June 1, 2007 4:00 AM PDT
MLB aims brushback pitch at Slingbox
- Related Stories
-
Slingbox gets new siblings
September 27, 2006 -
Major League Baseball takes swing at Sling Media
June 6, 2006 -
Supreme Court rules against file swapping
June 27, 2005 -
P2P group: We'll pay girl's RIAA bill
September 10, 2003
(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.
The 'lords of baseball' strike out
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.
See more CNET content tagged:
Slingbox, MLB, Sling Media, set-top box, set-top
29 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
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.
Yawn.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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?
And the MLB lost their suit on claiming the "Exclusive Rights" to use
the players stats
Aloha :-)
around in a couple of years. I doubt that they will be able to
raise another round from the VCs. The bottom line is the box
has too many requirements to gain mass acceptance. First, you
need broadband with good upload speeds. Second, you need a
router. Third, you need a wireless device to view the
programming. Fourth, you need a geek to set it up. Most people
don't have the technical savvy required to make this product
work.
They claim they have sold thousands, Big deal. Assume they go
on average for 200 bucks a pop. Let's say they sold 100
thousand units. That would give them 20M in sales so far, big
deal! They sell their units to the nerds and geeks and then where
do they go? This is no ipod, there will not be mass appeal for
this product and there isn't any itunes type of recurring
revenues.
One more thing, the lawsuits are probably inevitable as well.
Sling Media is going to have to use some of their powder
defending themselves in court.
These cats are doomed!!!
I run tivo and cable through my slingbox so I can watch the Twins, Wild and Gopher hockey while at school in Pennsylvania, as well as local news and local television. I subscribe to MLB.TV so I can watch Red Sox games and highlights when ESPN is covering the NFL and NBA 24/7/365. mlb.tv drives me nuts when it goes black during commercial breaks and comes back late, missing pitches and commentary. How else can I watch Gopher hockey and Minnesota news in Pennsylvania?
Also, it doesn't need to be an ipod to be a success, the mac has nothing on the pc in terms of sheer numbers, but it isn't disappearing anytime soon. I am not a mac guy, but some people are!
You should read slingbox's instruction sheet before you rip it, it took one tenth of the time it took me to set up my tivo.
Tivo+Slingbox+Router+Laptop=Pure viewing pleasure anytime, anywhere.
And the napster argument? Napster didn't require a password and product code to acquire music, the slingbox does. I cannot redistribute the video either, as recording is not possible. Also, the box works like a remote, giving the user complete control and domination over the attached device, so the number of users on it at any time is limited to the number of inputs it has. So, if you and 5 online friends wanted cable through the internet, you would need a coaxial input, a cable box with RCA outputs, a second cable box with an HD out, a third cable box with an S video output, etc, etc. Not a realistic option or comparison, as you would run out of inputs.
This just shows MLB's complete lack of competence. More fans equals more tickets, more ad revenue, more merch, etc. Why attack a product that increases your fanbase? Why not create a partnership with Sling Media and create a Slingbox Sports box, which would enhance sports playback, give users access to a unique website with increased sports highlights, replays and message boards with a small monthly fee or a small percent of the box sales going to each league... embrace the "wired" fan, don't hamper them!
Software
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.popsoftware.net/" target="_newWindow">http://www.popsoftware.net/</a>