If you're a Slingbox user, the ability to watch TV wherever you are and whenever you want is a killer app - whether it's at the cottage, at work or in a hotel room while on a business trip. A Slingbox sweetspot is sports because it's a great way for the sports nut not to miss any of the action (a case in point will be all the daytime games during the upcoming World Cup). It's interesting - if not alarming for Sling Media - that Major League Baseball is far from thrilled with the Slingbox's ability to watch games away from home. According to CNet, MLB wants Slingbox users to pay an additional fee as a way to compensate cable and satellite providers who are cut out of the mix when a Slingbox users accesses their TV/PVR while away from home. MLB's complaint illustrates the focus on who controls content - the consumer or the content owner. Does the consumer have the right to consume content however, whenever and wherever they want if they purchase it? For example, if you buy cable service does it matter how or where you watch it? The same "control" issue continues to plague the music industry when it comes to questions about whether a MP3 can be copied on to multiple devices or how many times it can be burnt onto a CD. If you believe in a digital world where content wants to be free, does it make sense - or is it even possible - for content owners to attempt to control how it's consumed. It strikes me as completely reasonable that if consumers pay for content (a huge issue at a time when P2P shows no signs of abating any time soon), they should be able to use it any which way they want. It makes little sense to "penalize" people who actually spend money to buy content - be it cable service, music, movies, etc. Unfortunately, the content industry seems intent on maintaining control as they tout the merits of DRM and other consumer un-friendly tactics.
|
||||||
|
Mark Evansthe blog - examines the world of telecom and technology from a distinctly Canadian perspective.the person - lives in Toronto, CA with his wife and three children, and works as director of community with PlanetEye Inc. 
|
MLB Takes a Swing at Sling
Comments
Re: MLB Takes a Swing at Sling
by
Ryan Coleman
on Wed 07 Jun 2006 04:30 PM EDT | Permanent Link
I can see what they're getting at but I think they're going at it from the wrong angle - I would push on the aspect of ensuring that one person isn't sitting at home watching while another is watching it via Slingbox. I think it's similar to the concept of how software used to be run off a network and you bought "x" licenses. You could have 20 people in your company but only 5 people could use the software at the same time. It shouldn't matter where I am as long as I don't exceed the number of "outputs" I'm authorized for.
At the end of the day MLB gets paid by networks who get paid by advertisers who pay for eyeballs. They're getting their money either way regardless of how I choose to view my programming. Re: Re: MLB Takes a Swing at Sling
interesting point about licenses but how would you, sling media or MLB know/decide how many licenses to buy. would it run on a honour system or would sling have to install some kind of new software to detect whether the TV was on and the slingbox was being accessed by a remote computer. it sounds very complicated.
Re: Re: Re: MLB Takes a Swing at Sling
by
Ryan Coleman
on Thu 08 Jun 2006 10:34 AM EDT | Permanent Link
Yeah - I think it would be about as effective as how the cable companies tried for years to enforce how many cable outlets you had in your house.
A concession/comprimise I could see (again with limited effect) would be having it so the Slingbox was hooked up between the cable box and the TV (not sure how it's hooked up now) and if it is streaming content then it cuts the outputs to the television. (Easily defeated of course with some cable splitters.) A similar issue came up last year when all the cable companies complained to the CRTC about Bell turning a blind eye to customers having a dish at home and a dish at the cottage under the same bill. (They cracked down briefly but have softened on it again) Re: MLB Takes a Swing at Sling
by
Anonymous
on Wed 07 Jun 2006 04:36 PM EDT | Permanent Link
This is unbelievable. Let's see you live alone in Toronto and travel a lot on business. You pay $100 a month for cable or sat. You are spending the week in Chicago on business. Shouldn't you be able to watch Blue Jays games with Slingbox or Orb from your hotel in Chicago? How is MLB or the Jays losing? They are getting their cut of the action as you are paying to subscribe to RSN or TSN. You are also paying (indirectly) for cable in your hotel room to watch the Cubs or ChiSox which you don't care about. You couldn't even subscribe to a premium baseball package (i.e the MLB equivalent of NFL Sunday Ticket) even if you wanted to as you can't do this from a hotel.
I could see them complaining if you set up a server in Toronto that would broadcast Jays games to thousands of people across North America but that is not how Orb/Slingbox works! Re: MLB Takes a Swing at Sling
Interesting thoughts. It's true that they care about the eyeballs watching the shows, but also where and WHEN. The globe has an interesting article that talks about this today
Looks like Canada is going to start including DVR in its audience ratings next fall.. what about the slingbox audience, whole new ballgame Re: MLB Takes a Swing at Sling
The Sony Betamax case stands broadly for the proposition that the user has the right to decide when to watch. Slingbox stands for the proposition that the user has the right to decide where to watch. What's the difference? How is the broadcaster affected any differently than by someone who records and takes the media to another location?
Here's an idea. Have the local cable station refund to the Slingbox owner some $ for shows watched via the Slingbox, and that money can be paid to the foreign cable station. Rule #1 - don't put lawyers in charge of the business model. Rule #2 - wake up and smell the future. Re: MLB Takes a Swing at Sling
by
Anonymous
on Thu 08 Jun 2006 03:39 PM EDT | Permanent Link
It is not suprising that MLB is attempting to control the way in which their product gets delivered. One cannot listen to the Blue Jays on the internet stream of the local sports radio station, the Fan590, even though this was possible just a year or two ago. Instead, one has to subscribe to ALL the radio feeds from ALL the Major League teams for a monthyl fee through MLB.com. It will be interesting to see what happens in the case of the Slingbox as other, more powerful, content providers embrace DRM to not only control the way in which their content is consumed, but also to track WHO is breaking the rules. The debate over the privacy implications of DRM are picking up steam, boosted by the much publicized Sony rootkit case from last year. For anyone interested in the debate, look up The Identity Project at www.anonequity.org.
Great Blog Mark! Vava Re: MLB Takes a Swing at Sling
by
Anonymous
on Thu 08 Jun 2006 05:51 PM EDT | Permanent Link
I personally have a slingbox and use it when I travel to watch my bought-and-paid-for cable content. Sitting in a hotel room in Europe, you quickly get tired of CNN and BBC, why can't I watch the cable shows that I paid for on my home cable box which would sit idle otherwise? And why would anyone want to stop me..I watch the ads and might buy something when I get back home. Saying that the content owner gets to decide where you use it is absurd. If I bring a magazine with me on a trip, does Time Magazine charge me more for reading the magazine overseas where prices are normally higher? BTW, Slingbox rocks - get one!
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL: |
My blog has moved.
Check out the new Mark Evans. It's on Wordpress and part of my mini-blog empire that also includes All About Nortel You can subscribe to Mark Evans Tech by clicking on the RSS symbol above.
Check Out These Blogs
Search
Login
|
||||
|
||||||