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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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

[i_like_spam]

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

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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

[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?

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".

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.

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: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.

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: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.

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: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.

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....

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.

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.

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?

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. ;)

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.

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.