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."

the solution

I guess I'll just have to quit watching baseball games. Oh wait I find the sport boring and asinine and don't watch it anyways.

Re:Question is Backwards

You friend must have caught one of the morons at Sling. I guess all companies must have the token idiot ... must be some unwritten law.

You've got your idiots, and you've got your corporate ladder climbers. I used to do phone support for a reseller and the only metric tracked was call time and calls handled. A certain one of our techs, let's call him Corman, would pick up a call, listen to the story, and say, "I'm sorry, ma'am, that issue is beyond the level we handle here - you'll have to call the manufacturer. If he was just back from Venezuela that day he'd even look up the number for them.

The customer, not so dumb, would call back into the queue and wait for one of the rest of us to pick up and solve their problems.

Guess which tech had the best performance scores?

Re:the solution

The motive behind this is simple. MLB wants you to purchase the ability to watch games away from home from them [mlb.com]. $15 a month or $80 a season. Of course they charge you more for post-season baseball as well.

Obvious question

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.

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.

Re:Obvious question

Exactly. In that quote, they're showing their motives; It's not about what they're entitled to enforce legally, it's what they wish they could, and what they're going to claim they can until a court says otherwise.

Re:Obvious question

"Why should consumers abide by or even care about an agreement between the MLB and the broadcaster?"

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"

Re:Obvious question

That's why you need to go to the real customers: the advertisers.

Make the case that their MLB friends are screwing up their add campaign. If you can't fight Goliath, pit him against the cyclops.

Re:Obvious question

Why should consumers abide by or even care about an agreement between the MLB and the broadcaster?

Legally, they don't have to. They can receive the broadcast anywhere they can legally receive it.

And they can legally timeshift it by recording it to, say, a videotape. And they can legally take that physical video tape anywhere they want and watch it.

Placeshifting probably ought to be equally legal, but there is a lot less clear case law on it that I am aware of, and in the absence of clear case law, MLB probably has a colorable (though, IMO, wrong) claim that placeshifting is a violation of copyright. The fact that it enables violation of the distribution agreement isn't the basis of the claim of illegality, but it is part of the basis for the claim of damages stemming from the illegality.

More Obvious Question

What the heck is the "CEA" and why should I care what they think?

This summary is missing a critical piece of information.

Re:Obvious question

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.

Oops

It allows consumers to circumvent geographical boundaries written in to broadcast deals.

Sounds like MLB forgot to get someone's signature on the contract.

Re:Oops

I'm pretty sure the broadcaster putting text on your screen does not constitute a legal contract between you and them. Otherwise, I can say "By reading any of my other posts ever, you agree to wire me $3000 per word read" and you would be obligated to do so. They can put whatever the heck they want, I'm not obligated to obey anything beyond the letter of the law, and using the Slingbox to unicast (read: not broadcast) something from yourself to yourself does not constitute copyright infringement.

Okay. I'l l be the first to ask...

Why is it any business of Sling Media, or their customers what deal a broadcaster made with a third party? The customers were not involved in the negotiations, neither were Sling Media. The fact that they no longer have absolute control of the technology to offer the same service as they did last year means that they need to negotiate a new contract that is acceptable to both parties in the current climate.

Consumer Electronics Association

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.

Re:Consumer Electronics Association

CEA actually stands for 'Can't Explain Acronyms', which is a common occurrence on Slashdot.

PSP + PS3 does the same thing

The PSP with its new firmware plus the PS3 with its firmware from last week does the same thing for music, pictures, and video. Wonder how MLB will treat it? http://www.engadget.com/2007/05/31/psp-3-50-firmwa re-available-remote-play-over-the-internet/ [engadget.com]

Fair Use

I say that Fair Use lets me both time and place-shift. No industry in America deserves the right, or the power, to not only tell you what (show the program in another country, but not yours for a year) and when (Do Not Record flag that idiots who forget who their customers really are, like TiVo, slavishly obey) you can watch their show, but where as well. If I pay for it, I should be able to watch it anywhere I am! It's not like Sling Media hasn't taken effective steps to limit the viewing or distribution of the program to the purchaser alone.

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.

Its funny

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.

You play in our parks..

You play in our parks, rely on our infrastructure (including roads, police and fire protection), I will do whatever the hell I want with your content. Thanks.

When Did I Sign 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.

Did I sign a broadcaster agreement? No? Then shut up.

Breaking Geographical Boundaries

Does it break geographical boundaries if I make a tape of the game and carry it with me to watch on my trip? Can I be sued for doing that?

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.

The way I see it

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.

MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

I've been a baseball fan for a long time, but becoming less of one as it becomes harder to watch video of the games.

I live in MN, but I'm a Brewers fan. This is quite unfortunate since it makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to watch Brewers games. My satellite provider will only let me watch Twins games (something i would have to pay extra for), but MLB has my MN zip code in the "blackout area" for the Brewers and Twins, so I can't watch games online through mlb.tv either.

Last year I paid ~$200 for something called MLB Season Ticket just to watch brewers games on satellite. This year it's not available.

I wrote an email to [e-mail] explaining the situation, but the response was essentially "too bad, you're blacked out".

I think this strategy of milking advertising pennies is only hurting MLB in the long run since I doubt they will maintain younger fans now that its so hard to get their video content. Turning down my money and alienating fans like me probably isn't that wise for the short-run either.

Re:MLB is authoritating itself into obscurity

Well, that analysis is flat wrong, at least in my case (and surely tens of thousands of others):

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...

Motives are clear

hardly a surprise MLB is going after Slingbox, since it competes directly with their own service [mlb.tv] which circumvents the exact same "geographical boundaries written in to broadcast deals".

One more nail in the coffin

I stopped really caring after the last player's strike. An average family can't even afford to go to a game anymore while barely in shape steroid ridden slobs scratch themselves on national television (when you can see the game that is) while making fistfulls of cash. I voted with my wallet and viewership.

The MLB has *really* jumped the shark on this one though.

This isn't about consumers.

No matter how much they may claim otherwise. What they are really afraid of is some business setting up that allows bars and the like to purchase service in areas outside of blackout zones and stream content back in. If a bar could pay for a space, tv rental, and cable service in a zone that features more sports blackouts they would do so in a heartbeat. They must appear tough now so when other place-shifting arrises they will seem less so then.

I never signed any deal with the MLB...

I don't know about you, but I haven't signed anything with Major League Baseball. No contract of any kind that restricts my legal ability to watch my local team's games. While my use of a Slingbox may theoretically violate the agreement between MLB and the TV networks, wouldn't it only do so if one of those two were directly involved in the use of the Slingbox? As the TV network isn't involved in any active way in MY use of a Slingbox, they aren't liable any more than a gun manufacturer is liable for a murder committed with their weapon. (This last one has been tested legally, the gun manufacturer won.)

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.

MLB has it's head up it's @ss.

There is no law that prevents customers from watching the game in a 'forbidden area'. Instead there is a contract (that the customers did not sign) forbidding certain people from broadcasting it.

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.