LICENCING
There are many people involved in the creation of television content, but perhaps unsurprisingly, there are even more people concerned with its distribution. For creative businesses, intellectual property serves as the fruit of all labour. It is economically imperative that these businesses are able to protect their product from theft or unlawful resale, much like theft from any other business. For every episode or program that is created commercially, royalties and legal obligations restrict the broadcast of this content so that those involved in the production process are fairly accredited and reimbursed (Ulin, 2009).
The use of music, likeness or other copyrighted material may have its own broadcast limitations imposed by the actors, artists or recording companies, and thus, the legality surrounding any re-distribution of this content quickly becomes contentious. Simply put, the sheer size and people-power involved to create professional video content means that the final product is often an investment funded by several representative entities, each with their own claims to the profits garnered by its respective success. This is further compounded by the ever-evolving nature of the internet, which intellectual property legislation is constantly struggling to maintain abreast of. Finally, there is also the juggling of legal expectations or requirements for international distribution, which introduces a myriad of concerns for content creators in maintaining worldwide attribution of their copyright. With so many fingers in the one pie, it is easy to understand why more television shows aren’t available for streaming locally in Australia (Simpson, 2012). There exists a stigma, too, about the validity of the internet as a new distribution medium. The industry has fought for decades to staunch video piracy, and the most recent targets for blame are the internet service providers who allow illegal activity to occur without reasonable intervention. Yet after fighting for so long against the web and its liberal predisposition for file-sharing and the blurring of copyright, broadcasters are biting the bullet and foraying into the digital world with a veiled stubbornness. The greatest concern for content placed on the web is its security; commercial broadcasters currently consider online catch-up portals as the perfect place for pirates to source their material. “The need for digital rights management is paramount in a world where content (literature, music, videos, movies, artwork etc.) is available in digital form and hence can be distributed within seconds to any device anywhere around the globe.” (Paul, 2010, p. 107). Each of the main commercial broadcasters in Australia have developed an online viewing channel, which is protected in such a way that viewers cannot download or ‘rip’ the content for personal use. This ensures that the advertising cannot be circumvented and that users will not be able to publish the content somewhere else. The videos can be monitored for how many views they receive and collect general information about audience habits and viewer retention. Furthermore, the channel is geo-blocked, allowing only Australian viewers to access the content, preserving the licensing contracts agreed to by the broadcaster. In reality though, content providers cannot prevent the re-appropriation of videos online any more than when pirates would bootleg recordings to VHS tapes. If such a culture of piracy cannot be stamped out of newer generations of television viewers, broadcasters may need to rethink their strategy for content distribution or face embarrassing losses. Today, the best way to prevent piracy is to eliminate the need for it. If broadcasters were able to wager a licensing agreement which encompasses all of the traditional pitfalls barring content from being shared freely, the content could then be distributed conveniently on-demand without driving viewers to piracy. “There are highly evolved business rules and negotiable currencies used in the traditional television business, and these must evolve to accommodate on-demand businesses” (Palmer, 2008, p. 23). This evolutionary model of distribution stands in stark contrast to the current method, which is perhaps why it is so promising. Outmoded licensing practices are driving audiences to steal the quality of viewing which they have come to expect. |