Premier League Football VS Vine- Are they serious?
lala
Posts: 21,175 Forum Member
✭✭✭
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/aug/15/premier-league-warns-fans-vine-videos-goals
I don't know about you, but I don't know any serious football fan that sees Vine as a substitute for watching a whole match live. For **** sake, it's a 6 second clip... 6 seconds... There's not much you can show in 6 seconds of a match a part from the moment someone scored A goal or caused A penalty etc.
Even the Hollywood studios, who are usually very trigger happy when it comes to streaming and youtube leaks of their films, are not bothered by Vine... Of all things.
This is a media fail of such epic proportion... You can only but laugh at it.
Premier League= douchebags
Premier League warns fans that posting goal vines is illegal, as is sharing them on websites such as Twitter
I don't know about you, but I don't know any serious football fan that sees Vine as a substitute for watching a whole match live. For **** sake, it's a 6 second clip... 6 seconds... There's not much you can show in 6 seconds of a match a part from the moment someone scored A goal or caused A penalty etc.
Even the Hollywood studios, who are usually very trigger happy when it comes to streaming and youtube leaks of their films, are not bothered by Vine... Of all things.
This is a media fail of such epic proportion... You can only but laugh at it.
Premier League= douchebags
0
Comments
These are available to pay subscribers of The Sun and Times websites.
But in this day and age, I think you have to get the balance right. You want buzz and people talking about your product. I've been on Twitter when something has happened in a match I've not been watching and seen how the fallout instantly erupts - a Vine of Luis Suarez biting his latest victim gives almost instant context for people to get involved and interested in. It'll be interesting to see how premium content such as live sport co-exists with advanced social networks in 10 years time.
"Intellectual property", says it all.
Vine is only 6 seconds... I don't think they have any plans to increase that to 2 minutes my friend.
Well you've misunderstood what I was saying, my friend.
If they allow 6 second Vines, then other medias (not Vine) won't hesitate to share 20 second clips and so on...
They already do though
Easy answer, anyone seen with Google Glass will be thrown out of the ground or not allowed in to begin with. I believe many theatres and cinemas in the US have banned it.
It might not stop people subscribing to Sky or BT, but it might stop people subscribing to The Sun or The Times to get instant goal videos.
I presumed it was the latter they were trying to prevent.
BTW everyone and their mother already is watching the whole match via the millions of internet match streams around.
It is the same with Man Utd banning tablets from grounds. They say it is because of security but if that was true they would have to scan everyone into the ground and frisk them. The ban is really their to stop people recording the matches.
It is just over the top protection to try and protect a market which is in no danger from these sources all you do is annoy the real fans football.
Yes because a low quality 6 second clip will really hamper a quality official 2 minute highlight video, right?
While they are at it, why not ban the BBC from broadcasting highlights, because that might prevent people from actually subscribing to the sports channels.
?
No offence, but people have been uploading longer clips of a football match since the dawn of internet videos. Vine has only been around for a year. Your argument makes a much sense as... Well you get the picture.
They aren't 2 minute highlight videos - they are in-play goal clips. And while they may be 20 seconds rather than 6, they are exactly the same concept.
And it's not the same as banning the BBC from broadcasting highlights because the BBC is PAYING for the rights to do that, just like Sky and BT are paying, and just like News International is paying.
People sitting in the stand using Vine are not paying, they are stealing.
Man Utd have banned tablets from Old Trafford:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/11027601/Manchester-United-ban-fans-from-bringing-iPads-and-other-tablets-into-Old-Trafford-this-season.html
I have no problem with them banning the use of them to record the game as they can block the view of other spectators (and makes the user look stupid) and I have often seen stewards stop people using video cameras - but banning them from the ground is surely going to far. How it enforced? If you have one in your bag are you denied entry or is it confiscated?
I often go to an away game and make a weekend out of the trip so I'll have a small overnight bag with me and will often take a small (non-Apple) tablet with me.
Still stupid. Waste of time.
Bit of an extreme statement.
Fans are being ripped off left right & centre so I don't have a massive problem with a low quality 6 second phone clip. I have been to other big sports events & have had no problems filming so why football?
Then maybe we should ask that pub lady in Portsmouth who took on the EPL & won.:)
.
Not at all.
Have these people paid to film clips on their phones/tablets and distribute them over the internet? No.
Is this something that other people are being charged to do? Yes.
Well, be that as it may, a total of 9 clips of Ki's goal for Swansea appeared on Vine within five minutes of it being scored.