Results from Disney and Time Warner show bleak outlook for traditional Pay TV

This week saw results from Time Warner and Disney both of which suggested that traditional Pay TV services are in managed decline.

Disney delivered a very solid cable performance against expectations but this had the feeling of an exceptional set of results (think Rugby World Cup Japan v South Africa) rather than a trend.

There are many potential explanations for this (piracy, OTT services etc) but clearly the search for yield is starting to look elsewhere. Most revealing perhaps was the stress placed by Bob Iger of Disney on the release of the Force Awakens (56 million views for the trailer on YouTube) and the opening of a massive theme park in China. The revenue opportunities from the distribution of content owned by other over Pay TV platforms was taking a back seat.

The rise of the broadband internet was always going to challenge the centralised command and control model of traditional pay tv distribution and the results of that shift are now obvious. Some of the media companies are better placed than others to adapt to the changed landscape and there is always the option of trying to acquire your way out of trouble.

In the meantime the Force Awakens keeps the show on the road at Disney while Time Warner absorbs a very big hit to its share price ($274 Dec 10 1999 to $69 Nov 5 2015);

Anti-piracy group BREIN wins key battle in the protection of digital IP rights - pirates personal & banking details to be disclosed by infrastructure operators

One of the challenges facing groups attempting to protect their IP rights in a proportionate way is that when a pirate website is taken down, domains are cancelled or similar the individuals involved simply set themselves up again.

Up to this point the providers of web based infrastructure such as Google, Akamai, PayPal etc would not reveal the details of the operators even if services were cancelled. Some operators promote "absolute privacy" as a benefit of their services. Therefore the work done to close the operations down can appear to have little real impact unless the individuals concerned stop carrying out pirate activities for other reasons.

In fairness with the Snowden revelations there is no doubt that the protection of privacy is crucial and that data should only be provided in an approved and transparent way. However a balance needs to be identified between allowing companies and individuals to protect their property and the rights of individuals who are abusing that property to protect their anonimity behind a veil of privacy.

In the snappily titled C / 09/492 901 / KG ZA 15-1085  the case concerned the unlawful sale of a large number of pirate e-books via Google Play. Google agreed to remove the relevant app but would not reveal the identity of the people running the operation on the grounds of privacy.

Clearly the Court viewed this as  jejeune (naive,simplistic and superficial) and gave it both barrels as  outlined below (translated by Google translate) 

The judge commands Google to within 3 weeks of this judgment to the counsel of BREIN in favor of BREIN, the following information, to the extent that Google becomes available, provide with respect to the holder (s) of the Google Play Books Partner Center Publisher Account (s) from which books were uploaded under the Google Play Books URL (s) that BREIN has logged in its request removal of May 19, 2015 (Google zaaknr 76,488,000,007,259.), as described in the body of the indictment:

With regard to the Publisher Account:
a. subscriber information;
b. the IP address of the computer that the Publisher Account is created;
c. billing information, ie, mailing address and bank account number, bank name and name of the bank account;

In the case of the Google account that was used to create the Publisher Account:
d. the date and time the Google Account has been created;
e. the IP address of the computer that the Google Account has been created;
f. IP addresses of the computers that the user has logged into the Google Account;
g. The secondary email address and the specified first and last name specified for the Google Account;

this under the condition that the person concerned has not within 14 days of the date of this judgment to Google objection raised with the aim to prevent the provision of this information to BREIN;
2.5.
explains the order given under 5.1 enforceable, but only insofar as it relates to the provision of data relating to addresses, bank accounts and IP addresses within the European Union;

3.5.
hold any further decisions, pro forma until Saturday, December 12th 23:00 h to give and another version, which date will be the first party to the court in writing or a follow-session agenda must be desnodig forthwith with all relevant prevented from attending, or whether the case can be dismissed or canceled in writing.

This is a key step forward in helping rights holders to protect their IP in the digital age.

Key points in the Digital Age & time for a Digital Audit

The digital age is considered to have started sometime shortly after 1945 (a subject really well covered in the excellent book Turings Cathedral)

However the pace of change did not "go large" until the internet came along in 1990's and started to disrupt some industries, such as TV & video based media, which had not themselves been around a long time.

Looking back the era of linear pay tv delivered by satellite to the home may be viewed with the soft nostalgia reserved for steam travel and valve amplifiers.

Recent data showing that this year, 181 million people in the US will watch video via an app or website that provides streaming content over the internet and bypasses traditional distribution (eMarketer) starts to show the pace of change.

For some the digital revolution has caught them somewhat off guard (Blockbuster for example) others have literally taken over the world - Google.

If OTT growth continues at this pace and is linked to cord cutting then many of the accepted truths about the media industry are about to get a solid going over. Maintaining control in the wild west of the internet is a very different proposition to the command and control approach adopted in pay tv.

Perhaps time for a Digital Audit to assess the risks and liabilities that are appearing over the horizon ? This is starting to look like the attempts by the phone companies  in the 90's to protect call revenues even after it was clear that the game was up.