Now Sporting Leagues Think Sling Needs Their Permission To Innovate
from the permission-to-innovate dept
What is it about Sling Media that makes everyone else think they need to give it "permission" for the company to offer its place shifting offering? The company offers a little box that hooks up to your TV and lets you "place shift" your TV service to a computer or mobile device using their software. It's a clear case of fair use, where someone is making use of the content they have legal access to... and everyone's upset. First it was the mobile operators who for some reason wanted Sling to sign deals with them, when there was no reason to. If people had mobile data access and a compatible mobile device, that's all that was needed. Next, were the broadcasters. The TV industry is supposed investigating its options with Sling Media, while HBO has already indicated it might sue. Who else might be annoyed? How about sports leagues? Yup. That's right. All the various sports leagues are apparently concerned about what this could mean for them. The fear is that someone who legally has a subscription to watch games in NY, will hook it up to his TV and (horror of horrors!) be able to still watch the same game when he's traveling in California. Why this is a problem is not clear. The guy is still paying for the content, and Sling is actually making that content more valuable by making it so the guy can use it in more ways. The sports leagues should be thrilled about this, rather than worried.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
by Anonymous Coward on May 1st, 2006 @ 6:14pm
One thing to note about the device, is that the SlinBox can only broadcast to one PC at a time. Therefore no more than one person can be connected to the device.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Here we go again.... by Scared of the MAN on May 1st, 2006 @ 6:31pm
You remember when MP3 Players first came out....How RIO had its ass sued by everyone under the sun, and RIO won. (I think it was RIO)....and now we can thank them for itunes, and all the labels are counting the new revenue.
So Sling media makes a cool box that does cool things...that disrupts other people's business models.....booo hooo, sports leagues... you don't like it, make your own...or better yet... offer your broadcasts over the internet with some partner. Give the consumers what they want…and you will ultimately win. Don’t they realize why people buy these $200 boxes….cause they WANT the service.
Smart organizations realize when a new technology comes along that disrupts your model, you have 2 choices...innovate...or hang on to your model....and pass away into irrelevance. Suing only prolongs your company’s demise
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by harbingerofdoom on May 1st, 2006 @ 6:32pm
seriously, everyone taking shots at sling needs to step back.
what is the difference between this and a vcr?
seriously quit stifling new technology... all you wind up doing is making people even more willing to piriate your stuff when you act like this
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
One Possible Problem by thomas on May 1st, 2006 @ 6:45pm
To play devil's advocate for just a moment, It's easy right now for a cable company or direct tv to know when a bar or other public place want's to get a Pay Per View item and charges them more for the public showing. I can see there being a concern that if you had a sling box, you could order it 'at home', and then just hook up a pc in your bar,with it connected to a big screen / large plasma / or projector, and actually show it there, cutting them out of their revenue.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
rationing access by taxcollector on May 1st, 2006 @ 6:46pm
a big part of the pay media model is to restrict access down to the least number of people. Ever see the Superbowl on the NFL Channel? Ever see the original satellite feed of The Weather Channel turn off scrambling during hurricanes threatening thousands of people? Their belief is that to maintain it's value, they will go to any length to restrict distribution by any means possible. They think that if pay tv is allowed to distribute freely, it totally looses it's value and would end the pay-TV model. By contract, they are obligated to enforce distribution rules, even when they make no sense to the casual viewer.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: rationing access by Anonymous Coward on May 1st, 2006 @ 7:04pm
its just as limited as it was before though. aside from that pay-per-view in a bar situation. though, when it comes down to it, you can't restrict something just because it can be used illegaly. if you're gonna break the law, you can get pay-per-view stuff in bars already anyway. if a bar is already paying for everything when a cheaper alternative is available, why would they start breaking the law now anyway?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Bold Nation on May 1st, 2006 @ 7:56pm
Sport leagues would also be concerned about people using Sling to get around media blackouts of local teams. Why pay a high ticket price if you could gat your out of town friend to sling the game to you?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: One Possible Problem by Anonymous Coward on May 1st, 2006 @ 8:07pm
ummmm, if i order a payperview fight or other show at my restaurant, i pay the same exact money that i would pay to order it at home.
they are not losing any money....
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: One Possible Problem by krum303 on May 1st, 2006 @ 8:35pm
That's right. I worked in a bar & grille for 2 years and we had Direct TV's NFL package which we showed every Sunday and Monday. The Direct TV bill was in the business' name but the price was the same that I paid at home for the same package.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Mike on May 1st, 2006 @ 11:06pm
Sport leagues would also be concerned about people using Sling to get around media blackouts of local teams. Why pay a high ticket price if you could gat your out of town friend to sling the game to you?
Well, first off, this is a whole different issue. The concept that media blackouts actually drive more people to games is fundamentally ridiculous.
Second, since Slingmedia only lets a single user watch a program, it's not like very many people would be unable to watch the blacked out offering.
Plus, getting a friend with a Sling elsewhere to get it set up so you can watch the game seems like a pretty involved process that it seems unlikely more than a few people would do.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
A lot of this can be done already by random on May 2nd, 2006 @ 6:18am
I don't understand the Pay Per View argument. Lots of people own a Tivo already. You can Tivo anything and then output it to DVD. Sports events included. How is this something new?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
In other news, Mirror manufacturers... by Greg on May 2nd, 2006 @ 8:56am
...received "Cease & Desist" orders from content providers on the contention that end-users might be able to glance at the content from another room. "We have no objection to mirrors being used for their primary intent," said a sporting league spokesman, "but, it's obviouis to us that this technology could be used in ways...which...could potentially deprive us from fractions of dollars of revenue."
More coverage on this breaking (HA!) story as it unfolds...
;-)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: by Patrick Mullen on May 2nd, 2006 @ 11:03am
Mike, Slingmedia says that it only lets a single user watch the program, but with very little technical skill and some Microsoft products, you can turn it into a multicast via the web easily.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment