eMedia hits back at MultiChoice in rugby rights saga

Jan

Jan

Who's the Boss?
Staff member
Joined
May 24, 2010
Messages
13,731
Reaction score
11,500
Location
The Rabbit Hole
Openview slaps back

eMedia has hit back at MultiChoice’s argument that Openview is merely looking for a taxpayer-subsidised “free ride” to broadcast the Rugby World Cup.

MultiChoice and eMedia are meeting in court on Tuesday morning after the E-tv and Openview owner filed urgent court papers at the end of last month.
 
In their responding affidavit, eMedia CFO Antonio Lee said MultiChoice’s argument reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about their application.

He said eMedia is not seeking to broadcast the rugby matches on any of its channels, whether E-tv or any other “eChannel”.

“All that eMedia seeks is to carry the full content of the SABC channels on the OpenView platform, in accordance with its contractual entitlement in terms of the agreement with the SABC,” Lee stated.
Click to expand...

Lol.

Didn't read further, what a lame response.
Why would eMedia need to defend SABC's rights? :laugh:
And SABC did supply some content for the channel, so no harm done, and SABC was happy to.

Ridiculous.
 
"He explained that SuperSport had paid a substantial sum to secure the exclusive rights for DStv to broadcast the Rugby World Cup."

Well there's your problem
 
  • Like
Reactions: Swa
Delay till world cup is over, maybe let them show the final when its all over already
 
Brian_G said:
Lol.

Didn't read further, what a lame response.
Why would eMedia need to defend SABC's rights? :laugh:
And SABC did supply some content for the channel, so no harm done, and SABC was happy to.

Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Depends on whether they are paying the SABC for the content. If they are paying the SABC for the content, then they should be allowed to broadcast it.
 
konfab said:
Depends on whether they are paying the SABC for the content. If they are paying the SABC for the content, then they should be allowed to broadcast it.
Click to expand...
They're confusing things by discussing a contractual agreement - that's for the extra SABC channels, the basic channels are compulsory to carry including SABC 2 & 3 so not a commercial interest.
 
Brian_G said:
They're confusing things by discussing a contractual agreement - that's for the extra SABC channels, the basic channels are compulsory to carry including SABC 2 & 3 so not a commercial interest.
Click to expand...
Not for FTA operators like OpenView. Only subscription services have the "must carry" obligations under the law.
 
emedia make no money from this and SAbc would be able to get higher add revue assuming more peoples would watch on open view. Guess the additional exposure and more people buying / using openview is their angle
 
konfab said:
Not for FTA operators like OpenView. Only subscription services have the "must carry" obligations under the law.
Click to expand...
First time I've heard that but will take your word for it.

It still boils down to the SABC having made the decision of their own choosing.

Speedster said:
Application dismissed with costs
Click to expand...
And that's the final word
 
Brian_G said:
First time I've heard that but will take your word for it.

It still boils down to the SABC having made the decision of their own choosing.


And that's the final word
Click to expand...
I went through the whole "must carry" thing, and it appears that DSTV are correct in that they don't apply to FTA for some reason.

However, the agreement explicitly blocked the SABC from airing the games on third-party platforms like the eMedia-owned Openview.

MultiChoice explained that subscription TV services like StarSat and its own DStv platform were exempted from this due to South Africa’s “Must-Carry Regulations”.

These compel subscription TV service to carry the SABC’s channels at no cost.
Click to expand...
https://mybroadband.co.za/news/broa...supersport-beats-openview-in-court-fight.html

And actually there the article isn't correct because Must Carry actually means that whomever is forced to carry them has to pay for them.

The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) welcomes the amendment of the Must Carry Regulations 2022 which now require subscription broadcasters to carry the public broadcasters’ channels “subject to commercially negotiable terms.” The SABC commends the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) for correcting a historical wrong which had given subscription broadcasters the right to carry SABC channels “at no cost” since the enforcement of the Must Carry regulations in 2008.
Click to expand...

https://www.sabc.co.za/sabc/media-statement-sabc-welcomes-the-amendment-of-must-carry-regulations-2022-by-icasa/#:~:text=Johannesburg-Friday, 1 April 2022,The SABC commends the Independent

If eMedia was a subscription service rather than a FTA channel, it would mean they would have to pay the SABC.
 
Brian_G said:
Lol.

Didn't read further, what a lame response.
Why would eMedia need to defend SABC's rights? :laugh:
And SABC did supply some content for the channel, so no harm done, and SABC was happy to.

Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Not what I read. They are defending their own rights. Jury's argument is a weak one here. First eMedia doesn't benefit directly as it simply carries the channel in an unaltered form and can't inject their own ads which they are paid for, unlike the channels from other providers that MC airs. Secondly as they state exclusivity is already broken so it's simply of MC's choosing that they'd have to alter the price. It also doesn't make sense in light of his earlier argument that there's only a few thousand viewers with access to only Openview.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter