Yeah, this is gonna suck if they get the streams shut down. Most Americans have trouble finding even the Tour on broadcast TV. Before the Internet cycling was barely on the radar here. If Eurosport or someone would license all the good races for worldwide use and then put them on a reliable website with reasonable, affordable pricing, then they might be justified in shutting down the streams. But as it stands theyre shooting the sport in the head. 

Giles Clarke?

Has there been any official statement released?
They, the TV companies, can complain about unofficial streams when they have a worldwide reach. I can see diddly squat live here apart from the TdF on the telly and how many official streams are not geo-restricted? Not many that I know of.

What can the UCI do on this? Nothing really, their hands are tied, they can't support illegal streams and pee off Eurosport or other official broadcasters.

So, it seems that ACTA is already being informally enforced in some places ...

Wonder how the team sponsors feel about all that exposure getting shut down?

A colleague of mine used to work in the broadcast media here in Belgium. He says that, for the limited size and reach of an operation like Belgian TV, the field of relationships and vested interests is both intricate and complex. Which means I suppose that the reasons for some of the decisions they make are bound to be unfathomable and counterproductive.

For me, it's a generation thing. The greybeard executives just don't get it and they cannot or will not look at other ways to generate income. Meanwhile, it's the desperate, knee jerking divide-and-conquer policy: marginalise and regionalise everything.

It would be hard for Sporza to put out streams of omloop and kbk that were restricted so you COULDNT watch them in countries where live coverage is available.

One of the big opponents of livestreams are the Flanders Classics group who use the BAF to shut down streams and highlights packages. How hard would it be for Flanders classics to work with Sporza to put use the sporza technology to put livestreams of races on the website that was viewable to all countries without domestic coverage (similar to RCS do with Gazetta/Rai).

Not hard at all.

On the highlights thing, TF1 owners of eurosport have always pulled their videos from Youtube and Im not overly sure why people persist with putting Eurosport highlights videos up. Rai have been known to ask for things to be pulled but they tend to do it through personal contact and request to remove rather than by slapping in copyright claims (you are allowed 3 per year before your acount is closed). Sporza also put in copyright claims yet on occasion have embedded other peoples videos on their own website without asking, yet its ok for them to shut things down. Nos have also put in personal requests for removal rather than copyright claims.

The difference this time is eurosport execs have written personally to several sites, asking them to decist and threatening that in future they could be prosecuted. Wether this is a courtesy move to avoid future prosecutions I dont know, but they are putting in copyright claims at the same time.

Several dutch and belgian sites have already commited to removing highlights videos from their site and ceasing linking to them.

The trouble is the consistency and hypocrasy. Nelissen says livestreams are destroying cycling yet openly endorses procyclinglive. Cyclingfans have stopped linking to "illegal" highlights as they think its piracy, yet they openly broadcast livestreams and even have arrangements with several leading world tour teams for those teams to promote their site and livestream links. So youve got a eurosport exec openly promoting a streaming site, and world tour teams receiving payment to promote streaming sites, while all the time we are being told that its illegal and threatened with legal action.

its idiotic from start to finish, and so easy to fix.

 For years now, Eurosport have acted like a complacent dictator; dishing out whatever and whenever they felt like it and ignoring the pleas and complaints of their viewers.
 So now they are getting uptight about lost subscription revenue, even when they don't even have the rights, or the inclination to secure they rights, of a number of major races.
 Tough.

 If they want to boost subscriptions, the answer is simple: Deliver to the viewing public full and consistent (weekends/schedule hot spots) access to all major events, not just those they deem worthy.
 
 Other than that, they will, in the short term at least, have to suck it up.
 ALL major sports are effected by access to live feeds. The internet at work.
 It may be considered piracy by the corporate blood suckers, but to the fan, it's more like Robin Hood, robbing the rich and giving to the needy poor.
 

What can the UCI do on this? Nothing really, their hands are tied, they can't support illegal streams and pee off Eurosport or other official broadcasters.

no, but they could ask why some world tour teams recieve payment in return for promoting sites giving links to "illegal" livestreams. I wouldnt want them to do that, good on teams for trying to help their fans out with coverage, but it shows the complete hypocrasy.

This kind of thinking will keep cycling from becoming a mainstream sport. Teams, organizations, sponsors, and broadcasters need to embrace the new forms of media and take advantage of the opportunities to sell their products. Using myself as a single example - I started watching live streams of the spring classics in 2010 and said, "Damn, I've got to be there." In 2011, I saw two classics in person and contributed to the local economy in the towns and businesses surrounding the events. Maybe Sporza didn't benefit directly from my presence, but surely my small contribution to the income generated by these events helps reinforce Sporza's decision to invest in cycling. And if I lived closer, would I watch the live feed on an unauthorized website in lieu of visiting the event or watching it on television? No chance, I'd be there in person if I could and I'd choose my big screen TV with proper audio system to a computer or mobile. But I don't have that choice. I watch live feeds of TV stations that don't broadcast in Canada and it's so much nicer than reading the recap on the cycling sites hours later. If I didn't have the chance to watch the events throughout the year, I doubt that I'd be invested in the sport to the point of trying to take the family to Quebec this fall. Again, Sporza doesn't benefit. But cycling does, and that cannot be harmful.

If a global legal streaming subscription thing never comes to pass, and it doesn't seem that likely at the moment, maybe a site could be set up similar to LiveOnlineFooty. I don't know if anyone is familiar with it but it's an 'exclusive' site that opens registration now and then (payment of 36 for 60 days) and has secure streams of British football and some boxing for all registered members. Streams don't get taken down because it can't be linked/viewed outside of the members so they're secure.

It's the same story we've been hearing from the music and film industry for the past decade.

Broadcasters are failing to adapt to the changing media landscape and they are hurling accusations instead of working to improve their own business model.

In spite of my last very bad experience with cycling.tv I signed up again tonight so that could watch what is left of the classics.

What they don't tell you - before you sign up is that they use Flash, for everything.

I use an iPad and beam it to my big screen TV.  So how well does cycling.tv work for me?

It dosen't.  And if these nitwits have their way I won't even be able to find feeds in languages I don't understand.

I may as well just start watching darts. That I can get on TV here.  Cycling, nope.

RCS Close to media partnership

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rcs-sport-and-major-teams-on-cusp-of-tv-revenue-partnership

So RCS close to the expected tv deal that will see them share revenue with the teams. Which of course will bring the best teams to their races, which in turn means that the question will be asked, do the RCS really need the world tour.. Would you send your best team to the late season italian classics in return for tv revenue.. or to Beijing

Its the way to move forward   

It was happening, when this will spread to other organisers and telly companies is the more pertinent question. it is good for the larger and more visible teams in the more important races, possibly making them more stable and even avoiding HTC like situations (if telly money becomes the major income source over time). It may not be so positive for smaller teams looking to make their way up to the higher echelons. TV money is the most stable income stream in sport and will definitely help the teams, but as in the case of the Spanish footlball league, if it is done injudiciously, it can kill off all competition. Definitely a step out of the stone age though.

My biggest wish- that cycling strips stop being billboards.

Well RCS can afford it. What about the smaller races that cant? Will we have fúckers like Bruyneel demanding money to ride in their races or else? I think it should be part of the GTs and monuments but not necessarily all races or better still, based on what the race sells in advertising on the TV, teams get a % of that.

We forget that TV can charge big money for advertising during sporting events. That is why football is worth so much nowadays. But dont forget that RAI broadcast il Giro for 3 hours a day free. Most Football on TV is pay per view? Does cycling command such big money from advertising? I'm not sure and it is all based on how many watch?

Cycling as a sport really does try hard to prostitute itself to the sponsors and the jerseys are testamount to that. But small pro continental teams need every penny they can get so the name has to appear somewhere to justify the money?

Where should sponsors names go if not on the jersey? take a team like Landbouwkrediet-Euphony they have at least 9 sponsors names on the front! Farnese Vini - Selle Italia at least 8. A WT team like OPQS have 5. 

This one is all blowing up again, and not for the better.

Firstly, i fully believe that if people have channels in their country that are showing cycling, as a cycling fan they should rely on those channels, if they are true cycling fans and support the sport. However, I also believe there is a market for fans to be able to watch small parts of races they wouldnt other wise be able to see, after the race has completed via short unrestricted highlights.

Following Danny Nelissens emails last years things settled down a bit. Sporza broadcast most of the races not available worldwide or outside belgium unrestricted, and claims on highlights or closing km's footage slowed down. Uploaders started being sensible about what they did, only put up the final few km's, dont put up entire highlights packages, and dont put them up immediately after the race and plug the hell out  of them.

It was an unwritten agreement between the media and uploaders, but on the whole, it was tolerated as long as it was sensible.

That was until this February when a new youtube user appeared and started uploading videos, not just stage finishes, but entire 2 hour broadcasts taken from Eurosport. The minute I saw this my head was in my hands, one dickhead is all it takes to truly flip it up for everyone, and it looks like doing just that.

Not only was the user uploading full broadcasts, with the full race names, and then promoting them like crazy on social media, he was also allowing revenue sharing on his videos (to explain, you tube puts ads on videos and youtube gets the revenue, but if you get over a certain amount of views you can sign to get a share of this revenue from youtube - as long as its original content). Suffice it to say none of the other uploaders have ever allowed revenue sharing and have never profited from their videos.. This user chose to do so.

As a result, already several youtube accounts have been closed down, and the channel of random sports videos or @cycling_videos on twitter is also about to be closed down.

What makes it worse is hes not content to go down alone, and in a display of childish smallmindedness is drawing attention to the other uploaders who put content on video sites, including informing VRT and TF1 (Sporza and Eurosport) where to find other channels.

One small minded, greedy , has undone all the work people did over the last few years in flying under the radar and not taking the pee, and is danger of screwing it up for everyone.

Nelissen has a point, livestreams and youtube footage can damage cycling, although it kinda peees me off to see Nelissens testimonial on procyclinglive, or the fact that certainly for some time Cyclingfans had agreements with at least a couple of World Tour teams to promote them. (I cant say wether this was financial or just trust based agreements), but livestreams of races to countries that cant recieve them can do a lot for the sport, as can limited, short highlights or footage from races, encourage people to support the race or even buy subscriptions.

The UCI and race organisers need to sort it out, some inroads are being made with the UCI channel, but its not enough. In the meantime, short highlights are the only accessible cycling for many people.

Sadly, one ignorant user, may have just fliped that up for everyone.

http://www.youtube.com/user/RandomSportVideos?feature=watch

The guys a dick, just didnt use his common sense.. For years those of us who upload got largely ignored by keeping the uploads short, not claiming the revenue on them, and staying under the radar. One user being stupid and then attracting attention to everyone has caused all sorts of sh*t.