• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

ICC targets YouTube World Cup clips

Dick Rockett

Dick Rockett

International Vice-Captain
Good point from Scaly there.

Another cynical money grab from the ICC in this case. Even if we don't consider the vast numbers of people who have no access to the "legit" broadcasts, where exactly is the harm in letting the rest of us watch some poor quality three minute highlights reel? FFS, my local broadcaster is doing its best to ensure that what games it does show are only ever broadcast when no-one's around to watch them, and my fat slug of a flatmate ensures that I can never catch the rest. Youtube highlights are the best I can do most of the time, and I'm paying to receive the games legitimately anyway.
 
adharcric

adharcric

International Coach
Goughy said:
Well you could also add Google/Youtube profiting from the free broadcast of something that has cost a TV company piles of money to own.

Id love for someone to tell me how its fair for youtube to piggyback and profit from the investment of others?
Click to expand...
YouTube's profit has a very minimal impact on the profit of the broadcast companies. In that sense, YouTube clips do not have a negative impact on the business of these broadcast companies - arguably, they have a positive long-term impact. It all boils down to YouTube making a little profit along with cricket getting exposure and fans without access getting some access vs. YouTube not making any profit because it's "not right" and cricket being restricted to official telecast which not too many have access to. Easy decision for me.

Some may call this a case of the ICC being greedy. Perhaps, but they are also being stupid from a business perspective.
 
Last edited:
H

Hamilton B

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
silentstriker said:
Except its not, because you're not getting the whole game for free, and you're not getting it live. It would be like showing screen-shots of the software, instead of the software itself.
Click to expand...
So off the mark there. You get all the juicy bits on Youtube. I'm pretty sure you're more likely to find clips of say Gibbs hitting six sixes in an over than ones of Kallis or Ganguly defending ball after ball.

And it doesn't matter if its live or not. The rights bought by the respective parties apply to repeat telecasts, archival footage equally too.

Youtube does not have the right to (allow) webcast even a single second of the footage, and no amount of self delusion can alter that fact. There is a perfectly valid legal reason why this site, for example, does not carry clips of the matches.
 
irfan

irfan

State Captain
Aaargh, hate the fact that the ICC have caused Youtube to remove WC clips.

Geez, all we want is 5 min highlights reel of what happened. Is that too much to ask ?
 
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
Most companies are realizing the positive promotion that youtube causes. You work with the site, and it can have massive pay-offs for you.
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, have to concur with the majority view here. It's a silly, short sighted move by the ICC. There's really no practical way that it's going to cost revenue for youtube to show brief highlights packages some time after the games are complete. It's not live, so it's not going to have any impact on television viewership, and that simply leaves it as free publicity and a potential increase in audience, both in the short and long term.
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Malcolm S said:
So off the mark there. You get all the juicy bits on Youtube. I'm pretty sure you're more likely to find clips of say Gibbs hitting six sixes in an over than ones of Kallis or Ganguly defending ball after ball.

And it doesn't matter if its live or not. The rights bought by the respective parties apply to repeat telecasts, archival footage equally too.

Youtube does not have the right to (allow) webcast even a single second of the footage, and no amount of self delusion can alter that fact. There is a perfectly valid legal reason why this site, for example, does not carry clips of the matches.
Click to expand...

The issue isn't whether they have the legal power to do this, it's just completely and utterly stupid. It's bad for everyone. The ICC gets less money, the people get less cricket, the players get less coverage. If we let the solicitors rule the world we may as well just paint everything ocean grey, then later on military grey and then back to ocean grey.
 
PY

PY

International Coach
I think part of the problem is that there is currently 50 mins of highlights on YouTube of the England-Kenya match and a couple of other matches.

I agree to some extent that it's a bit tight of the ICC but I bet they are under pressure from broadcasters to do it. I'd rather see them ban everything longer than a 5 min clip on the game, leave the 5 min ones and put a time delay on when they can be released. As Jack says, companies are realising the potential of YouTube but I'll bet good money that the ICC isn't going to be one of them for quite some time. :p
 
Neil Pickup

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
Scaly piscine said:
The issue isn't whether they have the legal power to do this, it's just completely and utterly stupid. It's bad for everyone. The ICC gets less money, the people get less cricket, the players get less coverage. If we let the solicitors rule the world we may as well just paint everything ocean grey, then later on military grey and then back to ocean grey.
Click to expand...
Then have a furious argument with yourself about it.
 
Dasa

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
Scaly piscine said:
The issue isn't whether they have the legal power to do this, it's just completely and utterly stupid. It's bad for everyone. The ICC gets less money, the people get less cricket, the players get less coverage. If we let the solicitors rule the world we may as well just paint everything ocean grey, then later on military grey and then back to ocean grey.
Click to expand...
Haha, Malcolm S.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
vic_orthdox said:
Most companies are realizing the positive promotion that youtube causes. You work with the site, and it can have massive pay-offs for you.
Click to expand...
Not sure that's completely right. Companies are worried about associating themselves with youtube, because a lot of stuff gets on there that really shouldn't. The ICC aren't the first company to get pissed off about it. A lot of companies don't want their product associated with a site which features/d the Saddam Hussein hanging, amongst other things.

Microsoft considered outbidding Google for it but declined for this very reason.

I don't really have an opinion as to whether it's right or wrong, it's just the way it is
 
Kweek

Kweek

Cricketer Of The Year
GGG said:
What countries can't get coverage? Holland = Ary Digital yeah you would need to buy a satellite system and a 100 euro package. I can understand them going after the hundreds of sites streaming it live for free or shady sites charging like cricketon, that sites been up for ever. But short low resolution clips on youtube, they should be thanking youtube for the free marketing.
Click to expand...

I only want to see the cricket, no need to pay for a whole pakistani/indian rimbambo
rather buy Sky...but ffs that's illegal :/
 
P

Poker Boy

State Vice-Captain
What I don't understand is that other sports must have TV deals too. So why don't they ban clips from Youtube to protect their deals? Probably because they sre not as paranoid as the ICC who do make asses of themselves sometimes. Just think - I can watch my favourite tennis player winning indian Wells when I want but not England winning the WC(if it happens).It's just a bit of appaling PR and people who don't know about cricket will wonder what cricket has to hide.
 
R

RhyZa

School Boy/Girl Cricketer
:laugh:

This is a joke right? Early April fools or something?

No one, let alone a governing body of a major sport, can be this stupid?

Having clips of highlights on youtube can only be beneficial to ALL parties involved.
 
Stefano

Stefano

School Boy/Girl Captain
One would suspect that it is a clause in the contract added by Media and Television companies that buy the rights rather than anything the ICC do.

If the rights are sold (which as we know are the lifeblood of the sport) then things like this are to be expected as the TV companies protect their investment.

If everyone watched on youtube then the TV companies would recieve zero ad revenue and the rights would be worthless.
Click to expand...
This is right! But... Why don't the ICC and TV companies act as the NBA, NHL and NCAA? All these leagues have an agreement with Youtube. These leagues upload several videos on Youtube: they are just highlights, but it is good. So, ICC and the TV companies could upload their videos there. Maybe 15-20 minutes per match. That would be perfect!. Or even better... Why don't the ICC create a Video section on its site? Same thing: 15-20 minutes per game. That would be awesome. So, if you want to see more, pay!!!

This is what the NHL is doing with Youtube!
 
Last edited:
LA ICE-E

LA ICE-E

State Captain
yeah thats what i was talking about in the second page...the markeing director has to think outside the box...which they dont yet...but it will catch on to them soon hopefully.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top