Periscope vs. Piracy: The Upstreaming Battle

Almost as if out of the blue, much like most internet trends, Periscope has popped up and is growing fast.

Don't know what it is? Periscope is an app connected to Twitter that allows users to stream whatever from their smart devices to absolutely anyone else in the world who wants to watch.

Recently, Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao faced off in what was to be the fight of the century. This fight alone cost subscription TV holders almost 100 dollars. Some, finding the price to be a bit too steep, turned to illegal streaming websites that were quickly pulled down by representatives of the fight's broadcasting company.

Others turned to Periscope, where hundreds of Twitter users a minute filmed their TVs in fine enough quality to allow people around the globe to witness the fight, free of charge. As one stream was pulled down, five jumped up in its place. The quality is never going to be amazing on this medium, but it allows access to pay-per-view events for free. This raises the question: Is piracy inevitable? And with apps such as Periscope on the rise, how diligently can offenders be prosecuted?

The terms and conditions of Periscope explicitly advise against any content displaying extreme violence or explicit themes, as users who broadcast this content face removal of their account. These terms also prohibit the rebroadcasting of any copyrighted content. Still, monitoring users' adherence to these terms is an issue in itself, due to the fact that any sort of automatic moderation could result in innocent users being banned and manual moderation could take more manpower than a company in their start-up period could handle.

Twitter and multiple entertainment entities including HBO have been pressuring Periscope to make changes immediately and crack down on the infringing users. The issue lies in whether or not there actually is a breach occurring. Periscope insists it has done nothing wrong and continues to ban users long after their stream has ended, which effectively benefits the entertainment entities in no way whatsoever. Considering that all is needed to create a Twitter account is an email, this could all be in vain. Within one stream I witnessed, an account banned forever for posting explicit material had resurfaced under a different name and garnered the exact following it had before.

Some entertainment sources and celebrities, however, have used the power of Periscope to their advantage. Sporting mega-power the UFC recently held a Q&A in honour of an event held in Adelaide last weekend featuring top Australian fighters Jake Matthews and Mark Hunt. Other celebrities on board include Jimmy Fallon, Madonna and Elijah Wood. Television, music and film could benefit by providing content on Periscope whilst simultaneously pressuring for the strict moderation of piracy.

Periscope’s sudden rise amongst young people and those within the public eye will continue as long as entertainment (whether it’s a pay-per-view fight or the latest episode of their favourite show) can be accessed quickly and for free on the app. Similar applications such as Meerkat are popping up just as quickly and within all of these, the same thing is happening.

If there is no control implemented soon, Periscope could have the effect that’s long been postponed by the entertainment industry: the lowering of prices to a point where quality for something finally sounds more appealing than quantity for nothing.

Blake Riley is one of Student Edge’s student contributors. Learn more about the contributors program.