MLB Says Slingbox Illegal, CEA Thinks Otherwise 234
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."
Obvious question (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Oops (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay. I'l l be the first to ask... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obvious question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obvious question (Score:5, Insightful)
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"
Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Obvious question (Score:5, Insightful)
Make the case that their MLB friends are screwing up their add campaign. If you can't fight Goliath, pit him against the cyclops.
You play in our parks.. (Score:4, Insightful)
When Did I Sign That? (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.
Re:Obvious question (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Breaking Geographical Boundaries (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Suddenly it makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
One more nail in the coffin (Score:4, Insightful)
The MLB has *really* jumped the shark on this one though.
This isn't about consumers. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Placeshifting vs. Timeshifting seems backwards. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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:Oops (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
I never signed any deal with the MLB... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:the solution (Score:3, Insightful)
MLB has it's head up it's @ss. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:the solution (Score:3, Insightful)
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.