At issue is the broadcast “overspill” clause of the 1992 distribution agreement between Univision and Televisa.  Under the agreement, Televisa granted Univision exclusive broadcast rights in the US to certain programming produced by Televisa but the agreement contains an exception to Univision’s exclusivity for any transmission of a program emanating from a television station located in Mexico.  This clause, which is typically included when television rights are licensed on an exclusive basis for a specific territory, is designed to address the issue of broadcast “overspill” resulting from the ability of television signals broadcast from neighboring countries to be received across the border. Televisa contends that under the broadcast “overspill” clause, it may exhibit and distribute its programming on the Internet via servers based in Mexico.   

A decision against Univision could have a significant adverse impact on Univision’s viewership and ratings (and hence its advertising revenues) because Televisa typically broadcasts its shows in Mexico several months before the programs are made available to Univision and other broadcast licensees outside Mexico.  US viewers could potentially watch the extremely popular Televisa soap operas and telenovelas on the Internet six months ahead of when they air on Univision. 

A similar issue is involved in litigation filed in 2007 by the Starz pay TV programming service against Disney.  In the litigation, Starz contends that Disney’s distribution of its films via the Internet through services such as iTunes and Amazon.com violates the exclusive pay television rights granted by Disney to Starz under various pay television license agreements between the two companies.  Starz is also distributing Disney’s films online through its  Starz On Demand and Vongo services.

The Univision/Televisa litigation and the Starz/Disney litigation illustrate the problems that can be created by new media applications under agreements purporting to license television rights on an exclusive basis.  These problems can be particularly acute under older “legacy” agreements where key definitions and terms used to describe the licensee’s exclusivity may have been drafted without a view to potential future exploitation via the Internet and other new media distribution platforms. 

For example, a random Pay TV agreement from 1994 I just pulled off my shelf defines “Pay Television” as “the encrypted transmission and/or retransmission from a distance (i.e., other than from the premises where received) and intended for receipt on a television monitor or other comparable non-public video display by broadcast, microwave, satellite, optical fiber, telephone cable and/or coaxial cable of synchronized video and audio signals both of which are received upon payment by a Subscriber of a periodically charged or supplemental subscription and/or access fee.”  This definition would appear to encompass not only traditional pay television rights typically granted to HBO, Showtime and Starz but also digital video-on-demand rights granted to various Internet distribution services such as Amazon.com and BestBuy.com. 

Obviously, in licensing rights for distribution via the Web and other new media platforms, such as mobile and handheld devices, content owners need to examine pre-existing, legacy television distribution deals to ensure that those rights are available and are not encompassed within the grants of exclusive television rights.  Also, practitioners on both sides of new television deals need to take particular care in defining the scope of the licensee’s exclusivity to avoid the types of problems that have surfaced in the Starz and Univision cases.

• According to a new research study by Nielson Online, social sites like Facebook have surpassed e-mail as the number one online activity, with two-thirds of the world’s population visiting social networking or blogging sites.  What’s more, the “stickiness” of these sites is expanding, with one of every 11 minutes spent online being devoted to social networking activities.  And, in a finding to confirm the frustration and consternation of many teenagers, the fastest growing audience on Facebook is the 35-49 age group.  Which may explain such Facebook groups as “Cool Parents Who Have Facebooks”, although we at digitalhhr can proudly say we have avoided joining that one.)
• In perhaps one more sign of the ubiquity of social networking sites, Citigroup is rolling out a MySpace-branded Visa credit card.  Its marketing pitch is geared to fiscal responsibility-a bit of an ironic twist considering Citibank’s own (mis)adventures in that area.  But Citibank is also trying to preach to its intended audience, providing bonus points to be used for concerts, movie premieres and music downloads, as well as the ability to earn points for donations and charitable deeds.  Citi has also adopted a “manifesto” including such planks as “The environment, the economy, our very security …They’re the consequences of people not thinking about consequences.” 
• In the coming weeks, members of the Online Publishers Association (OPA) such as ESPN, Forbes.com and iVillage plan to roll out new, flashier, in-your-face, ad display units aimed at grabbing visitor attention better than the average banner ad.  While enabling advertisers to get more creative with their online ads, the new formats will hopefully help publishers make more money from fewer ads, since an abundance of ad inventory has been depressing revenue. 
• Continuing the social networking news, Hulu quietly added a new social networking feature that allows users to add friends, recommend videos or shows to one another and leave messages for one another, a la Facebook.  The site, which just celebrated its 1st birthday has even more reason to celebrate.  In just one year, it has become the number two site among the top online video properties, with 9.5 million unique viewers in February viewing 308 million video streams. 
• Google introduced its Google Voice integrated phone service, which was built on top of technology developed by GrandCentral, a company acquired by Google in 2007.  With its host of features, Google seems to be aiming less at replacing any one telephone service-such as VoIP or voicemail transcription or conference calling-and more at insinuating itself in as many aspects of telecommunications services as possible. 

“TV Everywhere”, the brainchild of Jeff Bewkes, CEO of Time Warner, the largest owner of cable networks, including TNT, Cartoon Network, CNN and HBO, would put all cable programming on the Web in places such as Hulu, MySpace and Yahoo TV.  The catch—viewers will have to prove that they already pay for the content through a TV subscription with a cable, satellite or telephone company.  And like the dry cleaner, no ticket, no shirt (or, in this case, show).

The initiative is, in many ways, the product of a “perfect storm” of the realities, opportunities and challenges facing not just the cable/satellite/telco industry and content owners, but the advertising industry and advertisers themselves.  Here’s what is at play:

• Cable, satellite and telco TV is one of the few sources of subscription content that people are willing to pay for.
• That fact keeps most video content and programming off the Web as cable networks fight to preserve the 50% of revenue that comes from subscribers.  Their fear is that, with content freely available on the Web, many viewers may decide to simply terminate their pay TV service.
• The content owners and networks are often reluctant to put content directly online for fear that the cable companies will not want to pay top dollar to the media companies who are, in effect, undermining the cable subscription model.
• Yet the content owners and Web publishers recognize that there are ad dollars to be made by placing more and more content and programming on the Web.

TV Everywhere is intended to address all of these points.  In theory, pay TV subscribers would have online (and perhaps mobile) access to all of the TV programming included in their pay TV package.  You would log in, provide information regarding your pay TV subscription (perhaps via an “unlock” key you get from your pay TV company) and can have access to a robust library of programming.

Viacom and ESPN, two of the largest programmers, appear to be open to such an initiative.  According to the report in MediaDailyNews, Viacom is working with cable operators to develop an authentication process.  ESPN is also evaluating certain technology that might be deployed.  And Time Warner Cable has been testing a system in Wisconsin which enables HBO subscribers to watch shows online.

New research seems to support claims of the cable industry that making cable programming available to subscribers regardless of which of the “three screens” viewed—TV, PC and mobile—would lead to increased market demand.  The Diffusion Group found that 16% if cable subscribers who spend more than $100 per month for TV service would spend an additional $20 per month to deliver that same content to their PCs.  (No word from Diffusion about how the other 84% of subscribers feel.)  The research revealed that the percentage of cable subscribers willing to pay more for additional access on other screens increased as the added cost for the access decreased.

With broad participation by pay TV providers and Web sites offering the video content (presumably any site with an agreement with the media content providers), this initiative could be entirely system and provider agnostic.  The clear advantage to subscribers is added access to video content that they already pay for.  For the Web sites, perhaps an opportunity to provide targeted advertising—after all, the log-in process could provide information about the subscriber.

However, the hurdles are substantial.  Put aside for a minute the enormous endeavor needed to develop and implement a system that could process and authenticate information from millions of pay TV subscribers with hundreds of plans offered from dozens of providers that would need to be integrated onto perhaps thousands of platforms across the Web.  (Now that I’ve written that sentence, it seems absurd to “put it aside.”)  But the cooperation needed by all of the stakeholders—pay TV providers, broadband service providers, Web site operators—is substantial, to say the least.  Reconciling issues such as sharing consumer information will be tremendously difficult, both from the consumer facing (privacy policies, anyone?) and business intelligence standpoints.  Certain legal restrictions on the use and/or disclosure of such information may also apply.

Moreover, what type of information would be provided to the Web site operators?  They would likely want access to subscriber information in order to sell targeted advertising, an interest shared by the programming providers.  However, will pay TV providers want to share such information—giving the Web sites a revenue advantage—without participating?

Lastly, are consumers willing to go along here, undertaking yet another login and authentication process, exposing themselves to yet more advertising and eroding privacy a bit further, all to watch more TV outside of the comfort of their own living rooms?

We will watch developments here closely as these are some BIG questions.

• While we haven’t quite figured out if there is a direct link, as the economic news got worse at the end of 2008, online video activity increased.  According to comScore, online viewing reached a record high with U.S. Internet users watching 14.3 billion videos in December.  This was a 13% increase from November.  comScore found that 150 million U.S. users watched an average of 96 videos each and spent more than five hours watching online video during the month.  Read here about how the big video sites split the market.
• While there is little public information available about the negotiations over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, the proposed multi-national treaty to assist in the enforcement of global IP rights, some leaked language is causing concern.  More information here.  
• The GOP appears to be following in the White House’s footsteps by overhauling its website to be more open and accessible to its Internet-using citizens.  The new site makes it easy to get the latest news, contact representatives through e-mail and even has an API in which developers can create applications that pull data from the site and format it in a number of ways.  Read more here.
• The watchdog group Privacy International has raised concerns about Google’s new phone tracking system, Latitude, which was unveiled this week.  The system allows users to track other people via smartphone.  And while it does have some built-in privacy protections, there are some potential gaps, including the possibility that the phone’s tracking settings could be changed without its owner’s knowledge.  More here.
• In a closely-watched case, defunct BitTorrent search site TorrentSpy has asked a federal appellate court to reverse a judge’s decision ordering the site to pay movie studios $111 million for copyright infringement in which they were trying to protect users’ privacy by purging the records of visitors’ IP addresses.  Read here for more on the ruling and TorrentSpy’s appeal.