4 ms·

What is F1 going to do if they don't pay? Hold the entire race inside a tunnel?

grecy 3y ago
The articles says they'll put up barricades, stands and shine lights in that direction to block and "dazzle" anyone trying to watch "for free"
tzs 3y ago
The subtitle of the article says: > The series has allegedly threatened to block sightlines to the track for businesses that don’t pay a hefty licensing fee". It elaborates in the article: > Fail to pay up, and the series will obstruct sightlines to the circuit, by way of barricades, stands, or other means. It also says: > Sources [...] indicated that lights could be shined towards businesses that don't pay up, in order to dazzle anyone trying to sneak a peek for free. Aside from the shining lights toward the business, it is all perfectly legal. And it is perfectly legal for the businesses to not pay and see if it is worth it to the race organizers to actually build barricades or stands in places to block the businesses. The light thing might not be legal, but might be the kind of thing where there isn't much penalty. Often the penalty for building something that disturbs another property is that you have to stop doing that and enforcement might be slow enough that by the time the race is ordered to take down the lights the race will be over.
- vikingerik 3y ago
  And of course that $1500-per-head number isn't a retail price tag, it's a deliberately outlandish frame-setting starting point for the negotiation. I'd bet F1 would be happy to make deals for a third or even a tenth of that number if that's what they can get a business to pay.
  - qubex 3y ago
    The whole thing is positively dystopian in vibe, but what struck me most was that businesses were being asked to pay on the basis of potential occupancy and not on the basis of how many patrons may actually be on premises during the race. That means that if they fail to achieve 100% occupancy they’ll be footing a hefty bill with no revenue. It’s a dangerous precedent and I hope they all go “LOL no” (though the Prisoner’s Dilemma teaches that everybody defects).
    - vikingerik 3y ago
      That's also just an outlandish point to anchor the negotiation window. I'll bet exactly zero businesses will actually pay for every potential occupant. (Or if they do it'll be because the per-head cost got negotiated way down.)
  - Teever 3y ago
    Why does F1 even think it's in a position to negotiate anything here? Don't they realize that the businesses they're attempting to strong arm paid for the infrastructure that the F1 is using through their taxes, that these businesses are the ones who created the market that F1 is taking advantage of? Of course they realize but they don't care, because they're greedy. And they should be slapped down hard for attempting to be so greedy.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
  > > Sources [...] indicated that lights could be shined towards businesses that don't pay up, in order to dazzle anyone trying to sneak a peek for free. If this is legal, then wouldn’t it be legal for the businesses to also shine their own spotlights onto the track to dazzle the drivers that might be looking up at their business.
  - tzs 3y ago
    Shining a light toward something like a restaurant is annoying but is probably not dangerous. Shining a light toward race cars probably is. That might greatly change the legality.
    - trillic 3y ago
      The hotels should demand $5000 per head for those who look at their driver blinding lights. No free lights for you F1!
    - NBJack 3y ago
      Would be super interesting to see an arms race on this. 5000W bulb from the track vs. a concave mirror bouncing it back in such a way that it would mess with the drivers? Whom would then start wearing polarized glasses as they filtered the light? Honestly, it is starting to sound like a missing chapter from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
    - Aerroon 3y ago
      Well, you wouldn't be shining it towards race cars. You'd be shining it at the track/back towards the light that's shining on you.
  - qubex 3y ago
    How about these venues threaten to shine a 3000 watt light on paying viewers instead? I mean seriously, this is inane. The precedent must not be set.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

The articles says they'll put up barricades, stands and shine lights in that direction to block and "dazzle" anyone trying to watch "for free"

tzs 3y ago

The subtitle of the article says: > The series has allegedly threatened to block sightlines to the track for businesses that don’t pay a hefty licensing fee". It elaborates in the article: > Fail to pay up, and the series will obstruct sightlines to the circuit, by way of barricades, stands, or other means. It also says: > Sources [...] indicated that lights could be shined towards businesses that don't pay up, in order to dazzle anyone trying to sneak a peek for free. Aside from the shining lights toward the business, it is all perfectly legal. And it is perfectly legal for the businesses to not pay and see if it is worth it to the race organizers to actually build barricades or stands in places to block the businesses. The light thing might not be legal, but might be the kind of thing where there isn't much penalty. Often the penalty for building something that disturbs another property is that you have to stop doing that and enforcement might be slow enough that by the time the race is ordered to take down the lights the race will be over.

vikingerik 3y ago
And of course that $1500-per-head number isn't a retail price tag, it's a deliberately outlandish frame-setting starting point for the negotiation. I'd bet F1 would be happy to make deals for a third or even a tenth of that number if that's what they can get a business to pay.
- qubex 3y ago
  The whole thing is positively dystopian in vibe, but what struck me most was that businesses were being asked to pay on the basis of potential occupancy and not on the basis of how many patrons may actually be on premises during the race. That means that if they fail to achieve 100% occupancy they’ll be footing a hefty bill with no revenue. It’s a dangerous precedent and I hope they all go “LOL no” (though the Prisoner’s Dilemma teaches that everybody defects).
  - vikingerik 3y ago
    That's also just an outlandish point to anchor the negotiation window. I'll bet exactly zero businesses will actually pay for every potential occupant. (Or if they do it'll be because the per-head cost got negotiated way down.)
- Teever 3y ago
  Why does F1 even think it's in a position to negotiate anything here? Don't they realize that the businesses they're attempting to strong arm paid for the infrastructure that the F1 is using through their taxes, that these businesses are the ones who created the market that F1 is taking advantage of? Of course they realize but they don't care, because they're greedy. And they should be slapped down hard for attempting to be so greedy.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
> > Sources [...] indicated that lights could be shined towards businesses that don't pay up, in order to dazzle anyone trying to sneak a peek for free. If this is legal, then wouldn’t it be legal for the businesses to also shine their own spotlights onto the track to dazzle the drivers that might be looking up at their business.
- tzs 3y ago
  Shining a light toward something like a restaurant is annoying but is probably not dangerous. Shining a light toward race cars probably is. That might greatly change the legality.
  - trillic 3y ago
    The hotels should demand $5000 per head for those who look at their driver blinding lights. No free lights for you F1!
  - NBJack 3y ago
    Would be super interesting to see an arms race on this. 5000W bulb from the track vs. a concave mirror bouncing it back in such a way that it would mess with the drivers? Whom would then start wearing polarized glasses as they filtered the light? Honestly, it is starting to sound like a missing chapter from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
  - Aerroon 3y ago
    Well, you wouldn't be shining it towards race cars. You'd be shining it at the track/back towards the light that's shining on you.
- qubex 3y ago
  How about these venues threaten to shine a 3000 watt light on paying viewers instead? I mean seriously, this is inane. The precedent must not be set.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]