Fingon Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 This is a gigantic waste of time. They shut down the .net address, so it becomes .tv, and then .nfo, etc...
metzelaars_lives Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I'm honestly SHOCKED it took this long. Blatant copyright infringement. They almost celebrated it. Here we go... Yeah, it's TERRIBLE of the government to crack down on those who openly steal intellectual property. Land of the Free? I hear flights to Egypt are real cheap if you're so upset. I knew this was going to turn into thread of idiots before I opened up. How predictable- a website which illegally streamed sporting events, which hard working people have to pay for via cable TV or going to a sports bar, and now Obama is a Socialist. As if Obama himself has spent countless hours worrying about this.
Just in Atlanta Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 What an appropriate job for Immigration Control and Enforcement--enforcing illegal...content. This country is in trouble when the government can just pull the plug on free speech with no action from the courts. Meanwhile, Egypt is doing the same thing and we condemn. Don't care about who you voted for, but if you think this is an appropriate thing to happen in a free society, you've got issues, Democrat or Republican. These sites, and many more, are being pulled with no intervention from the courts. This is an overreach of the federal government, and smacks of what's going on in Egypt right now. I knew this was going to turn into thread of idiots before I opened up. How predictable- a website which illegally streamed sporting events, which hard working people have to pay for via cable TV or going to a sports bar, and now Obama is a Socialist. As if Obama himself has spent countless hours worrying about this. Don't care about who you voted for, but if you think this is an appropriate thing to happen in a free society, you've got issues, Democrat or Republican. These sites, and many more, are being pulled with no intervention from the courts. This is an overreach of the federal government, and smacks of what's going on in Egypt right now. I knew this was going to turn into thread of idiots before I opened up. How predictable- a website which illegally streamed sporting events, which hard working people have to pay for via cable TV or going to a sports bar, and now Obama is a Socialist. As if Obama himself has spent countless hours worrying about this.
Justice Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Just playing devil's advocate here, but the reason why this is a homeland security issue is because of the tax dollars lost from those that would normally purchase the right to view these various events legally, and as we all know, our military is funded from our tax money. At the same time, this attempt will prove to be futile, because it's just way too easy for these websites to move to a new domain.
MikeSpeed Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I can see blocking illegal movies and music downloads, but the NFL games are broadcasted over the air by the visiting team's channel at least. Would it be illegal if I had a big enough antenna that could receive every over the air broadcast in the USA? Wow I could make millions selling that antenna. Almost all TV companies stream their content (Non-sporting events) within a week of the broadcast now. And why does radio get to stream everything live and not TV? I'm in Detroit right now, but I can listen to 97 Rock on-line. The local radio stations here aren't whinning about it. ESPN3 streams the college football games, and can still blackout regions somehow. So why can't the NFL stream all the games and blackout the regions too? The NFL Sunday Ticket that's why. It just seems like pick and choose what is legal and what is not. Or maybe it's not a legal problem but just the NFL being extremely greedy. If that's the case, is it really a federal goverment issue? Wouldn't it be more of a civil issue? I'm so confused?
Boatdrinks Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Funny how everyone here is so quick to defend Fox news, Capitalism, and free markets as a concept, but when it involves actually PAYING THE MARKET RATE for a product such as football, it's OK to shirk those concepts if a free but "stolen" source is available. Classic.
PromoTheRobot Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Just playing devil's advocate here, but the reason why this is a homeland security issue is because of the tax dollars lost from those that would normally purchase the right to view these various events legally, and as we all know, our military is funded from our tax money. At the same time, this attempt will prove to be futile, because it's just way too easy for these websites to move to a new domain. My beef is not with the sites getting shut down, it's my tax dollars being spent to protect corporate interests. If it's unwed mothers on food stamps we call it welfare. But when it's a billion-dollar business it's what? Not to mention the diverting of time and effort from defending against real terrorism. PTR
Just in Atlanta Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Agree somewhat. But this issue is not about paying the market rate. It's about unfettered federal government power to seize anything it wants with no due process. Unless you're a fascist, that should scare you. If these sites are illegal, shut them down with the court system, not DHS and ICE. Funny how everyone here is so quick to defend Fox news, Capitalism, and free markets as a concept, but when it involves actually PAYING THE MARKET RATE for a product such as football, it's OK to shirk those concepts if a free but "stolen" source is available. Classic.
Fezmid Posted February 3, 2011 Author Posted February 3, 2011 And why does radio get to stream everything live and not TV? I'm in Detroit right now, but I can listen to 97 Rock on-line. The local radio stations here aren't whinning about it. Back in the 90s when people started streaming radio, they were being shutdown. Radio stations can stream now because they PAY for it. And not every radio station streams -- not for technical reasons (well, I'm sure some do), but because they haven't paid for retransmission rights.
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Agree somewhat. But this issue is not about paying the market rate. It's about unfettered federal government power to seize anything it wants with no due process. Unless you're a fascist, that should scare you. If these sites are illegal, shut them down with the court system, not DHS and ICE. First: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/126672-atdhenet-and-channelsurfingnet-seized-by-government/page__view__findpost__p__2099342 Second: the IPRCC got a court order first. It wasn't an arbitrary seizure, due process was followed, you moron.
DreReed83 Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Dont know how im going to watch the games now.
Fezmid Posted February 3, 2011 Author Posted February 3, 2011 What an appropriate job for Immigration Control and Enforcement--enforcing illegal...content. This country is in trouble when the government can just pull the plug on free speech with no action from the courts. Meanwhile, Egypt is doing the same thing and we condemn. Do you know what free speech actually means....? Or are you one of the people who posts that your rights are being violated when a mod deletes an offending post on TSW? Also - from the notification, it seems to me that they DID get court approval. It states, "in accordance with a seizure warrant." Doesn't a warrant require a judge? I could be mistaken there in this context though. EDIT: Tom beat me to it, so I now I know I'm right.
DonInBuffalo Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I ran a few trace routes, and discovered that channelsurfing.net, atdhe.net, and rojadirecta.org all resolved to the same hosting company. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that's not a coincidence.
Ramius Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 After reading this thread, I'm still shocked that there are some on the board who say that I have no respect for intellectual property... They have adopted and changed their business plans... There are any number of ways to watch TV and movies online now. You can stream games through to your Sprint phone (according to the commercials during NFL games, anyway). You can watch games with DirecTV's streaming service. You can watch movies/TV shows through Hulu, Netflix, Blockbuster Online. You can stream the NBC game of the week online. The difference is people in this thread want to be able to watch them for *free.*. The RIAA screwed up by trying to shut the digital doors completely, but TV/movies haven't really done that - there are options. People want to watch them for free because of the outrageous prices being charged by the NFL for sunday ticket. If they were to come up with a reasonable pricing strategy, more people would purchase it. Instead, they insist on gouging the **** out of the NFL fan for $400 to watch 16 games. The music industry finally came up with a system that works. Instead of paying $15 for a CD where i like 3 of the 12 songs, i can now buy just those 3 songs for $3-4. In the same vein, why should people pay $400 when they are only going to watch 1-2 games per week (seeing how all the NFL games are on at the same time, its impossible to watch all of them). Charge $100-150 for someone to get a "team" pass and lots more people will sign up.
metzelaars_lives Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Funny how everyone here is so quick to defend Fox news, Capitalism, and free markets as a concept, but when it involves actually PAYING THE MARKET RATE for a product such as football, it's OK to shirk those concepts if a free but "stolen" source is available. Classic. Exactly. I thought the Republicans are all about "workin for a livin, earnin everything they get, no handouts..." but somehow are all about getting illegal free NFL games on their computer without paying like the rest of us who get the ticket or watch games at a sports bar. The guy/administration can't win for losin with the idiots of this country. Then again these are the same people who proclaim to support American jobs, blue collar workers, etc. and then vote to further empower and de-regulate private American companies who then move more jobs to foreign countries right in front of their faces, but they're too stupid to realize what's going on. Edited February 3, 2011 by metzelaars_lives
MikeSpeed Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Back in the 90s when people started streaming radio, they were being shutdown. Radio stations can stream now because they PAY for it. And not every radio station streams -- not for technical reasons (well, I'm sure some do), but because they haven't paid for retransmission rights. Do you know if it is possible for TV stations to stream their content if they pay for it?
Fezmid Posted February 3, 2011 Author Posted February 3, 2011 People want to watch them for free because of the outrageous prices being charged by the NFL for sunday ticket. If they were to come up with a reasonable pricing strategy, more people would purchase it. Instead, they insist on gouging the **** out of the NFL fan for $400 to watch 16 games. The music industry finally came up with a system that works. Instead of paying $15 for a CD where i like 3 of the 12 songs, i can now buy just those 3 songs for $3-4. In the same vein, why should people pay $400 when they are only going to watch 1-2 games per week (seeing how all the NFL games are on at the same time, its impossible to watch all of them). Charge $100-150 for someone to get a "team" pass and lots more people will sign up. First, Sunday ticket is $334 -- http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/sports/nfl So if you only care about one team, you're paying ~$20/game if you pay full price. Watch a couple of games every week (17*2), and it's only $9.82/game. Yeah, that's a real ripoff. Most people don't even pay that much for the Ticket . I paid around $200-$250 last year if I remember correctly. If you don't have/want DirecTV, you can get it via broadband for $350 -- not much more than if you have DirecTV and still only $20/game. But be honest, you want it for free. Do you know if it is possible for TV stations to stream their content if they pay for it? Everything's available for a price, but I'm sure it would be cost prohibitive since the networks want eyes going to their main site (NBC.com instead of the local affiliate).
Ramius Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 First, Sunday ticket is $334 -- http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/sports/nfl So if you only care about one team, you're paying ~$20/game if you pay full price. Watch a couple of games every week (17*2), and it's only $9.82/game. Yeah, that's a real ripoff. Most people don't even pay that much for the Ticket . I paid around $200-$250 last year if I remember correctly. If you don't have/want DirecTV, you can get it via broadband for $350 -- not much more than if you have DirecTV and still only $20/game. But be honest, you want it for free. Everything's available for a price, but I'm sure it would be cost prohibitive since the networks want eyes going to their main site (NBC.com instead of the local affiliate). Well, duh, i do want it for free. But i'm also willing to pay a reasonable price to watch the Bills. $350 is not reasonable. $150 is. As for the cheaper price, the best they could come up with last season for my buddy was $250, with another $100 for the HD. So we went to the bar instead.
Fezmid Posted February 3, 2011 Author Posted February 3, 2011 Well, duh, i do want it for free. But i'm also willing to pay a reasonable price to watch the Bills. $350 is not reasonable. $150 is. As for the cheaper price, the best they could come up with last season for my buddy was $250, with another $100 for the HD. So we went to the bar instead. You're thinking two years ago -- last year there was no extra charge for HD, there was only an extra charge for streaming. And if you went to the bar every week, you spent far more than $250.
billsintaiwan Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 well i watch the same bloody commercials everyone else does when i watch the bills online. i guess it doesn't count in the tv station's ratings, but the tv station is still doing what it is intended to do: sell viewers to advertisers. mind you i don't understand the swedish commercials when they stream the prime time games. anyway, this is much ado about nothing. i'd be upset if i paid taxes. it is a very silly exercise. atdhe is back already. i'm sure it will be no problem to watch the superbowl. and i might pay a buck a game. the nfl does very well. selling access to games and taking endless bucks from advertisers is a bit much.
Recommended Posts