MLB Says Slingbox Illegal, CEA Thinks Otherwise

The Tie Guy writes "Sling Media's Slingbox allows consumers to watch and control their home television programs from a remote PC or smartphone — a process called 'placeshifting'. Content owners are typically edgy when it comes to the placeshifting topic. However, most don't view Slingbox as an imminent threat that will destroy the commercial broadcast model. Major League Baseball is going against the grain by saying that Slingbox owners who stream home games while traveling are breaking the law because it allows consumers to circumvent geographical boundaries written in to broadcast deals. This has sparked a huge debate that has the MLB, baseball fans, and the CEA up in arms. CEA President Gary Shapiro doesn't agree, and is coming to the defense of Sling Media and place-shifting in general."

Comments

the solution

[jcgf]

I guess I'll just have to quit watching baseball games. Oh wait I find the sport boring and asinine and don't watch it anyways.

Re:the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

!define CEA

Re:the solution

[langelgjm]

Am I making this up, or was/is it illegal to tape-record baseball games in the first place? Or is that football or something?

Re:the solution

[chimpo13]

A youtube post of this copyright warning will gets The Angry Letter from NFL with the DMCA:

This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited.

That's from Wendy's Blog. It took 5 days for that to be DMCA'd off youtube.

The MLB warning is:

This copyrighted telecast is presented by authority of the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball [or Sterling Mets]. It may not be reproduced or retransmitted in any form, and the accounts and descriptions of this game may not be disseminated, without the express written consent [of Sterling Mets].

Also from Wendy Seltzer's Blog. That one has been on youtube since April 25 without a DMCA.

Re:the solution

[MontyApollo]

I wonder how many geeks actually care about baseball to begin with, especially to worry about watching every game when they are traveling. But I suppose the geeks will be the ones sitting in their hotel room alone watching baseball on their laptop while most other peope will be sitting in a sports bar wathching it.

Re:the solution

[alx5000]

Will Slingbox the new Betamax and CEA the new Sony? Have we learnt nothing from the past? (Second one is rhetorical, of course...)

Re:the solution

[Lockejaw]

This copyrighted telecast is presented by authority of the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball [or Sterling Mets]. It may not be reproduced or retransmitted in any form, and the accounts and descriptions of this game may not be disseminated, without the express written consent [of Sterling Mets].

Has this restriction ever been tested in court? IIRC, you can't copyright facts.
Or is it just their accounts and descriptions that you cannot disseminate?

Re:the solution

[MrBlockHaus]

Slingbox is not just for geeks tho, I have to say. It makes video on the go pretty accessible to the common man (so to speak).

Re:the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

but, but, but what happens if I have a Tivo connected to a Slingbox? Then I can placeshift...AND timeshift!

*head explodes with copyright violation possibilities*

Re:the solution

[j79zlr]

The motive behind this is simple. MLB wants you to purchase the ability to watch games away from home from them. $15 a month or $80 a season. Of course they charge you more for post-season baseball as well.

Re:the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I watch my NFL team via Orb broadcasting from in-laws computer in my home state. I can even watch the orb feed from my Motorola Q although the frame rate sucks. Another thing I tried but failed miserably with was with Dish Network. My brother works for Dish and he gave me a receiver and an antenna and got it activated under is account as a second receiver. Problem is they use spot beaming for the local channels and I am about 30 miles away from the beam so no local channels which means no local broadcasts of the football games. I do get the Fox sports channel from that area though and I at least get to see the pre and post game shows.

The other alternative is Direct TV with the NFL package when total cost per year would be about $800 dollars to see the 9 games that probably will not be nationally televised. Since I have no intention of getting rid of my local cable, that would be a huge waste. This year, I have season tickets so I am only a four hour drive away from at least 10 games so I will not be at home to watch them anyway.

Wow, wouldn't a per game fee be nice? I hate when companies make these huge agreements with a single company which prevents your choice or takes a lot of your money. Think of satelite radio, if you want baseball and football, you would have to get Sirius and XM.

Re:the solution

[armchair99]

Baseball is a grand game full of subtleties that requires great skill to play well. Now soccer...there's a boring game.

Re:the solution

[CaptainDefragged]

All you baseball belong to us?

Re:the solution

[CaptainDefragged]

Oops...

All you baseball are belong to us

Re:the solution

[runningduck]

I wouldn't worry too much. Soon you will not be able to watch baseball at all unless you subscribe to Direct TV.

Re:the solution

[pete6677]

The purpose of professional sports is to separate the fans from their money, so naturally something like this would fit right in. And fans will bitch about it for a while, but next season they'll be right back with their wallets out and ready to pay ever-higher prices.

Re:the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I'll just have to quit watching baseball games. Oh wait I find the sport boring and asinine and don't watch it anyways.

Oh, no -- the game is starting -- SAME SEATS!!!

Re:the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

The MLB warning is:

This copyrighted telecast is presented by authority of the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball [or Sterling Mets]. It may not be reproduced or retransmitted in any form, and the accounts and descriptions of this game may not be disseminated, without the express written consent [of Sterling Mets].

Their words, not mine. Fuck the sons of bitches to the lowest pit of hell.

Until tested in court, it qualifies solely as an "in terrorem" clause -- i.e., something to scare the consumer.

Years ago, CA dry cleaners all used to post a sign saying that, if you didn't pick your clothes up within 30 days, they could be sold for enough to cover cleaning costs. Total shit -- state law specified 90 days. You could come back and demand either the clothes or their value on day 89. And win in court if the cleaner tried to enforce the sign.

Similar nastiness of various sorts also used to be in the "contracts" printed on the back of parking lot receipts.

Re:the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Has this restriction ever been tested in court?

Fat fucking chance. As hard as they try to intimidate people, they try even harder to keep their bullshit theories out of courts because any sensible judge would have them remanded immediately for drug use in the courthouse just for proposing their thesis that any of it has any legal underpinning.

To the best of my knowledge, not even the shrink-wrapped EULA horseshit has ever been tested in court.

Re:the solution

[Kierthos]

But David Beckham is playing in the U.S. now! David Beckham!

Oh wait, still don't care.

Re:the solution

[jrockway]

Pretty sure that you "can't" disseminate any accounts. Can't meaning they don't want you to... not that it's enforceable without a lot of bribes.

At some point, I had an idea to have people take audio recording equipment into a sports game and telecast (over a cell phone modem) the game live. I'm sure the "league" or whatever would love that, but I'm not sure what legal recourse they would have.

It would be fun to find out...

Re:the solution

[Shakrai]

but I'm not sure what legal recourse they would have.

It's been awhile since I've been to a MLB game but I would suspect that the back of your ticket has a blanket "We can kick you out for any reason we want" clause on it.

I'm not sure what legal recourse you would have if they asked you to leave.

Re:the solution

[LazySlacker]

I notice you didn't say that baseball was not boring, just subtle. Now if you want subtle and boring then test cricket is the sport for you. Especially in the UK where whole days of a match can be lost to the rain.

Re:the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a business... and they are there to make money, no? If they give everything away for free, then there goes the league. The crazy amounts of money that sports players make are justified too. A little kid sees the guy making a shit-ton of money and is like sweet I want to play (sport of choice)! The kid will then grow up with a significant interest in the sport, as well as any of their friends that they may meet along the way. Say the kid doesn't cut it, and grows up to be a lawyer instead. The lawyer will then still love the sport that they had played when they were younger and will then spend money on it.

Say power was the motivator, and not money. You will then have RockyIV and everyone will worshiping how powerful you are and put you on this platform of fame and the little kid will see that and will want to grow up to be just as powerful and loved by the people as that person. Of course, that way of thinking is doomed to fail and we always know that capitalism wins in the end. Hollywood says so.

Re:the solution

[BigDogCH]

But, at what point did you agree to those terms? Did you actually get to read the ticket before you purchased it? Or, is that the purpose of buying them at point A, and walking to point B before entering?

Re:the solution

[lupis42]

"This life [mine] may not be reproduced or retransmitted in any form, and accounts and descriptions may not be disseminated without the express written consent of [me]" Now to go after those pesky credit score companies. Keeping unauthorized accounts and reports of my life, and cutting into my potential profits.

Re:the solution

[foniksonik]

I think the point is that a Geek from New York has flown to LA for a 2 week gig, said geek loves watching Mets games (?) but they aren't available in LA, even at Sports Bars like ESPN Zone who get all the TV packages they can, because MLB says 'Thou shalt not watch the Mets in LA" for some unknown reason (deal with broadcaster to get more money).

So Geek from NY goes with buddies to ESPN Zone but brings along his slingbox enabled phone and some earbuds, proceeds to sit in the booth with new temporary co-workers drinking a beer but while they are watching an Angels game (?), he keeps an eye on his phone's screen instead and has one earbud in his ear to hear any excited announcements.

To make a long story short... no one from Geek's party even says hi to a single female and mostly talk about a new Java class that's sweeping the net, but they each have a good time and were able to keep track of and even enjoy a few minutes of excitement related to the sports team they follow.

Re:the solution

[NYYz]

Wow thats relevant. Was that the first thing you could think of to get 1st post or what?

Re:the solution

[paraax]

Private property rights would give them the ability to eject you from the game. IANAL so I can only speculate on the legality of the bootleg baseball game you managed to capture, but I'm pretty sure its covered under copyright as a live performance.

Re:the solution

[Mattcelt]

They can legally stop you from taking photos on their premises. This site has a good pocket guide to photographers' rights.

Re:the solution

[Heian-794]

This is not actually the main problem.

Plenty of fans are happy to pay MLB for their internet streaming video service, because it ostensibly offers every game, every day, unlike your typical cable company which only has the local teams and a few other stations.

The problems start because MLB's streaming service "blacks out" any games that MLB deems to be close enough for the fan to watch in person, or watch on local television. And this subset of games almost never coincides with the games that the fan does indeed have access to -- many fans in the Midwest are considered to be in the Rockies' or Twins' zones despite being miles away; Hawaii is somehow within blackout range of three or four teams that are not actually televised there, and most egregiously the entire nation of Japan is a total blackout zone. So you've got legions of fans with no access to their favorite teams' games, despite this wonderful modern technology that could bring broadcasts to these fans that wouldn't have any other way to see them (and pay for them).

Said fans will thus set up Slingboxes in the houses of relatives or friends who get the games they want on cable. All MLB would need to do to alleviate this is to eliminate the blackouts and make all their streams available worldwide. And they've never given the fans a satisfactory answer to why they don't do this.

Re:the solution

[Lockejaw]

Private property rights would give them the ability to eject you from the game.

Though there may be some conflict with contract law: you agreed that if you paid, they'd let you in to watch the game.
(IANAL)

Re:the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

NO

They simply reserve the right to kick you out even after paying, and it says so on any ticket. There is no protection because by buying the ticket you surrender your protection. Baseball is over 100 years old, can you not imagine that SOMEONE has thought of this already and attempted to test the terms in the last century of baseball games???

Re:the solution

[Lockejaw]

*shrug*
Last time I was at a game, it didn't say that, but I can imagine that being commonplace in the Major Leagues.

Obvious question

[AKAImBatman]

Major League Baseball is going against the grain by saying that Slingbox owners who stream home games while traveling are breaking the law because it allows consumers to circumvent geographical boundaries written in to broadcast deals.

Why should consumers abide by or even care about an agreement between the MLB and the broadcaster? The consumer didn't sign any contracts to "only watch baseball in approved geographical regions." And in any case, the user obviously has a presence in the necessary region in order to use SlingBox in the first place.

Re:Obvious question

[garbletext]

Exactly. In that quote, they're showing their motives; It's not about what they're entitled to enforce legally, it's what they wish they could, and what they're going to claim they can until a court says otherwise.

Re:Obvious question

[Mateo_LeFou]

"Why should consumers abide by or even care about an agreement between the MLB and the broadcaster?"

Because after the MLB and broadcaster come to an agreement, they go arm-in-arm to the Federal Government with stories about the "theft" of their "intellectual property". Lather, rinse, repeat for a decade or two and you get a situation where you can no longer use your own devices to pick up the signals shooting all around (and through) you. You will be *presumed *forbidden from doing anything with radio waves until you jump through a few hoops, i.e. discovering whether anyone claims to "own" those waves and what they'll allow you to do with them.

This is the logical conclusion of the argument "it's their content, they can dictate what you do with it"

Re:Obvious question

[rob_squared]

That's why you need to go to the real customers: the advertisers.

Make the case that their MLB friends are screwing up their add campaign. If you can't fight Goliath, pit him against the cyclops.

Re:Obvious question

[eric76]

Major League Baseball can kiss my ass.

I've given up on them because of the efforts they go to in order to keep consumers from watching their games on television.

Before, we had the package on Dish Network to watch the out of market games. But this year, MLB granted exclusive rights for the package to DirectTV. At the last minute, or after the last minute, they did allow some big cable conglomerate access as well.

But the Dish Network subscribers were left on their own. The choices are either to not watch the games or switch to DirectTV. I've chosen to not watch their games at all.

There is some package on Dish Network to get a large variety of regional sports networks. Many of those carry their local major league teams. But I no longer care enough to bother to get it. In any event, I'd be surprised if the major league baseball games on those channels weren't blacked out.

I think that what we need is a new non-MLB baseball league on tv. Until that happens, or they get some new management who cares about their fans, Major League Baseball can kiss my ass.

Re:Obvious question

[rob1980]

I'd like to see college baseball ride football's coattails into some expanded TV time on ESPN, ABC, Fox Sports, etc., beyond the coverage that the College World Series will get. It's a struggle for me to find college baseball on tv for schools in my area (Nebraska-Lincoln, Creighton, Nebraska-Omaha) let alone conference or national games. I'd watch that any day over MLB if the option was available.

Re:Obvious question

[DragonWriter]

Why should consumers abide by or even care about an agreement between the MLB and the broadcaster?

Legally, they don't have to. They can receive the broadcast anywhere they can legally receive it.

And they can legally timeshift it by recording it to, say, a videotape. And they can legally take that physical video tape anywhere they want and watch it.

Placeshifting probably ought to be equally legal, but there is a lot less clear case law on it that I am aware of, and in the absence of clear case law, MLB probably has a colorable (though, IMO, wrong) claim that placeshifting is a violation of copyright. The fact that it enables violation of the distribution agreement isn't the basis of the claim of illegality, but it is part of the basis for the claim of damages stemming from the illegality.

Re:Obvious question

[ajanp]

Doesn't really matter if the consumer didn't sign any contracts, because they are forced to deal with whatever agreement exists between the MLB and the broadcaster. If you live in Boston and want to watch a Red Sox game, then you are forced to watch it on a TV that has a cable connection with NESN, since they have exclusive broadcasting rights for Red Sox games (once in a while if they're playing the Yankees or something you can see the games on ESPN).

If you don't have NESN, or if your cable is out, or if you want to watch it on MLB.tv, you are out of luck, because all non-NESN broadcasts are blacked out forcing you to watch the game (and the associated ads) with whatever provider the MLB has a deal with. Basically, if you have a subscription to MLB.tv or don't have NESN, don't ever return home because the MLB doesn't want you there.

Re:Obvious question

[HaMMeReD3]

Exactly, it's not like the broadcasters are breaking there agreement, and the people who own slingboxes have no agreement.

This is no different then recording it to vhs and watching it in another country afterwards. In all fairness there is at least 15-20 seconds lag in streaming so it's not really a live broadcast.

Re:Obvious question

[Anonymous Coward]

So the problem is that MLB are frauds and perjurers then - Lying to governments about private citizens breaking agreements that they have never been party to or bound by.

How can a signed agreement between any 2 private entities suddenly mean that they have the authority to threaten and steal from everyone else? Its as if two slashdotters signed some agreement between them and then came knocking on MLBs door demanding money that they arent entitled to.

Its not legal, its extortion and fraud.

Re:Obvious question

[clem.dickey]

The consumer didn't sign any contracts to

Nor does the consumer sign any contract with regard to use of GPL software. Absent a contract I would think that "what is allowed" reduces to "what is allowed by law." Maybe MLB is just informing its viewers of the law (so they can't claim ignorance), or perhaps they are stretching the law through a questionable interpretation.

Is the law for baseball (or sporting events in general) different than for other broadcast material? I don't know, but I would not be surprised if the sports owners had taken care of that aspect.

If there is indeed a prohibition against "retransmission," I'd guess that it even applies to "private use" such as an Internet session. That is the distinction between retransmission and rebroadcast, and both are specified in MLB's standard announcement.

Re:Obvious question

[AKAImBatman]

Nor does the consumer sign any contract with regard to use of GPL software.

First off, "wrap" agreements have been legally accepted by courts for a long time. So including a license with your software is technically binding if the software is used.

That being said, you are not bound by the GPL. Read it sometime. It explicitly says you're not bound by it. The only time you're bound by it is if you want the redistrubtion rights that copyright law does not offer. Without the GPL, you cannot redistribute the software. So redistribution is either an implicit agreement to the terms or a violation of copyright law. Take your pick.

Maybe MLB is just informing its viewers of the law (so they can't claim ignorance), or perhaps they are stretching the law through a questionable interpretation.

Courts have already thrown out arguments against time shifting and space shifting. This is just another form of space shifting. Plus the FCC provides that anything sent over the airwaves cannot be restricted. If it's on the airwaves, it's public property. That doesn't mean that you can redistribute the material (that's where copyright law kicks in), but the airwaves are a single instance of a free distribution to all.

Long story short: MLB doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Re:Obvious question

[dnahelix1]

I understand that there are contracts between the broadcaster and the MLB and regions and this and that and we're all getting screwed as a consumer. The thing I've never understood, though, is this: We've accepted that a VCR is something to record a TV show for later. A DVR, in non-tech terms, is the same as a VCR, just in a different format. If I can record something to watch later (let's say a baseball game) what is the point of throwing a huge hissy-fit about letting me watch it when I have to travel for whatever reason? It's fine if I record it to come home and watch, but I can't watch it in real-time just because I have to be at (insert excuse here). Off-topic, but extending the same rationale, I've not understood why the broadcasters pitch a fit about BTing a tv show, either. Someone else just recorded it for me. If I had remembered to set my VCR, I was still going to ff through the commercials, but I digress.

Re:Obvious question

[bryan1945]

And in relation- NFL can kiss my ass. In the US you can only get the NFL package over satellite, but in Canada you can get it over cable. You would think that offering the package in sat and cable in the US would get them a bit more cash, wouldn't you?

Jackasses.

Re:Obvious question

[clem.dickey]

The only time you're bound by [the GPL] is if you want the redistrubtion rights that copyright law does not offer.

Exactly I was going down that branch, and negelected to make that clear.

Courts have already thrown out arguments against time shifting and space shifting.

I was unaware of the space-shifting decision. In that light, I accept your conclusion. Thanks for the follow-up.

Long story short: MLB doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Re:Obvious question

[zobier]

You will be *presumed *forbidden from doing anything with radio waves until you jump through a few hoops, i.e. discovering whether anyone claims to "own" those waves and what they'll allow you to do with them. Fuck that! If you "give" me your radio waves you can't take them back again, I'll do what I like with them.

I would say I never agreed to people irradiating me with their information but I know the Government already made that decision for me.

Re:Obvious question

[Shakrai]

If it's on the airwaves, it's public property. That doesn't mean that you can redistribute the material (that's where copyright law kicks in), but the airwaves are a single instance of a free distribution to all.

I watch the Mets. They broadcast on their own cable channel. It doesn't come in over the (public) airwaves. Does this still apply?

Re:Obvious question

[Abcd1234]

claim that placeshifting is a violation of copyright.

Wait... so you're saying that if I record an MLB game on my VCR, then carry the tape with my to a hotel room and watch it there, I'm violating copyright? That's an... interesting... interpretation.

Re:Obvious question

[OldeTimeGeek]

That's not a bad idea.

You'd think that the advertisers would be overjoyed by with the idea. Fans who would typically not be watching their ads because the game wasn't available now could be reached. At no additional cost! Since most of the MLB's revenue comes from advertising (either directly or indirectly from the licensed stations), the advertisers would have a bunch of leverage...

Re:Obvious question

[ipjohnson]

I don't disagree I just wonder what kind of effect this will have on the whole stupid black out games that they do in certain markets.

Personally I'd like to be able to watch sporting events with the local broadcasters national ones are usually biased or stupid and a fair amount of the time both!

Re:Obvious question

[amRadioHed]

Doesn't really matter if the consumer didn't sign any contracts, because they are forced to deal with whatever agreement exists between the MLB and the broadcaster Obviously that's not the case or else MLB wouldn't have anything to complain about. Of course you can only watch games on TV that someone decides to broadcast, that's not the point.

Re:Obvious question

[DragonWriter]

Wait... so you're saying that if I record an MLB game on my VCR, then carry the tape with my to a hotel room and watch it there, I'm violating copyright?

No, first, because that's not what I'm describing, and second, because I'm not claiming that any particular act is a violation of copyright, I'm describing (not endorsing) MLB's position.

Re:Obvious question

[jZnat]

First off, "wrap" agreements have been legally accepted by courts for a long time. So including a license with your software is technically binding if the software is used. O RLY? Let's see some case law, news stories, evidence. I'm sure something as important as the validation of shrinkwrap licenses would have made it to Slashdot by now...

Re:Obvious question

[AKAImBatman]

I'm sure something as important as the validation of shrinkwrap licenses would have made it to Slashdot by now...

I'm quite sure you meant to say "clickwrap" licenses, which have never been validated by a court. (But are generally held to be enforceable because of shrinkwrap licenses.) Shrinkwrap and Boxwrap licenses are covered by the Uniform Commercial Code laws and were validated by the ProCD v. Zeidenberg case.

The UCC specifically extends copyright law to allow agreements to be made quickly in cases where signing a physical contract would be prohibitive to the transaction. Originally conceived for markets like retail (you may occasionally find license agreements as a separate slip or in the manuals of retail products), the concept was extended to the computer market where shrinkwrapped software is sold like any other retail product.

Re:Obvious question

[AKAImBatman]

Sorry, "The UCC specifically extends copyright law" should read "The UCC specifically extends contract law". Wasn't minding my P's and Q's like I should. ;-)

More IP Control? Who needs it?

[psema4]

"Sling Media's Slingbox allows consumers to watch and control their home television programs from a remote PC or smartphone -- a process called 'placeshifting'. Content owners are typically edgy when it comes to the placeshifting topic. However, most don't view Slingbox as an imminent threat that will destroy the commercial broadcast model. Major League Baseball is going against the grain by saying that Slingbox owners who stream home games while traveling are breaking the law because it allows consumers to circumvent geographical boundaries written in to broadcast deals. This has sparked a huge debate that has the MLB, baseball fans, and the CEA up in arms. CEA President Gary Shapiro doesn't agree, and is coming to the defense of Sling Media and place-shifting in general." No offence, but F**k MLB. And same with any organization that says "because you might not be in the same spot you were 15 minutes ago, you can't watch it!" I'm not a big Baseball fan, but I'd say the same for any "Media Distribution Outlet."

Oops

[Sloppy]

It allows consumers to circumvent geographical boundaries written in to broadcast deals.

Sounds like MLB forgot to get someone's signature on the contract.

Re:Oops

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't mean to be a party pooper; but doesn't that copyright screen that the consumer sees at the beginning state that you agree not to re-broadcast? Does this really constitute a re-broadcast?

For the record; I don't see an issue with slingbox and (a potential) re-broadcasting for personal use. This also blurs the line with "Fair Use" (in the US). A DVD recorder could potentially be considered a re-broadcast device. Who knows.

No loss; I don't need MLB. They need fans and people willing to pay for the tickets; they need commercial sponsors to pay for commercials so they stay on the air and paying for the players salaries. If this market grows; they will be kissing more and more revenue good bye.

Re:Oops

[SuperMog2002]

I'm pretty sure the broadcaster putting text on your screen does not constitute a legal contract between you and them. Otherwise, I can say "By reading any of my other posts ever, you agree to wire me $3000 per word read" and you would be obligated to do so. They can put whatever the heck they want, I'm not obligated to obey anything beyond the letter of the law, and using the Slingbox to unicast (read: not broadcast) something from yourself to yourself does not constitute copyright infringement.

Re:Oops

[Sloppy]

Don't mean to be a party pooper; but doesn't that copyright screen that the consumer sees at the beginning state that you agree not to re-broadcast?

Don't know, haven't read it. For all I know, it might state that the moon is made of cheese and that I agree to not take a bite. WTF does one party's statement of opinion have to do with what another party has agreed to?

By reading this post, you agree to give me a pint of Bridgeport IPA.

Re:Oops

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it does not constitute a re-broadcast, since it's not, you know, broad. It's narrowcast to one specific device.

DON'T MESS WITH BASEB...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's not right. Nevermind.

This is the same thing as DVD region coding

[koreth]

MLB is using copyright laws to enforce their marketing agreements. Whether it's legally sound or not, I guess we'll find out if this gets as far as a court case, but it's certainly not very customer-centric.

Re:This is the same thing as DVD region coding

[drinkypoo]

The difference is that the TV signal isn't copy-protected (at least, not the analog signal supported by slingbox) and therefore does not enjoy DMCA protection, as DVD's CSS does. So it's not at all like DVD.

Re:This is the same thing as DVD region coding

[iamacat]

MLB is using copyright laws to enforce their marketing agreements.

Well then, I am going to use sodomy laws to complain about Microsoft's deceptive marketing practices in regards to security. In both cases, it sounds good, but it's worthless legally. Copyright laws prevent me from making additional copies of the content and distributing them to others. My own copy is only subject to property laws - as MY property that is illegal for MLB or anyone else to muck with.

Okay. I'l l be the first to ask...

[91degrees]

Why is it any business of Sling Media, or their customers what deal a broadcaster made with a third party? The customers were not involved in the negotiations, neither were Sling Media. The fact that they no longer have absolute control of the technology to offer the same service as they did last year means that they need to negotiate a new contract that is acceptable to both parties in the current climate.

Consumer Electronics Association

[Speare]

Would it have been so hard to actually type (or cut-n-paste) what CEA stands for into the blurb? I couldn't guess WTF it was, an NGO like the BBB, CCC, NAA, or ANA, or more like the FBI, FTC, or GAO.

Re:Consumer Electronics Association

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia to the rescue!

The abbreviation CEA may refer to:
 
    * California Earthquake Authority
    * California Environmental Associates
    * Cambridge Electron Accelerator
    * Canadian Education Association
    * Carcinoembryonic antigen, a tumor marker for colorectal cancer.
    * Carotid endarterectomy, a surgical procedure involving the carotid artery
 
    * Central Electricity Authority of India
    * Centro de Educación Artística, an arts institute in Mexico City owned by Televisa
    * China Eastern Airlines
    * Christian Evangelistic Assemblies, a Christian organization supporting non-denominational churches
    * Cincinnati Entertainment Awards
    * Collective employment agreement (in collective bargaining)
    * College of Engineering Adoor, An engineering college at Adoor, Kerala affiliated to CUSAT
    * Collie eye anomaly
    * Comité Européen des Assurances, the European insurance and reinsurance federation
    * Consumer Electronics Association
    * Controlled Environment Agriculture
 
    * Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique, French national establishment for nuclear matters
    * Council of Economic Advisors
    * Commodities Exchange Act, one of several pieces of legistation regulating the sale of commodities in the United States under the oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
    * Cultural Experiences Abroad, Study Abroad Programs

I'm partial to "Collie eye anomaly" myself.

Re:Consumer Electronics Association

[Anonymous Coward]

FYYFF

J/K.

LOL.

PKM (Please kill me)

dang cap filter is harshing my "joke"

Re:Consumer Electronics Association

[dlsmith]

Agreed. I went straight to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEA. Apparently CEA is a very popular TLA. "Consumer Electronics Association" is a good pick, but how about "Council of Economic Advisors," "Christian Evangelistic Assemblies," or "China Eastern Airlines"? China is all about copyright infringement, so it wouldn't surprise me them getting behind those Slingbox pirates. A bunch of rabble, the lot of them.

Re:Consumer Electronics Association

[i_like_spam]

CEA actually stands for 'Can't Explain Acronyms', which is a common occurrence on Slashdot.

Re:Consumer Electronics Association

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm partial to "Collie eye anomaly" myself.

Ditto. That darn collie eye anomoly is always contradicting major league sporting organisations!

 

Would it have been so hard to actually type (or cut-n-paste) what CEA stands for into the blurb?

But then the submitter and editors would not appear nearly as intelligent to themselves. It is pretty obvious that the average slashdot submitter or editor has never written a formal essay in an institution of higher learning.

Re:Consumer Electronics Association

[Anonymous Coward]

It is pretty obvious that the average slashdot submitter or editor has never written a formal essay in an institution of higher learning.

It is pretty obvious that the average slashdot submitter or editor has never written a formal essay in^W^W^W^W^Wbeen allowed inside of an institution of higher learning.

Re:Consumer Electronics Association

[julesh]

Are you sure it stands for Consumer Electronics Association? I think the opinion of the Council of Economic Advisors would be just as relevant (i.e., not particularly).

Re:Consumer Electronics Association

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently CEA is a very popular TLA.

TLA?!?!?!? WTF???

Re:Consumer Electronics Association

[Speare]

Yeah, I took the brave and unheard of step of clicking through to the actual article. I then cut-n-pasted the three words into my reply, which is what the original poster should have done in the first place.

Re:Consumer Electronics Association

[julesh]

Wow. I'm impressed. Somebody actually _read_ the article.

PSP + PS3 does the same thing

[BoboB-69]

The PSP with its new firmware plus the PS3 with its firmware from last week does the same thing for music, pictures, and video. Wonder how MLB will treat it? http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/31/psp-3-50-firmwa re-available-remote-play-over-the-internet/

Re:PSP + PS3 does the same thing

[Constantine XVI]

I don't believe it allows you to send live TV over the internet.

Re:PSP + PS3 does the same thing

[BoboB-69]

I don't believe it allows you to send live TV over the internet.

The PS3 is a DLNA client. If you have any DLNA server on your network (there are many and more are coming from the consumer electronics and PC industries), you will be able to see live TV over the internet.

Re:More IP Control? Who needs it?

[psema4]

Ag. Please(!) forgive. Finally figured out how to set posting preferences to Plaintext.

Previous post should've read:

No offence, but F**k MLB. And same with any organization that says "because you might not be in the same spot you were 15 minutes ago, you can't watch it!" I'm not a big Baseball fan, but I'd say the same for any "Media Distribution Outlet."

Guh.

MLB is probably just trying to get some attention

[Gat0r30y]

Plus, there's no guarantee that Slingbox will be around next year. It's a start-up.
Thats bull. Even if the company goes under, my hardware is still gonna work. MLB can eat it.

Fair Use

[Nom du Keyboard]

I say that Fair Use lets me both time and place-shift. No industry in America deserves the right, or the power, to not only tell you what (show the program in another country, but not yours for a year) and when (Do Not Record flag that idiots who forget who their customers really are, like TiVo, slavishly obey) you can watch their show, but where as well. If I pay for it, I should be able to watch it anywhere I am! It's not like Sling Media hasn't taken effective steps to limit the viewing or distribution of the program to the purchaser alone.

It's also no wonder that the more the content industry tightens the screws (no fast forwarding now through commercials, let alone 30-second skip, on new programming) that the more people turn to alternative methods (e.g. BitTorrent) for getting their content, and the ability to watch it, as they desire.

Re:Fair Use

[cfulmer]

I don't even think you get to fair use on this one. There are only a few general ways you can infringe the copyright of a broadcast:

(1) You can make a copy of it
(2) You can make a derivative work out of it
(3) You can publicly perform it
(4) You can distribute copies to the public

Slingbox, by itself, does none of these, unless you consider the tiny pieces of the recording stored in a buffer along the way to be a "copy." (While that's still an open question, it appears that Congress' intent is that it is not.) As long as you're not transmitting to, say, a sports bar, you're fine.

The MLB?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't they the ones who put up that idiotic disclaimer saying that we can't even tell our friends the score? The ones the Simpsons spoofed when they went into international waters saying, "They're re-broadcasting Major League Baseball with implied oral consent, not express written consent--or so the legend goes." Yeah, I know, they have agreements to black out local games unless they're sold out so as to improve ticket sales, but I don't really care, and I never agreed to any of this, nor do I nor should I have to to watch my TV.

I can pretty well reduce what I'd say to them to two words:
SCREW YOU!

Re:The MLB?

[Goldberg's Pants]

NFL does that dumb message too. Bloody NASCAR has started doing it. (Are NASCAR fans even capable of speech? OH NO HE DIN'T... OH YES HE DID!!!)

I'm a baseball fan, but MLB have broken me now. First there's the MLB.TV thing. Blue Jays are blacked out for me. I am over 2000 miles away from Toronto! Somehow I'm claimed as a local market though... Strike 1.

MLB.TV, despite costing $20 a month, now includes commercials from what I've heard. Also, if you get MLB.TV and want to cancel, they make it deliberately difficult to do so... Strike 2.

Now this. If you're paying for the channel, you can watch it wherever you damn well please IMO. And surely, if Slingbox violates the broadcast deals, that's the TV networks problem, not MLB... Strike 3.

You're outta there Mister Selig... Now call the ump a cocksucker and get thrown from the game.

Re:The MLB?

[pete6677]

It amazes me what people will go through to watch paint drying on TV... oops I mean to watch a baseball game.

Re:The MLB?

[asninn]

Hey, that's not fair - baseball is much more interesting than watching paint dry. In fact, it's almost as good as watching grass grow.

Timeshifting is almost as bad as steroids!

[Cr0w T. Trollbot]

Wow, letting someone watch something brodcast over the airwaves anywhere they want is almost as bad as someone breaking a hallowed major league record because they were using illegal, performance-enhancing drugs! But we know MLB would never let that happen...

(Given the plethora of entertainment choices available today, plus the numerous scandals that have rocked the sport just this decade, you would think that MLB would be happy that anyone still watches baseball, never mind when and where...)

Crow T. Trollbot

Re:Timeshifting is almost as bad as steroids!

[drinkypoo]

(Given the plethora of entertainment choices available today, plus the numerous scandals that have rocked the sport just this decade, you would think that MLB would be happy that anyone still watches baseball, never mind when and where...)

A slightly paranoid individual might suggest that the scandals were invented out of whole cloth in order to drum up some interest in their boring-ass sport.

The decline of baseball explains the rise of popularity in NASCAR, though. Baseball is fucking boring. So is watching a bunch of cars turn left. But almost no one ever dies in baseball, whereas NASCAR occasionally involves explosions and cars doing cartwheels.

As a side note, anyone who hasn't yet seen the film Idiocracy might think about giving it a glance. It's pretty amusing, once.

Its funny

[Altus]

But somehow I don't remember signing a broadcast agreement with Major League Baseball. Either place shifting is legal or not. MLB's agreements with its broadcasters should have absolutely no bearing on this at all.

Boo hoo

[easyTree]

"...if a league can't protect the rights they (sell), that doesn't bode well for future contracts when they want to resell the rights at higher margins," says George Kliavkoff, who was vp business development at MLBAM before becoming chief digital officer at NBC."

Uhh.. so, change your business model to reflect the changes in your customers' needs. Trying to penalise your customer for changing seems doomed to failure; although I may be mistaken =)

When will people learn that information doesn't respect boundaries? One would think it would be a simple lesson, particularly in today's climate of ?IAA attacks on their own customers over the same issue.

Hint: The world is changing. Either lobby to make change illegal or stop whining, please....

You play in our parks..

[daeg]

You play in our parks, rely on our infrastructure (including roads, police and fire protection), I will do whatever the hell I want with your content. Thanks.

Re:You play in our parks..

[X-treme-LLama]

If only my mod points hadn't expired yesterday..

What I do with the airwaves/cable that comes into my home is my own damn business as long as I'm not throwing it up on YT or BT. (And even then, as someone mentioned, you would think they would be grateful ANYONE was watching any more). If I want to timeshift, placeshift, or even print out the individual frames, place them on a wooden coffee table, take a digital photo of that, assemble all of those BACK into an mpeg-4 stream and have THAT 'slung' to my laptop in Tokyo, I can do it.

In many cities with baseball teams local and even state taxes helped to pay for the actual fucking stadiums, not to mention the tax breaks, infrastructure, etc. etc. All for what, so some juiced up guy with tiny balls (ahh 'roid nuts) can run 360 fucking feet (in a bloody circle!) for millions and millions of dollars.. And not all at once either, they get rest stops (unless it's a home run, but in which case he's probably jogging).. It's a pansy ass sport. Ticket prices are insane, concessions are worse, and the only thing more mind-numbing than watching it in the stands is watching it on TV.. (Except when the cards and sox finally won the series.. Hey, what the hell, the sox deserved it and I'm in Missouri.. we cheer the cards because our other team fucking sucks)

I'd start watching again if they made it a contact sport, with no equipment changes. If you hit a homer you get to hit the pitcher in his pitching arm with your bat, and he MUST then pitch out the inning. If you steal a base, boot, err, cleat to head (of the baseman). If you run down the catcher at home plate you get to piss on his face mask--while he is wearing it. And the best one, when the ump makes a bullshit call, every player on the team that got screwed gets to line up and kick him in the nuts. Maybe all the fans in the stadium too, after all baseball 2.0 is all about user generated nut kickings.

When Did I Sign That?

[hardburn]

. . . Slingbox owners who stream home games while traveling are breaking the law because it allows consumers to circumvent geographical boundaries written in to broadcast deals.

Did I sign a broadcaster agreement? No? Then shut up.

History Repeating

[Brit_in_the_USA]

It doesn't get old reading about big media and how they get very worried when power comes to the people. We all now have the opportunity to copy, place shift, time shift and archive our tv shows on our schedules, even go as far as re-broadcast mash ups (a la The Daily show - he said what then he said what?), edits (no adverts anyone?) or just plain rips with our home PC's and an Internet connection.

Reminds me of when (cassette) tape to tape desks became common and people started doing their own compilations to listen to in their order, and started mailing clubs to swap mix tapes. The big media were up in arms then that it would be the end of music sales....

Oh well , another good reason to have your own media PC so you don't end up foul of a firmware update that blocks your certain shows after a court case between your hardware manufacturer and a media company.

Breaking Geographical Boundaries

[Nom du Keyboard]

Does it break geographical boundaries if I make a tape of the game and carry it with me to watch on my trip? Can I be sued for doing that?

Slingbox simply automates a process that has been done the old fashioned way since the advent of the home VCR. It's better. It's nicer. It's far more consumer friendly, but it's essentially the same thing!

The unfortunate problem is that the courts tend to be anal about these things. A court ruled recently that while it's legal for the cable company to rent you a DVR and place it next to your television set, it's illegal for them to move the DVR functionality to their own servers and send you the program on demand over the cable in a way that looks the same as though you'd recorded it yourself. It's the same d@mn thing in every regard except in the eyes of some dumb judge.

The courts seem to need to inspect (meddle in) every little piece of technological progress and nitpick reasons why this isn't legal, although the same functionality implemented in an earlier was was completely legal. Just how far away from your TV set will this judge allow your legal DVR to be placed before it becomes illegal. That's what I'd like to know.

Of course, I'll bet that the moment Sling Media is ready to hand over a substantial wad of cash to MLB for providing this functionality to their fans, that MLB will have no problems with it at all.

Re:Breaking Geographical Boundaries

[DragonWriter]

Does it break geographical boundaries if I make a tape of the game and carry it with me to watch on my trip?

It certainly enables you to do that, yes.

Can I be sued for doing that?

No. Because making the recording is legal, so the fact that it causes MLB harm doesn't give them a cause of action. Their argument here is that "placeshifting" by retransmitting over the internet is a violation of copyright (I think they are wrong, but I don't think the case law is clear on that so that it is as certain as a matter of law) and therefore the harm done to them by circumventing the regional distribution agreements they have are damages attributable to that legal wrong that they can recover.

Re:Breaking Geographical Boundaries

[pappy97]

"Slingbox simply automates a process that has been done the old fashioned way since the advent of the home VCR. It's better. It's nicer. It's far more consumer friendly, but it's essentially the same thing!"

Except that with Slingbox, I can actually watch events live. I am a Giants fan in the Bay Area, and let's say I have Slingbox. If I am in Nebraska I can use my Slingbox and watch the game LIVE. MLB wants me to find a bar with MLB Extra Innings to watch the game.

I am not saying it is right or wrong, but you suggest it is like taping a game and taking it a on trip. That isn't true when you watch LIVE TV.

Re:Breaking Geographical Boundaries

[pappy97]

"Of course, I'll bet that the moment Sling Media is ready to hand over a substantial wad of cash to MLB for providing this functionality to their fans, that MLB will have no problems with it at all."

Hopefully this never happens, because all sports leagues will come out of the woodwork and sue SlingMedia because they all sports packages too and if you have a friend that will set up a slingbox for you in the city of your favorite team, you can avoid purchasing NHL Center Ice, NBA League Pass, **NFL SUNDAY TICKET** (assuming you get those just to watch your favorite team who plays in a city you had to move away from).

Imagine the how hard the NFL will come down if they learns that hoards of Bay Area Oakland Raider fans are huddling at someone computer (connected to a TV, of course) to watch an Oakland Raiders blacked out home game because the guy in question has a friend somewhere else outside the blackout area with NFL Sunday Ticket AND a Slingbox.

Slingbox would be doomed if they settle with MLB. This needs to go to court to see what the Supreme Court will say about extending Sony Betamax fair use from time-shifting to place-shifting.

Re:Breaking Geographical Boundaries

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think courts have to be anal about things like that. There are a lot of subtle distinctions in what is allowed based existing laws and contracts. Often, who is in the right and who is in the wrong is based on very subtle differences you mention. Even if the result is the same between two different technologies, sometimes the difference in method or technology changes who is right in the eyes of the law.

In this case though, I agree that there is no reason for MLB to be in a hissy fit. The people that are "breaking" geographical boundaries did not sign a broadcast agreement that I can tell. I'm not sure why the bother. Obviously not all games can be broadcast everywhere with existing broadcast, TV and satellite technologies.

Re:Breaking Geographical Boundaries

[servognome]

The unfortunate problem is that the courts tend to be anal about these things. A court ruled recently that while it's legal for the cable company to rent you a DVR and place it next to your television set, it's illegal for them to move the DVR functionality to their own servers and send you the program on demand over the cable in a way that looks the same as though you'd recorded it yourself. It's the same d@mn thing in every regard except in the eyes of some dumb judge.

Not knowing the specifics of the case you are referring to, there are a number of possible reasons the judge had to rule the way he did. You may think it's the same, however, with a DVR it is the user doing the recording and time-shifting. The cable company could be restricted by contracts, anti-trust laws, or other legislation from performing those on-demand functions.

Re:Breaking Geographical Boundaries

[Abcd1234]

it's illegal for them to move the DVR functionality to their own servers and send you the program on demand over the cable in a way that looks the same as though you'd recorded it yourself.

No, actually, it's entirely different. In the first case, the user is recording the content for their own use, playing it back in their own home. In the second, the cable operator is recording the content and then redistributing it to one or more customers. This requires a distribution license, and in the absence of such a license, the process is illegal. Why is this at all surprising?

Re:Breaking Geographical Boundaries

[jbarr]

I don't know exactly how SlingBox works, but having lots of experience with ReplayTV, MOXI, and now SageTV DVR's, nothing is actually "live". Everything you watch, live or recorded, is technically a recording. The video is never streamed live to the viewer, but it is first captured to a hard disk then played back, so you are never actually watching "live" TV, only recordings. Sure, the delay may be minimal, but technically, it's not a "live" viewing.

Now, if the SlingBox is doing a record/playback process, then it should be a non-issue. But if it is simply doing a "pass through" then there may be some legal issue here. And if it is re-encoding or transcoding the content, then an argument could be made that the resulting content is actually a copy, not the original (which could open up a different can of worms.)

Re:Breaking Geographical Boundaries

[pappy97]

"Now, if the SlingBox is doing a record/playback process, then it should be a non-issue. But if it is simply doing a "pass through" then there may be some legal issue here. And if it is re-encoding or transcoding the content, then an argument could be made that the resulting content is actually a copy, not the original (which could open up a different can of worms.)"

Actually it is the other way around. A simple pass through is on better legal standing than Slingbox temporarily recording then playing back.

But Slingbox does not work like the other things you mentioned. Slingbox actually allows the remote user to control their cable box from a remote location. They can watch LIVE TV if they wish, or watch a program from their cable box's DVR. MLB has an issue with Slingbox facilitating streaming of baseball games.

The way I see it

[C_Kode]

Their agreement is between MLB and broadcasters. The people watching it aren't even part of the agreement. The broadcasters broadcasted the media in the consumers area, and the consumer watched it. They just choose to watch it some place other than their own home.

Re:The way I see it

[Tmack]

Their agreement is between MLB and broadcasters. The people watching it aren't even part of the agreement. The broadcasters broadcasted the media in the consumers area, and the consumer watched it. They just choose to watch it some place other than their own home.

If you ever listen to the beginning of a MLB broadcast (or NFL or many other sports) one part of the leagaleze they spew is something like "no rebroadcast or retransmit allowed without written permission of MLB". I wonder if they are considering the slingbox in violation of that, since it is essentially retransmitting the video from your home to wherever you might have gone. Seems weak, and probably would not hold up in court, since the language is obviously aimed at keeping people from recording and reselling the game or any part of it without paying MLB for those rights.

As for the geographical boundaries, this probably has to do with the "blackout" area around any televised pro-sports event. Part of the pro-sport agreements include clauses that require areas near the game to be blacked out from transmitting the game in an effort to get more people to actually go to the stadium and buy a ticket to watch it there, if the game is under a certain percentage of capacity. Its a dumb rule, since most people that want to watch the game at the stadium will go to the stadium either way, and those that could care less wont change their mind if they cant watch it on tv. If they really are into it, they just get a satellite TV service that cant distinguish the boundaries anyway. The MLB has already gone after Satellite TV services for this in the past, now they are adding "On the Internets!!" to it and trying again.

Tm

Re:The way I see it

[C_Kode]

Interesting point. I guess it really comes down to the language used. To broadcast (as a transitive verb) means to make something known to a large sum of people. It is not illegal to record a game and watch it at a later time. (DVR, VHS, etc) What is in question is where it is broadcasted. So, the question is, is it illegal to record via VHS a game and take it with you on your trip to X city and watch it there? Slingbox does not broadcast it for all to see, it transports it to the customer whom had the rights in the first place to watch it where every he/she may be.

I don't think this will stand up in court. Otherwise to record on an easily transportable media like VHS and DVD would be illegal.

timeshifting + placeshifting = rampant piracy

[perky]

So I am explicitly allowed to timeshift broadcast content - or at least I would be if I was a merkin. And now I might be allowed to "placeshift". So does that mean I am allowed to record any broadcast media and time'n'place (tm) shift it to enjoy anywhere on any device in any location?

Record the entire broadcast stream, and then operate a kind of private Video on Demand service based on all of the content that has been broadcast in the past N years. All you need is some cheapo commodity disk and some software like Promise TV with streaming.

Re:timeshifting + placeshifting = rampant piracy

[drinkypoo]

Record the entire broadcast stream, and then operate a kind of private Video on Demand service based on all of the content that has been broadcast in the past N years. All you need is some cheapo commodity disk and some software like Promise TV with streaming.

You're entitled to watch the stream, because you recorded it. And you're entitled to show it to other people if you're watching it, so long as they're not paying you money to be there or anything similar. But to send the stream to someone else is to make a copy of the stream, and it's still violation of copyright.

Re:timeshifting + placeshifting = rampant piracy

[really?]

Since the Sling can control, for example, your TIVO, yes, you can do exactly what you want.

MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

[tjw]

I've been a baseball fan for a long time, but becoming less of one as it becomes harder to watch video of the games.

I live in MN, but I'm a Brewers fan. This is quite unfortunate since it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to watch Brewers games. My satellite provider will only let me watch Twins games (something i would have to pay extra for), but MLB has my MN zip code in the "blackout area" for the Brewers and Twins, so I can't watch games online through mlb.tv either.

Last year I paid ~$200 for something called MLB Season Ticket just to watch brewers games on satellite. This year it's not available.

I wrote an email to blackout@mlb.com explaining the situation, but the response was essentially "too bad, you're blacked out".

I think this strategy of milking advertising pennies is only hurting MLB in the long run since I doubt they will maintain younger fans now that its so hard to get their video content. Turning down my money and alienating fans like me probably isn't that wise for the short-run either.

Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

[Anonymous Coward]

As I understand it, blackouts aren't about milking advertising dollars but trying to put people in the seats at the stadiums.

Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

[wiit_rabit]

I have a similar situation with American football. I'm a Chicago Bears fan living in SW Pennsylvania. Sometimes I don't get any games at all on Sundays!. I now listen to the NFL and NASCAR on SIRIUS radio.

PS: When will the broadcasters learn that we may want to watch other sports too like Rugby, Irish hurling, and Aussie football.

Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

[coaxial]

I hear your pain man. When I lived in Southern Illinois, I had MLB Extra Innings on DirecTV. I'd watch The Cardinals and the Mariners (Ichiro is fun to watch.) Whenever the Seattle plays in Chicago, which is over 300 miles away, and the game is broadcast on the over the air in Chicago (WCIU?) I WAS BLOCKED OUT. I called DirecTV and complained everytime.

"That game is broadcast on the over the air channel."
"No. It's broadcasted on a channel 300 miles away. It is physically impossible for me to receive it."
"MLB thinks otherwise."
"Could you unloick FSN Seattle, since I get right up until the game showed up."
"It's impossible for us to unblock a single channel."
"Bullshit."

Fuck Bud Selig. Fuck him to hell.

Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

[ELiTeUI]

GO BEARS

Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

[Java Commando]

Well, that analysis is flat wrong, at least in my case (and surely tens of thousands of others):

I live in Oregon, in any area 500 miles away from the team I grew up with and love, the A's. So I haven't the brilliant luxury of hopping in my Yugo to cruise to the ballpark and put myself in one of the Coliseum's seats. Nor can I do so to hit a Giants game. Or a Mariners game, in Seattle.

But, Major League Baseball, in their blinding genius, has designated my region not only Seattle Mariners "Home" territory (which I can half accept; even though they're 300 miles away from me), but also Oakland Athletics AND San Francisco Giants "Home" territory. Hence, even though I'm paying their ass for MLB-TV service, I'm blacked out. For all three teams.

The other news is this: I don't have cable TV. I don't want cable TV. I don't need cable TV. And I won't pay for something I don't want. And I certainly won't pay for something by virtue of someone else telling me I must just to get a single element of content, wasting the rest. But it gets even better: I couldn't get A's baseball through my local cable carrier even if I was willing to pay for it! This is the Northwest; Seattle Mariners territory. I haven't interest in watching Seattle Mariners baseball on television. Given recent years, they'd have to pay ME to do that...

This is a serious issue with me; one that I harbor scathing anger at MLB for. The management individuals of Major League Baseball are pin headed dolts who neither respect the honor of the game nor the loyal fans who support it, and for that, I have zero respect for them. Zero. Hellfire and scorn to them for what they've done to the game, and to the loyal fans willing to PAY them for honest, live game coverage in regions any fucktard would agree is out of logical market.

Woe, I hate them...

Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

[pappy97]

"I live in MN, but I'm a Brewers fan. This is quite unfortunate since it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to watch Brewers games. My satellite provider will only let me watch Twins games (something i would have to pay extra for), but MLB has my MN zip code in the "blackout area" for the Brewers and Twins, so I can't watch games online through mlb.tv either.

Last year I paid ~$200 for something called MLB Season Ticket just to watch brewers games on satellite. This year it's not available."

Actually it is called MLB Extra Innings. Who is your satellite provider? The major ones provide MLB Extra Innings. Blackout rules are a joke with MLB because they do reach out much farther than should be, but I don't see how you are not offered MLB Extra Innings anymore.

Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

[cdrudge]

Actually it is called MLB Extra Innings. Who is your satellite provider? The major ones provide MLB Extra Innings. Blackout rules are a joke with MLB because they do reach out much farther than should be, but I don't see how you are not offered MLB Extra Innings anymore.

This was true up until this year. MLB signed a sort of exclusive deal with DirecTV that ended up forcing other providers to match DirecTV's price. Dish wanted to negotiate their own rates and did not want to pay what DirecTV was offering. MLB would not budge (at least according to Dish Network). Read more about it here.

Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

[really?]

I have a friend in Portland who is, basically, in the same boat. After bitching and moaning for a while he decided he could either give up watching or do something about it. On my advice, he decided to "do something", so, last time I was down there, I set up a Dreambox-500S next to his direct TV tuner. Now, thanks to Gemini firmware, he can watch what he wants...

Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

[pappy97]

"
This was true up until this year. MLB signed a sort of exclusive deal with DirecTV that ended up forcing other providers to match DirecTV's price. Dish wanted to negotiate their own rates and did not want to pay what DirecTV was offering. MLB would not budge (at least according to Dish Network). Read more about it here [dishnetwork.com]."

Ah, I see, well dude needs to switch to DirecTV to watch the Brew Crew then.

Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone that works for a satellite TV company in tech support (ExpressVu, specifically) I can assure you they are telling you the truth. They cannot unlock the station (assuming they want their job). The blackout string is set by the highest level technicians (the ones that don't work tech support but actually set up all the cool engineering-type stuff they never let the techs know about). This blackout string is set by postal code (for you probably zip code).

MLB/NHL/whoever sends us a list of postal codes and what gets blacked out for each one. The agreement is like this: If we set the postal code/zipcodes correctly, they "play ball" (pun intended) and let us sell their service, which obviously means more customers and profit for us. If we start to change customer addresses just to get around the blackout for you (which is what we'd have to do) not only would this break our agreement with those guys (Meaning NO BALL GAMES FOR YOU, PERIOD, probably even no games from the locals you get) but customers like you would leave anyways. Also, if an individual tech was caught comitting fraud like this they'd be fired (which would cover ExpressVu's ass, since they can then prove it wasn't their fault).

Obviously it would be less profit for us if you didn't buy the MLB service at all, or no profit for us if you just gave up on satellite, but we are still left with a net positive since *someone* *somewhere* is happy. And it's not like you're going to find yourself more satisfied with another company for long, anyways, since they are under the same obligations when they are licensed to sell the service. If the other company *does* give it to you, it's because either you lied about your address, they have the wrong one on the system for you, or they're committing fraud. If it's the latter, they won't be in business long at all.

And yes, all calls ARE monitored (often live) and calls like that are ESPECIALLY monitored.

If you want to call someone who can change things, you must call MLB/NHL/whatever directly yourself. The tech has given you the phone number each time, I am more than sure. If they haven't, ask for it next time and they will give it to you. And ask them to verify what I've said. Most of the techs won't know the terminology behind it (eg: Blackout String, or that the NHL/MLB/whatever sends us lists) but they know it's set based on your address and they know that changing that to satisfy you is a fireable offense. You probably won't get far (okay, you'll get NOWHERE) talking to the MLB but if you do manage to convince them, the change will filter down to all of us eventually and you'll be back watching it.

Now, you could fix all this by calling up DishNetwork and asking them for service, and giving them a friends address that lives far enough away from ALL sporting centres that he never gets blackouts. But that would be "illegal" on your part. But if they never knew about it... what they don't know won't kill them.

BTW: The fact the guy bothered to look up that you could get it off the air was a bonus. I wouldn't have bothered. It's certainly not required of us to find that information for you. So you got better tech support than I would have given you.

PPS - It is impossible for them to "unlock" (actually adjust the blackout string) for a single channel. The blackout string is a long, complicated, and purposely undocumented thing. It's also not adjustable by anyone except the engineers, who automatically set it based on postal codes. And the only way to remove the blackout is to change the blackout string. So he's 100% truthful, it *is* absolutely 100% impossible for him to do it. In fact, it's impossible for ANYONE you can contact there to do it except maybe people at the Executive level and up (ie: CEOs, etc... if you own he place you obviously can order the engineers to do whatever you want them to do, even if you doom the company by doing it). And there's no way in hell you are going to convince the president of DTV to adjust your blackout string. Never, ever, not even if you sued for a million dollars and WON treble damages.

Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

[jonwil]

If this is true, why are the blackout regions for most teams far larger than the catchment area of people who are actually able to go to the games?

Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

[coaxial]

As someone that works for a satellite TV company in tech support (ExpressVu, specifically) I can assure you they are telling you the truth. They cannot unlock the station (assuming they want their job). The blackout string is set by the highest level technicians (the ones that don't work tech support but actually set up all the cool engineering-type stuff they never let the techs know about). This blackout string is set by postal code (for you probably zip code).


I didn't make myself clear. They told me it was technically impossible to do it. It is possible to do this, but they are legally forced to provide substandard service.


Now, you could fix all this by calling up DishNetwork and asking them for service, and giving them a friends address that lives far enough away from ALL sporting centres that he never gets blackouts. But that would be "illegal" on your part. But if they never knew about it... what they don't know won't kill them.

BTW: The fact the guy bothered to look up that you could get it off the air was a bonus. I wouldn't have bothered. It's certainly not required of us to find that information for you. So you got better tech support than I would have given you.


But I CAN'T GET IT OVER THE AIR It is a physical impossiblity. MLB has designated the DMA has "chicago white sox terrority" simply because it's Illinois. It is absolutely impossible to receive that channel. The only reason I know what the call letters for the channel are, is that I looked it up on the web.

Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

[fucksl4shd0t]

To prevent people 100 miles from the game from driving 50 miles to a friend's house to watch it?

Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

[Heian-794]

You guys think you have it bad?

Try being a baseball fan living in Japan -- every single game is blacked out, every day. I could almost get my mind around this if I were a Yankees fan and could pay for one of the Japanese satellite stations that broadcasts all of Hideki Matsui's games, but it's not just the Yankees, Red Sox, and Mariners -- it's every team in both leagues.

What could they possibly be thinking? Probably 99% of the fans here can't understand the English-language broadcasts anyway. And it's a very long plane ride to any of the ballparks where we could be buying tickets.

Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

[fucksl4shd0t]

Clearly they don't want you to sail on a ship out to the middle of the pacific where you can pick up the signal from LA, Seattle, or wherever.

Breaking a contract I didn't sign.....

[fotbr]

I didn't sign any contract with MLB. So they can find a short pier and take a long walk.

simple solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't broadcast baseball games. The team owners wouldn't have to worry about controlling the media and they wouldn't preempt shows I want to watch. Everyone is a winner.

Motives are clear

[Known Nutter]

hardly a surprise MLB is going after Slingbox, since it competes directly with their own service which circumvents the exact same "geographical boundaries written in to broadcast deals".

Re:Motives are clear

[danfromsb]

Actually it doesn't. If your billing zip code/ip address is in the specified locations you will be blacked out of local games even on mlb.tv. Only gameday radio allows you to listen to all games live. All of the rules mlb sets up don't make any sense in this day and age.

economics of blackouts

[belmolis]

Broadcast blackouts only benefit MLB if local broadcasting would detract from attendance at games. Would that really happen? I don't follow baseball, but from what I know, there are lots of people who find it more exciting to go to the stadium than to watch on TV, so unless the stadium prices are so high as to keep the fans away, local broadcasting would not have any impact on their stadium income. Am I wrong about this? Does MLB even have a real economic incentive to block local broadcasting?

RIAA all over again

[denobug]

MLB is behaving like RIAA now. It seems it is very easy for content owners to "convince" someone that new technology is helping people "stealing" their contents and the new technology available is evil and must be banned. We need to call our Congressional representatives and the Senators and ask for a law to be passed that prevent ANY immerging technology should not be liable for ANY copyright infringement. They need to do more to catch people in the act to accuse somone of stealing.

We should not be liable for someone too lazy to find new ways to make their own money. Business need to learn to adapt, that includes whiny executives running out of fresh ideas decades ago.

*ring*ring*

[UP_Minstrel]

Hey man, its Bob.
(Hi Bob)
Hey, you at home?
(yeah)
You got the game on?
(yeah)
Whats the score?
(can't tell you)
What? C'mon man, you watching it or not?
(yeah, I'm watching it)
Well, tell me what the score is.
(OOoo, hold on....) .....
(Wow, great play)
Who's at bat?
(Can't tell you)
.
.
Ad Nauseum

Seriously. Draw a fucking line. Get a grip. Evolve with the times or die, you broadcast based dinosaurs, instead of fighting ridiculous fucking battles to raise your stock price until you can retire and pull the chord on your goddamn golden parachute.

There's nothing anyone can do with your crap that you haven't now labeled as theft. Oh wait, they can watch it ONCE... but they have to buy a house and a license and agree to a 3 yr service agreement with whatever cable-sludge company holds the monopoly in your broadcast "zone" so they can lay there on the couch with an IV drip in while you rifle their wallets and be bombarded with advertisements for stores 200 miles away as you download "reality" TV into the country's frontal lobes and host talking heads complaining about the declining IQ and productivity of the sheep that you yourselves have helped raise.

Property is theft. Intellectual Property doubly so.

Re:*ring*ring*

[Anonymous Coward]

>pull the chord on your goddamn golden parachute.

I tried that, but I fell flat on a sour note.

Simpsons has the answer!

[Anonymous Coward]

What about that boat that has implied oral consent to rebroadcast? Just use it.

How to make the MLB shut up:

[CompMD]

Get a huge antenna and an amplifier. Suddenly you have an advantage over your neighbors and can pick up tv stations that are farther away while your neighbors can't get them. How is that technically different than what they are claiming? You've broken "geographic boundaries." What is the MLB going to do, demand that you take down your antenna?

Re:How to make the MLB shut up:

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a good argument, but if falls short because you're not sending the entire RF spectrum down the pipe, just the decoded MLB stream, so it is different than a big antenna. I think the argument that the end user didn't sign an agreement with MLB is the strongest argument. What does the agreement with their cable provider say?

These broadcast agreements are dumb

[iksrazal_br]

I live in Brazil and I like to watch hockey. There is a package called "center ice" by the NHL, which allows you to stream games over the internet though its primrily a cable package. I'd pay to get some games - except I can't buy it because I live outside the usa and canada! So the only people that can pay to stream games, are people that can get them on TV. Even dumber, the games are blacked out if shown on another network - except you may be out of town which is one reason you'd stream games.

So I got my parents to setup a slingbox. I watched game two of the stanely cup last night - picture not bad really as it doesn't stall. Slingbox almost even runs on wine - it actually does for some people. So I'm happy and since these bigwigs don't care about me, I don't care about them as I didn't sign anything.

Robert

Re:These broadcast agreements are dumb

[debest]

I live in Brazil .... I watched game two of the stanely cup last night
Just out of curiosity, are your parents in the US (sending the "VS." feed) or in Canada (the CBC feed). If you got the American broadcast, your parents may have helped to double the ratings they received from the game! Seriously, I didn't think anyone outside of Canada gave a shit about the Stanley Cup, particularly between the Senators and the Ducks!

Re:These broadcast agreements are dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'd pay to get some games - except I can't buy it because I live outside the usa and canada! So the only people that can pay to stream games, are people that can get them on TV."

You don't live in the USA so the advertising doesn't apply to you, so they're not making what they consider enough money off you (unless you paid extra). There are also rules about broadcasting stuff in other nations that may apply. Censorship, etc - transmitting beer ads with bikini girls to Iran would probably get them in serious trouble. Dealing with that isn't worth it to them, even though we as netizens think of that as obsolete BS...

Same old crappy UI metaphor

[Lost Race]

FTA:

... recreates the familiar living room remote control on the screen ...

I know it's easy and obvious and portable, but that UI metaphor drives me crazy. Any software with an on-screen "remote control" goes straight in the virtual shitcan, unless every single button on it has a keyboard equivalent.

Re:Same old crappy UI metaphor

[Wovel]

Every button on the sling remote has a keyboard equivalent (At least the directivo and HR20 ones) and if you want to delve into the UI you can make them whatever you want.

1's and 0's

[Chabil Ha']

...owners who stream home games while traveling are breaking the law because it allows consumers to circumvent geographical boundaries

Anybody who tries to control digital content first ought to know that 1s and 0s do not know the meaning of geographical boundaries. If it can be represented by 1s and 0s, then any device instructed to know what said numbers mean will carry them.

what cast?

[spyrochaete]

"Slingbox owners who stream home games while traveling are breaking the law because it allows consumers to circumvent geographical boundaries written in to broadcast deals"

What about unicast deals? MLB doesn't have those? That's the end of that then, I guess.

Re:what cast?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know for a fact that if you are {connected|a big shot|high roller|etc} you CAN get just about any damn event direct to your {expensive} hotel suite's TV.

MLB needs to let this one go

[hxnwix]

In order to encourage game stadium attendance, MLB will usually only permit sold out games to be broadcast locally.

Like the 30 second commercial segment, it was a nice idea that has had its day. Chasing after slingboxes in order to protect blackouts is no less foolish than outlawing the 30 second skip button in order to protect viability of commercials.

Because they can't be bothered to change, these people think that entire markets and technologies must be restrained, inhibited, crippled or destroyed. Fuck 'em.

Re:MLB needs to let this one go

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confusing the NFL with the MLB. MLB doesn't have local blackout rules based on sellout.

Re:MLB needs to let this one go

[jerw134]

If they did, most of the games wouldn't be televised!

Re:MLB needs to let this one go

[mtelbert]

You wrote: "In order to encourage game stadium attendance, MLB will usually only permit sold out games to be broadcast locally."

I think you're thinking of NFL, not MLB. I watch Oakland A's games all the time (in my home in the Bay Area), and they're hardly ever sold out.

Key Word:

[644bd346996]

Broadcast agreement. No parties to those contracts are improperly broadcasting. If I choose to receive those broadcasts from somewhere unexpected, so what? It isn't like consumers are re-broadcasting anything; Slingbox uses unicast TCP/IP connections.

Suddenly it makes sense

[paladinwannabe2]

I wondered why they were being so stupid about this- you'd think Slingbox would up their fans and therefore, their advertising dollars. Now I understand that MLB just wants to prevent anyone else from competing with them.

Re:MLB, CEA, ABC, BLM, CIA, NSA: +1 Who Cares

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, at least troll creatively, not this stupid copy and paste bullshit.

Do you know what is a merkin?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Me foreign born, not good English understanding. Me no understand your usage of the word merkin . You using merkin as funny speak for American, no?

Re:Do you know what is a merkin?

[Anonymous Coward]

you are annoying.

Re:Do you know what is a merkin?

[n6kuy]

As President Lyndon Johnson (who was from Texas, used to say, "Muh fellow 'Merkins..."

It's a joke, but most of us Merkins don't get it, because we dunno what "merkin" means...

Enforcement by GPS in the receiver

[Animats]

Obviously, what MLB would like is a GPS unit in the receiver to enforce their area restrictions.

Like this.

Yes, the DirecTV receivers for mobile use have an "Integrated GPS ... to automatically enable local channels while in your home designated market area". Cross the area boundary and your TV reception cuts off.

Re:Enforcement by GPS in the receiver

[jerw134]

Yes, the DirecTV receivers for mobile use have an "Integrated GPS ... to automatically enable local channels while in your home designated market area". Cross the area boundary and your TV reception cuts off. The thing about locals on DirecTV is that for the most part, they are spot-beamed. So once you're outside of the boundary area, the actual signal won't be there for much longer either.

Re:Enforcement by GPS in the receiver

[dgatwood]

You see, that's why slingbox and a portable satellite internet receiver would be a much better solution. If those receivers detected where you were and guaranteed that you would have national network service when you didn't have local service, and guaranteed that you would have local service in any city where local channels were available, it might not be so offensive, but with it cutting off access to your network channels outside your home area, that's just asking to be cracked.

I'd probably start with GPS simulation software if I were doing it, but if the device doesn't use GPS for a time reference, you might even get away with just using a software radio transceiver to do a simple replay attack of the GPS band and cable it up in place of the device's GPS antenna....

One more nail in the coffin

[dreamchaser]

I stopped really caring after the last player's strike. An average family can't even afford to go to a game anymore while barely in shape steroid ridden slobs scratch themselves on national television (when you can see the game that is) while making fistfulls of cash. I voted with my wallet and viewership.

The MLB has *really* jumped the shark on this one though.

Re:One more nail in the coffin

[barzok]

Go to a local minor-league game. Tickets are cheap, food isn't as overpriced, and you get a lot less of the "barely in shape steroid ridden slobs." Plus it's actually relaxing, going to the ballpack, kicking back and watching the game. You won't be crammed into the stadium as tight as coach seats on a 737.

Placeshifting vs. Timeshifting seems backwards...

[norminator]

No. Because making the recording is legal, so the fact that it causes MLB harm doesn't give them a cause of action. Their argument here is that "placeshifting" by retransmitting over the internet is a violation of copyright (I think they are wrong, but I don't think the case law is clear on that so that it is as certain as a matter of law) and therefore the harm done to them by circumventing the regional distribution agreements they have are damages attributable to that legal wrong that they can recover.

It doesn't make any sense to me that placeshifting would be more questionable than time shifting. With timeshifting, you have a recorded version you can watch whenever you want, wherever you want (if it's stored on removable media like DVD/VHS or stored on an iPod), and as many times as you want without the MLB ever having control over any of it. Commercials can even be edited out. With placeshifting a la Slingbox, you watch it live, once. You can't go back and rewatch things you missed. You have to sit through the commercials. It's normally a personal thing, I doubt many Sling users are publicly displaying the content for lots of people to see. And with the Slingbox, you already paid to have that content delivered to you. It's not the cable company's business that someone found a way to help you watch it when you're more than 50 feet from your cable box. What's next? Outlawing long cable wires?

That, and the fact that isn't something that keeps people watching MLB games good for the MLB? I guess they have deals with iTunes, so they can pretend that this hurts those, but that doesn't hold a lot of water.

On TV, sure...

[MS-06FZ]

I guess I'll just have to quit watching baseball games. Oh wait I find the sport boring and asinine and don't watch it anyways. Baseball is something to experience in person, or not at all. Being out at the park on a fine day is good times. If the sport itself is slow at times, that's mitigated by the fact that you're there enjoying nice weather and the company of friends, plus the social activity of cheering for your team.

'Course, I'd love to add "good food and drink" to the list, but frankly the stuff they serve at the park is overpriced garbage - "sex in a canoe"-type beer and dried-up cold sausage - and under the pretense of security they prevent people from bringing in any outside food that would compete with what they sell. Can't win 'em all, I guess.

Re:On TV, sure...

[cc_pirate]

Being at a MLB stadium in person isn't much different than being at an outdoor bar with baseball on TV. People drink and talk to the guy (or gal) next to them and pay almost zero attention to the game until something happens (once an inning) and then they pay attention to the game.

Baseball is the only game more boring to watch on TV than golf, and that is saying something.

Re:On TV, sure...

[WuphonsReach]

Baseball is the only game more boring to watch on TV than golf, and that is saying something.

You could say the same about just any spectator sport. The trick or key to enjoying a spectator sport (that I've found) is learning a bit about the game. Especially the subtle stuff like why fielders shift left/right, or why the infield comes in, or why players bunt. At that point it becomes more engaging as you watch plays succeed or fail due to gameplay / strategy / tactics.

Re:On TV, sure...

[Abcd1234]

You could say the same about just any spectator sport

Umm... yeah, no. Name another popular spectator sport that has as little happening in it at any given moment, and I'll be very surprised. Soccer, hockey, football, basketball, rugby, volleyball, tennis... honestly, the only thing I can think of is racing, but I don't consider that a "sport" per se, or tennis, and that's not really a "spectator" sport in the traditional sense.

Face it. Baseball is just really really boring. ;)

Re:On TV, sure...

[Abcd1234]

Doh... s/or tennis/or golf/

Re:On TV, sure...

[amRadioHed]

Course, I'd love to add "good food and drink" to the list, but frankly the stuff they serve at the park is overpriced garbage Last time I was there Fenway did have one place that served decent beers (Sam Adams, Guinness). Of course if you happen to be sitting on the opposite side of the field from that spot it may take you a couple innings to make your way there and back.

Re:On TV, sure...

[croddy]

Soccer, hockey, football, basketball... a bunch of dudes running back and forth trying to put the ball in the hole. What's fun about baseball is that there is always something really exciting about to happen. Any pitch could explode into a home run.

Re:On TV, sure...

[Abcd1234]

Ah, I see, you'd rather anticipate the action rather than actually experience it. I feel the same way about sex... no wait... I really really don't. :)

Propoganda Control

[Evets]

At the moment, the powers that be enjoy a great deal of control over what information the masses in a given geographic region have access to. Certainly, you can go on the internet and check out whatever third-tier media outlet has to say, but the majority of people in even the most high tech regions get their information from broadcast television or broadcast radio.

In the States, we pull our information primarily from one of four major networks. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to manage propoganda campaigns if our sources shifted to 1000 different media outlets sourced globally. While slingbox place-shifting is really a personal solution the concept has major ramifications if it is taken to the next level.

I imagine the litigation/lobbying will get to a point where we are allowed to place shift away from our home, but rebroadcasting to mass markets will be taken off the table completely with the decision. It gives the citizenry the impression that somebody fought for our own rights, maintains the revenue stream for the existing entertainment companies, and focuses our information gathering capabilities on a small amount of reasonably controllable resources.

I know that I sound like Captain Conspiracy right now, but this road of "copyright protection" that we have been going down for I don't know how long always seems to end up protecting the rights and revenue streams of a small group of very wealthy people while trampling on innovation, education, and communication. It's rare that the big picture ever takes precedence these days. Capitalism is all about rewarding citizens for hard work and innovation, not protecting wealth by preventing changes to the status quo.

No it doesn't

[XanC]

MLB.tv is just as blacked out as regular TV. One thing MLB.tv lets them do is black people out unilaterally.

This isn't about consumers.

[juuri]

No matter how much they may claim otherwise. What they are really afraid of is some business setting up that allows bars and the like to purchase service in areas outside of blackout zones and stream content back in. If a bar could pay for a space, tv rental, and cable service in a zone that features more sports blackouts they would do so in a heartbeat. They must appear tough now so when other place-shifting arrises they will seem less so then.

Re:This isn't about consumers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Any rebroadcast, reproduction, or other use of the pictures and accounts of this game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball is prohibited. Place stamp here. Substantial penalty for early withdrawal. Driver does not carry cash. Some assembly required. All models over 18 years of age. Your mileage may vary. This information is subject to change without notice. All rights reserved.

Re:Placeshifting vs. Timeshifting seems backwards.

[DragonWriter]

It doesn't make any sense to me that placeshifting would be more questionable than time shifting.

I'm not saying it should sense. I'm saying that, AFAIK, there is fairly clear case law on the latter, the case law is not as clear on the former, and while intuitively I think that placeshifting ought to be considered at least as much "fair use" as timeshifting, the courts might well disagree.

That, and the fact that isn't something that keeps people watching MLB games good for the MLB?

Maybe, maybe not. It increases the value of the TV rights, but hurts ticket sales. The reason there are local blackout provisions in the broadcast agreements is specifically because the MLB believes that letting people watch games that aren't sold out hurts ticket sales more than it increases the sale value of the broadcast rights, so presumably it is going to feel the same way about anything that allows evading those restrictions.

Chasing away their own customers?

[sevans21]

I'm a MLB extra innings subscriber for the first time this year. The only reason I subscribed is because I have a slingbox now. At least with the slingbox I can watch games when I travel, at the office or even on the evening train home. I'd almost never see a game otherwise and certainly couldn't justify the expense. I don't have enough faith in the reliability of MLB.tv to buy it. I guess I'm a criminal for actually paying for their service to use for my personal viewing. I bet I don't buy it next year.

Sony is Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a Sony product, MLB doesn't have to do anything. It will impose enough restrictions to keep even the most authoritarian copyright owner happy.

Version 1.0 will probably only stream public-domain silent films at 320x240 resolution to a single client in the same subnet; future forced firmware updates will impose further restrictions...

Re:Sony is Sony

[BoboB-69]

While you are correct that Sony is quite paranoid about wanting to DRM everthing, you are incorrect about the PSP and PS3 being generic Sony products. They are Sony Computer Entertainment products (SCE), not Sony products. This is a key difference. SCE is quite independent in its decision making. SCE has been aggressively supporting multiple media formats on its platforms to Sony's chagrin. Both the PSP and the PS3 are good examples of this media format agnosticism - MP3, AAC, ATRAC3, WAV, MPEG-1, MPEG-2 (PS,TS), H.264/MEPG-4 AVC, MPEG-4 SP, etc. - the list gets ever longer when you consider that that the PS3 also openly supports linux.

Re:Sony is Sony

[Kichigai Mentat]

Actually, this feature is already in use, and has received major upgrades since firmware 1.00 on the PS3 (now at 1.80) and 3.00 on the PSP (now at 3.50). Originally, the Location Free Player would allow people to placeshift in their own home, provided they owned a LocationFree Base Station. Then there was Remote Play, which did the same thing, except for your PS3. Anything that could be done on the PS3 could be remotely done with your PSP. Then PS3 Firmware 1.80 came out and gave the PS3 DLNA functionalities. PSP firmware 3.50 came out, and allowed Advanced Remote Play, which is basically Remote Play over the Internet. So, if it's on your PS3, you can placeshift it anywhere that has a WiFi access point. This includes videos on the hard disk, videos on the network, pictures, web browser, even BD-ROM and games, I think. That sounds pretty unrestricted, especially at PSP native resolution (480x272) in color.

Man, if only I hadn't signed that deal!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh right. I didn't.

By their logic. . .

[kimvette]

By their logic installing a tall antenna tower to receive faraway broadcasts, or using a television receiver connected to a very directional and high gain antenna and taking advantage of storms or other atmospheric conditions to receive extremely faraway broadcasts would also be illegal, right?

Screw MLB. I now have yet another reason to be totally disinterested in professional baseball.

Re:By their logic. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Several years ago, the NFL busted a bar owner in Oakland who did nothing more but use a run-of-the-mill Radio Shack antenna to pick up television signals from Sacramento to view Raiders home games.

This is a real bad omen..

[guzzirider]

I remember about 10 or so years ago I was having a some what self indulgent discussion (full of snickering) with my co-workers about Mickey mouse and the rest of the archaic crap that keeps Disney land afloat will be entering the public domain.. That sure worked out. There is no need to go into the details of the rest of the nightmares that followed (DCMA is my first peat pea). Now look at where we are
To me MLB position on this is less than peaty. Yea, yadedadeda, MLB does not want blacked out / suppressed games made available in those areas. Well how does a service that allows a subscriber watch something when they are on the road going to hurt.?
The NFL will get on this bandwagon soon ...as well, other 'interested parties that hold copyrights'
Remember the Golden Rule "He who has the gold makes the rules"
I am grateful that CEA President Gary Shapiro is fighting this, however
The copy right goons will just spread a bunch of green around DC (I don't see the CEA as to having enough recourses GREEN to stop this.)
So much for the consumer
I hope I am wrong but look at the track record ...

Anti-Trust Exemption

[bill_mcgonigle]

I wrote an email to blackout@mlb.com explaining the situation, but the response was essentially "too bad, you're blacked out".

That's what you get when you legislate anti-trust exemptions into law.

More Obvious Question

[Blakey Rat]

What the heck is the "CEA" and why should I care what they think?

This summary is missing a critical piece of information.

Re:More Obvious Question

[julesh]

My thoughts exactly. Based on looking at the wikipedia disambiguation page, there are at least 15 well-known organisations that use this set of initials. None of them seem like their opinion would be particularly relevant to this case, so perhaps it isn't even one of these. Submitter: WTF are you talking about?

Re:More Obvious Question

[pipatron]

Gary Shapiro is president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)

Freshly googled!

Re:More Obvious Question

[Blakey Rat]

That doesn't answer part 2 of my question. What does the Consumer Electronics Association DO, exactly, and why does it matter what they think about MLB's stance on the Slingbox? Do they have power of the company that makes Slingbox in some way? Or do they have power over the MLB? I don't get it.

And no, I'm not going to look it up. This information should be in the summary. I don't know what's sadder, that the "editors" don't bother to make sure their stories make sense, or that the person who submitted this didn't even think about editing it themselves.

Re:More Obvious Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does everyone here complain about blurbs? Do all Slashdot readers just read the blurbs?

The article it links to for the full story does say what CEA stands for, so you shouldn't complain if you don't read. Besides, Slashdot is "News for Nerds". I would think most nerds know who the Consumer Electronics Association is and what they do... but you're right, a small tidbit on that fact would have been welcome.

Question is Backwards

[bill_mcgonigle]

I wonder how many geeks actually care about baseball to begin with, especially to worry about watching every game when they are traveling.

What you meant to ask was, "How may baseball nuts are go insane about their team that they'll invest in a Slingbox and put up with the pile of geekery, just to get their fix?"

Actually Slingbox isn't all that geeky - a friend had a unit he couldn't get working and tech support told him it was incompatible with switches, that he had to use only a hub to plug it in. He even tried disabling auto negotiation on the switch, and forcing 10-half or 10-full - no dice. The tech advised him to send it back.

Re:Question is Backwards

[really?]

You friend must have caught one of the morons at Sling. I guess all companies must have the token idiot ... must be some unwritten law.

Re:Question is Backwards

[bill_mcgonigle]

You friend must have caught one of the morons at Sling. I guess all companies must have the token idiot ... must be some unwritten law.

You've got your idiots, and you've got your corporate ladder climbers. I used to do phone support for a reseller and the only metric tracked was call time and calls handled. A certain one of our techs, let's call him Corman, would pick up a call, listen to the story, and say, "I'm sorry, ma'am, that issue is beyond the level we handle here - you'll have to call the manufacturer. If he was just back from Venezuela that day he'd even look up the number for them.

The customer, not so dumb, would call back into the queue and wait for one of the rest of us to pick up and solve their problems.

Guess which tech had the best performance scores?

Not A Broadcast

[Anonymous Coward]

The original program is being broadcast in your area.

You are just watching the program in another area.

Some may say that you are rebroadcasting the program, but that is false... the keyword in the word broadcasting is broad. If you are only sending it to yourself, it is not a broadcast.

I never signed any deal with the MLB...

[Anonymous Freak]

I don't know about you, but I haven't signed anything with Major League Baseball. No contract of any kind that restricts my legal ability to watch my local team's games. While my use of a Slingbox may theoretically violate the agreement between MLB and the TV networks, wouldn't it only do so if one of those two were directly involved in the use of the Slingbox? As the TV network isn't involved in any active way in MY use of a Slingbox, they aren't liable any more than a gun manufacturer is liable for a murder committed with their weapon. (This last one has been tested legally, the gun manufacturer won.)

And since, unlike murder, I personally am not committing any crime or license violation (for any license that I have agreed to,) there is no illegality here for me personally. MLB is out of luck on this one.

As far as I know

[sizzzzlerz]

I never signed any MLB broadcast agreement. Should I ever decide to buy a slingbox and should I ever decide to watch MLB again, there are no restrictions at all on me preventing me from watching at home or 3000 miles away. Since this is a moot point to me, I'm only reacting to someone telling me what I shouldn't be doing. Otherwise, MLB can go take a flying leap...

Re:Placeshifting vs. Timeshifting seems backwards.

[jbarr]

Maybe, maybe not. It increases the value of the TV rights, but hurts ticket sales. The reason there are local blackout provisions in the broadcast agreements is specifically because the MLB believes that letting people watch games that aren't sold out hurts ticket sales more than it increases the sale value of the broadcast rights, so presumably it is going to feel the same way about anything that allows evading those restrictions.

Sorry, but I disagree with the MLB's assessment of this. It all comes down to ticket cost for us. Meaning tickets, concessions, parking, and all that goes into going to a game is just too expensive.

For example, (and I know it's not the MLB) we used to want to go to Chicago Blackhawks NHL hockey games, but at $50-$75 or more for seats, it simply wasn't worth it. And because the games weren't locally broadcast, we simply didn't watch them meaning the team did not have our otherwise eager support.

So we ended up looking to other ways to get our hockey fix like going to minor league or college games. The tickets were much cheaper, the fans were more dedicated, and the players seemed to play harder because the HNL was their ultimate goal.

"Broadcast" - HA!

[BulletMagnet]

I suppose nobody was paying attention when MLB decided enter an exclusive agreement with DirecTV in 'broadcasting' the "Extra Innings" package while all of us in CATV land were hosed into either switching to a dish or MLB.TV which isn't that good to start with. Senator John Kerry got involved and suddenly us Comcastic types (and everyone else attached to coax) can now get EI which I've had since its inception.

I use my SlingBox to watch Yankee games from work whenever I can't be home to watch them. Since I live in California, I don't have blackout issues until the Yanks play in Oakland, but then the local channel or Fox ends up broadcasting the games anyway.

Someone in the MLB hiarchary is suddenly taking cues from the wrong people.

Bud Selig, Sandy Alderson, and Bob DuPuy, if you're reading this, get a clue and clean up the game; don't fuck with the people who make sure you stay rich.

Re:MLB is probably just trying to get some attenti

[Wovel]

SlingMedia has been around a couple years now and is on the second generation of the product. They are still a new company but probally do not qualify as a startup. Sony has location free tv and there are other similar products out there too. Sling is probably the best place shifting consumer device on the market, that is why they get the most attention. If sling media closed tomorrow, slingboxes would still work, some people might have to get dynamic dns set up, but other than that the boxes would retain 100% functionality.

Not your property.

[The Monster]

MLB is using copyright laws to enforce their marketing agreements.

Well then, I am going to use sodomy laws to complain about Microsoft's deceptive marketing practices in regards to security. In both cases, it sounds good, but it's worthless legally. Copyright laws prevent me from making additional copies of the content and distributing them to others.

At least in the MS 'security' case, you have the fact of getting it in the shorts to justify calling it sodomy.

My own copy is only subject to property laws - as MY property that is illegal for MLB or anyone else to muck with.

Except that the video of a baseball game isn't your property. You didn't pay anything to MLB for the right to see that video, unless you've partaken in one of those special package deals where you're specifically buying access to out-of-market games.

I'm with the FP: I just don't care about MLB anymore. But that's easy for me to say. I live in Kansas City.

Re:Not your property.

[iamacat]

Except that the video of a baseball game isn't your property. You didn't pay anything to MLB for the right to see that video, unless you've partaken in one of those special package deals where you're specifically buying access to out-of-market games.

So which laws am I breaking? I didn't sign any contracts with MLB. They have provided me with a copy of the video voluntarily. I am not giving away copies of the video to other people. Sure wouldn't be copyright law at least.

Dear Major League Baseball..

[Dieppe]

Nobody cares about "geographic boundaries".. and certainly not the nerds using Slingbox. MmmHmm.

Didn't you lose enough "customers", I mean "fans" after the last baseball strike to learn that you guys suck? In the words of something from the '70's. "Keep On Sucking!" You've just found a new way to alienate the possible few fans you do have.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[walkie]

I realize this is a bit of a stale thread, but as two other commenters have pointed out, the parent is flat-out wrong. MLB's blackout rules are asinine and damaging to the sport (parts of Nevada are blacked out for six teams despite having no teams particularly close to it!), but they affect mlb.tv just like anything else.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[Known Nutter]

Setting aside the blackout rules for a moment, you've got to admit that Slingbox is clear competition to MLB.tv and, therefore, it is completely reasonable to conclude that this could be MLB's motivation for going after Slingbox.

The blackout rules are, consequently, an afterthought.

"Broadcast" deals....

[Chas]

Last I checked, Sling was by NO stretch of the imagination "broadcast".

The content is shifted in a private connection between the Sling server in a person's home and the Sling player on their remote PC.

This isn't like a podcast, where the files are out there for download by anyone.

Nor is it like streaming audio via Icecast or something like that where anyone can tune in up to the system's connection limits.

There are exactly two discrete endpoints here. Slingbox and the Slingbox's owner.

Re:"Broadcast" deals....

[Anonymous Coward]

Very well put, if in fact there is any copyright violation, I think the end user rather than sling media should be held responsible. - not that you could easily catch the end user because the video is encrypted pretty well I use a few slingboxes around my house for remote video monitoring to make sure nobody is breaking into my house while I'm at work or out of town. Is a live Feed of my backyard and basement copyright by MLB? I can't see why it should be. There are lots of uses of slingbox, and some of them don't even involve TV shows of any kind.

For as many nerds there here...

[RsJtSu]

You would think that the "nerd" community on Slashdot would actually like Baseball. It is "The Thinking Man's Sport" after all. I'm a huge baseball fan just because something happens about 300 times per game. (150 pitches per team on average)

Silly people who never took physics

[Solandri]

I say that Fair Use lets me both time and place-shift.

You don't have to declare it, it's already been decided. The courts have already determined that Fair Use includes the right to timeshift. However, Special Relativity tells us that time and space are actually the same thing, and your perception of how the two relate to each other depends on your velocity. So timeshifting in one reference frame is placeshifting in another. Ergo if fair use grants us the right to timeshift, it also grants us the right to placeshift. ;)

Placeshifting may violate cable TOS

[signcarver]

A friend of mine got in trouble for violating his TOS agreement with TWC (for a linux torrent) so one day we reviewed his entire agreement and I couldn't believe some of the restrictions placed on video:

"I agree not to use the Services for the redistribution or retransmission of programming or for any enterprise purpose whether or not the enterprise is directed toward making a profit. I agree that, among other things, my use of the Services to transmit or distribute the Video Service, or any portion thereof, to (or to provide or permit access by) persons outside the location identified in the Work Order (even if to a limited group of people or to other residences that I own or have the right to use), will constitute an enterprise purpose. I acknowledge that programs and other materials that I receive as part of the Video Service remain part of the Video Service even if I record or capture all or a portion of any such program or material in a data file or on a hard drive, DVR or similar device."

Now is a VCR a similar device of a DVR? If so, it would imply you couldn't take tapes on your vacation or when you move or keep them after canceling the service. Now I highly doubt your cable company will go after someone with such recordings but perhaps the MLB, RIAA and MPAA might push them in to it at some time.

MLB fanless

[TechnoJargon]

Does the MLB want to loose the few remaining fans they have after their greedy strikes? Good job MLB sue your own fans and loose the few that you have left

Major League Baseball.... What's That???

[bratwiz]

I thought Baseball went the way of the dinosaurs? Who the fuck cares what they have to say about Slingboxes. And furthermore, why would you want to use a Slingbox or any sort of device (including your eyeballs) to waste time viewing such an event anyway? Major League Baseball.... YAWN. Next topic please.

possibly slightly off-topic

[kevin.fowler]

I live in Boston and love the Red Sox. I got caught spoofing my address so i could watch sox games on MLB.tv (this was against their rules, so my B), so I bought a slingbox. I don't see how steaming my slingbox from one location to another (home to work, inside my own apartment sometimes) inside the same zip code is bad kharma. I'm still inside the broadcast area. I'd like to bring to light the biggest problem with the MLB, the Hawaii MLB blackout policy. Hawaii is blacked out of Dodgers, Giants, Angels, Athletics, and I believe Mariners games. Do they show ny of those locally in Hawaii? No. Do residents of Hawaii effect stadium attendance at any of those parks? No. One of the dumbest things any current broadcaster does. Let your fans pay to see your danm games if they want to.

Oh look....

[bmo]

...I got to see, and hold, a World Series Championship ring last week for about a minute. It was _really_ nice.

I do not have a slingbox, tivo, or mythbox. However, don't give two hoots about a bunch of millionaires who have made ticket prices insane enough that I could never _ever_ go see a BoSox game. And now they got their panties in a twist about people watching the games where they're not 'supposed' to?

See me not care about MLB. *bmo sits back and folds arms*

See?

I swore off baseball during the 1994 strike (The ball going between Bill Buckner's legs wasn't enough.) but got back into it a few years later when Sox were finally no longer ruled by the Yawkeys. Even with the Sox 14 games up on the Yankees, this is enough for me to not care again. This money shit just pisses me right off.

Bud Selig, you should give thanks to the Basebawl Gawds that you get to be in charge of a _kid's game_ and make money doing so. You are not _entitled_ to it. You are, however, entitled to shut the hell up.

--
BMO

Can't see how COMPANY contracts can stop CUSTOMERS

[l0ne]

Broadcast restrictions are due to agreements between companies, right? So, I don't see how is it a problem if a customer does what he want, without infringing copyright, with the contents he was given. Duh.

Here the cable company is promoting Slingboxs

[Lorgalis]

In Denmark, the biggest cable company, Viasat, is promoting and reselling (in danish) these.

Viasat is offering alot of channels: movies, NG, Discovery, sports (incl. Champions League!)

Maybe someone didn't read the small print in the UEFA contract...

Simple: If I record it...

[fluch]

...then it is my recorded data which I may access from anywhere. There is no law which prohibits me to access my data from elsewhere. Companies, please get used to it and stop whining!

I think this is what concerns them.

[jotaeleemeese]

Your family are acting as go between for a third party using the slingbox.

MLB blackouts?

[radio.cgt]

I don't live in the US and keep seeing the term 'blackout' in comments.
Does this mean that if you live in an area 'near' any games stadium, then you can't watch it on TV because you should be paying money to watch it in real life? That seems like a ridiculous idea and can't really believe that the broadcaster would do something like that, but it appears that's what's being said. no?

Re:MLB blackouts?

[rstarg]

Yes - Blackout - to encourage stadium attendance - most games are not shown locally - this can mean MANY MANY miles away from the stadium. There is an exception granted if the game is a sell-out.

I stopped following baseball many years ago - after a strike back in 1981.

Sometimes I envy Europeans

[Anonymous Coward]

Because after the MLB and broadcaster come to an agreement, they go arm-in-arm to the Federal Government

The European countries all have five, ten, or more viable political parties, making legalized bribery a lot harder. We Americans have two wings of the same Corporate party. The "Democrat" Bono Act and DMCA were supported by the Republican Wing as well as the Democrats, while the Republican gift to the credit card companies and banks, Bankrupcy "reform" was supported by the Democrat Wing as well. Even the so-called liberal Obama voted for it. All the sleazy politicians in both major parties support the laws against marijuana, a substance with no known toxic dose, not addictive, and prevents cancer while supporting the continued legalization of tobacco, a highly addictive cancer causing substance that kills every one of its users.

Madness.

As Walt Kelly's Pogo said about two Presidential candidates, "we have Tweddle Dum and Tweetle Dumber". No difference. This is why half or less eligible voters vote. They're not apathetic, as the corporate press would have you believe, but they're smart enough to realise that a one party system is NOT democracy. They realise that neither party represents them, but instead represents the fine "American" corporations like Crysler, Sony, BP, Shell...

This is why I've been splitting my vote between the Greens and teh Libertarians; rather than being seen as apathetic, I'm actually voting "neither". I wish more people would join me in this endeavor. Voting Corporate Party, either wing, is voting against your own interests.

If you give ten million dollars to a candidate and he wins, that candidate is beholden to you. If there are only two viable candidates and you give ten million to each, how is that not a bribe? Why is it legal to donate to more than one candidate in any given race?

Likewise, why is it legal for Bill Gates' minor children living in Washington State who can't vote at all, let alone in Illinois, to donate any money to Dick Durbin or Dennis Hastert? Why should someone who isn't eligible to vote for either of these sleazy politicians eligible to help get them elected by giving them money? Why isn't it illegal to donate to a candidate you're not eligible to vote for?

So long as people and things can donate to candidates they're not eligible to vote for, and to donate to more than one candidate in any given race, the so-called "democracy" is a sham. Your vote is worthless, your time casting it is wasted.
</rant>

-mcgrew

What CEA means?

[jrutley]

Despite the posts above, I'm still waiting for the explanation for what CEA is.

Re:What CEA means?

[jrutley]

Ok, I finally broke down and Googled. It's the Consumer Electronics Association. No surprise then for him to agree with Sling Media.

MLB has it's head up it's @ss.

[gurps_npc]

There is no law that prevents customers from watching the game in a 'forbidden area'. Instead there is a contract (that the customers did not sign) forbidding certain people from broadcasting it.

Next thing you know they will try to arrest someone for video taping a game in a legal location then taking that tape to a blocked location and viewing it there.

The MLB lets you pay to do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

One reason they may be against this, is they charge you for this service. Last year I paid to have the ability to view any MLB game online. They use your zip to determine which games should be blacked out.
It was an expensive service, and it was nearly impossbile to cancel. It took me three months and threatening to sue to get them to quit charging my account. Hoepfully that has changed. That may be why they are so against allowing people to do this.

I paid for the service so I can watch the games of the Indians(I use to live in Cleveland) Out west we get few east coast games.

I also used it to watch games on my computer while traveling.

Boring TV Now Illegal... Oh No!

[neildiamond]

Does anybody watch baseball on TV anymore?

Question about this

[Master of Transhuman]

"it allows consumers to circumvent geographical boundaries written in to broadcast deals."

Where the fuck is it written that I have to abide by YOUR contract deals?

Seems to me that's YOUR fucking problem, not mine.

You see, this is why so-called "intellectual property" is bullshit - because for these people, YOUR property is THEIR property - and YOUR behavior is THEIR problem.

In other words, "intellectual property" is nothing but an attempt to extend contract law over property law for the purpose of controlling a second - or even third (indeed, unlimited) - party's behavior to the benefit of the first party by allegedly citing a threat to the existence of the product involved if a third party has access to it.

In other words, it's an extortion racket.

And historically it always was if you look at the English history of who benefited from the first copyright laws.

Disheartening.....

[IHC Navistar]

It's sad how our national sport is controlled by a bunch of corporate execs who, truly, are idiots in their own right. The whole concept of "blacking out" certain areas from viewing certain games is a disgraceful way of profiting as much as possible from a national pastime, by keeping certain people from watching games that they want to watch, other than what MLB decides what they should watch.