FedEx227 Posted December 6, 2013 Report Share Posted December 6, 2013 Does broadcasting online only rather than on TV make any difference to music rights? I'm not positive, interesting idea though. I know YouTube essentially has it's own licensing issues and we've seen NJPW basically mute any copyrighted music for their online broadcasts. I'd imagine it's the same deal with DVDs and what not. From the classic videos I've seen on WWE.com, it's like we get on the DVDs. Overdubbed music when necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FedEx227 Posted December 6, 2013 Report Share Posted December 6, 2013 Is mookie talking about rights in regards to paying guys when they appear on "TV"? Would on-demand kinda blow that structure up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted December 6, 2013 Report Share Posted December 6, 2013 Is mookie talking about rights in regards to paying guys when they appear on "TV"? Would on-demand kinda blow that structure up? I really didn't have a specific boogeyman in mind (beyond music rights, but as it's been addressed - WWE has clean versions of all of that). I was wondering if they have any content they're uncomfortable airing - footage involving people who've sued them or things like would Over the Edge 1999 be included? Considering guys have gotten paychecks for the tiniest clips of them appearing of them on DVDs, I do wonder if they face any kind of a revolt should they not be giving any royalties to wrestlers with the footage. Then again, I don't know if the wrestlers (or ex-wrestlers) have a leg to stand on. If it's not Jesse Ventura's voice or Kid Rock's music, maybe they'll be fine. I really, really don't have a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted December 6, 2013 Report Share Posted December 6, 2013 Also, if anyone cares, I wrote two pieces today about the WWE Network based on the latest rumors: 1. http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2013/12/0...lation-abounds/ - let's summarize what we knew, what we might know and what could be 2. http://indeedwrestling.blogspot.com/2013/1...rk-revenue.html - let's predict WWE Network revenue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migs Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 I am skeptical about the "every Raw, every Smackdown, every PPV" claim. That just seems like Rights clearance hell. What issues would they have? Yeah, not sure why they wouldn't go the route of 24/7 and just use generic music. That's by far their biggest rights issue. Being online would not effect that - the issue is attaching music to a video, so the problem is the same. Its why none of the SNL episodes on Netflix have the music (other than the first 5 years, where they did the clearance for the DVDs). On the royalties, the question is based on what the contracts say that determine what the wrestlers are owed. My guess is that whatever the answer is for anything shown on 24/7 would transfer to the network as well. Highly possible that the contracts only cover home video sales, which is why the DVDs are covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migs Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 Is mookie talking about rights in regards to paying guys when they appear on "TV"? Would on-demand kinda blow that structure up? I really didn't have a specific boogeyman in mind (beyond music rights, but as it's been addressed - WWE has clean versions of all of that). I was wondering if they have any content they're uncomfortable airing - footage involving people who've sued them or things like would Over the Edge 1999 be included? Considering guys have gotten paychecks for the tiniest clips of them appearing of them on DVDs, I do wonder if they face any kind of a revolt should they not be giving any royalties to wrestlers with the footage. Then again, I don't know if the wrestlers (or ex-wrestlers) have a leg to stand on. If it's not Jesse Ventura's voice or Kid Rock's music, maybe they'll be fine. I really, really don't have a clue. I'd be morbidly fascinated to see what they do with clips of He Who Shall Not Be Named. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 I hate generic music and commentary/ring announcer overdubs. Just hate it. I can deal with generic music on old puro com tapes as it was part of the charm to get cheesy themes overdubbed for cheesy WAR fat guys, but for WWF/WCW/ECW and such, it's simply a no-no for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNLister Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 Fascinating stats this week about pay-TV formats across the age groups: as of October, 43 percent of Americans age 18-36 subscribe to Netflix, compared with 46 percent subscribing to cable and 16 percent to satellite TV. http://mashable.com/2013/12/05/netflix-cable-users/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 I am skeptical about the "every Raw, every Smackdown, every PPV" claim. That just seems like Rights clearance hell. What issues would they have? Yeah, not sure why they wouldn't go the route of 24/7 and just use generic music. That's by far their biggest rights issue. Being online would not effect that - the issue is attaching music to a video, so the problem is the same. Its why none of the SNL episodes on Netflix have the music (other than the first 5 years, where they did the clearance for the DVDs). On the royalties, the question is based on what the contracts say that determine what the wrestlers are owed. My guess is that whatever the answer is for anything shown on 24/7 would transfer to the network as well. Highly possible that the contracts only cover home video sales, which is why the DVDs are covered. It's not that they can't, it's that it's a lot to Re-edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 There's no way they're not using Amazon Web Services or someone similarly huge and reliable to host this. It would be spectacular dumb even by WWE standards and AWS is the obvious choice nowadays. Dave posted this after I mentioned MLB.TV being the closest service because of the combination of live and on demand content: They're working with MLB.tv on this project. I remember being told that a few weeks ago, but I didn't quite understand what that meant. So they're clearly moving in the right direction on the technical side. MLB.tv is interesting, though their subscription numbers are tough to get / figure out. They tend to group a variety of "content" packages / options together to get at their 1M - 2M sub number, since individual games can be bought as well. This is a slightly interesting read: http://www.royalsreview.com/2013/3/4/40652...o-robert-bowman 3) Content subscriptions (~$250 million) MLB.tv is $120 a "season". I wouldn't do a straight division there, since there are number of other subs than the $120. This is slightly interesting: MLB.tv has pretty poor sales among 18-25 year-olds. He thinks it is primarily due to the fact that it cost $125 a year and that the demographic doesn't have a lot of money. They are trying to partner with universities to have the university pay them some sort of heavily reduced fee and then offer MLB.tv as content that is included in the price of a student activity fee. He says that this will cannibalize some existing sales, but that they think it is more important to establish a broad user base. He thinks that to significantly increase subscriber numbers, that the price would have to be dramatically reduced. He also thinks they could probably raise the price without losing many subscribers, but that he is afraid to do so because if he turns out to be wrong it will be very difficult to recapture the subscriber base that they currently have. For the WWE... that's a problem. A big one. $60/6 months = $120/yr. We think of $10/mo as chump change, but that's us. It's not like 1M people are ordering every PPV and look at this as a way to discount. Folks have all sorts of monthly costs, from their phone to their cable to their Netflix to everything else. They're looking for ways to cut out $10, not add it. 1M at $120 is a good chunk of revenue. Though if MLB is going to be partnering on it, they're going to want a cut. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 1M at $120 is a good chunk of revenue. Though if MLB is going to be partnering on it, they're going to want a cut. John You'd think, although from what I understood MLB.TV operated on 2 fronts -- providing MLB.TV that people consume and then providing service / consultation on the delivery of online streaming services, which is essentially a flat, fee-based business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 1M at $120 is a good chunk of revenue. Though if MLB is going to be partnering on it, they're going to want a cut. John You'd think, although from what I understood MLB.TV operated on 2 fronts -- providing MLB.TV that people consume and then providing service / consultation on the delivery of online streaming services, which is essentially a flat, fee-based business. Yeah, that's my understanding now, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 From the article I linked to: MLBAM is jointly owned in equal shares by all 30 Major League teams. Revenues last year totaled around $650 million, and all teams received an equal share of about a $100 million dividend. The revenue comes from four different streams: 1) Online ticket sales (~$150 million) 2) MLB Shop sales (~$100 million) 3) Content subscriptions (~$250 million) and 4) Advertising / Sponsorships (~$150 million) Not exactly sure under which bucket "consulting services" and what not would fall. What major deals with other folks have they done this sort of thing that would generate any revenue of note? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNLister Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 One big downside of WWE network being online from a viewer perspective is that not being on cable means you can't DVR it. That means that unless they put everything they air up as on demand as well (rather than just the PPV library they talk about), there's going to be a lot of stuff like old territories shows that you have to watch "live" at whatever hour they choose, or faff about with some sort of stream recorder software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rzombie1988 Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 One big downside of WWE network being online from a viewer perspective is that not being on cable means you can't DVR it. That means that unless they put everything they air up as on demand as well (rather than just the PPV library they talk about), there's going to be a lot of stuff like old territories shows that you have to watch "live" at whatever hour they choose, or faff about with some sort of stream recorder software.If it's viewable online, it's recordable. People record NBA games off their online service all the time to get great results. Believe me, once they put these up, they will be online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goc Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 For people saying that the most tech savvy people already know where to get wrestling for free, that is true. You can go download every Raw, Smackdown and PPV if you wanted to. But it's not going to be anywhere near the same kind of video quality that they'll have on this service. I would definitely pay for that, not to mention getting current PPVs on top of it. Adding in some of their other tape libraries like WCW,Mid-South, WCCW, AWA, etc. is something they'll almost certainly do, even if it's not everything available at launch like the dubious report says would be the case with Raw, Smackdown and PPVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNLister Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 You can go download every Raw, Smackdown and PPV if you wanted to. But it's not going to be anywhere near the same kind of video quality that they'll have on this service. About two days after launch, I'd imagine the video quality on the illegal downloads will be identical to what's on this service, if you catch my drift. I suspect the $10 price is partially the idea that even people who can quite easily get the content online without paying will just decide they can't morally justify to themselves pirating it for the sake of ten bucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 I don't own cable and I download and stream everything. For $10 a month on my ps3, I will pay money for wrestling. A lot of people who pirate think the same way I am. That is why Netflix is so popular. It's not that people want to steal stuff, it's just that it's so convenient. Come up with something like Netflix or potentially this WWE Network and people will pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheapshot Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 WOW, I don't follow this story for a week or so and the goal posts have changed AGAIN. At least the WWE are consistent across the business as it pertains to changing things again and again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rzombie1988 Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 For people saying that the most tech savvy people already know where to get wrestling for free, that is true. You can go download every Raw, Smackdown and PPV if you wanted to. But it's not going to be anywhere near the same kind of video quality that they'll have on this service. I would definitely pay for that, not to mention getting current PPVs on top of it. Adding in some of their other tape libraries like WCW,Mid-South, WCCW, AWA, etc. is something they'll almost certainly do, even if it's not everything available at launch like the dubious report says would be the case with Raw, Smackdown and PPVs.Wrong. All shows these days come in 720p, and I've seen 1080p offerings before. There's also lower quality offerings. Please check XWT if you think I'm lying. They are usually available less than 1-2 hours after too. I'd argue that the quality will be better than the originals as people like me can't live stream 720p due to our ISP's being garbage. A couple nights ago my network was so slow I had to watch YouTube videos in 240p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheapshot Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 A couple nights ago my network was so slow I had to watch YouTube videos in 240p. This could be the perfect quote to describe "first world problems." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 If the rumors are true, they are providing a great service for a fair price, and I will be signing up. I know downloading is what it is, but I think the network as it is rumored is a great value for hardcore fans, especially with the on-demand feature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheapshot Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 If the rumors are true, they are providing a great service for a fair price, and I will be signing up. I know downloading is what it is, but I think the network as it is rumored is a great value for hardcore fans, especially with the on-demand feature. I'd be very surprised that this would see the light of day in the UK due to the deal with Sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 If the rumors are true, they are providing a great service for a fair price, and I will be signing up. I know downloading is what it is, but I think the network as it is rumored is a great value for hardcore fans, especially with the on-demand feature. It's a good deal and depending on the territory options I might even jump on it. Probably not though. There are 80s sets to follow moving foward and that'll more than take up my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 Someone doing a completist take on RAW, Smackdown and pay-per-views from this board and starting their own website to publish them, doing a completely different format from the Scott Keith rant, would go a long way in making that guy obsolete. Just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts