This weekend was the much anticipated Mayweather vs Pacquiao fight of the Century. The fight sure didn't pan out as anything we would even remember next week, but the anticipation was just enormous. Stepping on to the ring alone guaranteed the two fighters millions and millions of money in the bank. There's no doubt it was a lousy fight but both fighters essentially won because of the sheer money they both made.
So who lost?
The chumps that paid $100 for Pay per View are not winners. Even more so, the poor people who paid $100 only to see Time Warner, Charter and DirecTV PPV services dropped are probably the losers.
Not to be completely outdone, many fans flocked to the internet to see if they could get a glimpse of this horrible fight they were missing. Many illegal streaming services were shut down by watch dogs and companies hired by HBO and Showtime before the fight even started. What they couldn't get around to was Periscope. Which ended up being the winner of this entire debacle as thousands of Periscope streams popped up. Periscope received complaints and took down 30 streams of the fight that night but many people still got to see the fight, or parts of it, via the mobile streaming app.
This guy was streaming live from the MGM from his almost ringside seat.
But are they really winners? What if HBO and Showtime sue Twitter, which owns Periscope, over massive copyright infringement damages? Wouldn't that cost a tremendous amount of money and become a legal mess? Or in this age of first come first serve internet age, it doesn't matter anymore if you've captured the viewers and they would eventually "have to work" with you?
That's how YouTube got big, right?
What are your thoughts?