Is It Illegal To Help Someone Watch TV Over Their Computer?
from the questions,-questions dept
This one is actually from a few weeks ago, but we were just informed of it by Ed. Apparently, there's a company that's trying to help people watch satellite TV over their computer and has come up with an interesting plan. They'll use Slingboxes and DirecTV accounts to help people watch DirecTV via any internet connection. From the article, it sounds like neither DirecTV or Slingbox is happy about this, and there's talk about terms of service violations and such. However, it's not entirely clear why this is a problem. Everyone who should be getting paid still is getting paid. Each customer has to buy their own DirecTV account -- it's just that it's installed at this company's offices, rather than at their own home. Since you need to have a separate Slingbox for each account, the company is still buying the Slingboxes. So, both DirecTV and Sling Media get their cut. The company then charges a $99/month service fee, which is pretty steep considering that the person also has to pay for a DirecTV account on top of that. Really this is only useful for people who have internet connections, want the programming that's available on DirecTV, but for some reason cannot get DirecTV -- which might not be a huge market. However, it's hard to see why that should be considered a problem for any of the companies involved. This service is simply reselling their offerings, bringing it to markets that otherwise wouldn't get served.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innovation
Comcast, et al, should be concerned. DIrecTV should be overjoyed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've got the answer
Networks like NBC don't want someone in Chicago watching a NBC station from NY.
They require Satellite providers to ensure that people can only watch local stations from their own markets.
This of course has to do with ad revenue, and viewerships of local stations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've got the answer
This doesn't explain, however, why DirectTV and Slingbox would be upset. Are they afraid their technology is going to come under fire because people are using it to break the laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've got the answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I've got the answer
I used to work for a company that sold DirectTV signals in rural america-- DirectTV only wants to deal with metropolitan based customers. The thing is, Direct has signed contracts with all kinds of different companies on where they can operate and sell services, and where Direct will be the provider. You can't get service from two different companies for a DirectTV feed. So the physical address plays a huge role in that. The local tv stations are also a huge deal, due to the broadcaster's pull with the FCC. The rules that once governed who could get local channels were absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I've got the answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, Duh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, Duh!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could it be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Could it be?
Unfortunately, the government, instead of encouraging innovation and competition, is hell bent on making life difficult for the consumer, while protecting business models that are no longer valid in the internet age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like in our market, wear Medicom cable and local Fox and CBS providers pull their channels over fights over reimbursements... who gets hurt in this tug-of-war? The little guy sitting at home in his apartment who can't watch what they want.
Fox still won't let their HD signal be propogated over the local Medicom cable... I'm sure they are holding out for more dough from Mediacom.
Same old story...greed. It's as old as the hills!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At that point - will it matter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now what happens when people go out and buy PPV and send it out over the web for free to anyone with a internet connection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, the company that owns the rights to the PPV broadcast could sue the person who is transmitting the information over the internet. All ab2TV is doing is letting people watch the content they have paid for on their computer - or in other words, letting people decide how and when they can use their legally paid for content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
see, that's illegal. you can't do what you want with the stuff you own. someone has to keep control over the stuff you own.
this is why you shouldn't legally own content... it's illegal to do stuff with it.
it's better to obtain the content illegally, that way you are free to do what you want with it, and you only have to pay if you get caught.
clearly that is the intent of the media companies since that is what they are forcing us to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Content" as a Tangible Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is great for those abroad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The issue is control. This new company is in a contractual relationship with the consumer, not the provider, and they fear the loss of control over the content.
They fear that very soon the access controls that are in place will be broken, and all of their content will be free for the taking on the internet. And they're probably right.
I'm normally the last person to side with the big media companys, but this is a case where they would likely win. Actually, I'm surprised that Slingbox is still alive, considering the potential for the same things to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not sure why Slingbox should be upset.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Program Content License
The radio services create and originate their own programing content. DishTV is only a distribution service. It doesn't create and orginate programing. I don't know how they compensate HBO, Showtime, etc., but there is probably something in the agreement that restricts the distribution of the programing to the satellite downlink.
The company helping DishTV subscribers to view the programing is actually re-distributing from a remote site. The tgerms of the agreement with Dish probably allow a customer to distribute the programing throughout their residence, but not to another location, such as a next door neighbor.
It is true that Dish and Slingbox are not losing any money, but the comapnies that create the programing may take issue with the re-distribution and sue DishTV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this would have been great
Even now i don't watch tv too often, even though my roommate's in my house have directtv, so thanks to restrictions on use and crap like this they've showed me i dont need them at all :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is
BTW: The company is a2btv.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sling doomed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why? Not sure, but...
If someone is providing it privately for you or you are doing it for your self, there's nothing they really can do about it unless they specifically tell you to stop. I personally don't think they'll start to care about stuff like this until they start losing subscriptions to it or if someone in the middle is making tons of money from doing it.
I personally know people who are sharing Directv accounts. This in itself is illegal, as stated by the Directv Terms of Service. Access cards on the same account are limited to one household only. Now, you could argue that the boxes are physically limited to the "one household", but the fact that someone outside the household is also able to view the content from the boxes is illegal.
So what do you do if you're the middle man? Keep your business quiet? Or do you try to cut a deal with Directv and give them a cut of the profit? (Granted the later will take more time and effort in dealing with region issues and who can subscribe to the services.)
I personally feel that if I am an American Citizen, and I can show proof that I am, then I should be able to subscribe to these services, no matter where I am in the world. But that's just me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another company doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I need my football !!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slingbox Hosting Article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
remove tv viewing of live american TV stations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newsweek Story on Slingbox Sharing and Hosting
http://www.newsweek.com/id/175602
Newsweek
The Slingbox was built to stream your favorite TV shows to your laptop via the Internet. But users are finding other new and controversial uses.
Remember when you had to be home at 8 p.m. to watch a favorite TV show? Devices like TiVo and your cable company's digital video recorder changed all that. Then along came the Slingbox, a device that lets you watch your home DVR or cable box from anywhere in the world using your laptop and an Internet connection. More than 500,000 Slingboxes have been sold since they were introduced in 2005. But like many disruptive technologies, the device is being used in creative ways that its manufacturer, Sling Media, never imagined.
Originally designed for personal viewing, the Slingbox has been transformed into a global online broadcast platform by individual users and a handful of crafty companies. With a practice known as Slingbox hosting, owners of the boxes are charging others in different cities and countries access to their Slingbox video feeds. For a monthly charge of about $100, subscribers get the original owner's Slingbox ID, download the free Sling software, and voilà—a New Yorker could be watching the local news in Los Angeles or London. Sharing is especially popular among sports fans who use sites like slingboxsharing.com that provide a forum for owners to trade their IDs with users in other states. That allows a Knicks fan in Iowa, for example, to watch live Knicks games that may not be broadcast outside of New York.
Then there are companies like techwareit.com and a2btv.com that both allow homesick Americans living overseas to watch U.S. television over the Internet. For as low as $99, plus the cost of a cable or satellite TV subscription, they'll wire up a Slingbox so that international customers can watch American must-see-TV from anywhere in the world.
"Slingbox gives people the ability to essentially become a rebroadcaster of content, and sort of become their own cable company," says Michael Gartenberg, a tech analyst at Jupitermedia. "We are living in a global society and people want to watch the Yankees, even if they're not living in the New York area or the United States."
While they're popular with users, the Slingbox's manufacturer, Sling Media, is not pleased. The company says these practices violate its license agreement, which states that users may not lease, lend, rent or otherwise distribute the software to any third party. The company has banned all Slingbox sharing and hosting posts on its official message boards, warning customers that the use is illegal. "Hosting Slingboxes and sharing finder ID's is prohibited by our End User License Agreement," says Sling Media spokesman Brian Jaquet. "And we don't condone any violation of copyright law." But will it take legal action to stop unauthorized uses? "No comment," Jaquet says.
Not surprisingly, cable and satellite TV providers are also up in arms, underscoring that unauthorized rebroadcasts of their content are illegal. "Our acceptable-use policy, which every customer agrees to, is pretty clear about what you can and can't do with your cable subscription," says Time Warner Cable spokesman Alex Dudley. "And the majority of [these uses] fall outside of the acceptable-use policy."
The major professional sports leagues aren't big fans either, largely because it enables viewers to skirt the leagues' multi-million-dollar exclusive broadcast partnerships that restrict regional broadcasts and provide local blackouts for programming when games aren't sold out. So far, however, none of the leagues seem willing to prosecute unauthorized broadcasts or alienate some of their most avid fans. "Our fans are never wrong," says MLB.com CEO Bob Bowman. "We can never suggest that a fan shouldn't do everything he or she is doing to watch a baseball game… the best way to combat these gray activities is to have a better product: higher quality, more streams, high definition, things that [Slingbox] can't do." The NFL declined NEWSWEEK's requests for comment.
For their part, Slingbox owners see nothing wrong with using their devices to their fullest advantage. They believe that once they purchase the device, they should be able to use it in the privacy of their homes in any way they see fit. Online sharing and hosting, say owners, just underscores the desire to watch news, entertainment and sports from anywhere at any time. "If there were legal and simple ways for people in remote locations to watch whatever content they wanted, those people would pay for it," Gartenberg says. "The fact that there is demand for these types of services indicates that there is a market opportunity for legitimate [offerings]."
Some content providers have already realized this. Last year, EchoStar, which owns Dish Network, bought Slingbox to give it a competitive edge over rival cable and satellite TV providers. The NHL has also partnered with Slingbox to distribute league content through its Clip+Sling service, which allows the creation of short e-mailable video clips.
One thing, though, is clear: Slingbox, which also enables TV viewing on cell phones and other handheld devices, is leading the charge in the merging of TV and the Internet. And according to Gartenberg, the genie may already be out of the bottle. "They can't turn off the technology," he says. "People are carrying screens with them all the time in the guise of phones and laptops, so they're going to want their content to flow from location to location. What you have to figure out is what's the fair way for people to use this technology, get the content that they want and pay a fair price for it."
URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/175602
© 2008
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is it illegal to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]