You tube . . . The FIA . . and SPA 2007

[StevieBee]

flemke said:

The thing that one finds insupportable is the fact that one has paid a price to view the race, either by buying a ticket or via tv advertising, yet, having paid that price, one is forbidden from sharing after the fact - when the "news" is old - what one has seen.
It is a disgrace that the world has no reasonable means of viewing clips of great or controversial moments in F1.
If these clips are so commercially precious, which is the basis for barring YouTube from hosting them, why the hell can't FOM put up its own site, with footage of every race during the 25 year copyright period? It could sell advertising on such a site, rather than trying to keep the history of F1 all secret, just like Bernie's collection of vintage F1 racing cars.

Yep - Agree!

There is a need to maintain a degree of control for the puroses of quality, consistency and commercial but I think the balance is wrong.

We did some work in the TV sector a while back and I asked an exec why there was so few F1 stars featured on chat shows and the like. The reason is that to add value to the programme, they'd ideally like show clips of the guest racing/crashing or whatever but the fee for those clips is horrendous so the production companies don't bother.

Even in the news, they have to pay. If ever you see a news story on BBC News 24 about F1, it's usually to a backdrop of some inert testing footage that falls beyond the fee structures.

The same thing applies to the Premiership and other sports but not to the same degree.

[LongQ]

Mr_Thyroid said:

mark69sheer said:

The move wasn't dastardly but very cynical and as mentioned did Alonso no favours either giving the Ferraris a breathing space.In open wheelers any move that could interlock wheels is potentially very dangerous.

I fail to see how Alonso's actions at the first corner let the Ferraris off the hook. I'd be suprised if he lifted at all from the apex La Sourse all the way to Les Combes.

Well from the TV coverage I would say that FA was half way alongside Massa with good grip on what would have been the inside line that he eventually held against Hamilton ... when he decided to drop back and head for the far side of the track, neatly taking himslef off onto the grassy strip and Hamilton off onto the run off area.

Of course it may be that he had worked out that he would get a better run off the run off area in order to pass Massa around the outside at Eau Rouge and that was what he was going for but Hamilton impeded him.

Who knows?

It would have been interesting to see them 3 abreast into Eau Rouge.

[sleep envy]

flemke said:

StevieBee said:

hornet said:

They even removed spectator shot home video, as I recall. I really don't understand being that obsessive about it.

The rights to all TV images for F1 are held by BEs company who sells the rights to broadcast these images to the highest bidders (i.e. ITV). Secondary (and limited) broadcast rights are then sold to news channels, production companies for chat/sports shows, etc. By ensuring exclusivity, a higher price for these rights can be achieved.

This has to be balanced against the need to get good exposure for the sponsors. Key phrase here is “good exposure”. In order to justify spend, the sponsors also need to monitor this exposure which you can do through a TV network but not so easy to do via the web.

It’s a question of controlling quality, exposure and maximising revenue. But that’s a question for another thread.

The thing that one finds insupportable is the fact that one has paid a price to view the race, either by buying a ticket or via tv advertising, yet, having paid that price, one is forbidden from sharing after the fact - when the "news" is old - what one has seen.
It is a disgrace that the world has no reasonable means of viewing clips of great or controversial moments in F1.
If these clips are so commercially precious, which is the basis for barring YouTube from hosting them, why the hell can't FOM put up its own site, with footage of every race during the 25 year copyright period? It could sell advertising on such a site, rather than trying to keep the history of F1 all secret, just like Bernie's collection of vintage F1 racing cars.

because when he's down to his last billion he'll be able to sell the rights for copies

[LongQ]

sleep envy said:

because when he's down to his last billion he'll be able to sell the rights for copies

Close.

I reckon that he's really waiting for the EU and US drug regulatory bodies to ban all sleeping pills on the basis of health risk or whatever and then market the majority of the coverage from the last 25 years of F1 as a chemistry free substitute.

[LaSarthe&Back]

searched on google video and found this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usd7YcQ7pz0 

interesting is the rear view from massa's car, I'm amazed alonso didn't take them both out!!

what a wr

Edited by LaSarthe&Back on Friday 21st September 17:20

Edited by LaSarthe&Back on Wednesday 26th September 00:58

[PiB]

OllieC said:

flemke said:

StevieBee said:

hornet said:

They even removed spectator shot home video, as I recall. I really don't understand being that obsessive about it.

The rights to all TV images for F1 are held by BEs company who sells the rights to broadcast these images to the highest bidders (i.e. ITV). Secondary (and limited) broadcast rights are then sold to news channels, production companies for chat/sports shows, etc. By ensuring exclusivity, a higher price for these rights can be achieved.

This has to be balanced against the need to get good exposure for the sponsors. Key phrase here is “good exposure”. In order to justify spend, the sponsors also need to monitor this exposure which you can do through a TV network but not so easy to do via the web.

It’s a question of controlling quality, exposure and maximising revenue. But that’s a question for another thread.

The thing that one finds insupportable is the fact that one has paid a price to view the race, either by buying a ticket or via tv advertising, yet, having paid that price, one is forbidden from sharing after the fact - when the "news" is old - what one has seen.
It is a disgrace that the world has no reasonable means of viewing clips of great or controversial moments in F1.
If these clips are so commercially precious, which is the basis for barring YouTube from hosting them, why the hell can't FOM put up its own site, with footage of every race during the 25 year copyright period? It could sell advertising on such a site, rather than trying to keep the history of F1 all secret, just like Bernie's collection of vintage F1 racing cars.

dont get me started on that

it drives me mad i cant get hold of DVD quality highlights of 80s races because the poison dwarf chooses not to make these available

maybe there worried it would make the current stuff look tame ?

You may think it's "insupportable" but it's their content - just because you bought a ticket or pay for your cable tv doesn't mean you own it. If that were the case we would all bring recorders to musical concerts and movies. I'd love to see this clip if it's that damning but it may make it more difficult for Mclaren (or Alonso) to obtain sponsorship money.

[flemke]

PiB said:

OllieC said:

flemke said:

StevieBee said:

hornet said:

They even removed spectator shot home video, as I recall. I really don't understand being that obsessive about it.

The rights to all TV images for F1 are held by BEs company who sells the rights to broadcast these images to the highest bidders (i.e. ITV). Secondary (and limited) broadcast rights are then sold to news channels, production companies for chat/sports shows, etc. By ensuring exclusivity, a higher price for these rights can be achieved.

This has to be balanced against the need to get good exposure for the sponsors. Key phrase here is “good exposure”. In order to justify spend, the sponsors also need to monitor this exposure which you can do through a TV network but not so easy to do via the web.

It’s a question of controlling quality, exposure and maximising revenue. But that’s a question for another thread.

The thing that one finds insupportable is the fact that one has paid a price to view the race, either by buying a ticket or via tv advertising, yet, having paid that price, one is forbidden from sharing after the fact - when the "news" is old - what one has seen.
It is a disgrace that the world has no reasonable means of viewing clips of great or controversial moments in F1.
If these clips are so commercially precious, which is the basis for barring YouTube from hosting them, why the hell can't FOM put up its own site, with footage of every race during the 25 year copyright period? It could sell advertising on such a site, rather than trying to keep the history of F1 all secret, just like Bernie's collection of vintage F1 racing cars.

dont get me started on that

it drives me mad i cant get hold of DVD quality highlights of 80s races because the poison dwarf chooses not to make these available

maybe there worried it would make the current stuff look tame ?

You may think it's "insupportable" but it's their content - just because you bought a ticket or pay for your cable tv doesn't mean you own it. If that were the case we would all bring recorders to musical concerts and movies.

We know that under the law it's "their content". This is precisely the problem.

As I said, one would not find this so objectionable if FOM were to set up, as an alternative to YouTube, their own website, so that whatever commercial gains to be had could be collected by them. I know that Bernie and FOM haven't milked F1 enough already, so let them take out millions more - no problem.
If it has to cost the public to access this historical record (as it does on YouTube), that is one thing. Denying the whole world any means to have a second look at what happened is another thing.

[LaSarthe&Back]

PiB said:

I'd love to see this clip if it's that damning...

my previous post edited for possible incorrect link - take a look

[Stuismyname]

[quote=LaSarthe&Back]searched on google video and found this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usd7YcQ7pz0 

interesting is the rear view from massa's car, I'm amazed alonso didn't take them both out!!

what a wr


[/quote]


Well found. If you look at the first bit of that clip, you'll notice a Renault (I think) doing a similar thing to Alonso. The difference is that Alonso actually leaves the track himself in his efforts to block Hamilton, whereas the Renault simply pushes his opponent out to the edge of the track but leaves enough room for the other car to get round.

In the event, the other car does actually also leave the track but the point is he had enough room to make it round. If the Renault can find traction to come out of La Source without skewing wildly across the track, Alonso surely could have.

It was deliberate and unsportsmanlike. It doesn't deserve a penalty, but equally Alonso had best keep his mouth shut if he finds himself on the receiving end of something similar in the next few races.

[mikey_p]

From the angle on the wall on the inside of La Source it appears that Alonso has traction and has his line, but you clearly see him straighten his wheels and head straight for the kurbs cutting off Hamilton. However you can't really tell if he straightens as he is getting understeer, or whether it is just to push Hamilton out.

After seeing it again though my opinions may have changed slightly. At first I thought it was out of order and un-sporting. But considering they are in a title fight, and he is merely blocking Hamilton from getting past I seems slightly fairer then I first thought. Whether he would have done that if there was wet grass or gravel on the outside of La Source would easily provide the answer though.

I still don't like the bloke though.