Duco pissing into a hurricane

This is what happens when you align yourself with the big, but old and decrepit gorrilla in the room…you get shanked.

When you play with old and outdated monopolies you get bitten.

Catch up came for Sky and Duco on Saturday night. People are sick and tried of having their pockets raped.

Duco is talking tough and Sky is looking to make an example of bootleg boxing broadcasters:

Joseph Parker’s boxing promoter says he’s looking at his options after an illegal live stream was viewed by thousands for free on Facebook.

A page on the social media network streamed the match for free, while Sky TV’s Arena channel charged $49.99 for the pay-per-view event.

New Zealand heavyweight Parker won the International Boxing Federation (IBF) eliminator against the France-based Cameroon fighter Carlos Takam by a unanimous points decision over 12 rounds.

Duco Events will be working with Sky TV to find out who streamed the fight without permission, Duco co-owner Dean Lonergan said.  

“If you take 21,000 by $49.95, that’s close to a million dollars,” Lonergan said.

“When we find out who they are, there’ll be pending legal action so there’s not a lot we can say at the moment.”

“I’m talking extensively with our business partner Sky TV on this, it’s an ongoing issue for them but there will be legal action being pursued.”

Sky TV is making no comment on the incident other than to say it constantly monitors illegal streaming.

I bet if they’d offered a streaming licence at a reasonable rate they’d get more than 21,000 subscribers for that one fight and may even surpass the ticket sales at the venue and the Sky subscriptions.

The world has changed and Duco are crying like little babies over it. That just shows their own arrogance.

Next fight I’ll predict even more will stream it.

 

– RadioNZ

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Keyser Soze

    Lonergan can consider all the options he likes – its not going to get him anywhere. Facebook will tell him to stuff off and there were plenty of other streaming options that are as simple as turning on your telly. Duco certainly won’t stop the next fight being streamed by more people now they’ve invoked the Streisand effect. They should have just stayed quiet.

    The media world has moved on and the sooner that content providers realise they need to own the delivery of their own content the better off we’ll all be – including them. I’m waiting for the NZRU and World Rugby to realise that if they contracted a production company to film the games and delivered them globally via the web in a reasonably priced subscription model – they will make moonbeams compared to the relative crumbs they get from Sky who are only interested in being a cash cow for their owners.

  • CheesyEarWax

    Duco should be blaming themselves or Sky for missing out on the streaming revenue. At the very least, they should thank the Facebook streamer for identifying a market opportunity for future bouts.
    But Dean Lonergan and Sky are idiots for using litigation threats, this is not the way to win over your customers – paying or not.

    • island time

      They were criticised for selling tickets on trademe. His comments were that it created an enormous amount of publicity for very little revenue. you are correct that they should be embracing the streaming opportunity to maximise revenue opportunities. I think he is kicking up a stink as he understands that any publicity is good publicity.

  • Drhill

    The commnet that Lonergan made “my family paid $2 each to watch the fight together” – What a cheap guy, couldn’t get he get free tickets / access for his family???

  • JeffDaRef

    I’m surprised at your position on this.
    While Duco are clearly behind the times by not streaming the fight, I find the “it was over-priced so I had the right to stream it” line being run by the illegal streamer quite disgusting and not a million miles away from the Hagar “public interest” excuse for law-breaking…

    • The Doorman

      agree totally, and facebook response will be very much like Dotcom’s, “we are not responsible for what our users do”

      • Keyser Soze

        Dotcom actively encouraged copyright infringement whereas Facebook, Google et al do not. Significant difference yes? It will be a worrisome day for freedom of speech when providers are held responsible because someone, somewhere does not like or has passed some law against what someone said. Eg Ergodan & Germany.

    • metalnwood

      You are right according to the law. The music industry is right according to the law.

      They are all wrong trying to maximise their profit in the face of what happens in the real world. In the real world they have to balance the price and the delivery mechanisms against people who will pay for it, people who may pay for it and people who will never pay for it.

      Give a better service for the first two types to get your profit up because you wont do anything about the others.

      • JeffDaRef

        I understand what you’re saying from a business perspective.
        That said, ticket sales and pay-per-view numbers were brilliant so nothing wrong with the business model they chose – and (taking an educated guess) the core boxing market is unlikely to be full of early adopters which makes any divergence into streaming better done further down the track.
        I’m not aware of any sports that predominantly stream for irregular events (like boxing bouts), the online sport offering tends to be driven by those with a “season” and therefore guaranteed content.

      • Boondecker

        It’s the same issue in the photography industry. People assume because you have images you’ve taken uploaded and on your website or onto other forms of online media (i.e. Facebook, Instagram) that it’s a free-for-all. It’s been an ongoing issue ever since photographs were able to the be published in the mid-1800s, of course, but far more so with the ever-widening advent of the internet these days.

        Every now and again the illegal copiers and / or the on-users get busted for copyright breach in the courts, it happens frequently in the US and Europe where the copyright owners are far more actively litigious. It always makes great reading seeing those unauthroised users hit with large fines and penalties. Sadly, in New Zealand, we are decidedly weak when it comes to issues of resolving or punishing for copyright infringement.

    • I’m not supporting the data thief. I’m simply pointing out that Duco are using a failed business model and crying about it instead of adopting a better business model.

      • JeffDaRef

        I don’t see how you can consider the Duco business model failed – they had huge interest and uptake both for tickets (viz the socialist uproar that tickets went to the highest bidder, not “affordable” for all) and for pay-per-view.
        They have done a remarkable job of not only taking Parker to the brink of a title bout, but positioning him as a real “people’s champion” backed by most of NZ.
        Lonergan and Higgins can be brash and unlikable at times but they have put their money where their mouths are and are delivering the goods – they should be the type of folk readers of this blog hold up as heroes and we should stand against those trying to rip off their business.
        The decision not to stream likely rests more with Sky TV than it does Duco – and is more than likely a symptom of Sky’s other problems as you’ve covered – they are the ones with a failing business model, not Duco.
        (Disclaimer – this isnt Mrs Lonergan typing…just someone who thinks Duco are good guys who deserve our support)

    • Keyser Soze

      The message is not that Duco are wrong and the streamers are right it’s just that restricting their delivery to TV only then crying woe is me when it’s gets streamed on the web is pointless and deserves taking the mickey.

      The media world has moved on and content owners can get with it or die. That’s the cold hard reality of the situation. Netflix have shown how it’s done – many people who previously downloaded pirated TV and movies are now subscribers – because it’s easier than piracy and also I suspect because it just feels ‘right’. Sport will go the same way and make the early movers a tonne of cash.

  • Doodydah

    The streaming of the fight raises many issues. It is no different than someone stealing Cams information. Having it on Facebook is no different than Megaupload. I support Cams position re Hager but we have to be consistent. Stealing is stealing. It does not matter if it is IP or something physical. I have been entrusted with millions of other peoples money and there is no way that I would take one cent that was not mine. I do not take from hotel rooms. I paid the $49.99 to watch the fight and I would never have tried to find a free site. It is simple, you are either honest or dishonest. There is no line to draw of when it is OK or not OK. There are no excuses to justify a wrong position. There is a reason that I am totally trusted by others.

    • metalnwood

      I dont think he said it wasn’t stealing or justified it. He just pointed out that the mechanism used to deliver the content is out of date and prohibitive to some.

      There were no options to buy it via streaming. If you dont have sky what do you do? They have a streaming service and did not offer it that way as they have done for other sports.

      There is the right and wrongs as you point out and then there is the reality. If they worked within the reality of things perhaps they would have got more payments and less stealing? Thats what I believe he just said and it’s what other industries are starting to understand.

    • Keyser Soze

      Very black and white. Fortunately we don’t live in a black and white world – there’s a rainbow of colour out there. Is it ok to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving child? Ahh the thin end of the wedge…

      • Doodydah

        No, it is not OK to steal for the loaf of bread. I was brought up without the loaf of bread in the house every day, poorest kid in the street, probably the town. In those days, that is what the poor had, ethics, honesty and integrity. I only became exposed to dishonesty when I started to move in “better” circles. We can all have our view and mine is that it is black and white, not grey. Attitude is everything and ethics, principles and morality is part of attitude. As an aside, my glass is always half full even when I only have a sip left.

  • RightyTighty LeftyLoosey

    I wouldn’t pay $50.00 to watch Parker vs Takam but I might pay to watch Lonergan vs Facebook. Let me know when someone streams that!

  • metalnwood

    The full sky formula would be after you pay for sydney that they lost the rights to fly to sydney but the price remains the same,

    • SFB

      Good point!

  • Asian_driver

    I suspect the people that watched the stream were never going to be the pay $50 people. In fact I think they would have started watching it after hearing about the stream on the social things they follow. So no money was really lost, just no extra money was made.

  • Ross15

    This might be Lonergan saying –yes we’ve been caught out but let’s use this to some advantage. Use the publicity to generated interest in a low fee streaming option for future events. They ( Sky and Duco) cannot be so stupid to not have thought about other streaming options –this will speed up any plans and Lonergan can milk this publicity if he is smart.

  • arnietm

    It’s probable the guy that live fed it payed for the “pay to View” so is he breaking the law?

    • Aucky

      Yes. The copyright law and that would be written in the fine print of his Sky contract.

      • Blokeinauckland

        He apparently video’d the fight on his ‘phone by pointing it at his TV and recording the image – it was the stream off his ‘phone that was seen by users on FB. If so is that a copyright infringement? How is it different from people standing in his garden watching the TV through his window?

        • Aucky

          I’m not a copywright lawyer but hopefully there is one in the WOBH community who can clarify that for you.

  • Red_NZ

    Who wants to shell out $50 for a fight card with a bunch of bums on it and the possibility that the main event could be over within the first round? If they’d offered an actual fight card, more people would have been interested in paying for the fight.If they hadn’t have said Parker wouldn’t walk out into the ring until 1030-1045pm may be more people would have considered booking the fight.

    The problem they have is far better PPV products come to us, for a lot cheaper from overseas. The UFC costs $30(if i remember correctly), for that you get at least 6 relevant main card fights, all for legitimate positioning in the rankings, or title fights. prior to that you get the full undercard for free. regardless of if you’re a UFC fan or not, yet again I ask why would you pay $50 to watch a single fight. Lonergan used the example of people paying $50 for the Mayweather v Pacquiao fight. The difference between that and the first real opponent Parker has fought, is people have been waiting 5 years(too long) or longer for those two to fight. They’re also a completely different class of fighters.

    If they wanted to make more money out of the fight, they should have taken it to Vector Arena and sold more tickets. But they made a big deal about the fact the moneys made from the PPV and having people there just adds to their costs.

    Others might ask why the fight was free in the UK, they’ll say it’s the audience they need to break into, however they failed as yesterday not a single UK Newspaper website i visited, even mentioned the fight in their sport or boxing sections. They should be more worried about that and that the only New Zealand “boxer” who got a mention, was SBW meeting David Haye, prior to Hayes fight.

  • Aucky

    You might not like Duco or Lonergan or Sky or their business models but that’s another argument entirely. Here we have a clear breach of copyright law and Lonergan and possibly Sky are about to start legal proceedings to recoup their perceived losses. That is clearly their mandate to do so. I believe there is a moral issue here as well and it’s called entitlitis – we argue here so frequently about people bludging on the public tit so what makes us think that we are entitled to steal another person’s or company’s property because we think the price is too high?

    • CheesyEarWax

      It may be their legal right to sue the Facebook streamer, but calling its viewers entitlitis bludgers is OTT. I don’t think many streamers will march on Queen St demanding their streaming entitlements.

      • Aucky

        No more OTT than stealing what’s not yours to take.

  • old school

    I wouldn’t pay 50cents to watch any fight. They are usually decided beforehand and the results are always a little dodgy.

  • TM

    Duco simply don’t understand pricing. I heard Higgins on the radio some time ago and he seems like a great guy, but he doesn’t have the correct go to market pricing strategy. He made the comment that people who only have SKY for the Rugby are happy to pay $70 x 12 so $840 a year to watch maybe 20 games in total – so clearly would pay $42 per game and no SKY base subscription. But people have SKY the same way they have electricity and broadband -you just have to have it or you miss any decent sport. Your motivation to pay extra is limited – I would have paid $20 but absolutely not $50 – even if I had huge disposable income. The point is he doesn’t understand his customers price points – but to his credit he definitely understands creating demand for a great product.

  • Hesaidwhat?

    Whether Duco had the right business model is irrelevant. They had the rights to the product and the right to charge whatever they wanted and suffer the consequences of supply and demand in action. No different to people expecting their dealings with their panama lawyers to remain private or bloggers to have their website not hacked. Thieves are thieves whether they steal your TV & playsation out of your lounge or broadcast rights using the internet or data by hacking a companies server.

    • TM

      Yes totally agree with what you are saying – just making the point that if they had the model right then this may not have happened.

  • Sideshow11

    Dean should look up Metallica v napster. Metallica won napster was closed down however the fan revolt cost them more than if they had done nothing .
    I’m not interested in boxing so would never pay and doubt I’d watch it even if it was free to air .
    Theft is theft buuuttt . just like a cyclist , it’s possible to be dead right !

  • Miss Lulu

    I am completely ignorant of all matters of streaming so I’m not attempting to know what I’m talking about regarding it. But, and again I know nothing about cyber laws, how is this different than someone walking into an off licence, stealing a bottle of vodka, and saying ‘the price was too dear, it’s just entertainment, we stayed at home and no one got hurt by the drinking of it, and heaps of us drank it too so there are lots of finger prints on the bottle but no one is drunk. This is only my take on it and I really
    Would like someone to point out the flaws in my argument

  • Rick H

    I for one, am definitely NOT a boxing fan.
    And, I no longer have a Sky Contract.

    But, my main sporting interest is motorsport, which we used to see on Normal TV.
    These days, no motorsport is live on Free-TV in NZ.
    If the monkeys that run Sky had brains, they would offer a streaming service to “NON-Sky Subscribers” the option of live streaming for a one-off fee

    Last weekend’s V8-Supercars at Winton, I would willingly pay 20 or even 30 NZ dollars for access to the entire weekend of racing; on my PC, without having to “sign-up” to Sky.

    Any person in the world, outside of NZ and Australia; – – -was able to do just that. – with the blessing of Foxtell and Sky.

61%