PToN Premium Member join:2001-10-04 Houston, TX |
PToN
Premium Member
2011-Mar-25 5:11 pm
This is good....Arent they the supporters of "Dont cut your cable for internet stream or we'll charge you extra on your already handicapped internet connection" road map...?
I wanna see how they react, this is not different than Hulu and up to a point Netflix...
Can they say hypocrite?? |
|
chsteiger Premium Member join:2003-10-03 Pasadena, TX |
Greed!If you pay to watch it, you should be able to do so on what ever device you want.. |
|
|
YES !The content industry should sue ANYONE that is trying to purchase, view or even think about their content. Only if NO ONE will be ever seeing their invaluable crap will it be protected to their hearts desire.
/sarcasm |
|
Jim_in_VA (banned) join:2004-07-11 Cobbs Creek, VA |
Jim_in_VA (banned)
Member
2011-Mar-25 5:16 pm
Don't see them suing Sling Media ...and the Slingbox, where you can view programming anywhere, anytime, on any device. |
|
1 recommendation |
What's the point?I don't see what broadcasters are so upset about - You still need to pay for the cable service and be at home with your cable internet in order to use the app, so it really just acts as turning your iPad into another TV in the house. How are they losing money from this?
Though kudos to Time Warner for at least making some sort of effort to adapt its business model, even if it is somewhat pointless. |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2011-Mar-25 5:16 pm
TWC built-in restrictions SHOULD not be sue-ableSince the TWC setup for the iPad app makes users have both TWC TV & broadband access with TWC, all this is doing is allowing TV to be watched on a smaller device by those already paying to see it anyway. Hollyweird may sue but, just like with the remote server based DVR system Cablevision had set up, they will have a good chance of losing in court. |
|
|
to chsteiger
Re: Greed!NO ! In order to keep the spirit of fair and balanced initiatives against ebook piracy, customers should be charged extra if watching with two eyes instead of one. This is just to make sure that the cyclops, one eyed or maybe the blind might get a "reduced" rate.
(note: blinking two eyes alternatively at a high rate would be considered a DMCA violation) |
|
amungus Premium Member join:2004-11-26 America |
amungus
Premium Member
2011-Mar-25 5:17 pm
Too lateI fail to see how this is much different from what can already be done with other methods/devices, such as, um, a Slingbox, or Media Center, or PlayOn... OMG I can watch TV on my laptop... somebody call a lawyer |
|
FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to Jim_in_VA
Re: Don't see them suing Sling Media ...said by Jim_in_VA:Don't see them suing Sling Media and the Slingbox, where you can view programming anywhere, anytime, on any device. MLB is getting close to pulling the trigger on Slingbox: » gizmodo.com/#!264609/mlb ··· e-l-word |
|
Jim_in_VA (banned) join:2004-07-11 Cobbs Creek, VA |
to amungus
Re: Too late+1 |
|
banditws6Shrinking Time and Distance Premium Member join:2001-08-18 Frisco, TX |
to FFH5
Re: TWC built-in restrictions SHOULD not be sue-ableThis is what I was thinking. Time Warner only lets you watch TV content via their iPad app if:
1. You are a Time Warner cable subscriber who already has access to the same content via your cable package 2. You are using it at home on your Time Warner Internet service
Given those restrictions, there is effectively no difference between this iPad app and another television in your house. I imagine that's why TWC figured they could release this app without any new licensing or permission from content rightsholders. |
|
jmn1207 Premium Member join:2000-07-19 Sterling, VA |
to Jim_in_VA
Re: Don't see them suing Sling Media ...said by Jim_in_VA:and the Slingbox, where you can view programming anywhere, anytime, on any device. Maybe Sling Media isn't big enough for them to go after...yet? Also, it sounds like this TWC app will allow someone to watch channels separate from what is being viewed over the TV/cable box. With the Slingbox, you are only viewing what can actually be seen on a TV in your home. It's almost as if going after Sling Media would be like telling someone that they could not watch their program if they sat too far away from the TV. My viewing distance is practically unlimited now, but I am still just watching shows using my equipment and the channel package I subscribe to. It seems that TWC is providing their customers with a new way to deliver TV content, and without permission from the content providers. I think it is silly, but I do see the difference. |
|
Jim_in_VA (banned) join:2004-07-11 Cobbs Creek, VA |
Jim_in_VA (banned)
Member
2011-Mar-25 6:08 pm
With the Slingbox you can view any channel you have in your package, including live local TV, and anything you have recorded on your DVR ... anywhere, on any device. That is far larger than what TWC offers. Now THAT is tv anywhere |
|
45612019 (banned) join:2004-02-05 New York, NY |
45612019 (banned)
Member
2011-Mar-25 6:29 pm
How stupidHmm, a company finds a clever way to encourage some subscribers to keep their cable TV subscriptions and the beneficiaries from this arrangement decide to bite the hand that feeds them?
They've got some real geniuses over there in Hollywood. |
|
PSB join:2002-11-22 Petaluma, CA |
PSB to FFH5
Member
2011-Mar-25 7:49 pm
to FFH5
Re: Don't see them suing Sling Media ...Did you really just link to a 4 year old article as proof that they are "close to pulling the trigger"? |
|
PSB |
to jmn1207
Sling Media is a subsidiary of Echostar. |
|
b10010011Whats a Posting tag? join:2004-09-07 united state |
I just don't understand why broadcasters and media "owners&in general want to restrict access to their product.
One would think that getting as many eyes as possible on your product would be a good thing?
I would even think it would open up even more advertising sales opportunities. |
|
|
to chsteiger
Re: Greed!and this type of stuff is one of the reasons hollywood only sees maybe 20 - 75 bucks a year out of me.i used to spend thousands each year on entertainment. now i buy a few boxsets of tv shows i support all other stuff i buy used and physical. i no longer go to the theater MAFIAA gets very little out of me. |
|
David Premium Member join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL |
David
Premium Member
2011-Mar-25 10:51 pm
This is kind of a thing I read about M$They wanted the right to put into law or sue a company that uses vendors that use unlicensed software.
Actually come to think of it, it's on slashdot.
Personally myself, I would just be a good vendor and go for linux and open office... problem solved! |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to banditws6
Re: TWC built-in restrictions SHOULD not be sue-ablesaid by banditws6:This is what I was thinking. Time Warner only lets you watch TV content via their iPad app if:
1. You are a Time Warner cable subscriber who already has access to the same content via your cable package 2. You are using it at home on your Time Warner Internet service
Given those restrictions, there is effectively no difference between this iPad app and another television in your house. I imagine that's why TWC figured they could release this app without any new licensing or permission from content rightsholders. a Smart judge would toss the case and tell them openly that this is no different than a second TV in the house since the person has to have at a minimum a "Double Play" of TV and Internet from TWC. |
|
mackey Premium Member join:2007-08-20 |
mackey
Premium Member
2011-Mar-26 1:21 am
IPTV?Throw this app on a cable box and voilĂ , instant IPTV deployment!
/mackey |
|
|
torretntv
Anon
2011-Mar-26 8:18 am
torrent rss feeds got this beat by milesconsumers have already begun cutting the cord (as in unsubscrbing to cable-tv service).. this is too little too late. |
|
SeleniaGentoo Convert Premium Member join:2006-09-22 Fort Smith, AR |
to Jim_in_VA
Re: Don't see them suing Sling Media ...Slingbox isn't offering a service perse. It's more like time/format shifting being done by the user after they receive the channels in their original form. Given how cases have gone regarding home taping and mp3s, it would be difficult to go after them. TWC is outright rebroadcasting the channels themselves, hence the liability. I don't agree with this shit, but that is how copyright law works. |
|
KearnstdSpace Elf Premium Member join:2002-01-22 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to Jim_in_VA
Copyright law is built solely around screwing the consumer that is why it sucks.
*This Opinion relates to Copyrights in their current form and not the essence of Copyright which was a good thing until major corporations got their claws on it. |
|
|
Taget
Member
2011-Mar-26 12:04 pm
If you are paying for it and it's in your home......how are you not using the Ipad as a defacto set top box? The only difference is that it arrives to the tv viewing device inside your home via wifi rather than via a coax cable. |
|
WhatNow Premium Member join:2009-05-06 Charlotte, NC |
WhatNow
Premium Member
2011-Mar-26 6:16 pm
Write the companies that place the adsIf consumers start writing the companies placing the ads you may not be buying their product because you can't watch the programs their ads are placed on the content companies will get the message from the people that count. The ones paying the bill. |
|
|
TWCI am on TWC and generall happy with my internet. But if they start screwing around like ATT and it looks like they are getting ready to then I will just cancel my subscription. I know a lot of the stuff that is going on has to do with illegal downloads which I am not involved with. But for them to monitor this stuff costs them extra money and then they pass that expense on to the customer. Time to cut more than the TV cord perhaps. Maybe its time to go ahead and cut the internet cord too. The studios certainly have gotten greedy and I don't buy anything from them much anymore. I almost never even go to the theater anymore. They need to adapt to the new paradigm of internet video instead of fighting change. Its alright if they don't I just withdraw my spending and money from them. |
|
|
Ummm...Ever get the feeling that broadcasters DON'T want people watching their channel?
And here I thought the broadcasting industry was all about getting as many viewers as possible. Am I wrong?
This just defies common sense and logic. |
|
PDXPLT join:2003-12-04 Banks, OR |
to Selenia
You have to remember what "hollywood" is ...As an insider once explained to me, it consists of 2 parts. One part create some content. The other part is an army of lawyers and take-no-prisoners business types, whose jobs are to extract every piece of value (i.e., revenue) that they possibility can from that content. What you're seeing here is that second part in action; "maybe we can get paid an incremental fee because the viewer is holding the screen in their hand, rather than looking at one hanging on a wall". |
|
PDXPLT |
to banditws6
Re: TWC built-in restrictions SHOULD not be sue-ablesaid by banditws6:Given those restrictions, there is effectively no difference between this iPad app and another television in your house. I imagine that's why TWC figured they could release this app without any new licensing or permission from content rightsholders. Yea, but that's not how "hollywood" thinks. As an insider once explained to me, it consists of 2 parts. One part create some content. The other part is an army of lawyers and take-no-prisoners business types, whose jobs are to extract every piece of value (i.e., revenue) that they possibility can from that content. What you're seeing here is that second part in action; "maybe we can get paid an incremental fee because the viewer is holding the screen in their hand, rather than looking at one hanging on a wall". |
|