Sky does it again. You'll need a new SP from next year

[cwaring]

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/programming/a59517/sky-one-nabs-prison-break-from-five.html
"Sky One has poached the rights to Prison Break from Five in its latest raid on US acquisitions.

The deal with 20th Century Fox gives the broadcaster exclusive UK TV rights to all future and past seasons of the cult show, which begins its third season in the US later this summer. The second season concludes on Five next Monday (11th)."

Not that I watch the show, but this sort of thing really p***es me off :(

[Milhouse]

Am I missing the obvious here - why are you so unhappy with Sky?

If you're unhappy that Sky have "poached" the show, according to the BBC, Five didn't renew the third season due to falling viewers and a lack of percieved value for money. Of course that could just be Five attempting to save face.

If you're unhappy that TiVo needs another SP because SPs are callsign specific... use a Wishlist.

[cwaring]

The former.

"24" (arguably), "Lost" and now "Prison Break". My point is that Sky simply wait for it to be a hit and then buy it for (usually) an much higher price that other broadcasters simply can't afford) just so people have to fork out for Sky if they want to see them.

Of course, if they had bought them first (ie from Season 1) then they won't have been the big hits they are now.

I perfectly understand that they're a business and that's what they have to do but it's just annoying!

Also, no I didn't actually read that bit about five not thinking it's worth it. If that is, in fact, the actual reason.

Sorry. Just venting :)

[ColinYounger]

...and the other channels aren't guilty of the same....?

[Milhouse]

...and the other channels aren't guilty of the same....?

Perhaps not on the same scale, but it's not illegal for Sky to do what they have done so I don't see a problem. Perhaps it's frustrating for the vast majority of the population who may no longer be able to see the programme, but they can always get Sky installed... which is surely the point of this decision.

[AMc]

It is annoying - when Sky One was available on multiple platforms it was less of a deal but now it's just irritating because it's a dish or nadda.

Commercially I can't fault their logic but from a personal point of view it's a pain - I'm not going to get a Sky dish installed and a sub for "Lost" and "24" and the rest of Sky One is dross in my opinion and I've no interest in their movies and sport.

For the programme makers its actually a bonus as I'd buy the DVD boxsets of anything I really cared about which I suspect nets them more cash than my rating on Sky One.

[healeydave]

Perhaps not on the same scale, but it's not illegal for Sky to do what they have done so I don't see a problem. Perhaps it's frustrating for the vast majority of the population who may no longer be able to see the programme, but they can always get Sky installed... which is surely the point of this decision.

I'm with Carl on this one.

A. Why should people have to go out and purchase Sky to keep watching something just because Sky has abramovich type pockets when it comes to acquisitions and rob the programs that work when the other companies take a chance by buying the first seasons.

B. Not all people are can get Sky, there are many in areas/flats that don't have a distributed system and are not allowed to put their own dish up!

[terryeden]

Why not get a friend to tape it? Or dvd it? Better still, get a friend in the USA to send you a copy. Infact, it may be more efficient to use the internet as a distribution medium... Not as TiVo friendly, but a workable solution.

[alextegg]

Works for me, don't like to use bittorrent, would rather pay for sky one on cable, but since that is no longer an option, I have gone for the interweb solution.

Downloaded in batch and streamed to the TV from the PC via my PS3 - works great!

Murdoch can go swivle, no way I am getting a dish...

[aerialplug]

Thanfully, seasons 1 & 2 of Heroes are safely going to be shown on BBC - though if season 2 is as good as season 1, I have a feeling season 3 will be on $ky :(

[healeydave]

Whilst I'm not a victim myslef, merely playing devils advocate for those that are, I suspect there are also many without the technical means to get their material this way either but I'm all for the advice, epsecially if helps prevents some people playing into Murcoch's money grabbing tactics :-)

[cwaring]

Thanfully, seasons 1 & 2 of Heroes are safely going to be shown on BBC - though if season 2 is as good as season 1, I have a feeling season 3 will be on $ky :(
And that is precisely my point. Sky seem to wait until a programme is popular and then just out-bid bid everyone else for, simply they can afford to :(

I think that's a fairly safe bet, ap. I'll get myself down to the local bookies ;):)

EDIT:
Just found this on DS:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/programming/a59674/virgin-media-considers-warner-output-offer.html
"Virgin Media is reported to be considering an output deal with US distributor Warner Bros.

The deal would see Virgin Media get a 'first look' at Warner Bros content, with obligations to pick up at least one of its shows each year.

Current Warner Bros shows up for grabs include Gossip Girl, a series from the creator of The OC, and Twilight which follows the trials of a vampire private investigator. Computer nerd comedy Chuck and The Terminator spin-off, The Sarah Connor Chronicles, could also be on offer.

The potential deal follows similar arrangements between NBC Universal and ITV, which could see NBC's Bionic Woman coming to the UK. Disney ABC's similar deal with Channel 4 has already seen the likes of Ugly Betty and Desperate Housewives come to the channel."

Come on, VM. Make the deal and really stick it to Sky :D

[katman]

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/programming/a59674/virgin-media-considers-warner-output-offer.html
"Virgin Media is reported to be considering an output deal with US distributor Warner Bros.

The deal would see Virgin Media get a 'first look' at Warner Bros content, with obligations to pick up at least one of its shows each year.

Come on, VM. Make the deal and really stick it to Sky :D

Surely VM having exlusive rights to a program is worse for a lot of viewers than $KY having exlusive rights.

Whilst I dont like the amont of money I shell out to SKY for a lot of channels that I will NEVER watch just to get the ones that I want to watch, at least I have that option.

The vast majority of people in this country CAN if they wish subscribe to SKY as their coverage is almost 100% (accepting that some people are restricted on having dishes) but Cable is only availabe to those living in cables areas which in my case is about 50 metres away :(

My Freeview status has now officially changed from "No chance matey" to "you can get BBC1,2,3 CBBC,News24,BBCi" although in reality I can actually receive all the channels albeit with the occasional breakup but the choice of Freeview channels dont really offer what I want.

[cwaring]

There are some channels on VM that I "never watch" but I bet they're not the same channels as other people "never watch", which is where variety comes in :)

If VM can get some exclusives it might just help them get some more subscribers.

[AMc]

I have less of an issue if a channel starts showing something new and continues to have exclusivity than if they poach off something with a big viewing base and prevent most of us from seeing it. Likewise if it eventually perculates down to terrestrial that's not a problem for me either.

Again if anything ended up on an exclusive network forever it would irritate me but I'd buy the DVDs if I thought it was worth it - life Firefly for instance which I lost when we moved out of a cable area before I'd seen it all.

[iankb]

I assume that exclusive rights only last for a set period (say six months), so any other channel can pick it up, albeit six months later. Maybe the problem is with other channels not wanting to pick the series up, once Sky have spoilt the demand.

[Mike B]

Ideally, if a UK terrestrial broadcaster buys the rights to air the first season of a US show there should be some clause in the agreement to state that if the show receives a certain level of viewers for the season then subsequent seasons should be made available to that same broadcaster or its direct rivals for no more that a stipulated price increase.

Eg, BBC buys 24 season 1, and so long as it gets at least x million viewers averaged across the season the BBC should get first option on season 2 of 24 for no more than a 20% increased fee. Second choice should then go to ITV/C4/Five (direct BBC rivals) before others can bid for it.

That way, programmes would only be lost if the original network does not think enough viewers saw it for it to be worth their while. It would mean that 24 would still be with the BBC, Lost would (probably) still be on Channel 4, and would guarantee the terrestrial future of Heroes.

I have no issue, however, with Sky buying the rights to season 1 of something. If they are willing to take a risk on an 'untested by UK audience' show, they should reap the rewards if it is a success. The terrestrial broadcasters should be given the same treatment, and it not be solely based on how deep their Murdochs.. ahem.. pockets are.

[cwaring]

I assume that exclusive rights only last for a set period (say six months), so any other channel can pick it up, albeit six months later. Maybe the problem is with other channels not wanting to pick the series up, once Sky have spoilt the demand.
If that were the case then I wouldn't mind as much. The problem is that, as I understand it, Sky negotiates absolute exclusive rights to a lot of its shows (eg Bones & 24) so they can never be shown on any 'terrestrial' channel.

I have no issue, however, with Sky buying the rights to season 1 of something. If they are willing to take a risk on an 'untested by UK audience' show, they should reap the rewards if it is a success. The terrestrial broadcasters should be given the same treatment, and it not be solely based on how deep their Murdochs.. ahem.. pockets are.
Just to be clear, neither do I.

As an aside, I can't think of any show now on terrestrial that started on Sky One; ie got 'poached' a la "24", "Lost", etc.

[TCM2007]

If that were the case then I wouldn't mind as much. The problem is that, as I understand it, Sky negotiates absolute exclusive rights to a lot of its shows (eg Bones & 24) so they can never be shown on any 'terrestrial' channel.


Bones is shown on terrestrial on Sky Three. Don't know about 24, don't watch it.

[cwaring]

Oh yeah :o However, I suppose I was kinda meaning either "analogue terrestrial" or "not a Sky channel", whichever suits my argument better ;

However, I also suppose I should get used to meaning DTT now :)

[Mike B]

Oh yeah :o However, I suppose I was kinda meaning either "analogue terrestrial" or "not a Sky channel", whichever suits my argument better ;

However, I also suppose I should get used to meaning DTT now :)
As all (or almost all) channels that are available on DTT are available via both Digital Cable and Digital Satellite, I think the term 'terrestrial' (at least for the purposes of this thread) should be taken to mean 'DTT'.

[aerialplug]

I have to chime in here - for me at least cable only exclusive rights is far worse than satellite only rights. As others pointed out, most people can theoretically recieve Sky (yes I know there are restrictions for tower blocks/listed buildings etc, but their geographic coverage is vast).

However, if like me, you live in an area where jet packs and flying cars are more likely to arrive first, cable only is terrible news as I don't get the choice in the first place.

I hope this eventually gets sorted out and the $ky channels reappear on Virgin Media.
At least then it would alleviate this rediculous situation we're currently in where different platforms are making different deals to try to outbid each other for the same content.

It was bad enough when Sky were outbidding whole series from free channels, but to find that now it seems to see a specific series you have to be "geographically blessed" is beyond sanity.

Thank goodness for the internet.

[alextegg]

I'm against monopolies too. Much as I hate Murdoch, I don't want Branson to get a "really good show exclusive just to get his own back". That would be (almost) as bad.

I don't care, or see it as a problem if Sky or Virgin or anyone else has a channel that no one else has, the important thing is that no one has exclusive rights to any programme.

An operator should be allowed to buy "first run" rights as they do now, but it should be available to all afterwards, IMHO

[TCM2007]

It's the program maker's right to sell their property to whoever they want. It's only TV, after all. If you value a show enough to get a Sky dish to watch it, that's a decision each of us has to make. It's not as if free Tv is exactly lacking in channels of content these days. Keep regulation and rules to important stuff.

[aerialplug]

It's the program maker's right to sell their property to whoever they want. It's only TV, after all. If you value a show enough to get a Sky dish to watch it, that's a decision each of us has to make. It's not as if free Tv is exactly lacking in channels of content these days. Keep regulation and rules to important stuff.

Sorry, but I think people are missing the point here.

there are LARGE areas of the UK that don't have cable. Most people who live in cities either don't realise this or are oblivious of the fact.

If Sky get exclusive rights people get annoyed because they either have to pay more money for the product or have to pay money to a company they don't wish to do so. If Virgin Media gets exclusive rights, there are a large number of people who simply don't have the choice - no cable down the street, no programme.

To say "It's only TV, after all." is easy enough, but it's also part of UK culture (whether we like it or not). I DO value shows enough to pay Sky and am happy to do so. If shows suddently become unavailable to me because a company has bought exclusive rights to show it on a medium that's simply not available to me, that's what I find unacceptable - and there's a very real danger this is going to happen because of these two corporations behaving like babies throwing toys out of the playpen to spite each other.

[alextegg]

aerialplug

I agree with you, and equally there are areas in the UK and types of building restrictions that mean people can't have sky too, notwithstanding any aversion to Murdoch.

That's why I think your argument applies equally the other way.

Alex

[katman]

aerialplug

I agree with you, and equally there are areas in the UK and types of building restrictions that mean people can't have sky too, notwithstanding any aversion to Murdoch.

That's why I think your argument applies equally the other way.

Alex

I made that point yesterday but the arguement certainly DOESNT apply equally.

There is virtually nowhere in the UK that CANT receive a SKY signal due to geographical location.

If your address is

Pretty Grade 1 Listed Cottage
Some Nice Village
MiddleOfNoWhereShire

You may be restricted on placing a dish on the building but you can put one on a shed or a pole in the garden painted like a sunflower. What you have absolutely no possibility of is getting cable.

TV over broadband also wouldnt be an option because as you get further from the exchange the slower the speed of your service so having to spend several hours downloading a one hour program might not be very popular!!!

My house is in a small road behind some larger houses. The four streets surrounding the area where I live have Cable, they didnt come down my road and there is very little possibility of them doing so in the forseeable future.

[alextegg]

If you live in a conservation area (there are many and I used to) then you can't put a dish up legally (tho loads of people do).

I just don't think it's fair to say Sky can have a monopoly on something because people _can_ get a dish, but Virgin can't because people _can't_ get cable.

I think you should be able to receive what you want to watch on your chosen medium, and pay for the privilege of watching it sooner.

That's all I was saying :confused:

[6022tivo]

Downloaded and watched series 2 before it aired on the TV anyway... Illegal??, and skys methods and fees are just as criminal.

Also some great stuff on this site, just stream and watch in the browser, some great stuff.

http://www.tv-links.co.uk/

[cwaring]

Illegal??
You need to ask? :eek:

and skys methods and fees are just as criminal.
No. Sky's methods might not be ethical but they're certainly not criminal :)

[TCM2007]

I think we've done this argument!

[cwaring]

Round and round she goes ;):D

[Podgy Dad]

It will be interesting to see what happens with iTunes in the UK. In the US you can pay for a whole series and episodes get downloaded as and when they become available, you then stream that to your TV via Apple TV. It will be interesting to see if Sky's exclusivity extends to offering the content for download. Incidentally, there's a way of buying US iTunes content if you want to do that now, you simply buy a US iTunes gift certificate and use it on the US version of the store. The combination of this and freeview is very competitive.