MLB aims brushback pitch at Slingbox

(continued from previous page)

A problem could arise if a Slingbox owner were to rebroadcast the content or allow others to tap into his or her Slingbox feed; that's where the legal issues get tricky. But Sling Media issues special access codes for each set-top box to prevent just that scenario, and explicitly prohibits sharing access codes in its licensing agreement.

And even if a Slingbox owner were to allow someone else access to his or her device to watch an out-of-market game, that would be a violation of the licensing agreement, but Sling Media probably couldn't be held liable.

"I see no way Sling can be held responsible for that. There's no way Sling knows, when it sells to that customer, that the customer is a cable or sports package subscriber," said the EFF's von Lohmann. That would mean Sling would have to know in advance how a certain subset of customers were planning to use the product--an element Sling can't know or control.

Perspective
The 'lords of baseball' strike out

CNET News.com's Charles Cooper says the league's threat to sue Slingbox would enflame fans who only want to watch their teams play ball.

Though it might sound similar to the legal defense mounted by YouTube, it's not, according to von Lohmann. YouTube acts as an online repository for video clips submitted by the site's users. Google, which acquired YouTube in 2006, has been sued by, among others, Viacom, England's Premier Soccer League, and a Los Angeles journalist, for hosting video content that YouTube doesn't have the right to reproduce or rebroadcast.

YouTube has argued that it can't control what its users do. But that theory doesn't apply here, says von Lohmann. The Slingbox doesn't store or host any content. And to tune in any programming, like a baseball game, you have to catch it live.

If any content owners were to take Sling to court, they could possibly argue "inducement," a legal theory the Supreme Court recognized in the landmark file-sharing case of MGM v. Grokster, in which von Lohmann provided legal counsel. In that case, the court agreed that technology vendors can be held liable if they actively encourage users to violate a copyright. In a potential case against Sling or its customers, "If (content owners) want to make that argument, I think it's very likely that a court would find that fans watching their own programming they've paid for would qualify as fair use," he said.

A potential legal fight involving Slingbox would also be similar to an older copyright case involving Sony's Betamax product. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that Betamax was not illegal because the device was capable of "non-infringing uses." If MLB were to start a copyright battle with Sling over its content, Sling could win for the same reasons.

Sling says it has not encountered problems with any other professional sports leagues. In fact, the commissioner of the National Basketball Association, David Stern, invited Sling to present the product a year ago at its NBA Tech Summit, indicating his approval of the device.

"All the other leagues understand what business they're in," said Krikorian. "All the other leagues understand that their paying fan is their key asset and crown jewel. (The Slingbox) further tightens the relationship between the league and that consumer, and that is a good thing."

MLB.com says it is still in observation mode. "We're watching what (Sling is) doing. We think the issue is not place-shifting; we think the issue is transmission-shifting," said Bowman. "We're a company that has stood foremost for our fans and that will never change."

In a situation like this, both sides make a fair argument. "It comes down to content owners attempting to retain (pre-Internet) business models in an online world and trying to hinder consumers who are trying to do the right thing and use their content the way they want to use it," said industry analyst Josh Martin.

And suing fans isn't exactly a popular strategy, as demonstrated by the recording industry--which may be part of the reason content owners haven't made any legal moves against Sling or its customers.

"I think the mainstream players in the entertainment industry don't want to take a chance in pressing a case, losing, and setting a precedent," said von Lohmann.

[jfalkingham]

Call their bluff

You know MLB will not actually sue SlingMedia. They can't afford to lose this one, which clearly they would. If I allow a friend to watch a Red Sox game on my TV in his home which is out of market, thats my choice. I'm not 'retransmitting' the signal, he is actually connecting to a live view of it, but I'm not pushing the content out. Anyway, thats my choice and MLB can come after me if they so desire.

[Kamokazi]

*sigh* Yet another...

...that is approaching the situation from the wrong direction.

The Slingbox is another way consumers are using the Internet to enjoy the content they paid for in a manner they find convenient to use it. This of course, hurts their subscriptions to MLB.tv, but instead of changing their business model to attract customers back, they decide to sue whoever they can to keep things they way they are.

[murray627]

I agree

I couldn't agree more. Has any business ever benefited from refusing to adapt to changing technology?

[Renegade Knight]

I don't watch baseball.

Slingbox just just another way to not watch it.

Yawn.

[frankz00]

Great! Lose even more fans!

So no one will watch baseball anymore! People are watching less and less TV at home and at the scheduled times. It's the MLB that will shoot themselves in the foot if they move forward. I thought they were trying increase the fanbase, not destroy it!

[brianpaige]

Confused

I'm sorry, how is MLB's case against Slingbox any different from what I can do with my iPOD? If I want, I can convert movies from DVD to iPOD format and carry them with me. I can convert TV shows and carry them with me as well. It's not real-time, but the point is made.

The location of the consumer, verus geographic location or the time of the content's original broadcast, is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and will continue to do so regardless of what MLB and other outfits may want. Consumers want flexibility, they want choice, and they want low prices. They want, in short, whatever will allow them to do what they want, when they want, for as few bucks as possible. Trying to stand in the way of that demand will drive customers away from your store, not towards it, regardless of what business you're in.

my 2c.

[Button Boy]

Media morons just don't get it...

Doesn't MLB understand that they get a huge portion of their revenue from advertising? So by chasing away SlingViewers, viewer count drops, and so ad revenue should drop in proportion.

What is next for MLB? Go after Tivo users? And then any you-tube users who clip a baseball goof or rant?

MLB- your attorneys have you looking very ignorant of modern media. This will alienate you from the coming generation of MLB fans, not smart. Meanwhile, your attorneys will reap big fees from you for this foolishness. Muzzle your mouthpieces and go back to the dugout with a little humility before you strike out.

[ddandal]

Coexistence??

I subscribe to MLB Audio and placeshift as well (much less popular LocationFreeTV since I can watch on my TV on my PSP) (I guess Slingbox is the target because of their marketshare). Anyhow I don't always get the bandwidth to get a good picture on my PC or PSP so I listen on MLB Audio. Radio/audio is a good medium for baseball anyway. However, if I'm in market, not at home and have the bandwidth to watch from on a 3G network or hotspot I want the choice. MLB TV blackout in market is ridiculous.

[bobby_brady]

Sling is awesome, that's why big media

and the big boys will try and shut their operations down.

I do hope it goes to court and MLB and others in the big boys media get shafted.

Here's one for the little guy.

[yaobin]

they should sue all companies

that make computer, dvd, vcr, etc.

[247mark]

Illegal? How?

Which law is it that makes this activity illegal? Maybe Brad Smith, GC for Microsoft, moonlights for MLB? This is the same tactic - declare an activity illegal but provide no insight as to why it is illegal. Maybe this is tortious interference but, HELLO, Slingbox is not the only technology to allow consumers to view content at a location other than their house while that content is being broadcast. A consumer still needs to buy the "sports package" (or whatever it is) from the cable provider for the Slingbox to work so MLB is still making their money (and probably plenty of it). The ability of these entertainment companies to act like control freaks has been severely eroded by technological advances.

[Joe Koskovics]

Similar to what happened to 321 Studios

This sounds like the start of another "let's trample the small guy with legal fees" tactic.
The sad truth for this case is that slingbox users may not be using it to watch MLB programming. But the "idea" that they can seems to be justification enough.

[ljs2007]

Capitalism still going strong

MLB HAS A GADZILLION DOLLARS IN THEIR COFFERS. I GUESS THEIR LAWYERS ARE TRYING TO GRAB IT, WHY ELSE WOULD THEY HOLD BACK TECHNOLOGY.....GREED?...OH YEAH, I KEEP FORGETTING THAT IS THE PRIMARY GOAL IN CAPITALISM....

[Aardasp]

Lawyers

... and is anyone surprised their legal staff said it is illegal, as the legal staff gets paid win-or-lose!

[ambigous]

Not legal?

"Of course, what they are doing is not legal"

If anyone should be first to file a lawsuit here, it should be Slingbox CEO Blake Krickorian. He should file a defamation suit against the MLB stiff that accused him and his company of marketing a "not legal" product.

[Atomic1fire]

I dont see how it is illegal

if your paying for cable you allready payed for the content
and advertisers already payed for the advertisement on the tv if its local
if your sending a book through the mail then should you pay the author
no
not if he already got payed for it
the only thing your doing here is sending the content you or someone payed for you to a more convenient location
if mlb was smart they would have made their own setup with tivo or cable companys or struck a deal with the company to make a little side cash
instead of using a competitive service
no one is going to pay that much a month for one type of show sport or not
and I dont watch baseball so I couldnt care less about them wanting to sqaush a legal competitor

[pagran3220]

get a grip MLB

MLB has quite a lot of mediums we pay for( including me). Earlier this year cable subscribers almost didn't have the "baseball package" until cable networks matched the price that DirecTV paid. And how much did XM Radio pay to brodcast every game.
MLB makes millions on all their mediums, and they're worried about people switching their content they already paid for, well we better hide our dvr's and vhs's.

[randyoaks187]

MLB has reason to worry ...

I think most of us remember a little thing called Napster. What is preventing people from setting up "networks" of slingboxes that cover the US to "trade" video? If I have a friend in Los Angeles, but I live in San Fransisco, what prevents me from asking him to use his slingbox to watch the Dodgers? MLB is right to nip this in the bud, otherwise it will turn into a Napster sized headache. Slingboxs are obviously forward thinking technology, thus MLB is forced to think one step ahead to prevent abuse.

[GrandpaN1947]

I agree but

Does the Slingbox allow you to keep viewing the games multiple times? If it does then MLB had better stop this now. If the Slingbox can be made to only allow viewing one time, just like a live game, then they should be allowed to operate.

[bleuboy23]

MLB needs to providde video telecasts!

If MLB would allow mobile users to access MLB TV or MLB radio, perhaps they wouldn't have to spend the time to sue Slingbox.

When I bought my Cingular Nokia 6682 some 2 1/2 years ago, it included a package whereby I could listen to major league games for a low fee. Also, Yankee games were TELEVISED through mobiTV! These services were canceled soon after I bought the phone because of MLB greediness and, at present, only Sprint subscribers (with the right handset) can see and here games. There is no reason for this! I have purchased a Gameday audio subscription, and MLB actively prevents me from listening via my phone, and actively prevents me from doing so by other means. Thank Goodness for Slingbox! If MLB sues, I'll never subscribe to there crappy, outdated internet service again.

[K.P.C.]

It's time to take MLB to the "Wood Shed"

I like baseball
"I-Chi-Ro" . . . "I-Chi-Ro"!

But I swear it's time to give MLB a quick smack to the back of it's
head and bring it back from it's long standing "Paris Hilton"
position of being too privilaged to be more important than
anything else.

Recently they sued "Fantasy Baseball Leagues" because they
contended that the MLB "Owned Players Stats"

Now they want to sue a company for allowing someone to watch
programing they have already paid for?

Here's some ideas:

Let's strip the MLB from it's exclusive "Antitrust Exemption"
No other proffesional sports organization has one.

Let's sue the MLB for their "Blackout" rules for home games.

Let's sue the MLB for "Price Gouging" since they are a "Monopoly"
$10.00 draft beers? . . . *** is that?
(Oh yeah . . . the tickets are too expesive also ;-) )

I say "Class Action Suit"!
Anyone else have any ideas?

[K.P.C.]

corrections . . .

expesive = expensive

And the MLB lost their suit on claiming the "Exclusive Rights" to use
the players stats

Aloha :-)

[t3st3r`]

Argh, when AIR for free will be ruled ILLEGAL?

Well, time shifting is illegal, place shifting is illegal, let's free AIR to be illegal as well!So those who did not payed for air should die by horrible death.