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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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: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.