US government seizes streaming sites Atdhe, Channelsurfing, more

Emil

Posts: 152   +0
In the last 24 hours, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement branch (ICE) have seized several domains belonging to major streaming websites, most of which focused on sports. The following 10 domains were taken down: atdhe.net, channelsurfing.net, firstrow.net, hq-streams.com, hq-streams.net, ilemi.com, iilemi.net, iilemii.com, rojadirecta.com and rojadirecta.org. TorrentFreak called the move a "Super Bowl Crackdown" (this year's game...

Read the whole story
 

treeski

Posts: 1,006   +248
What is the reason for seizing these sites? I don't know anything about them and am a little confused...
 

madboyv1

Posts: 1,626   +516
well, if they were streaming sites that particularly dealt with sports, then it would be an attempt to begin thwartting the capabilities of people and companies to stream the superbowl and other sports through unauthorized channels.

At least, that's probably the reason they're gonna tell us, if ever. =p
 

aj_the_kidd

Posts: 555   +0
My understanding is that these sites allow you to watch tv shows online and since companies pay HUGE dollars in advertisement and the adds are generally removed they are not getting what they paid for, also pay-per-view events are also streamed, particularly the UFC and boxing, should be self explanatory there.
 

howzz1854

Posts: 611   +94
every year the cable networks bid on the right to broadcast the super bowl. the winner of the bid gets to broadcast it (ie. CBS, NBC, or ABC). the goal is to sell advertisements during that prime time. the argument is that because you spent HUGE dollars to purchase the sole broadcasting right for super bowl, no one should be stealing those audiences (who would be watching the advertising) by distributing the super bowl game through unauthorized streaming channel.

that's basically the whole television broadcast business model.
 

seefizzle

Posts: 422   +292
I use atdhe.net all the time. Someone tell me exactly what matters about streaming a channel over the internet? Am I not watching the same ads that are paying for the original broadcast? If NBC, or Comcast, or anybody else would simply put their broadcast online for me to watch I'd go through official channels. I will not however, pay any extra for this. I already pay for cable and internet, I'm not paying to watch cable on the internet.
 

aj_the_kidd

Posts: 555   +0
howzz1854 said:
every year the cable networks bid on the right to broadcast the super bowl. the winner of the bid gets to broadcast it (ie. CBS, NBC, or ABC). the goal is to sell advertisements during that prime time. the argument is that because you spent HUGE dollars to purchase the sole broadcasting right for super bowl, no one should be stealing those audiences (who would be watching the advertising) by distributing the super bowl game through unauthorized streaming channel.

that's basically the whole television broadcast business model.
Also nationally speaking its the single event which gets the most viewers in America, by far, so companies spend lots of time and money creating adds specifically for the superbowl.
P.S. Go Packers
 

dividebyzero

Posts: 4,840   +1,267
Also nationally speaking its the single event which gets the most viewers in America, by far, so companies spend lots of time and money creating adds specifically for the superbowl.
P.S. Go Packers
1. Black Eyed Peas are the halftime "entertainment"
2. Lame ad's by GoDaddy.com etc. hyped because they're "superbowl ad's"
3. Viewing interrupted by random Jerry Jones shots
4. Obligatory Favre comments by booth announcers regardless of audio feed if/when the Pack take the lead
5. Joe Buck inducting "The Ben" into the HoF the moment he runs in/ throws for a touchdown.
6. Troy Aikman analysing Troy Polamalu and Clay Matthews hair care regime (if this happens then the only thing saving SB XLV is a last second hail-mary touchdown win or a drunken Joe Namath making a lunge for Pam Oliver on camera)

Given this, the NFL and Fox should be paying the sports viewing public to watch the game.
 

Tanstar

Posts: 659   +201
First off, 90% of what is shown on these sites are available as free over-the-air broadcasts, but not everyone can get them over-the-air. Secondly, all the ads are still there, so they are giving their clients additional eyes at no cost to the broadcaster.

Now, this might all still be illegal and, if so, the government has a responsibility to do something about it.

But The Department of Homeland Security???? How is this protecting Americans from terrorists? That's the ONLY reason this organization was created. Here is the email I sent The Department of Homeland Security concerning this today:

"I can fully see how sites such as channelsurfing.net would be illegal. I can see the US seizing those sites. What I can't see is how the Department of Homeland Security had any business investigating or taking down the sites in question. Your Strategic Plan states:

"This Department of Homeland Security?s overriding and urgent mission is to lead the unified national effort to secure the country and preserve our freedoms. While the Department was created to secure our country against those who seek to disrupt the American way of life, our charter also includes preparation for and response to all hazards and disasters. The citizens of the United States must have the utmost confidence that the Department can execute both of these missions."

Guess what? Seeing you waste time and manpower on frivolous **** like this does NOT inspire "the utmost confidence that the Department can execute both of these missions." Instead, it seems you're too busy helping big businesses like the NFL and network TV (whose commercials are still seen by everyone watching these broadcasts) pull in every red cent they can get, to even be looking for any of "those who seek to disrupt the American way of life."

Get your **** together and do what you were made to do, protect Americans from terrorists!"

Might not have been a smart email, but it felt good!
 

Mizzou

Posts: 783   +0
"I can fully see how sites such as channelsurfing.net would be illegal. I can see the US seizing those sites. What I can't see is how the Department of Homeland Security had any business investigating or taking down the sites in question. Your Strategic Plan states:

"This Department of Homeland Security?s overriding and urgent mission is to lead the unified national effort to secure the country and preserve our freedoms. While the Department was created to secure our country against those who seek to disrupt the American way of life, our charter also includes preparation for and response to all hazards and disasters. The citizens of the United States must have the utmost confidence that the Department can execute both of these missions." ...

Might not have been a smart email, but it felt good!
I happen to agree with you regarding Homeland Security being involved in this operation and thought you were doing really well with your email up to about this point :approve: You probably have nothing to worry about unless you start noticing a black Suburban with dark tinted windows parked across the street :)
 

Tanstar

Posts: 659   +201
I included my full mailing address so that they wouldn't feel the need to squander too many resources finding me if they need to send said black Suburban.
 

aj_the_kidd

Posts: 555   +0
dividebyzero said:
Given this, the NFL and Fox should be paying the sports viewing public to watch the game.
Luckily for me i live in Australia so i'm at work when the game is on so i can record it and simply skip the Ads, not that we get the same ones you Americans get, but same principles apply. If the NFL wants to pay me to watch then i would be more then glad to :)
Tanstar said:
"I can fully see how sites such as channelsurfing.net would be illegal. I can see the US seizing those sites. What I can't see is how the Department of Homeland Security had any business investigating or taking down the sites in question.
You make a good point, considering these sites are owned by American companies and there has been no mention of these companies aiding terrorist, why would the DOD care
 

aj_the_kidd

Posts: 555   +0
Tanstar said:
I included my full mailing address so that they wouldn't feel the need to squander too many resources finding me if they need to send said black Suburban.
Hope you haven't gotten any flights booked in the near future they might get you back with a cavity search :p
 

SNGX1275

Posts: 10,600   +457
Man this sucks, I used channelsurfing to find a lot of sports games. I don't have cable tv because it costs too much and has 95% content I don't care about. Also I live right at the extreme edge of 3 cities that broadcast OTA, as a result I don't get any signals good enough to have OTA TV. So in almost every case I used channelsurfing it was for stuff that was free OTA anyway.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,211   +4,970
1. Black Eyed Peas are the halftime "entertainment"
2. Lame ad's by GoDaddy.com etc. hyped because they're "superbowl ad's"
3. Viewing interrupted by random Jerry Jones shots
4. Obligatory Favre comments by booth announcers regardless of audio feed if/when the Pack take the lead
5. Joe Buck inducting "The Ben" into the HoF the moment he runs in/ throws for a touchdown.
6. Troy Aikman analysing Troy Polamalu and Clay Matthews hair care regime (if this happens then the only thing saving SB XLV is a last second hail-mary touchdown win or a drunken Joe Namath making a lunge for Pam Oliver on camera)

Given this, the NFL and Fox should be paying the sports viewing public to watch the game.
I guess there's not much of a chance for a quick halftime glimpse of Fergie's possibly saggy rack, then is there?
 

IAMTHESTIG

Posts: 1,868   +900
So this is what DoHS is doing now? What the hell does that have to do with the security of our country???? I don't feel safe in my own country anymore... time to buy more guns I guess.
 

dividebyzero

Posts: 4,840   +1,267
I guess there's not much of a chance for a quick halftime glimpse of Fergie's possibly saggy rack, then is there?
Probably only going to happen if she and Jerry Jones compare cosmetic surgery scars. My guess is that the NFL have already turned Joe Buck into a "Manchurian Candidate", whereapon at the first sign of impending impropriety he detonates his C-4 packed microphone to disrupt the live video feed- thereby saving America, and the World from improper use of the airwaves (Terrible Towel waving Yinzers and foam rubber cheese hat wearers excepted).

Luckily for me i live in Australia so i'm at work when the game is on so i can record it and simply skip the Ads, not that we get the same ones you Americans get, but same principles apply. If the NFL wants to pay me to watch then i would be more then glad to :)
I'm actually a Kiwi (by way of north London) aj - Just slighty indoctrinated to the U.S. scene through living there for a period of time. The game here will be screened on ESPN -but we'll still be subjected to the Fox broadcast crew. I usually forgo ESPN and view on Firstrow (p2p4u)- might need to hunt around and find out what domain they're using now.
 

aj_the_kidd

Posts: 555   +0
Not too invested in the SB this year, fricking Pats choked, so i'm happy even to watch the re-run less adds and they cut out allot of none sense commentating and just show the game.
Back on topic i have used atdhe.net for sports games so luckily i can now go to atdhenet.tv, didnt take long for a work around great job DoD, that was money well spent
 

Wendig0

Posts: 1,156   +146
This is way beyond the scope of what DoHS was created for. They're getting way too big (as is the rest of the government) for their proverbial britches.
 

SNGX1275

Posts: 10,600   +457
Back on topic i have used atdhe.net for sports games so luckily i can now go to atdhenet.tv, didnt take long for a work around great job DoD, that was money well spent
Thanks :) And indeed, I'm glad my taxpayer money is so effective at getting things done.
 
G

Guest

It's more about PPV then the Superbowl. There's a huge UFC ppv and the UFC has recently pulled out all the stops to go after these streaming sites. They've proven that 50,000 + people watch these streams from just a couple of sites. At 50 dollars a pop.
 

aj_the_kidd

Posts: 555   +0
IAMTHESTIG said:
What the hell does that have to do with the security of our country?
Maybe some DoHS big wig misinterpreted a memo about cracking down on piracy, as in sea pirates, for media piracy and everyone just went along with it
 
G

Guest

Sure. Minor problem with this: The networks do not themselves offer a streaming option, at any price! Their goal is to force consumers to buy a ton of outdated broadcasting (other TV channels and shows they don't want at all other times) by locking it with exclusive Superbowl coverage. I believe that kind of coupling is a crime, called antitrust. Micorsoft got in trouble for it by coupling their OS with various other products that no one wanted. But nevermind about that, Attorney General. That's big rich corporate fatcats that have the money to lobby you. Not the poor suffering consumer, with no lobbyist.
 

SNGX1275

Posts: 10,600   +457
Sure. Minor problem with this: The networks do not themselves offer a streaming option, at any price! Their goal is to force consumers to buy a ton of outdated broadcasting (other TV channels and shows they don't want at all other times) by locking it with exclusive Superbowl coverage.
The problem with that thinking is that for 99% of the population in the US it is available as a free over the air HD broadcast. So you only need to have a digital tuner and a TV, no bundled anything.