Periscope & Meerkat win round 1

If you were interested in watching the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight this weekend, you had four options:

1. Fly out to Vegas and shell out thousands for a seat. 
2. Pay the $99 PPV fee.
3. Go to a bar or venue that was showing the fight. 
4. Launch your Periscope or Meerkat app. 

I'm not an attorney, but I know that the first three are clearly legal channels. All at various costs but certainly available for those who interested in watching this year's "fight of the century."

But Periscope and Meerkat? At best that's a gray area. 

Saturday night when the fight was about to start, I did a Twitter search for #periscope. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of Periscope users pointing their phones toward their TVs and streaming the fight. In fact, there were even ticketed customers in the MGM Arena doing the same. The quality wasn't great. But if quality didn't matter to you as a consumer, this was a viable option.

According to USA Today, HBO and Showtime (who were part of the PPV package and had clear financial interests) contacted both Periscope and Meerkat asking them to shut down feeds of the fight. Maybe they did. Maybe they didn't. I don't know but the options for app users were plentiful. 

For years, people have been able to "illegally" livestream events over the web. But what makes Periscope and Meerkat different is just how easy it is to do so. 

Do these apps care?

Based on the Tweet that Periscope's CEO sent out immediately after the fight ended, I'm guessing not. He clearly liked the popularity and the attention. This Tweet is a clear jab at the traditional broadcasting industry. 

So what's the damage? The fight generated hundreds of millions of dollars for those involved in the right, including the two men in the ring. It seems that everyone made out financially. Did those who tuned in via Periscope or Meerkat do so in lieu of paying or just out of natural curiosity? Were those rebroadcasting the fight violate laws? This is what HBO, Showtime and others will be sorting through. That's for the billionaires and the courts decide. 

Is it setting a dangerous precedent?

This could be Twitter's first legal dispute since acquiring Periscope in March, but not it's first controversy. Recently, the NHL banned Periscope and Meerkat use at its game, by both media members and attendees. Why? They are attempting to protect the broadcast rights that have been legally purchased by TV and radio stations. Can they do this? Yes. Is it enforceable? We'll see. Jay Baer talked about this in one of his "Jay Today" videos in the last month or so. 

Vine was the first widely-available app that allowed users to take quick videos and post to social channels. I'm sure this is also in a legal gray area but these clips are only seven seconds. And they aren't live. "Live" is the key word there. And as Jay also points out, there have been other apps that allowed users to stream content but they weren't that consumable due to bandwidth restrictions. 

We're just seeing the beginning. NHL. Mayweather-Pacquiao. Being a sports fan, social media has changed how I consume. And I'm not alone. When I'm watching a football game on TV, I'm also checking Twitter to pick up additional commentary. The second screen is now a part of how I watch sports.

And while Periscope is growing (one million users reported), that's still a small number relatively speaking. But I don't think HBO, Showtime, NHL and whoever is next really care about numbers. They care about protecting their investments. 

Both Periscope and Meerkat have a long fight ahead of them. I imagine that Dick Costello's Tweet will come back to haunt him later rounds. 

UPDATE:

Mashable published an article this afternoon, also highlighting the tricky area we've entered with Periscope and Meerkat. They shared a chart that shows the numbers of Tweets with links to the two services dramatically increasing over the weekend.