Love it. I'm surprised they're allowed to use the audio, though. In the USA, the licensing notices specifically prohibit use of even "the descriptions" that appear in a broadcast.
I suppose they'll close that loophole in other countries.
The whole regime is a big F-U to fans, and to the taxpayers who subsidize these teams out the wazoo.
That reminds me of the anecdote of UK radio coverage of a cricket match in Australia in the early 1900's, the broadcasters were reading a transcript (telegraphed?) and hitting the table with pencil to simulate the bat hitting the ball.
Ronald Reagan used to tell a story like this from his sportscasting days. In particular he mentioned one time the wire system was delayed, and the only way to keep the "game" going without possibly affecting the outcome wrongly was to have the batter continuously foul-tip the ball, and that time in particular "you've never heard of a player executing so many foul tips in a row"
What about the grunting? Gonna need a consult with Pornhub on training that one.
Ultimately though, with the help of AI and some volunteers in the demoscene, we should be able to compress tennis audio down to a few kilobytes per hour.
you can’t copyright facts. descriptions of the broadcast might be copyrighted, but stating facts of the individual events can’t actually be copyrighted, regardless of what the nfl and olympics say in their disclaimer.
This doesn't have anything to do with copyright. This is about contract restrictions, which would usually forbid reusing the same audio in a case like this.
> but stating facts of the individual events can’t actually be copyrighted, regardless of what the nfl and olympics say in their disclaimer.
That's interesting. Does that mean someone could go to an NFL game and broadcast the play by play of the game? Stating facts like: "It's 4th and goal, mahomes drops back and passed to kelce for a touchdown". You could legally broadcast that?
Legally? As in do you have a right to? No. You accepted terms and conditions when you bought a ticket, and they will prohibit you from broadcasting. So it’s a breach of contract if you do that.
I do wonder what the intersection of that with viewing rights is. You can probably report what you saw on screen in real time because that’s happening in your home. But who really knows…
But that's just a shitty contract of adhesion. There is no "meeting of the minds", terms are not negotiated. The enforcability depends more on the relative appetites of the contracting parties.
The copyright situation is distinct, and may fall under "hot news", but isn't affected by a clickwrap on the site that sold you the ticket.
A ticket to a football game will never be considered a contract of adhesion. The terms are very much negotiated. Nobody has any need to go to a game. Nobody is being tricked or forced into anything. It is a one-time ticket to watch a show or shows, with an agreement not to rebroadcast that show.
Do we live in different realities? I've gone to lots of football games of lots of kinds of football and I've never negotiated the terms with the venue. I can't even remember bringing my lawyer!
Your negotiation occurs by you deciding to buy or not to buy a ticket. You can go to a baseball game instead. Or go skiing. There is no power imbalance. Compare government-mandated car insurance, or water/sewage service to your home, situations where one does not have great choice in providers nor can one easily walk away.
Maybe it wasn't clear, but I'm using "contract of adhesion" and "negotiation" in their customary legal meanings. A negotiation here would be communication between the parties in order to decide on the terms of the contract. Since this doesn't occur (the venue has already written the contract and only offers it as-is) the contract is deemed to be one of "adhesion". (Definitions vary among jurisdictions, and I'm only familiar with some English speaking common law ones.)
Certainly in the US there doesn't need to be a negotiation for a contract of adhesion to be binding. Not sure where you got that from - I'd be really interested a reference that says that. I would have thought a lack of negotiation is the defining characteristic of an adhesion contract. You take it or leave it - there is no negotiation.
A contract of adhesion is not binding in the US if it is "Unreasonably one-sided". I think you would really struggle to convince any US court that without a right to rebroadcast the ticket contract was unreasonable. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/adhesion-contract.asp
> I think you would really struggle to convince any US court that without a right to rebroadcast the ticket contract was unreasonable.
I don't know about that. Suppose something happens at the game that reflects poorly on the organizers. Could they then demand that all the fans who caught it on their phones are not allowed to distribute it? That seems about as reasonable as sticking a contract on the purchase of any other product that prohibits the customer from criticizing the product, i.e. not reasonable at all.
You're also stating it backwards. It isn't that the ticket is failing to grant you a right to "rebroadcast" the game, it's that it's trying to take away your default right to relay things you've seen with your own eyes. Notice that it's the presence rather than the absence of a term which is causing the issue.
> Certainly in the US there doesn't need to be a negotiation for a contract of adhesion to be binding. Not sure where you got that from...
Not sure where you got that from! The original question was about the legality of reporting the facts of an ongoing game by a spectator. I don't think that contracts of adhesion are in general unenforceable, but only that they are not so obviously enforceable as standard contracts or copyright law.
In fact I agree with everything you've said, except to say that I can imagine an unreasonable clause in a contract that prevents you from describing what you'd seen. I guess it would depend on the particulars though.
When was the last time a fan went to a football game under a contract other than the one preprinted onto the ticket stock? If the answer is "never", then the terms are most definitely not negotiated.
You’re missing the point that the ‘negotiation’ occurs when you buy the ticket or don’t buy the ticket. It’s up to you, the terms are clear, and you could go spend your time on something else without those damn football teams interfering with your life at all.
There are tall buildings near some baseball fields that can see onto the field, and some even have bleachers on the roof. There was no contract with MLB if you watch the game from there.
That kind of situation (with Wrigley Field being a great example) was ruined when people started trying to profit by charging people to sit on the roof. That's when teams started putting up barricades to block their view.
Just another example of greed ruining what people enjoyed for decades in a sort of detente.
Famously, again in Australia, the ABC lost the rights to broadcast football final games to a commercial station, so two ABC comedians (Roy and HG) did a radio show where they watched the game on tv live and added their own humorous commentary. Viewers would watch the commercial TV channel with the sound down and the ABC radio station sound instead.
The corporation certainly can kick you out of the stadium, but any law that can make such broadcast illegal is probably nigh unconstitutional in the US.
Washington Landlord Tenant law lists several unwaivable rights of tenants, even given specific consideration.
You can't put a clause in my lease that says "For a discount of $100/mo, I forego the relevant rights on habitability (heating, water, etc.)" - even if I am willing to agree to it.
No, that is not correct. Search for “unwaivable rights”. Obviously you can’t just limit rights with a contract. If you could, labour laws would be useless and minimum wages wouldn’t exist.
Only tangentially-related anecdote: I took my camera to a Dodgers game. To get in, you have to go through metal detectors. No problems.
I was sitting in my seat with friends, looking through my camera when a security guy came up and told me that I couldn't take pictures and that I had to take the lens off my camera. Of course I thought this was a joke and laughed in his face.
But no, he (and his buddy who also showed up) were serious. They claimed that my lens was TOO LARGE and therefore couldn't be used. I said well I went through security and they obviously didn't have a problem with it, and no fucking way was I taking it off my camera and leaving the sensor exposed all afternoon.
They grudgingly let me keep the camera together but threatened me with punishment if I was seen using it. And they seriously loitered around in the grandstand eyeballing me for the rest of the game.
It's incredible what people are expected to (and, sadly, do) tolerate now. I, the taxpayer and admission-payer, am being berated and abused for simply enjoying what I paid for.
I wish there were a law to the effect of "if a copyright holder lies that doing something with their copyrighted work is prohibited, when it's actually allowed, then the work in question immediately and permanently enters the public domain".
I like watching random sports on YouTube so saw this yesterday. I could only manage a minute, it was just bizarre. It did make me wonder how I could watch the Australia Open, but I wasn't willing to subscribe to ESPN to see it.
Of your primary interests in life where would you rank ESPN+? Now multiply that by $12 to get an overall impact since presumably you would be willing to pay at least as much for things you value more highly.
This is why "just" $x per month is, in general, not a sustainable model for most things for most people and why 'piracy' is booming again.
The Australian open runs for two weeks, solely in January, so you can subscribe for a single month. ~$12 is roughly the price of a single beer at a game. If you can get 2 weeks of entertainment for $12, I think that’s reasonable.
This is the sort of thing I used to think when I was a student with no money. Now I have a job in tech and I can afford many multiples of $12 a month, thousands even.
What about your time, which is now more valued by others, and probably (hopefully) is extremely valuable to you?
Personally, I wouldn't do it because I don't even want to spend the time subscribing (and then unsubscribing, and dealing with whatever other issues come up), much less watching.
If I am watching my favourite team play in a league via that league's paid broadcast subscription, some of those fees end usually end up with the teams via revenue share. Fair chop.
Tennis players are individuals who rarely have leverage/management in place to negotiate for bigger slices of the pie. You only get paid if you win. The base rate for the Australian Open is about 20k USD, which if you are an international travelling, would barely cover costs if you had multiple support staff you had to support on the road for the two weeks the tournament runs
In the 2024 report file sharing was #4 in downstream volume. 9% of total compared to 39% for video. Youtube was 16%, Netflix 12%. Piracy is still way less common compared to streaming, tho I do enjoy the unbeatable quality of a 50GB bluray remux
I used pirate streaming websites as a kid, but I thought fewer people use them today because the video quality sucks. Any stats on the percent of people using them over time?
According to research conducted by NERA Economic Consulting and the US Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation and Policy Center, over four-fifths of all online piracy-related activities are linked to illegal streaming websites. This trend is especially prominent in the TV and movie industry.
Normies don't pirate using BitTorrent, especially for live-events streaming (which BitTorrent doesn't support): they'll find some dodgy website offering a proxy'd (and downsampled) video stream for free (with ads overlayed) or for a modest one-time fee via PayPal or a cryptocoin, especially when some big event has an extortionate pay-per-view fee.
Music piracy was killed-off by Spotify.
For movies/TV, they'll turn to publicly-shared Plex libraries - I only found out about this a few weeks ago: so in 2025, with more-and-more people having high-upload-bandwidth Internet connections it turns out that now you don't need a distributed DHT-based swarm of chunks of files with hundreds of seeders: all you need is a couple generous individuals running an open Plex box that's served-up behind a cheap offshore VPN provider, using the official Plex App from the Samsung TV app-store.
...I've no idea how long that's going to last: running behind a VPN means the MPAA (et al.) can't do much against those sharing their collections publicly like they did with BitTorrent (c.f. PeerGuardian), and Plex has somehow survived this-far given it does have legitimate uses, and the apps don't violate any app-store policy I'm aware-of, so I'm concerned the MPAA is going to lobby for some laws outright prohibiting apps/software/technology that facilitates piracy for nontechnical users somehow.
(Or they could follow GabeN's advice and start offering a superior service and convenience to the user with a cooperative consolidation of all rightsholders under a single branded tent, but we all know that's not going to happen)
I've seen many places playing music from a YouTube playlist, with ads included. And anybody can download the audio stream from YouTube with a minimal software setup. There used to be browser addons that added a Save As button to YouTube pages. I'm not using them, maybe Google banned all of them from its store but there are many ways to do it.
> And anybody can download the audio stream from YouTube with a minimal software setup.
That's the issue. Almost nobody downloads music anymore, however easy it is. Because streaming apps like Spotify make the experience so much better. You are in the middle of the song and wants to cast to your living room speakers? Two clicks. You want to transfer that from your phone to your computer? Just a few clicks. Want to quickly jump back into an album or get recommendations of similar albums? It's all there on the home page. It's hard to beat this experience. The only exception I know is people who rip/pirate FLAC files because they want the best quality possible and don't care about anything else. That's like <0.01% of the users these days.
You used the word correctly, but I asked because those businesses were probably breaking copyright law (at least in the US). They require very specific broadcast licenses to play music in a business. Even though it was subsidized by ads from Google, those agreements are intended to handle personal use.
Piracy is tending to happen via archive services now, rather than torrenting. The pirates are less sophisticated, so the distribution methods are "more familiar" to them.
The way most sports works you can’t just get espn+. They might not license all the games so you are beholden to multiple services to get them. Playoffs are also a mess. Services know viewerships are up and rights are traded for specific games like cattle. It is the most anti consumer thing I’ve seen trying to follow college football. Easier to just watch it at a bar that pays into all of this.
Doesn't this harm the long-term value of AOs rights sales to the broadcasters?
If I know AO is going to broadcast on youtube, why am I as a European broadcaster going to pay them the same amount as I did when they weren't trying to work against me?
It’s weird how invisible tennis is on television in Europe.
I was traveling in Spain and Italy last year when Roland Garros was on, which included major highlights like Nadal’s (likely) last ever match there and strong performances from European players like Alcaraz, Sinner, Tsitsipas and Zverev (indeed almost all of the current top ten men are European).
But it was only on the pay channel EuroSport, which many homes (and thus Airbnbs) don’t seem to have, and was only available for us in one upmarket hotel in Spain we stayed in for an indulgence for one night.
So the tournament promoters may be making the calculation that if the current TV rights holders aren’t ultimately getting many eyeballs watching their events, they need to do other things to build/maintain the profile of the sport with a view to one day offering it only via the internet (particularly if broadcast TV continues to decline and the networks can no longer afford large rights deals).
In the Netherlands we have moved on from using tax payer money for live sports.
Public broadcasting shouldn't piss away millions on TV rights when the free market can do it.
Taxpayer-funded TV stations aren’t showing major commercial sport in Australia or anywhere else, really.
If it’s not exclusive to pay television, it’s on free-to-air commercial networks. These are fully private companies that pay a large license fee to use spectrum, and fund their purchase of the sports broadcasting rights by selling advertising (usually at peak rates as these events are very popular).
In Australia, all four of the Grand Slam tennis tournaments are shown on free-to-air commercial TV. No taxpayer funding whatsoever but easily accessible to everyone.
Survival amid viewer shifts away from traditional broadcasts.
The people who they sell the rights to are less valuable partners, so AO feels comfortable making them a less valuable offer while pursuing other audiences.
Is there a level of fidelity at which the animated character becomes an issue? Are we going to be seeing unreal engine powered photorealistic characters before this loophole is closed?
Does the rights holder have to specify that the motion data is not acceptable for rebroadcast?
On the surface this seems like a cheap abuse of loopholes and any broadcast partner would be looking at them askance and consulting contacts and lawyers...
Animation bone format probably needs a redesign. Human anatomy is universally represented as a simple chain of sticks with ball joints at the end, which is good enough for many purposes but not ideal for closeup shots of muscular figures.
This reminds me of the voice ban Thatcher enacted in the UK back in the late 80s relating to the Troubles.
It was illegal to broadcast the voices of representatives of specific political groups (apart from during elections). Mainly Gerry Adams, who was leader of Sinn Féin, a party strongly linked to the IRA and terrorism.
The law was overly specific, so broadcasters, including the BBC, just dubbed his voice with a soundalike.
The person you replied to was themselves replying to someone talking about a theoretical future ban, not the past ban, and since that first person was talking about a positive of no longer hearing from unspecified famous people they clearly weren't talking about a law that would once again make it easy for impersonators to make it so that people still hear the same views in the same voices just technically spoken by actors.
That's pretty good, I'm stealing that. You've just motivated me to go buy the cord I need for my Kindle and probably made my life a few percent better by doing so.
This comment is a perfect encapsulation of the ridiculously simple understanding of the political landscape that seems to be rampant among the tech industry.
- The NHL used their new-ish player position tracking tech to produce a real-time (or at least near-real-time) game themed to Big City Greens last year, and is set to do another in a few weeks -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCupuTnNmQ0
Instead of filling NFL game broadcasts with absurd amounts of graphics overlaid on camera footage, we could go the opposite direction and show minimalist renderings of live NFL games. Revolutionary.
I assume eventually there will be an upsell product that allows you to watch with a 3D/VR courtside view. I’m kind of surprised it doesn’t exist already. I think Apple would sell a few more headsets if they made this happen.
Apple are recording footage - there are immersive videos on the AVP for MLS and a few other things, and they're tremendous, but nobody is streaming them yet. It's a lot of data, which I assume hasn't been cracked yet.
In addition, the real end-goal would be complete 3D reconstruction that lets you view the stadium from any angle, but I imagine that's a few years away still - lots of technical problems to solve to create a scene and stream it in real-time.
Yea, there have been a few events where the (very expensive) Apple custom 3D rig has appeared courtside with no details given. It still remains to be seen what they're going to actually put out using it, since the Apple 3D content so far is extremely limited.
Somewhat halfway would be a slightly delayed version of the game using much better-in-hindsight decisions about which camera angles to show during a play.
Last FIFA World Cup I was looking for recaps on Youtube after the day's matches. A lot of results were unofficial videogame recreations (think XBox EA Sports FC) of the real match final score. It was very weird.
At one point data for every MLB game was available from MLB.com. I started writing a RBI baseball simulator using said data and the graphics from the NES game. But then I realized I'm not that good at programming but I still think it would've been neat to watch game 3 of the 1970 world series as played out by 1985 video game graphics.
The main difference is that it's rendered client side so you can control the camera for yourself. You can watch in real time during the season, the latency is around 30 seconds behind live action.
In case anyone is wondering how to pay for and watch tennis in US: there is a tennis tv app. That app allows you to watch the men’s tour. There’s another app, the tennis channel app, that is for the women’s tour and maybe some other random tourneys. Neither of those apps have the grand slams tho, ie the Australian open. For that , in the US you need espn plus and can’t get away from ads. And then there’s also the French open. And between nbc, peacock and whatever else, beyond pirating the matches, I’ve genuinely been stumped trying to pay for it legitimately.
I saw this the other day on YouTube and it made me turn on the real thing.
Not quite on the subject of sports, but in Singapore sometimes it's really hard to pay to stream/download random movies/shows.
Territorial rights just don't make sense anymore and I will die on this hill. The whole point about Netflix was that it proved that customers know what they want if you make it available.
We now have global-first distribution channels why is it still so slow to disrupt those old creeky TV players
The thing is that major live sport is now the only category that is successful in the broadcast TV market. Without that, many (most?) broadcast networks may as well shut down. We saw the best evidence of that recently in Australia when the Foxtel pay TV company was sold to European sports streaming service DAZN.
Foxtel has dozens of channels including the “agenda-setting” Sky News but in the end only its major sports rights deals (which it’s been bidding up and losing money on for years) held any value.
One day we’ll all accept that broadcast TV is dead and everyone can just have a personalized content feed streamed to them, but for as long as broadcast TV license holders keep up the fight, it’s going to be a frustrating endeavor trying to see the sports we want, wherever we are.
> The whole point about Netflix was that it proved that customers know what they want if you make it available.
yes, but the media rights owners want the maximum money from their viewers, where as netflix model leaves money on the table.
It's why i almost always resort to piracy, now that netflix has lost a lot of their licenses for stuff as media rights owners start their own walled gardens.
Does it leave money on the table? Genuine question...
Would traditional media have been able to produce Squid Games? I remember Disney suddenly falling over themselves to "Me Too" that they did the Korean thing too.
I can see for certain things like sports where there's big money, but still seems like having "Domestic" oriented distribution management leaves money on the table. When you can broadcast to the entire planet what new opportunities can you get, will they offset what you give up under the old model
> "Does it leave money on the table? Genuine question..."
Yes it does, 100%.
Once you've got content that people in multiple countries want to watch, you've broadly got two options: let everyone watch on the same terms, or split it up by region. Even Netflix chooses the latter - each country that Netflix has customers in has a different price for subscribing. (They also have different libraries of media that can be watched, but that's mainly as a result of the companies they license it from doing different deals for different countries, as far as I know Netflix do release their own content in all regions at the same time.)
This is because if you don't price it differently, you either price it for countries like the US, and make it unaffordable - or too expensive to be worth paying for, at least - for much of the world, or you price it more cheaply and leave money on the table from Americans (and other rich countries) who would've been willing to pay more.
If the media industry hadn't existed before the internet then probably all companies would look more like Netflix and the other streaming companies, and it would be simple for all content to be licensed globally to the same streaming platform. But because both historically and still today we have broadcast companies which are country specific, any time they get involved (which is pretty much every time with the exception of content made by the steaming companies themselves), you now not only have custom pricing per country but also custom where-can-you-watch per country. And while this can be annoying, it ultimately leads to the content owners earning more than if they didn't do specific deals with specific broadcasters and instead sold a single package to a single streaming company.
> "Would traditional media have been able to produce Squid Games?"
I'm not sure what aspect of it you think required Netflix, but for decades media companies have been producing things with more than a single country in mind - whether that's BBC's Top Gear being syndicated to a huge number of countries, or Friends being dubbed in French, or whatever. I don't see any reason that a BBC or Apple or whoever else couldn't have done it, the only difference is that BBC doesn't have a global distribution platform like Netflix does, so BBC would have had to do deals with broadcasters (or streaming companies) for any country they want viewers in other than the UK.
This is 100 percent the truth. Watching tennis in the US has become increasingly frustrating. I almost long for the old days where one could count on one of two channels to always have coverage. I wish Amazon, Netflix, YouTube or similar would step up and secure all the rights from college to Grand Slam tennis.
And after you pay for ESPN+ if the match you are interested in is actually broadcast you have commercials interrupt game play. I paid for this once, never again.
Nothing drives me more nuts than them showing commercials during the changeover, coming back at 30-0 and then showing the replay of the drama from what went down during the changeover.
When I watch a match commercial free, with changeovers, I find myself much more engaged. Changeovers can tell you a lot about the match and player and espn just ignores it and then has the audacity to replay any drama during the real points. It’s a travesty.
I think vtuber sports could be an interesting genre! Real displays of athleticism and sportsmanship but with digital effects to augment it. Maybe it's already been done, I'm not particularly in touch with online trends.
If you missed the best at the bottom, it turns out that Tennis Australia does VC investing too now:
> Tennis Australia has funded several startups through its venture capital fund as it looks to push into the technology space, including a failed flirtation with non-fungible tokens (NFTs) that concluded last year.
> The fund, AO Ventures, is worth US$30 million (A$41.8 million) and includes support from Tesla chair Robyn Denholm’s Wollemi Capital Group (which also has investments in the NBL and the Sydney Kings), as well as Art Gallery of NSW chair Mark Nelson and Packer confidante Ashok Jacob.
With all the motion tracking they're doing, they could replicate this in a VR environment. You could watch the cartoonified game like you're actually there.
Love it. I'm surprised they're allowed to use the audio, though. In the USA, the licensing notices specifically prohibit use of even "the descriptions" that appear in a broadcast.
I suppose they'll close that loophole in other countries.
The whole regime is a big F-U to fans, and to the taxpayers who subsidize these teams out the wazoo.
The audio of a tennis match is so interchangeable, I bet it could be stitched together from some standard soundbites on the fly if necessary.
* Racket Hit #12 * * Shoe Squeak #03 * * Audience Cheer #10 * * "What a great shot!" *
I believe this[1] 99% Invisible podcast episode talks about foley during sporting events.
[1] https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-sound-of-sports/
That reminds me of the anecdote of UK radio coverage of a cricket match in Australia in the early 1900's, the broadcasters were reading a transcript (telegraphed?) and hitting the table with pencil to simulate the bat hitting the ball.
Ronald Reagan used to tell a story like this from his sportscasting days. In particular he mentioned one time the wire system was delayed, and the only way to keep the "game" going without possibly affecting the outcome wrongly was to have the batter continuously foul-tip the ball, and that time in particular "you've never heard of a player executing so many foul tips in a row"
Came here to say this exactly! I remember hearing this story from someone born in the 1930s.
What about the grunting? Gonna need a consult with Pornhub on training that one.
Ultimately though, with the help of AI and some volunteers in the demoscene, we should be able to compress tennis audio down to a few kilobytes per hour.
you can’t copyright facts. descriptions of the broadcast might be copyrighted, but stating facts of the individual events can’t actually be copyrighted, regardless of what the nfl and olympics say in their disclaimer.
This doesn't have anything to do with copyright. This is about contract restrictions, which would usually forbid reusing the same audio in a case like this.
> but stating facts of the individual events can’t actually be copyrighted, regardless of what the nfl and olympics say in their disclaimer.
That's interesting. Does that mean someone could go to an NFL game and broadcast the play by play of the game? Stating facts like: "It's 4th and goal, mahomes drops back and passed to kelce for a touchdown". You could legally broadcast that?
Legally? As in do you have a right to? No. You accepted terms and conditions when you bought a ticket, and they will prohibit you from broadcasting. So it’s a breach of contract if you do that.
I do wonder what the intersection of that with viewing rights is. You can probably report what you saw on screen in real time because that’s happening in your home. But who really knows…
But that's just a shitty contract of adhesion. There is no "meeting of the minds", terms are not negotiated. The enforcability depends more on the relative appetites of the contracting parties.
The copyright situation is distinct, and may fall under "hot news", but isn't affected by a clickwrap on the site that sold you the ticket.
(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_News_Service_v._... )
A ticket to a football game will never be considered a contract of adhesion. The terms are very much negotiated. Nobody has any need to go to a game. Nobody is being tricked or forced into anything. It is a one-time ticket to watch a show or shows, with an agreement not to rebroadcast that show.
Do we live in different realities? I've gone to lots of football games of lots of kinds of football and I've never negotiated the terms with the venue. I can't even remember bringing my lawyer!
Your negotiation occurs by you deciding to buy or not to buy a ticket. You can go to a baseball game instead. Or go skiing. There is no power imbalance. Compare government-mandated car insurance, or water/sewage service to your home, situations where one does not have great choice in providers nor can one easily walk away.
Maybe it wasn't clear, but I'm using "contract of adhesion" and "negotiation" in their customary legal meanings. A negotiation here would be communication between the parties in order to decide on the terms of the contract. Since this doesn't occur (the venue has already written the contract and only offers it as-is) the contract is deemed to be one of "adhesion". (Definitions vary among jurisdictions, and I'm only familiar with some English speaking common law ones.)
Certainly in the US there doesn't need to be a negotiation for a contract of adhesion to be binding. Not sure where you got that from - I'd be really interested a reference that says that. I would have thought a lack of negotiation is the defining characteristic of an adhesion contract. You take it or leave it - there is no negotiation.
A contract of adhesion is not binding in the US if it is "Unreasonably one-sided". I think you would really struggle to convince any US court that without a right to rebroadcast the ticket contract was unreasonable. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/adhesion-contract.asp
> I think you would really struggle to convince any US court that without a right to rebroadcast the ticket contract was unreasonable.
I don't know about that. Suppose something happens at the game that reflects poorly on the organizers. Could they then demand that all the fans who caught it on their phones are not allowed to distribute it? That seems about as reasonable as sticking a contract on the purchase of any other product that prohibits the customer from criticizing the product, i.e. not reasonable at all.
You're also stating it backwards. It isn't that the ticket is failing to grant you a right to "rebroadcast" the game, it's that it's trying to take away your default right to relay things you've seen with your own eyes. Notice that it's the presence rather than the absence of a term which is causing the issue.
> Certainly in the US there doesn't need to be a negotiation for a contract of adhesion to be binding. Not sure where you got that from...
Not sure where you got that from! The original question was about the legality of reporting the facts of an ongoing game by a spectator. I don't think that contracts of adhesion are in general unenforceable, but only that they are not so obviously enforceable as standard contracts or copyright law.
In fact I agree with everything you've said, except to say that I can imagine an unreasonable clause in a contract that prevents you from describing what you'd seen. I guess it would depend on the particulars though.
When was the last time a fan went to a football game under a contract other than the one preprinted onto the ticket stock? If the answer is "never", then the terms are most definitely not negotiated.
You’re missing the point that the ‘negotiation’ occurs when you buy the ticket or don’t buy the ticket. It’s up to you, the terms are clear, and you could go spend your time on something else without those damn football teams interfering with your life at all.
"My way or the highway" is not a negotiation.
There are tall buildings near some baseball fields that can see onto the field, and some even have bleachers on the roof. There was no contract with MLB if you watch the game from there.
That kind of situation (with Wrigley Field being a great example) was ruined when people started trying to profit by charging people to sit on the roof. That's when teams started putting up barricades to block their view.
Just another example of greed ruining what people enjoyed for decades in a sort of detente.
Famously, again in Australia, the ABC lost the rights to broadcast football final games to a commercial station, so two ABC comedians (Roy and HG) did a radio show where they watched the game on tv live and added their own humorous commentary. Viewers would watch the commercial TV channel with the sound down and the ABC radio station sound instead.
The corporation certainly can kick you out of the stadium, but any law that can make such broadcast illegal is probably nigh unconstitutional in the US.
It’s amazing how many constitutional rights are allowed to be restricted by contract in the US. First Amendment free speech rights are on that list.
Obviously rights can be limited by contract. That’s what a contract is: two parties agreeing to things they’re not legally forced to do.
Definitely not unilaterally.
Washington Landlord Tenant law lists several unwaivable rights of tenants, even given specific consideration.
You can't put a clause in my lease that says "For a discount of $100/mo, I forego the relevant rights on habitability (heating, water, etc.)" - even if I am willing to agree to it.
No, that is not correct. Search for “unwaivable rights”. Obviously you can’t just limit rights with a contract. If you could, labour laws would be useless and minimum wages wouldn’t exist.
>First Amendment free speech rights are on that list.
Do you think NDAs should be prohibited?
The First Amendment only prohibits speech restriction BY THE GOVERNMENT. It does not prohibit it by any other entities.
Only tangentially-related anecdote: I took my camera to a Dodgers game. To get in, you have to go through metal detectors. No problems.
I was sitting in my seat with friends, looking through my camera when a security guy came up and told me that I couldn't take pictures and that I had to take the lens off my camera. Of course I thought this was a joke and laughed in his face.
But no, he (and his buddy who also showed up) were serious. They claimed that my lens was TOO LARGE and therefore couldn't be used. I said well I went through security and they obviously didn't have a problem with it, and no fucking way was I taking it off my camera and leaving the sensor exposed all afternoon.
They grudgingly let me keep the camera together but threatened me with punishment if I was seen using it. And they seriously loitered around in the grandstand eyeballing me for the rest of the game.
It's incredible what people are expected to (and, sadly, do) tolerate now. I, the taxpayer and admission-payer, am being berated and abused for simply enjoying what I paid for.
I wish there were a law to the effect of "if a copyright holder lies that doing something with their copyrighted work is prohibited, when it's actually allowed, then the work in question immediately and permanently enters the public domain".
I don't think anyone said anything about copyrighting facts.
For once I think Google's NotebookLM could actually be useful for something that benefits humanity.
I like watching random sports on YouTube so saw this yesterday. I could only manage a minute, it was just bizarre. It did make me wonder how I could watch the Australia Open, but I wasn't willing to subscribe to ESPN to see it.
Not bad advertising really.
ESPN+ is $12 for a month via Hulu. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Finding this info is ridiculous though.
Of your primary interests in life where would you rank ESPN+? Now multiply that by $12 to get an overall impact since presumably you would be willing to pay at least as much for things you value more highly.
This is why "just" $x per month is, in general, not a sustainable model for most things for most people and why 'piracy' is booming again.
The Australian open runs for two weeks, solely in January, so you can subscribe for a single month. ~$12 is roughly the price of a single beer at a game. If you can get 2 weeks of entertainment for $12, I think that’s reasonable.
This is the sort of thing I used to think when I was a student with no money. Now I have a job in tech and I can afford many multiples of $12 a month, thousands even.
What about your time, which is now more valued by others, and probably (hopefully) is extremely valuable to you?
Personally, I wouldn't do it because I don't even want to spend the time subscribing (and then unsubscribing, and dealing with whatever other issues come up), much less watching.
Wait till the H1B come to drive your wage down.
Sports is a multi billion industry. You want to watch your favourite football team you pay up. It seems to be pretty sustainable.
If I am watching my favourite team play in a league via that league's paid broadcast subscription, some of those fees end usually end up with the teams via revenue share. Fair chop.
Tennis players are individuals who rarely have leverage/management in place to negotiate for bigger slices of the pie. You only get paid if you win. The base rate for the Australian Open is about 20k USD, which if you are an international travelling, would barely cover costs if you had multiple support staff you had to support on the road for the two weeks the tournament runs
Is piracy booming again? Google trends show interest in Bittorrent has been flat since 2017.
Bittorrent use has declined, Piracy hasn't particularly.
https://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-is-no-longer-the-king-of...
If traffic by application is of interest to anyone, there should be a new 2025 Sandvine Global Internet Phenomena Report out any day now.
See past reports at: https://www.sandvine.com/phenomena
In the 2024 report file sharing was #4 in downstream volume. 9% of total compared to 39% for video. Youtube was 16%, Netflix 12%. Piracy is still way less common compared to streaming, tho I do enjoy the unbeatable quality of a 50GB bluray remux
> Piracy is still way less common compared to streaming
There's been a substantial uptick in pirate streaming - dodgy IPTV Internet Protocol Television apps abound.
https://www.sportico.com/business/media/2024/sports-stream-c...
Are you limiting "Pirating" to "File sharing" or are you including pirate content on demand by means not including either bittorrent of file sharing?
I used pirate streaming websites as a kid, but I thought fewer people use them today because the video quality sucks. Any stats on the percent of people using them over time?
Not really my focus, you'd have to hunt about.
This is current:
~ https://dataprot.net/statistics/piracy-statistics/but vague on details, there are many sources quoted by no drill down on methodology, context, details that matter to nerds, etc.
Modern piracy sites have 1080p standard. Many titles are in 4K and 720p.
Oh I've noticed that, but the 1080p bitrate is horrible. Looks more like upscaled 480p DVDs
i definitely use free streaming websites when i can't find a show or region locked.
strange how much torrenting i used to do. theres just more content on youtube thats interesting.
There's a lot of overlap and it takes time and resources to determine the status of content.
eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_and_Dorothy
via bitTorrent or eDonkey from MVGROUP: https://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=Herb_and_Dorothy
on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnYcPLLiGFk
Is that a copyright violation on youtube? Do we care enough to find out and or report it?
Normies don't pirate using BitTorrent, especially for live-events streaming (which BitTorrent doesn't support): they'll find some dodgy website offering a proxy'd (and downsampled) video stream for free (with ads overlayed) or for a modest one-time fee via PayPal or a cryptocoin, especially when some big event has an extortionate pay-per-view fee.
Music piracy was killed-off by Spotify.
For movies/TV, they'll turn to publicly-shared Plex libraries - I only found out about this a few weeks ago: so in 2025, with more-and-more people having high-upload-bandwidth Internet connections it turns out that now you don't need a distributed DHT-based swarm of chunks of files with hundreds of seeders: all you need is a couple generous individuals running an open Plex box that's served-up behind a cheap offshore VPN provider, using the official Plex App from the Samsung TV app-store.
...I've no idea how long that's going to last: running behind a VPN means the MPAA (et al.) can't do much against those sharing their collections publicly like they did with BitTorrent (c.f. PeerGuardian), and Plex has somehow survived this-far given it does have legitimate uses, and the apps don't violate any app-store policy I'm aware-of, so I'm concerned the MPAA is going to lobby for some laws outright prohibiting apps/software/technology that facilitates piracy for nontechnical users somehow.
(Or they could follow GabeN's advice and start offering a superior service and convenience to the user with a cooperative consolidation of all rightsholders under a single branded tent, but we all know that's not going to happen)
> Music piracy was killed-off by Spotify
I've seen many places playing music from a YouTube playlist, with ads included. And anybody can download the audio stream from YouTube with a minimal software setup. There used to be browser addons that added a Save As button to YouTube pages. I'm not using them, maybe Google banned all of them from its store but there are many ways to do it.
> And anybody can download the audio stream from YouTube with a minimal software setup.
That's the issue. Almost nobody downloads music anymore, however easy it is. Because streaming apps like Spotify make the experience so much better. You are in the middle of the song and wants to cast to your living room speakers? Two clicks. You want to transfer that from your phone to your computer? Just a few clicks. Want to quickly jump back into an album or get recommendations of similar albums? It's all there on the home page. It's hard to beat this experience. The only exception I know is people who rip/pirate FLAC files because they want the best quality possible and don't care about anything else. That's like <0.01% of the users these days.
By "places" do you mean physical establishments like bars and restaurants?
Yes.
What's the correct English word for that?
You used the word correctly, but I asked because those businesses were probably breaking copyright law (at least in the US). They require very specific broadcast licenses to play music in a business. Even though it was subsidized by ads from Google, those agreements are intended to handle personal use.
Piracy is tending to happen via archive services now, rather than torrenting. The pirates are less sophisticated, so the distribution methods are "more familiar" to them.
This is not my experience, at least for major motion picture rips
qBittorrent has been on a very gradual climb. Though, most people pirate through streaming sites, not torrents.
I have a low tolerance for paying to watch advertisements.
The way most sports works you can’t just get espn+. They might not license all the games so you are beholden to multiple services to get them. Playoffs are also a mess. Services know viewerships are up and rights are traded for specific games like cattle. It is the most anti consumer thing I’ve seen trying to follow college football. Easier to just watch it at a bar that pays into all of this.
None of the good matches are on ESPN+ though
Doesn't this harm the long-term value of AOs rights sales to the broadcasters?
If I know AO is going to broadcast on youtube, why am I as a European broadcaster going to pay them the same amount as I did when they weren't trying to work against me?
I don’t think long-term value is their guiding star, if their previous NFT forays are anything to go by
Yeah it very much feels like a case of biting the hand that feeds. What’s the long term goal of AO by doing this?
It’s weird how invisible tennis is on television in Europe.
I was traveling in Spain and Italy last year when Roland Garros was on, which included major highlights like Nadal’s (likely) last ever match there and strong performances from European players like Alcaraz, Sinner, Tsitsipas and Zverev (indeed almost all of the current top ten men are European).
But it was only on the pay channel EuroSport, which many homes (and thus Airbnbs) don’t seem to have, and was only available for us in one upmarket hotel in Spain we stayed in for an indulgence for one night.
So the tournament promoters may be making the calculation that if the current TV rights holders aren’t ultimately getting many eyeballs watching their events, they need to do other things to build/maintain the profile of the sport with a view to one day offering it only via the internet (particularly if broadcast TV continues to decline and the networks can no longer afford large rights deals).
In the Netherlands we have moved on from using tax payer money for live sports. Public broadcasting shouldn't piss away millions on TV rights when the free market can do it.
This seems quite an accusatory comment!
Taxpayer-funded TV stations aren’t showing major commercial sport in Australia or anywhere else, really.
If it’s not exclusive to pay television, it’s on free-to-air commercial networks. These are fully private companies that pay a large license fee to use spectrum, and fund their purchase of the sports broadcasting rights by selling advertising (usually at peak rates as these events are very popular).
In Australia, all four of the Grand Slam tennis tournaments are shown on free-to-air commercial TV. No taxpayer funding whatsoever but easily accessible to everyone.
Survival amid viewer shifts away from traditional broadcasts.
The people who they sell the rights to are less valuable partners, so AO feels comfortable making them a less valuable offer while pursuing other audiences.
Is there a level of fidelity at which the animated character becomes an issue? Are we going to be seeing unreal engine powered photorealistic characters before this loophole is closed?
Does the rights holder have to specify that the motion data is not acceptable for rebroadcast?
On the surface this seems like a cheap abuse of loopholes and any broadcast partner would be looking at them askance and consulting contacts and lawyers...
Animation bone format probably needs a redesign. Human anatomy is universally represented as a simple chain of sticks with ball joints at the end, which is good enough for many purposes but not ideal for closeup shots of muscular figures.
This reminds me of the voice ban Thatcher enacted in the UK back in the late 80s relating to the Troubles.
It was illegal to broadcast the voices of representatives of specific political groups (apart from during elections). Mainly Gerry Adams, who was leader of Sinn Féin, a party strongly linked to the IRA and terrorism.
The law was overly specific, so broadcasters, including the BBC, just dubbed his voice with a soundalike.
Spitting Image had a lot of fun during those days with puppets and voice actors.
Puppet Gerry Adams made a comeback on radio years later: https://youtu.be/vutbvLbRiMk?t=64
I would love to see a revival of this tbh. Everyone could benefit from not hearing or reading <insert rich guy that shall not be named> ever again.
Surely nothing bad can come out of laws impeding the expression of opinions
The opinions were expressed, just with an actor's voice.
The person you replied to was themselves replying to someone talking about a theoretical future ban, not the past ban, and since that first person was talking about a positive of no longer hearing from unspecified famous people they clearly weren't talking about a law that would once again make it easy for impersonators to make it so that people still hear the same views in the same voices just technically spoken by actors.
I wish there was a browser extension where you you ad-block people’s voices while still hearing the news.
When shit like that works well by default with very little effort or downside? That’s some AI I can get excited about.
This tennis thing is so cool, I hope we see more shit like this where AI comes down on the side of the little guy.
> I wish there was a browser extension where you you ad-block people’s voices while still hearing the news.
You're gonna freak out when you find out about reading.
That's pretty good, I'm stealing that. You've just motivated me to go buy the cord I need for my Kindle and probably made my life a few percent better by doing so.
if (voter == 'left')
then insert(billionaire[0])
else if (voter == 'right')
then insert(billionaire[1])
else insert(billionaire[2])
let billionaire = ['Elon Musk', 'Bill Gates', 'Mark Zuckerberg']
This comment is a perfect encapsulation of the ridiculously simple understanding of the political landscape that seems to be rampant among the tech industry.
I’m a leftist but not an American and I would prefer not to hear from any of those billionaires again, nor any others for that matter.
"the Australian Open’s own channel has streamed select matches using cartoonish avatars of players instead of the actual broadcast."
LOL - but why not? They need to do this for every sport.
They do, at least in the US, as viewership has dropped and leagues have struggled to attract younger viewers.
- The NFL provided a SpongeBob-themed alt-cast for a game last weekend -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcHIfPERX0s
- F1 has a similar graphics package+commentary for kids -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xUBfP2-BEA
- The NHL used their new-ish player position tracking tech to produce a real-time (or at least near-real-time) game themed to Big City Greens last year, and is set to do another in a few weeks -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCupuTnNmQ0
- The NBA has similar position-tracking tech, and used to animate a game on Christmas, with Mickey Mouse watching -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE68Q4oPcPs
Then plug in another AI that maps the cartoons back to deepfakes of the original players, and the circle of life is complete.
Instead of filling NFL game broadcasts with absurd amounts of graphics overlaid on camera footage, we could go the opposite direction and show minimalist renderings of live NFL games. Revolutionary.
I assume eventually there will be an upsell product that allows you to watch with a 3D/VR courtside view. I’m kind of surprised it doesn’t exist already. I think Apple would sell a few more headsets if they made this happen.
Apple are recording footage - there are immersive videos on the AVP for MLS and a few other things, and they're tremendous, but nobody is streaming them yet. It's a lot of data, which I assume hasn't been cracked yet.
In addition, the real end-goal would be complete 3D reconstruction that lets you view the stadium from any angle, but I imagine that's a few years away still - lots of technical problems to solve to create a scene and stream it in real-time.
Yea, there have been a few events where the (very expensive) Apple custom 3D rig has appeared courtside with no details given. It still remains to be seen what they're going to actually put out using it, since the Apple 3D content so far is extremely limited.
Somewhat halfway would be a slightly delayed version of the game using much better-in-hindsight decisions about which camera angles to show during a play.
There's a startup here for someone . . .
Could even work for CSPAN, QuestionTime, and other political coverage ..
Presidential debates... perhaps the viewers could even choose their favorite skin etc.
Get the favoured candidate to say what the viewer wants, and have the other person say the opposite. Then the system would then be perfect.
it is always two clowns debating so this would TOTALLY work :)
Monetize through hats and outfits...
Last FIFA World Cup I was looking for recaps on Youtube after the day's matches. A lot of results were unofficial videogame recreations (think XBox EA Sports FC) of the real match final score. It was very weird.
Yeah, they were good enough that it took a while for me to realize why they seemed off. Creepy stuff.
Nothing like a bit of synthetic tennis:
https://cs.stanford.edu/~haotianz/vid2player/
Let's do this for baseball.. would probably make everything way more interesting
At one point data for every MLB game was available from MLB.com. I started writing a RBI baseball simulator using said data and the graphics from the NES game. But then I realized I'm not that good at programming but I still think it would've been neat to watch game 3 of the 1970 world series as played out by 1985 video game graphics.
this 100% sounds like a project I'd see at the top of the front page on a Saturday
You can ask Claude / Cursor to do most of it these days
MLB does something similar called Gameday 3D. https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-gameday-3d-guide
The main difference is that it's rendered client side so you can control the camera for yourself. You can watch in real time during the season, the latency is around 30 seconds behind live action.
MLB StarCast generates ~7TB of data per game. I assume the bulk of that is video from the high speed cameras.
In case anyone is wondering how to pay for and watch tennis in US: there is a tennis tv app. That app allows you to watch the men’s tour. There’s another app, the tennis channel app, that is for the women’s tour and maybe some other random tourneys. Neither of those apps have the grand slams tho, ie the Australian open. For that , in the US you need espn plus and can’t get away from ads. And then there’s also the French open. And between nbc, peacock and whatever else, beyond pirating the matches, I’ve genuinely been stumped trying to pay for it legitimately.
I saw this the other day on YouTube and it made me turn on the real thing.
Not quite on the subject of sports, but in Singapore sometimes it's really hard to pay to stream/download random movies/shows.
Territorial rights just don't make sense anymore and I will die on this hill. The whole point about Netflix was that it proved that customers know what they want if you make it available.
We now have global-first distribution channels why is it still so slow to disrupt those old creeky TV players
The thing is that major live sport is now the only category that is successful in the broadcast TV market. Without that, many (most?) broadcast networks may as well shut down. We saw the best evidence of that recently in Australia when the Foxtel pay TV company was sold to European sports streaming service DAZN.
Foxtel has dozens of channels including the “agenda-setting” Sky News but in the end only its major sports rights deals (which it’s been bidding up and losing money on for years) held any value.
One day we’ll all accept that broadcast TV is dead and everyone can just have a personalized content feed streamed to them, but for as long as broadcast TV license holders keep up the fight, it’s going to be a frustrating endeavor trying to see the sports we want, wherever we are.
> The whole point about Netflix was that it proved that customers know what they want if you make it available.
yes, but the media rights owners want the maximum money from their viewers, where as netflix model leaves money on the table.
It's why i almost always resort to piracy, now that netflix has lost a lot of their licenses for stuff as media rights owners start their own walled gardens.
Does it leave money on the table? Genuine question...
Would traditional media have been able to produce Squid Games? I remember Disney suddenly falling over themselves to "Me Too" that they did the Korean thing too.
I can see for certain things like sports where there's big money, but still seems like having "Domestic" oriented distribution management leaves money on the table. When you can broadcast to the entire planet what new opportunities can you get, will they offset what you give up under the old model
> "Does it leave money on the table? Genuine question..."
Yes it does, 100%.
Once you've got content that people in multiple countries want to watch, you've broadly got two options: let everyone watch on the same terms, or split it up by region. Even Netflix chooses the latter - each country that Netflix has customers in has a different price for subscribing. (They also have different libraries of media that can be watched, but that's mainly as a result of the companies they license it from doing different deals for different countries, as far as I know Netflix do release their own content in all regions at the same time.)
This is because if you don't price it differently, you either price it for countries like the US, and make it unaffordable - or too expensive to be worth paying for, at least - for much of the world, or you price it more cheaply and leave money on the table from Americans (and other rich countries) who would've been willing to pay more.
If the media industry hadn't existed before the internet then probably all companies would look more like Netflix and the other streaming companies, and it would be simple for all content to be licensed globally to the same streaming platform. But because both historically and still today we have broadcast companies which are country specific, any time they get involved (which is pretty much every time with the exception of content made by the steaming companies themselves), you now not only have custom pricing per country but also custom where-can-you-watch per country. And while this can be annoying, it ultimately leads to the content owners earning more than if they didn't do specific deals with specific broadcasters and instead sold a single package to a single streaming company.
> "Would traditional media have been able to produce Squid Games?"
I'm not sure what aspect of it you think required Netflix, but for decades media companies have been producing things with more than a single country in mind - whether that's BBC's Top Gear being syndicated to a huge number of countries, or Friends being dubbed in French, or whatever. I don't see any reason that a BBC or Apple or whoever else couldn't have done it, the only difference is that BBC doesn't have a global distribution platform like Netflix does, so BBC would have had to do deals with broadcasters (or streaming companies) for any country they want viewers in other than the UK.
This is 100 percent the truth. Watching tennis in the US has become increasingly frustrating. I almost long for the old days where one could count on one of two channels to always have coverage. I wish Amazon, Netflix, YouTube or similar would step up and secure all the rights from college to Grand Slam tennis.
And after you pay for ESPN+ if the match you are interested in is actually broadcast you have commercials interrupt game play. I paid for this once, never again.
Nothing drives me more nuts than them showing commercials during the changeover, coming back at 30-0 and then showing the replay of the drama from what went down during the changeover.
When I watch a match commercial free, with changeovers, I find myself much more engaged. Changeovers can tell you a lot about the match and player and espn just ignores it and then has the audacity to replay any drama during the real points. It’s a travesty.
I wonder if the relative acceptance of this has anything to do with the popularity of "vtubers".
I think vtuber sports could be an interesting genre! Real displays of athleticism and sportsmanship but with digital effects to augment it. Maybe it's already been done, I'm not particularly in touch with online trends.
If you missed the best at the bottom, it turns out that Tennis Australia does VC investing too now:
> Tennis Australia has funded several startups through its venture capital fund as it looks to push into the technology space, including a failed flirtation with non-fungible tokens (NFTs) that concluded last year.
> The fund, AO Ventures, is worth US$30 million (A$41.8 million) and includes support from Tesla chair Robyn Denholm’s Wollemi Capital Group (which also has investments in the NBL and the Sydney Kings), as well as Art Gallery of NSW chair Mark Nelson and Packer confidante Ashok Jacob.
With all the motion tracking they're doing, they could replicate this in a VR environment. You could watch the cartoonified game like you're actually there.
The NHL[0] and NBA[1] have already done officially-sanctioned cartoonified simulcasts.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCupuTnNmQ0
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE68Q4oPcPs
Nick Kyrgios isn't actually black though. Wierd.
How would they animate this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD-FkGeeR-U
I expected wii sports music on the introduction. Was disappointed.
[dead]
I guess this is for the kind of person who thinks that Esports is sports.