Slashdot Mirror


Class Action Filed Against Sling Media

New submitter DewDude writes: In case you missed it; Sling Media has been forcing advertisements into video streams from Slingbox devices unless you pay for a client application, which is only an option for Apple, Android, and Windows 8 devices. The issue will now head to the courts, as two plaintiffs have filed a class action suit against Sling Media, claiming the company participated in 'bait-and-switch' tactics by charging users for the hardware, then monetizing the streaming of content. The suit notes that Sling does not own the rights to the programming into which they are inserting advertisements.

24 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. Sling me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast by Nyder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Guess it's going to be interesting to see if the court allows Sling box to insert advertising on streams it doesn't actually own or pay to have rebroadcast rights.

    If they are not broadcasting the original commercials and are adding their own into them, then it's sounds to me like that would be illegal. Wonder if this decision will have ramifications on how advertising is handled via hardware makers that are not content producers.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:Sling me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast by arbiter1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      What they do is when you connect to your slingbox to watch. An add will play at the start kinda like youtube has some times. They don't replace the comercials on tv channels.

    2. Re:Sling me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast by DewDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Putting an advertisement could constitute as monetizing the stream; and Aereo got shut down over basically monetizing streams they didn't have rebroadcast rights to. Sling doesn't have retransmit consent; but a judge ruled that the nature of the service was a private link that only served one viewer at a time. Still, that ruling was made back when you weren't getting forced advertisements either.

      They aren't inserting ads over the video stream; what they're doing is inserting an advertisement before it will play your live TV stream. These ads range from :30 to sometimes 3 minutes in length; and you have zero way of opting-out. There's no ability to skip; and even adblock is becoming a tad useless.

    3. Re:Sling me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast by DewDude · · Score: 5, Informative

      The difference here, as I'm sure I'll have to point out many more times to people; you purchase the hardware that digitizes and streams your cable box; so you're essentially also paying for the content you are watching, as well as the bandwidth, plus the electricity to run it. All Sling really does is run a server that keeps track of your IP address to make connecting easier for people who are technically savvy.

    4. Re:Sling me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast by DewDude · · Score: 2

      My logic to all of that is stations opted for retrans consent because cable companies were often using the ability to get out of market locals due to their big towers and highly sensitive equipment to get customers in; and the networks felt someone else shouldn't be able to profit off that. I mean, for the first 40-some years of "cable" TV it's entire concept was picking up local and/or distant stations and selling a connection to it. I mean...the guy that came up with the concept did so to sell more TV's in the mountainous area his customers were in, who couldn't get a TV signal with an aerial. Slingbox and similar technologies have been held as not being re-transmission because in most cases; you have a legal right to use that signal for private use. The reception equipment is yours, it's in your house; and unless you're running OTA...you're already paying for the channels. The stream originates from your dwelling using your internet connection.

      But now here is Sling, wanting to profit off all of that. It was one thing when they were selling you just a piece of hardware to do it; networks had less legal ground to call foul (well, they did for a short period of time, but everyone waited too long and the judge stated if no one had a problem with it to start, why now?). So while yes, Aereo was re-transmitting in all the classical sense; that whole issue comes down to someone profiting off the content without having a legal right to. Sling doesn't seem to have much of a legal right, considering it's not their content and it's involving physical hardware they've been paid for.

      In a lateral form of thinking...it's along the same lines as what Comcast did by forcing a public "members-only" wifi point on everyone without consent; which basically lets them build a "wi-fi network" by forcing customers to provide part of the resources. "Hey, you've gotta have all this stuff hooked up anyway; so we're gonna make it so other comcast members can connect to your wifi...and we're going to use this as a marketing ploy to make us more money...and we're not compensating you for this."

    5. Re:Sling me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast by Xtifr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The legality of that is also dubious, especially in the case of CC-NC or similar content. The Grateful Dead, for example, have a very strict non-commercial-use license for their concert recordings which explicitly forbids any sort of advertisement attached to their music. If I put the Dead's music on my (ad-free) site, and someone else injects ads, that someone could well be liable for violating the Dead's copyrights. Which, since many of the Dead's copyrights are held in part by one of the founders of the EFF, could be a risky move.

      Of course, most content on the net is provided as-is, so it's not a general problem, but for cases like this, the ISPor CDN might well find themselves in legal hot water. (And it does have some obvious analogy to the case at hand.)

    6. Re:Sling me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      No you thief. You didn't pay Sling for the box. You just paid for a license to use it.

      They deserve to track what you watch, rent your statistics to whomever wants access to them and to sell advertising for you to watch, because clearly you didn't pay nearly enough for an ad-free experience.

      So there.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    7. Re:Sling me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast by mcl630 · · Score: 2

      "What would happen if Microsoft patched the OS so that you saw a streamed advertisement at the beginning of each game you played?"

      Microsoft would lose a ton of customers to Sony and have to stop doing it. It would be a different story if Microsoft was the only console maker.

    8. Re:Sling me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast by Megane · · Score: 3, Insightful

      people forget that the original pitch for cable-tv was that, because you paid a monthly fee, there would be no ads in the content

      [Citation Needed] where does this meme come from?

      The original pitch for cable TV in the 1950s was basically "we make the antenna work so you don't have to", especially for people who lived in an area where mountains obstructed the signal. Cable-only channels came much later, in the late '70s and early '80s when satellite TV happened. And they already had ads on them.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    9. Re:Sling me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast by Cantankerous+Cur · · Score: 2

      Um, yeah, they were sued. http://www.sfgate.com/business... You didn't honestly think Comcast suddenly grew a sense of ethics, did you?

  2. It's been going on...for months by DewDude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The ads started appearing back in like, November. It started out as a youtube-like ad in the browser client; which at the time was the only PC based way of watching the units. Then they started hard-coding them in to the new desktop application. At first, you had the option of skipping after so many seconds; but lately they've been advertisements between :30 and 2:30 that have no way of skipping them.

    They are not actually inserting advertisements in the video stream; but what they are doing is requiring you to watch one before it will begin playing your TV. As many pointed out Youtube does this; I also point out to people that I don't buy hardware to watch youtube; where as I've purchased a physical piece of hardware as well as subscribe to a TV service to utilize the hardware.

    To make matters worse; Sling has seemingly gone downhill in customer support. When you question the advertisements to them on social media, you don't get a response; you get silenced and banned from that social media page. If you talk about it on the forums; they will delete the posts. They're going to great lengths to not only hide the fact you will get advertisements from them in this manner; but even greater lengths of blatantly ignoring customers.

    The whole issue with this is they are in fact monetizing your viewing; which is the exact same thing Aereo got shut down over. I'm getting the feeling that they were taking the one judge stating Singbox is not retransmission in a manner they weren't supposed to; and decided to monetize every time you connect.

    I get that they have server maintenance to pay for; but it's not like they quit selling Slingboxes; and no one was actually complaining when it was an un-obtrusive banner ad displayed on the client plugin. But the fact they're basically making you watch an entire advertisement that does nothing but benefit them; so you can watch TV you pay for, on hardware they own; they've just taken the "evil corporate" route.

    1. Re:It's been going on...for months by DewDude · · Score: 2

      Maybe I don't understand how Slingboxes work, but the general concept of a "home DVR you can access from anywhere" doesn't seem to require that the vendor maintain a server or stay in business for that matter for the basic DVR and remote-viewing functionality to work.

      Here's basically how Slingboxes work: you have a piece of hardware that is connected to your network and the A/V connections on your cable box (it even has pass-through ports); the box then digitizes and compresses the A/V stream being spit out of the cable box. You also have a small IR emitter (built in to later boxes) that relays remote control commands to the box. It's not exactly a "home DVR you can access from anywhere"; it's quite literally a device that streams whatever your set-top-box displays while allowing you to control it. Now, one thing they've done well is making the device a bit "fool-proof" for the average user to use. Most people don't know what an IP address is, or how to look it up, or that it changes; it's not a problem for those of us who have been doing that type of stuff for years. So what they do is maintain servers that keeps track of your Slingbox's IP address; so you can access it without having to know anything but your slingbox ID. The servers don't just do that; but they are also capable of relaying a stream (at reduced quality), should some crazy firewall/double-NAT/other reason occur that your client can't directly connect to it. However, most of the time the boxes will attempt to set up a port-forward on your router through UPnP, if that fails, it will then attempt to blast through the router using UDP, then falling back to relay if that doesn't work. While I would almost buy the argument "we have to cover those costs", one could argue "no one is asking you to"; they've just basically built all that in to the product.

      There is also the issue that, for a while; they were hosting additional bandwidth as playback had gone strictly to browser-embedded clients. They had a desktop application for a while; but discontinued it sometime around 2011 and the 2012 models weren't supported. The worst part about that was if your internet went down with the older boxes; the client application could still find them over the LAN and connect without any intervention from Sling. The browser method meant if your internet was down; or their servers went down...you were totally unable to watch the device at all (unless it was an older unit) They have a desktop program now...and I'm still not sure if they list it as being supported by anything except the latest models. But at this point, all they're really doing is pushing a minimal amount of bandwidth to tell the client where your boxes are. It may still be able to find local boxes without intervention from Sling, but I haven't tested it. In retrospect, using a device that wasn't connectable using standard software was a bad idea; at the same time...the $180 investment was *much* cheaper than buying the hardware necessary to digitize 1080i video over component and compress it to a high-efficiency video codec in realtime. I actually considered something like an HDHomeRun; but I'd have to cannibalize a cable box for it's CableCard or pay an extra I'm-not-even-sure-what-it-costs for a standalone cable card...which at the time my provider was not allowing self-install on...and didn't do installs for anything except home-theater-PCs.

      But ultimately, you can still only go so far keeping people locked in; and while many of us put up with some of thier stupid stuff in the past...making us feel like we've got to pay them to watch our TV on hardware we bought from them is an insult.

  3. Re:Gotta pay for the streams somehow by DewDude · · Score: 4, Informative

    What do you mean "pay for the streams". Sling doesn't pay for the streams. You're paying for the streams by subscribing to cable TV; you're paying for the bandwidth because it's your internet connection you're streaming from; you've also given them a couple hundred bucks for the hardware to do this.

  4. Re:Why? by DewDude · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because most of us didn't "subscribe" to it; we have a piece of hardware that cost between $180 and $300 sitting on our AV racks we did for this same purpose. It's a little more difficult to justify "dropping it" when there's physical hardware you've shelled out money for involved.

  5. Amazon Instant Video by bl968 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Amazon tried doing that to me with prime instant video on my Kindle, until I pointed out that I paid good money for the option of not having advertising on my Kindle, and that in my opinion that included while watching prime instant video. They quickly modified my account so I no longer see those ads.

    --
    "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
  6. I was wondering... by Drakonblayde · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...when someone would get around to this.

    I work for one of the big cable companies. We use slingboxes at hub sites which are remote or just not staffed 24/7 in order to be able to verify whether or not video service is working, particularly after maintenances which may affect video.

    A couple weeks ago was the first time in awhile that I've had to verify it myself, and I was very surprised to see ads popping up before the live tv stream kicked in, and I was thinking 'that's.... not right'. I'm not terribly surprised that there are some consumers who are pissed off enough to sue.

    It's one thing if the service is free. With Youtube, we kind of understand that they have to show ads in order to keep the service free. But when something I paid for in order to use starts shoving ads at me, I tend to get a little ticked off too.

    I'm curious, does Netflix do the same thing? Show ads before you start streaming? I don't remember that being the case, but I stopped using Netflix after their price hike fiasco.

    If they don't currently do this, and Sling Media wins the suit, I'll bet my bottom dollar they will.

    1. Re:I was wondering... by DewDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I actually know a couple guys in the broadcast and cable industry who have made heavy usage of Slingboxes for various tasks; one guy I know works for a fiber co-op and they use them to quickly verify if a problem exists at whatever partner is down-linking it, a couple of others use them for remote monitoring, and I've heard of a case or two where they were used for verification of ad-insertions.

      I first noticed the ads creeping up back in like, November; it's only gotten even worse as the months have drug on.

      Hulu shows ads even on the paid service; Netflix doesn't though; and it's probably against their contracts on content to do so. Sling has no contract over the content we're watching...because it's a private stream and we bought hardware.

      Even if the class-action doesn't go through; I'm pretty sure it will have attracted the attention of the content providers...who will likely start their own suits.

  7. Re:Why? by Drakonblayde · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yup. that's why folks are kind of pissed about it and claiming bait and switch. Most folks purchased a slingbox as a device to act as video forwarder so they could watch their tv service when they weren't physically present, and Slingboxes have been really good at that for a long time. If folks knew they'd be getting extra ads on the device, they may have opted not to purchase.

    I personally think that Sling should be forced to issue refunds if they're not going to stop the ads.

  8. Re:Sling is so typical of a Republican-ruled... by DewDude · · Score: 2

    The only difference was when Ergen was running the show; the company was total bad-asses in the customer service department. Prior to his departure as CEO; it was a pretty decently run company.

  9. look how far we've come ma! by don_combatant · · Score: 3, Funny

    broadcast tv: free
    original cable tv: paid, but commercial free
    mature cable tv: paid with commercials
    sling: paid hardware, paid cable tv and commercials
    new sling: paid hardware, sling commercials, paid cable tv, and cable tv commercials!

  10. Long-time Slingbox user by mattsday · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've owned a Slingbox since the mid-2000s and been very happy with the service. For those unfamiliar, you hook it up to your set top box and it rebroadcasts your signal over the internet and provides things like a remote control library so you can manage your device 100% remotely.

    When I first got it, it came with Desktop software for Windows and Mac. This was replaced with a plugin based web interface a few years ago. For iOS and Android devices you have to buy a (rather expensive) dedicated app. I thought this was good value for money so invested. It's especially useful as I travel abroad a lot and UK-based services are almost all geofenced.

    In the past 6 months they have been putting advertisements in the web app. Because Chrome has deprecated NPAPI, they released a Desktop application again (the old one doesn't work properly on recent versions of OS X). This Desktop app now inserts mandatory advertisements.

    As a long-time customer it's infuriating! I paid good money for my Slingbox which originally had a Desktop app with no ads. The sale promise was "Watch TV anywhere with no subscription". I consider advertisements a subscription.

    --
    Now there's one hoopy frood who really knows where his towel is!
  11. It is ridiculous to put part of the comment in the by Stormwatch · · Score: 3

    subject box.

  12. Attorneys + MBAs = win! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

    I can smell this one a mile off. The MBAs aren't interested in making a profit. They learned at school that the only goal is to maximize profits. So, they had the brilliant (yeah right) idea to start putting ads in their service. They then consulted the attorneys, who as always take the attorney's view that "if it doesn't specifically say we can't do that, then we can do it, and even if it does specifically say we can't do that, a good attorney can always find a way." The MBAs loved that one, so they said, "sure we might get sued, but screw it! Let 'em sue us! Our attorneys can win, and even if we lose, it's still a net win because our advertising fees will outweigh the legal penalties."

    I miss the old days when profitable companies simply stuck around year after year making a quality product, and you knew what you were getting before you bought.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Attorneys + MBAs = win! by swb · · Score: 2

      It reminds me of something I read about when MBAs buy apartment buildings. They said if your building has a full roster of tenants, you're not charging enough in rent. You should be raising rents frequently enough that you always have 1-2 empty places that result from people who can't afford the rent increase.