Disney, ESPN Sue Sling TV For The Crime Of Streaming TV Pricing Innovation
from the this-is-why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept
Earlier this month, Dish’s Sling TV unveiled a rare bit of innovation in an increasingly enshittified streaming video market. They began offering what they called “mini-subscriptions,” allowing users to subscribe to live streaming TV for the day, weekend, or a full week for prices starting at around $5. It was a nice option for folks who don’t want, or can’t afford, increasingly costly monthly subscriptions.
But alas, the idea may not last. ABC/Disney/ESPN quickly sued to scuttle SlingTV’s offerings (see docket), claiming they violate the companies’ existing carriage agreements:
“Sling TV’s new offerings, which they made available without our knowledge or consent, violate the terms of our existing license agreement,” a Disney spokesperson said in a statement provided to Deadline. “We have asked the court to require Dish to comply with our deal when it distributes our programming.”
Disney claims that any contract length shorter than a month is outside of the authorized scope of existing carriage agreement. A Sling TV spokesperson said Disney’s lawsuit is “meritless”:
“We are aware of what has been filed and believe Disney’s lawsuit is meritless. We will vigorously defend our right to bring customers a viewing experience that fits their lives, on their schedule and on their terms.
We are excited about our new pass subscriptions and the overwhelmingly positive response we’ve received from fans looking for simple, affordable ways to enjoy the content they love.”
While Disney may or may not be legally correct (the exact terms of these agreements aren’t made public), it’s still annoying. In large part because the streaming video sector has been busy lately demonstrating that they’re all out of original ideas and want to make nickel-and-diming consumers a central pillar of their business strategy. Just like the traditional cable giants they once disrupted.
Streaming executives have recently been spending their time trying to goose quarterly earnings by relentlessly raising prices, harassing people for sharing streaming passwords, refusing to pay creatives their owned residuals, and proposing shitty, pointless mergers that largely result in layoffs and shittier products.
Streaming execs have forgotten all of the lessons from the very recent past. They’re increasingly behaving just like the cable giants they disrupted by failing to innovate, refusing to compete seriously on price, and generally being obnoxious assholes. Whether via piracy or innovative new competitors, they’re destined to see the same fate as the monolithic cable giants that preceded them, at which point, as per tradition, they’ll blame everything (VPNs!) and everyone (generational entitlement!) but themselves.
Filed Under: carriage, competition, pricing, streaming, tv, video
Companies: disney, espn, sling
Comments on “Disney, ESPN Sue Sling TV For The Crime Of Streaming TV Pricing Innovation”
But...
Only Disney can offer Minnie subscriptions.
That darn Bob Iger...
I would think the daily sub would be found money for the streamers, especially, since so much sportsball is moving to streamers. There are a lot of games you’d pay $5 to watch, but not $15.
Disney and the streamers should talk to record labels about how many $20 CDs they sold after the 99¢ iTunes came out
So sling gets to look like the bad guys and espn and disney made themselves look like greedy evil fucks.
Good job?
Even if they are legally in the right this is just a huge pr loss for them.
And isn’t it a bit anti competitive if someone else controls how you can sell your product?
How dare you compete with us, do you think this is a free market?!
Re:
“Monopoly” is the definition of copyright. So it’s the polar opposite of a free market; the government very much has its thumb on the scale, just not in any way that would benefit the public (such as compulsory video licensing).
Re: Re:
*whooooooooooooosh!*
motion to dismiss
Normally if you are suing on a contract, you attach the contract or at least the relevant portions to your complaint. If you do not do that, your complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be had.
Non words
Once I come across “enshittify” or one of its forms on your website, I I stop reading the article. It was funny the first time you guys used it five years ago. Not anymore.
Re:
I would also like to request that people stop using the word “airport” and instead use “a place for airplanes to take off and land along with the buildings and supporting infrastructure necessary to maintain and refuel them, and the buildings and supporting infrastructure needed to get passengers and their luggage on and off of the airplanes.” (*) The latter is clearly more accurate and descriptive so everyone should use it.
More seriously — yes, the word is awkward — but as you mention, it’s been in use for several years, so it’s now just a part of language.
(*) hat tip to IT columnist Bob Lewis for the wording
Re:
You are right. There is nothing funny about large corporations offering worse products at higher prices just so that the company can continue making profits and keeping the stock price inflated until the board sells the company off. if only there was a word or shorter phrase for that practice…
well
Who wants disney content?
It’s basically rabid man hating poor quality Z-list celebrities in major leading roles, with scripts that were generated by AI.
Re:
Well, the people who went to 4 out of the 10 top-grossing films of the year up to this point, I guess.
Re: Re:
Disney content? Sure. Paying Disney for it? Absolutely not. That’s why I’ll keep buying preowned until physical media no longer exists, then I’m happy to do without so as to provide Disney zero excuses for making copyright laws even worse than they have already.