Slashdot Mirror


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."

14 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Obvious question by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Obvious question by garbletext · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Obvious question by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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"

      --
      My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    3. Re:Obvious question by rob_squared · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I don't get it.
  2. Oops by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It allows consumers to circumvent geographical boundaries written in to broadcast deals.
    Sounds like MLB forgot to get someone's signature on the contract.
    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Oops by SuperMog2002 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Sunwalker Dezco for Warchief in 2016
  3. Okay. I'l l be the first to ask... by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Fair Use by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  5. You play in our parks.. by daeg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  6. When Did I Sign That? by hardburn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    . . . 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.

    --
    Not a typewriter
  7. Breaking Geographical Boundaries by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  8. One more nail in the coffin by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:the solution by j79zlr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I'm not not licking toads.
  10. Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity by Java+Commando · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...