Time Warner Cable Goes to Court for iPad App Content Rights

[beatzfreak]

But why not watch on the 40" TV instead of the ipad at home?

Because my husband plays Battlefield after work on the 40" (our only TV) and I want to watch the news. It's pretty simple, really. An easy and free solution.

Anyway, It seems other companies worked out a deal with Viacom before providing these services and TWC didn't. That may be a problem for TWC.

 

[jonnysods]

Good for Time Warner. Is it me, or are they spending money to pursue something that benefits customers?

If I lived i the US, I would be their customer just for this case they are going through!

 

[ukor]

Good for Time Warner. Is it me, or are they spending money to pursue something that benefits customers?

If I lived i the US, I would be their customer just for this case they are going through!

Only if you lived in a location where they owned the cable franchise rights. We don't have choice of cable providers. That's why most people hate their cable company. It is a government sanctioned monopoly with the generally the level of service that you would expect from a monopoly.

We are in for a wild ride over the next five years, but one would hope that eventually content will be more accessible at lower costs to the consumer.

That is the way a free market should generally work at least.

 

[840quadra]

That's an Awesome Top Gear episode they used for the Screenshot.

 

[blevins321]

Yes, and so does SlingMedia, Elgato, and any home Media Center software that streams TV programming to extenders or portable devices. if Viacom wins this one - this would imply that none of these Home Media Center companies have a right to exist.

I don't know about that. (although I see a fight eventually in this regard). Slingbox, Elegato, etc... have no agreements with the broadcasters. So there's nothing for them to be 'in breach' of. It'll be an interesting argument when it comes time for their day in court though to see how lenient the interpretation of shifting is.

 

[hayesk]

Actually, I don't think you do. Yes, they are the first to bring out an app, but in reality, Viacom wants to cut out the middleman, and sell content directly to you. Middlemen=overhead.

As a non-cable customer, I would rather have Viacom sell their content directly, or strike a deal with a internet pureplay supplier (hulu,netflix,youtube etc) for distribution.

That's not really relevant here. The fact is TW does have the right to distribute the content to your home. The iPad is just another TV in this case. I can't see a competent judge ruling differently.

 

[justcallmepete]

The app connects wirelessly to your cable box. You have to have a login to view the content. If you are outside that wireless range, you cannot view the content. Thus the app "won't work". Is it really that hard understand?

definitely not hard to understand. and i dont think thats what they were implying. but MY you are being a d!ck for no reason. someone needs to get off the internets for a while, huh?

but it IS weird. as in.. no other apps work in this way. as in.. youre a d!ck

 

[timinbovey]

Recalling old cable rules.....

OK, I'm an old fart and my memory might be a bit fuzzy, but perhaps this really becomes an FCC issue?

As I recall (and I admit it's kind of fuzzy) in the early days of cable TV, you paid the company to come out, and hook up a TV set to cable, and you paid for channels. If you wanted a second, third, or more sets connected, you had to call the cable company, pay an installation charge for each additional set, AND pay an additional monthly charge for each additional set.

Then, the FCC changed the rules so consumers were allowed to hook up whatever the heck they wanted to their cable, and were not required to hire the cable company to do it (and suddenly cable, splitters, connectors, etc became available in local stores) AND they could no longer charge for signal going to the additional sets.

So, isn't the ability to stream to a device in your own home, the signal you are already paying for in this same category, just with a different technology? How about all those "Rabbit TV" transmitters you could buy, that let you plug in your cable to the unit, then put matching Rabbit receivers on sets in your house so you could watch cable TV anywhere in the house without having to run physical cable? This was basically the same thing -- re-transmitting the cable signal within your house. This was legal, and popular for many years.

There may be a few hazy details here but that's how I recall it all going down in the cable biz in the late 70's in Minneapolis, anyway.

 

[ciTiger]

Time Warner +1

Just gives the TV in our mobile devices already!!!