Guest 2Admin2

NZTR and Intellectual Property.....Do they have any?

Recommended Posts

When Turf Digest and Best Bets were separately owned and competing there were several legal battles about copyright. One would make a slight change like a horse ran 8th instead of 9th then if the other form guide copied that info out would come the lawyers. That was when journalists had to determine the finishing positions at the track.

If any newspaper publishes information as news  thereafter it becomes public knowledge and can't be claimed as copyright.

Simplest way is to make all raw information freely available and encourage innovative use and publishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Broadcasting rights are the property of the NZRB as Clubs sign over these rights when they accept the terms of their racing license. The only exception to this was, and might still be, the Auckland Trotting Club who retained their broadcasting rights.

Has anybody looked at all the terms included in the racing license issued by the NZRB, and which a Club is required to have signed up to before it can conduct a racemeeting under the present Rules?

All the best.

Ashoka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Midget said:

 

Me thinks there's a long journey ahead, with many twists and turns, and based on their history I'd suggest we should have absolutely ZERO confidence in NZTR to steer us through the choppy seas ahead. 

And therein lies the major issue as I see it, I just cannot see how anyone can have in confidence in this working given their track record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ashoka said:

Broadcasting rights are the property of the NZRB as Clubs sign over these rights when they accept the terms of their racing license. The only exception to this was, and might still be, the Auckland Trotting Club who retained their broadcasting rights.

Has anybody looked at all the terms included in the racing license issued by the NZRB, and which a Club is required to have signed up to before it can conduct a racemeeting under the present Rules?

All the best.

Ashoka

Yes, but we are not talking about meetings run under an NZRB licence Ashoka, or which they conduct betting on. We are talking about meetings run by clubs where the IP is sold to another (probably overseas) entity along with the right to conduct wagering. It might still be under the NZTR Rules of Racing and they might handle some administration such as noms etc. but it would neither be funded by them or the NZRB in any other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leggy...

I realise that you had raised the possibility of racing outside the jurisdiction of the NZRB but wasn't the main thrust of this thread about the general situation in relation to all Clubs under the current NZRB situation? I was addressing all the posters and readers involved in this discussion...not like you to be so self-centred...:):):)

Have you looked up what the Club's sign up to when accepting their race licenses? Yes, I could...but I'm lazy...

All the best.

Ashoka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. I'm too lazy too, but the ideal might be for that situation to involve a re-arrangement with the RB if necessary, so the IP rights are not exclusive. Otherwise a group of clubs, possibly multi-code would have to go it alone with an offshore provider, and the RB can buy the domestic rights if they want to on similar terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to those who brought to our attention what the Racing Board was saying six years ago.

But there was one salient point in all that;

"We will make the Racing Board an employer of choice"

Of course they are the employer of choice.  They have a load of battlers throughout the country to pay their grotesque salaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leggy...

The then President of the Manawatu Harness Racing Club approached the racing authorities around the beginning of this century regarding his Club running greyhound races and beaming them into Asia with no New Zealand-based wagering. He got nowhere. This is what you would expect to any such, or variation thereof, approach now given that those who run the racing industry effectively bludge off the industry and would not want to lose the unearned advantages they currently enjoy.

That said, I would have thought that, when considering other options, the first thing one would do would be to fully understand the current situation as well as is possible. This is not possible without knowing what, exactly, it is that Clubs sign up to when accepting a racing license.

Cheers.

Ashoka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest 2Admin2

Has there been any output from the consultations on this IP rubbish?  I still can't work out what the hell they are on about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A well informed guy from the Petone office told me it's all about unbundling the existing contractural relationship with Tabcorp and Skyracing, but then entering into arrangements to sell NZ race footage to all the other corporate bookies in Ozz so they can take the signal Skyracing has had a monopoly on, and sell more NZ product......pay more commission....and this is apparently the critical component driving the new Race Fields legislation (that Jackon is telling anyone who'll listen is the savior of NZ racing) and worth about 15-20 million a year to us.

Could be true, but the issues that immediately concern me are the contractural relationship we now have with Tabcorp, the commingling arrangements, and the possibility Tabcorp might be going to take over our F/O betting, and maybe even allow us to integrate with them and use their betting platform instead of our tired old Jet Bet dog.

On the one hand Tabcorp is seen as our white knight, our saviour, but the IP unbundling is a slap in the face for them isn't it ? so I'm not sure how the two are compatible.

Others might know more than me.......

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Midget said:

A well informed guy from the Petone office told me it's all about unbundling the existing contractural relationship with Tabcorp and Skyracing, but then entering into arrangements to sell NZ race footage to all the other corporate bookies in Ozz so they can take the signal Skyracing has had a monopoly on, and sell more NZ product......pay more commission....and this is apparently the critical component driving the new Race Fields legislation (that Jackon is telling anyone who'll listen is the savior of NZ racing) and worth about 15-20 million a year to us.

Could be true, but the issues that immediately concern me are the contractural relationship we now have with Tabcorp, the commingling arrangements, and the possibility Tabcorp might be going to take over our F/O betting, and maybe even allow us to integrate with them and use their betting platform instead of our tired old Jet Bet dog.

On the one hand Tabcorp is seen as our white knight, our saviour, but the IP unbundling is a slap in the face for them isn't it ? so I'm not sure how the two are compatible.

Others might know more than me.......

 

 

From what I have just learnt, you have a very good hold on what's going on. As they say, "there's more than one way to skin a cat".

It appears to me that the two "parties", one being NZTR lead by Jackson, and the other NZRB are on a different path trying to secure more money. 

Jackson's is simply to secure more money instantly, whilst the NZRB wants the money too but through Race Field Legislation and the ability to link onto or lease part of their current partners computer system, as you say to replace their aging Jetbet system.

Hopefully what I am saying makes sense of a complex situation and is fact. My information is second hand too and could be a little misconstrued. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess in the first instance we have to await the Commerce Commission decision on the NZRB/Tabcorp anti-competitive practices application due August 1. Unfortunately, the public version of that application has so much removed that it is virtually useless in trying to ascertain the basis for the proposals. http://www.comcom.govt.nz/business-competition/anti-competitive-practices/anti-competitive-practices-authorisations-register/detail/942

That said, the Tabcorp version, approved a couple of years ago across the ditch understandably does not appear to leave any room for " IP unbundling" such as has been mentioned here.

As for Jackons $15-$20m figure, I think it's a pipe dream... or maybe a wet dream? The latest sound report I've seen, out of the AUT Gambling and Addictions Research Centre, using 2012-2014 data, shows the total overseas gambling spend at between $15m and $50m, with horse/dog/sports betting making up about 2/3 of that at most, so about $10m-$30m https://niphmhr.aut.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/11125/Final-Report-Offshore-Gambling-Study_11-September-2015.pdf

On that basis, any Racefields fees will be only a small percentage of that $10m-30m, say 10%, so about $1m - $3m across codes and sports with 100% compliance. And that's a most generous assessment of the data from that study. Of course, the Minister's Working Group Report and the Infometrics' report commissioned by them completely ignore that study. Results maybe didn't suit their mission?

Then again, NZTR hardly has a track record of basing any decisions on reasonable critical analysis or sound methodologies, so I suppose it's not surprising. They do like waiting in hope for miracles though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting ( if my information is correct ) that the Race Fields Legislation is completely ignoring the Asian based betting agencies that are using NZ racing product.

All the indications are that Asia is home to the majority of illegal gambling but they're apparently beyond our reach, and so we're focused only on the ( hopefully ) compliant Australian based corporates.

I don't like to be cynical but isn't this a bit like the Police only giving speeding tickets to those who admit they were speeding ?

There's historical evidence that major agencies will base themselves beyond the reach of controlling jurisdictions, an example would be Robbie Waterhouse setting up in Fiji, so why wouldn't they do that again ?

Isn't that the reason these big multinationals set up in the Northern Territories anyway, to avoid strict monitoring of their activities ? So why can we expect them to roll over and let the NZRB enter into symbiotic arrangements ? Just asking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Midget , you suggest that we should have a "Racing person" running NZ racing. Isn't there one in the job already? A former leading Bookmaker, race Administrator, and an owner who has owned and raced "over 90 horses"? What more do you want :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Trump said:

Midget , you suggest that we should have a "Racing person" running NZ racing. Isn't there one in the job already? A former leading Bookmaker, race Administrator, and an owner who has owned and raced "over 90 horses"? What more do you want :) 

Well it still cost me 5k of my own money to prove GP did not race 90 horses and it is clear that he was not a leading Country Bookmaker for 12 as he stated in his ramble with Steve Davis as my research he was licensed for 9 years,so even i know 9 does not go into 12 and the comment from the spokesperson at NSW Bookmakers association,was he would be very surprised if he was in the top 10.

But with the Election on going in the USA,the word from Trump that Clinton is a liar and a fraud,could may well apply here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.