Unless you're the kind of person that refuses to watch TV with pride, you've probably heard that Time Warner Cable has entered a legal fight over its iPad app. The app, released last month, lets Time Warner customers watch some of their TV channels on an iPad, as long as its in their own home (well, within range of their Wi-Fi network). Viacom, owner of such channels as MTV, BET, and Spike, is not happy.
Viacom contends that Time Warner never consulted them on the app, and that the carriage agreement between the two companies doesn't cover distribution to mobile devices. Time Warner on the other hand, maintains that it's well within its rights to stream the content its already paid for, as long as it's within the customer's home. In the wake complaints from Viacom and Fox, Time Warner asked the courts to award it a declaratory judgment in its favor. Viacom responded promptly—by suing Time Warner Cable.
I don't see how Viacom has much of a case. In its court papers, it says Time Warner is engaging in "unauthorized distribution of Viacom's copyrighted entertainment programming to portable devices via broadband." Unless I'm missing something, that's not what TWC is doing, since it's doing the streaming via Wi-Fi, not over the Internet. It appears to me that the practice is in principle the same as hooking up a extra TV to your cable services. Sure, that TV happens to be an iPad, and the technology itself is completely different, but the concept is the same.
Certainly, Viacom's complaint covers more than that. Viacom has taken issue with the app's lack of parental controls and access to the emergency broadcast service, but let's be real here—it's the video streaming that's the issue. Besides, Time Warener could easily introduce such features in a software update.
My perspective may be wishful thinking, because I believe that Time Warner's app has a lot of promise. As it happens, Cablevision also debuted a similar iPad app last week, and I'm a Cablevision subscriber. I find the app to be a great convenience, even if the picture quality on the iPad is lousy and it doesn't let me watch material from my DVR (even in my home). Being able to schedule a recording from anywhere was something I thought I'd only be able to do if Verizon FiOS came to my area. Now it's as easy as a few screen swipes.
Vicaom doesn't care about scheduling, however—it wants Time Warner to stop the video streaming. The way I see it, they're afraid of two things: First, once streaming in the home is allowed, it will be only too easy extend that beyond the home. It's theoretically easy to throw a switch and start sending streams to iPads no matter where they are. No one's talking about doing that, but the potential is too obvious to ignore. Second—and more immediate—Time Warner's app competes with its own services and partnerships, like Hulu.
Curling up with my iPad to watch TV gives me a great reason to never even consider shelling out $7.99 for something like Hulu Plus. Viacom recently inked a deal to bring its content back to Hulu, and even putting that aside, the company probably has its own vision for how its content should be distributed on the iPad. Time Warner's app throws a giant monkey wrench into those works, so it's understandable that Viacom's terrified.
Customers, however, don't see it that way. Once you've paid for your cable service, why shouldn't you be able to watch it on whatever screen you want? Why should I have to double up and pay for content twice—both from my cable service and from services like Netflix of Hulu when I want to cozy up with it on my iPad?
That's the question the courts will have to answer. Is this app merely hooking up a customer's service to another screen in the home? Or is it an insidious takeover of an entire platform, cutting off content owners from potential revenues? For the sake of progress—and my DVR schedule—I hope it's the former.
No comments:
Post a Comment