Earlier this month we noted how Disney and ESPN had sued Sling TV for the cardinal sin of actually trying to innovate. Sling TV’s offense: releasing new, more convenient day, weekend, or week-long shorter term streaming subscriptions that provided an affordable way to watch live television.
These mini-subscriptions, starting at around $5, have already proven to be pretty popular. But, of course, it challenges the traditional cable TV model of getting folks locked into recurring (and expensive) monthly subscriptions. Subscriptions that often mandate that you include sports programming many people simply don’t want to pay for.
So of course Time Warner has now filed a second lawsuit (sealed, 1:25-mc-00381) accusing Dish Network of breach of contract. In the complaint, Warner Bros lawyer David Yohai argues that this kind of convenience simply cannot be allowed:
“The passes fundamentally disrupt this industry-standard model by allowing customers to purchase access to the most sought-after programming, such as major sports events, essentially a la carte for a fraction of the cost that the consumer would have had to pay to watch the event on a pay-per-view basis. For example, a sports fan could simply purchase a day pass and watch select programming, such as a highly popular sports game, without purchasing a month-long subscription or paying a higher pay-per-view fee.”
Not disruption and convenience!
…access to the most sought-after programming, such as major sports events, essentially a la carte for a fraction of the cost…
KEK, this sounds like the best add ever for Sling TV.
Sling couldn’t have asked for a better marketing campaign
I was actually going to comment that I now know about this cheap option thanks to the lawsuit, lol.
I don’t watch live TV because I value my time, but every once in a while there’s a reason to tune into that one thing.
This is so petty and a perfect example of why american capitalism is horrible and the government does nothing to control corporations or monopolies.
I wonder if these guys somehow have something to do with the DRM lockdown that ATSC 3 is trying to pull for OTA broadcast TV as well.
It’s already been pulled. All 4 major networks in my area have had the flags enabled on their 4k streams for months now.
They’re suing over the creation of competition in the market? Certainly an interesting strategy. I hope WB, Disney, and every other scum-sucker that thinks suing is acceptable gets raked across the coals.
This is suing for the ability to price fix.
They said it without directly saying it. They want to be able to price fix to keep their investors happy and someone is now stepping on the toes of the investors and they want to force sling to raise their price or pay them (mafia tactics) to continue operating.
Any company involved in this lawsuit should be forced to provide their subscription to all current users for free for the next 2-5 years or shutter their streaming service indefinitely.
I know what it’s about. Best part is that at an entry fee of $5, Sling aren’t even undercutting the market enough to allow an anti-competition lawsuit against them. So long as Sling can afford the lawyer fees, a dismissal and reversal should be a cake walk.
it pretty much depends on what their distribution agreements have in them–there could be something in there that requires monthly or longer terms for subscribers. if there isn’t, there sure af will be from now on for streaming services carrying ‘cable’ channels
“For example, a sports fan could simply purchase a day pass and watch select programming, such as a highly popular sports game, without purchasing a month-long subscription or paying a higher pay-per-view fee.”
WOW. The greed is insane! What total pieces of sh*t! They’re not even hiding it
To paraphrase:
“For example, someone could purchase a single sandwich, instead of a loaf of bread, several pounds of meat and cheese, various produce items, and a few jars of condiments.”
Do they not see how dumb they sound!?
Business idea: Get subscriptions to Disney and ESPN streaming services, then let other people buy access to those accounts for one day at a time. You’d log in for them and give them the session cookie, or something like that. Shouldn’t be too hard to find a country in which that isn’t breaking any laws, although I’m guessing it’s probably not the USA.
It’s certainly breaking TOS, so the country you’re in doesn’t matter.
I’m not a lawyer, but I suspect that you may be overestimating the extent to which every piece of bullshit inserted into a TOS document that nobody reads is universally enforceable.
It’s not a legal issue. They’d just shut down any accounts doing this. They already detect and shut down account sharing and this is just a variant of that. No law or government intervention necessary.
