Congratulations Slingshot. You have had more publicity out of this than you would ever have got from the advertising you have lost. I am still trying to make up my mind whether it was a clever marketing ploy on your part or you got lucky.
At least TVNZ had the sense to simply say it was for competitive reasons rather than invoke the piracy/intellectual property rights argument.
macuser: I agree with TVNZ, under the principle that they are not required to advertise a competitors product.
I have no issue with that. What I have issue with is Sky trying to paint users circumventing geoblocks to legally pay for and stream content, as performing illegal activities. They are trying to get the general public to equate doing this with piracy, which is the same verbiage that Foxtel and other providers in Australia have tried to sneak into conversations around their outdated business models.
And don't discount its effect either. I had to reassure my wife last night that we're not actually breaking any laws doing what we do.
As I commented earlier in this thread, I wonder if Slingshot may have some options for recourse against Sky for slander/libel. Sky have publicly called the service illegal, which they almost certainly know is untrue and said only to damage the reputation of a competing service.
I agree, Sky is doing exactly as you say - unfortunately what Sky is doing is working, a couple people have asked me if it was illegal.
The ironic thing is that it is legal, but streaming the format shifted collection of DVDs we own from a HDD sitting upstairs is not. My wife has no issue with that though, as it saves having 300 odd DVDs cluttering up the lounge. :-)
The ironic thing is that it is legal, but streaming the format shifted collection of DVDs we own from a HDD sitting upstairs is not. My wife has no issue with that though, as it saves having 300 odd DVDs cluttering up the lounge. :-)
Some would have all of it showing off in the lounge.
If MediaWorks follows suite will Slingshot have any grounds to go the Advertizing standards Authority and complain about the TV advertizing of their legal IPS product being block by TV networks??
I don't believe it has ever actually been tested in court, and all we are going on so far is some lawyers opinions based on interpretations of various other laws. Laws that were written long before video streaming became a 'thing'.
It's hard to argue it is definitely legal or illegal right now. It seems probably legal, but we can't be sure.
So it will be interesting to see what happens if/when it does go to court.
(and lets not forget, laws can change - see the whole debacle with synthetic pot recently)
BlueShift: It will be interesting to see if TVNZ will be running ads for Lightbox, which is a much more direct competitor to their offerings.
Yeah, and where does it stop? Do they stop running ads for any ISPs that advertise large download allowances to cater for streaming content, either explicitly or implicitly stated?
BlueShift: It will be interesting to see if TVNZ will be running ads for Lightbox, which is a much more direct competitor to their offerings.
Yeah, and where does it stop? Do they stop running ads for any ISPs that advertise large download allowances to cater for streaming content, either explicitly or implicitly stated?
Congratulations TVNZ and Sky. Your ban just gave Slingshot the best free advertising they could have ever wanted. Thanks Slingshot for listening to the customers for a change!!
old3eyes: If MediaWorks follows suite will Slingshot have any grounds to go the Advertizing standards Authority and complain about the TV advertizing of their legal IPS product being block by TV networks??
Porn is legal, you don't see that on the 6PM news. You also don't see TV3's ads on TV1...
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
2degrees
