85
CtrlAltT5wpm wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take this with a grain or two of salt, as I don't recall the source, but it seems plausible - I read somewhere that when it comes to businesses like bars, at least in the US, there is a normal rate applied to the cable package, and an additional rate applied 'per head' for the event in question. This may only be for pay-per-view events where multiple people can congregate at a single location which has paid the PPV f…

For pay-per-view events there's usually a commercial PPV sales channel as well. Joe Hand Promotions handled it for the UFC up until this year (now it's all under ESPN+). JHP has some formula for determining cost, it's at least partially determined by venue capacity, hence the use of a cover charge.

I believe UFC still sells with a commercial formula for bars, I don't know if it's through JHP or not, but my understanding is that ESPN+ is for private consumers only
Post reply on HN