SKT Sky Network Television Limited.

[BlackCross]

In the UK it's Trading Standards who brought the cases and it's for breach of copyright. Not sure whether that applies in NZ or whether Trading Standards here would see it as part of their job?

[Rep]

The NBR reports that Sky is taking action against streaming box providers using Kodi with their lawyers serving a 'cease and desist' letter for breach of copyright to Matamata based 'MyBox' provider selling a Kodi Box and SKT being successful in getting the 'MyBox' Facebook page taken down.

This article is behind the NBR paywall:
https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/sky-tv...ge-cg-p-203034

This is going to be 'whack-a-mole' stuff for SKT...

[unhuman]

Yes, and that approach worked well for the music and film industry...

Sky need to be embracing change, not fruitlessly trying to fight it.

[Entrep]

Yes, and that approach worked well for the music and film industry...

Sky need to be embracing change, not fruitlessly trying to fight it.

The Kodi box providers are taking the piss and ripping customers off themselves however. It's like someone charging you to access Napster back then, that wouldn't have washed. The Kodi boxes are sold on the basis of pirated content themselves.

[unhuman]

Yes, you cannot condone the actions of these people. However the fact that a market for it exists shows that Skys business model is outdated and that are fighting this in a way that has never worked and will not work. All it does is create more bad will for a company that already has a poor PR brand.

The answer to music pirates was iTunes, not suing Napster.

The answer to film / TV pirates was Netflix, not suing people for torrenting.

The answer to pirating sports streams is...? Fanpass was a partial answer due to its flexibility. To remove it and hope to force people back into locked in expensive contracts when alternatives - albeit questionable in their legality and usability - exist seems shortsighted.

Disclaimer not a SKT holder.

[macduffy]

But is there a "cheap" answer so far as sport is concerned though? Isn't there too much money involved - in sportsmens/womens' retainers and wages; transfer fees; sponsorship costs; venue overheads; production costs etc - for top sport to be anything but expensive for screen viewers?

Disc: Another "not a SKT holder".

[blackcap]

But is there a "cheap" answer so far as sport is concerned though? Isn't there too much money involved - in sportsmens/womens' retainers and wages; transfer fees; sponsorship costs; venue overheads; production costs etc - for top sport to be anything but expensive for screen viewers?

Disc: Another "not a SKT holder".

It may be a case of above said players and hangers on having to take a paycut?

[cyclist]

It may be a case of above said players and hangers on having to take a paycut?

I suspect that will happen as this all plays out over time. It wasn't that many years ago that the All Blacks (for example) were a bunch of guys that took some time off work every now and then so they could play a game of Rugby.

[macduffy]

Sorry guys and gals but that horse has well and truly bolted. Sport is an industry now and no amount of nostalgic wishing is going to change that. More's the pity.

[Baa_Baa]

The answer to pirating sports streams is...? Fanpass was a partial answer due to its flexibility. To remove it and hope to force people back into locked in expensive contracts when alternatives - albeit questionable in their legality and usability - exist seems shortsighted.

That's right inhuman, imho, Sky are taking a very risky gamble (calculated?) that by removing the option of short term online subscriptions to sports content through Fanpass, and only retaining longer term subscriptions, in the hope that subscribers will either revert to set-top-box subscriptions or pay a premium to view online. Well good luck with that!

What they don't seem to understand is that the population of potential online subscribers is vast and growing, but it's also transient, short on interest and patience, and used to getting what they want, when they want, online, right now. Just what they want, nothing more, immediately.

So far since their disastrous decision, there's been a few weeks of footy games and lots of other sports, so Sky will already have decent evidence as to whether their gamble is paying off. If only they reported subscribers by channel, shareholders would eventually have some inkling as to whether the 'strategy' was working. But they treat shareholders like mushrooms, in the dark and fed on BS.

All the while, their Fanpass costs of distribution remain the same while they've compromised the revenue side. I think it is a shortsighted and cynical move not inconsistent with a monopoly supplier who naively assume that their entire distribution model cannot be disrupted into oblivion. It will certainly spawn a whole new and much larger wave of illegal distribution.

I like the reference someone made to 'whack the mole', as trying to battle this illegal reaction is also naive whereas taking the opposite stance, that providing gratuitous access to content that is quick, easy and cheap, anytime, anywhere, without contract for extended content, would open the distribution model and make it far less worthwhile to trying to subvert it, or work around it illegally.

All this angst for denying $14 bucks to watch a game or a week of sports, and to come back time and time again with their $14 bucks .. ad infinitum, for life! Sky have rocks in their head and should fire the morons who put this awful product strategy into play, disenfranchising a growing online sports viewing customer base, opening up an illegal online distribution tsunami, and compromising the future of their brand and shareholder wealth.

I could go on.

Disc: own SKT? you must be joking!