ICE Seizes 300 More Sites; Can't Have People Watching Super Bowl Ads Without Permission

from the advertisements-without-permission? dept

Despite the massive failures of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) program to seize domains on questionable legal theories, it's right back at it. ICE has just seized over 300 domains apparently all related to the Super Bowl (of course). They did this last year too... and now the US government is in court over it with the Rojadirecta sites. Many of the sites were selling counterfeit merchandise, which is a more reasonable target, but still seems to be overblown. I'm still at a loss as to how this is any of the government's concern, rather than a civil issue that could be taken up by the NFL itself. Do we really want law enforcement officials spending time working for the NFL?

Sixteen of the sites in question, however, were supposedly offering video streaming -- which is what Rojadirecta was accused of doing (under a bogus legal theory, since it didn't actually offer the streams, but merely links). In this case, ICE also arrested one guy for running a streaming site:
Additionally, Yonjo Quiroa, 28, of Comstock Park, Mich., was arrested Wednesday by special agents with HSI. He is charged with one count of criminal infringement of a copyright related to his operation of websites that illegally streamed live sporting event telecasts and pay-per-view events over the Internet. Quiroa operated nine of the 16 streaming websites that were seized, and he operated them from his home in Michigan until yesterday's arrest.

The website seizures during Operation Fake Sweep represent the 10th phase of Operation In Our Sites, a sustained law enforcement initiative targeting counterfeiting and piracy on the Internet. The 307 websites are in the process of being seized by law enforcement, and will soon be in the custody of the federal government. Visitors to these websites will then find a seizure banner that notifies them that the domain name has been seized by federal authorities and educates them that willful copyright infringement is a federal crime.
Of course, this has to raise a pretty significant question: exactly how is someone streaming the Super Bowl harming... well... anyone? The entire point of the Super Bowl is to get as many people watching the advertisements as possible. Having the game streamed only increases the number of people watching those ads. Who, exactly, is harmed by this?

In discussing these particular website seizures (not the ones about counterfeiting products), ICE ridiculously declares that it's somehow protecting American ideas from being stolen. Do they even realize how idiotic that sounds? What "idea" is being stolen when someone makes it easier to watch the ads that go with the Super Bowl?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    JayTee (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 1:29pm

    Companies paid good money for those adds... these people are stealing !!!!

    =]

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Tim K (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 1:37pm

      Re:

      And those companies should want as many streaming videos of the super bowl as they can get so they can get a bigger audience

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 3:19pm

        Re: Re:

        All but 16 of the sites were selling fake merchandise.

        Maybe one of the few streaming sites was one of Masnick's favorites.

        waa waa.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          BeeAitch (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 6:07pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "All but 16 of the sites were selling fake merchandise."

          Got a citation for that, AC?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 6:26pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
               
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 1:50am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              oh, and btw, fuck you, freetard.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Some Other AC (profile), Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 6:34am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Way to make an intelligent and thoughtful response. I find it absolutely telling that the ACs who support the more draconian methods of enforcing government sanctioned monopoly rents on the legacy content industries are some of the first to respond with "citation needed".
                Yet, when this query/response is used in rebuttal to a statement you make, you resort to childish and irrational responses. You response with the link to provide the "citation" requested was sufficient. Any thing after that did not directly support the initial response/rebuttal was inane and proved your childish mentality.
                I think it is great that Techdirt allows for anonymous commenting, but find my patience taxed by the likes of you and your lackeys.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 11:25am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  "I think it is great that Techdirt allows for anonymous commenting, but find my patience taxed by the likes of you and your lackeys."

                  Feel free to leave, boy.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      JayTee (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 1:39pm

      Re:

      (disclaimer) =] is my sarcastic face

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Robert A. Rosenberg (profile), Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 9:40pm

      Re: Paying For Ads

      JayTee posted "Companies paid good money for those adds... these people are stealing !!!!"

      It is not the companies who paid the network whose produce is in theory being "stolen". It is the network's fee for delivering the eyeballs. If I am a company who wants my ad to be aired, I am charged based on the network airing for x number of households. By streaming the game and the embedded ads, you are, in theory, adding to the number of households/eyeballs which means that the companies should be happy since they are not being charged for all the viewers.

      Note that I am not taking a view on if such streaming is right but only pointing out who is in theory being "harmed" which is the network NOT the sponsor.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Glen, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 1:36pm

    Publicity is a good thing...er...bad thing...er. Oh hell, I give up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Michael (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 1:37pm

    OTA is Stealing

    For the second straight year I will be watching the Superbowl OTA, for free. (Well, really for the cost of renting my eyeballs to advertisers.)

    How can it be a crime to stream the Superbowl, or any programming, that is simultaneously broadcast over the air for free?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Togashi (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 3:07pm

      Re: OTA is Stealing

      Well, you see, to watch it OTA you have to have a television. If you stream it over the internet, the need for a television is removed.

      How can watching the Super Bowl without a television be legal?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Phillip (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 1:38pm

    I'm sure people will go find a legitimate stream now...

    I'm sure everyone that would've used these sites will now find a legitimate stream. Of course that assumes such a thing even exists.

    Most likely they'll just find someplace else to watch the ads/superbowl.
    Especially since many of the users are likely not even inside the US and can't even legally get access to the event if they wanted to fork over gobs of cash.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      CeeVee, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:46pm

      Re: I'm sure people will go find a legitimate stream now...

      I live in the UK and enjoy watching American Football. During the regular season showed I watched the Sunday matches on ITV HD.
      The NFL offers a season pass where you can watch all the regular season matches over the web. Unfortunately this does not include the playoff matches in the UK, so I watched the playoffs via a streaming website.
      I'll watch the Superbowl in HD on the BBC on Sunday, which because it's a non-commercial channel doesn't include any of the commercials.
      As a fan my choice is to watch via TV because of the better picture quality, but where it's not available I'll settle for a web stream.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 1:47pm

    there was absolutely no need for this move. it has only been done because it can be done! i bet there are a lot of very pleased and proud Super Bowl people celebrating tonight! good on ya!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Indy, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 1:48pm

    300 sites!?

    This is getting to be a bigger tradition than the game itself!

    Can you imagine the government 10 years from now blocking 20,000 sites that offer content to the planet?

    At what point do they say, "OK, this is too much, let's just get the top 345,000 sources of football."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      ITSOVER, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 3:16pm

      Re: 300 sites!?

      lol in 10 years the internet probably won't exist the way we know it now. It'll just be a few select websites pre-selected for our viewing/reading pleasure. Heavily moderated of course to remove any and all comments against the establishment.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    BentFranklin (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 1:48pm

    I can understand why this is a criminal case. But why is it Homeland Security? Security infrastructure mission creep and continual widening of the definition of terrorism is a real threat.

    As for the ads, the only thing I can think of they should be upset about is local ads. But I'm pretty sure this is more about control than money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    BentFranklin (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 1:50pm

    Oh, and I sure hope that foot model Tom Brady loses!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:14pm

      Re:

      I still find it hilarious that super bowl MVP Tom Brady, during the official media day, stated that he watched last year's super bowl on an illegal website.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:17pm

        Re: Re:

        http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/tom-brady-used-illegal-stream-watch-super-bowl-163 414793.html

        From the article:
        Brady made around $588,000 per game, plus his wife Gisele Bundchen is a gajillionaire supermodel. (OK, she's worth $150 million which is still a whole lot of money.) You would think they could find a legal stream and pay for it, but that option was not available last year.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          RD, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 3:07pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "You would think they could find a legal stream and pay for it, but that option was not available last year."

          And this is what the fuck-nuts who run Big Media need to get through their thick fucking skulls (and yes, the cursing IS necessary, to hammer the frustration home):

          IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE A LEGAL WAY FOR SOMEONE TO GET IT, THEY WILL GET IT ANYWAY IN SPITE OF YOU.

          This PSA has been brought to you by "Piracy has ALWAYS BEEN a part of the market, and always will be. You can't legislate or sue it away. Deal with it, or stop whining, because it's YOUR FAULT if it is a more popular (or only) option."

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Tim K (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 1:53pm

    Whatever happened to the investigation Rep. Zoe Lofgren was wanting after the Dajaz1 incident...?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ben (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 1:58pm

    Pre-Crime

    I'm pretty sure the Super Bowl hasn't happened yet, so unless the seizures are in response to the sites' streaming of last year's, then they haven't (and could not have) streamed the Super Bowl. Time-space continuum issues aside, what proof of imminent crime is needed to seize a business? I doubt that these sites advertised their impending streaming, but rather that a user can reasonably assume it will be streamed.

    Also, since this is obviously motivated by the content industry, will the seizure page link to the official free-stream? Yeah, probably not.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:19pm

      Re: Pre-Crime

      The Super Bowl isn't mentioned anywhere by ICE. It's Masnick making up his own interpretations again.

      Maybe Masnick was planning on watching the Super Bowl on one of those sites.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:42pm

      Re: Pre-Crime

      They were sites that streamed sporting and pay-per-view events. So it could be safely assumed they would stream upcoming sporting events, but they are not being charged with future crimes. They are being shutdown for their previous streaming activity.

      ICE has a tendency to do these massive stings before large events like this. They had a big round of seizures right before last years super bowl as well. Because all kinds of people are going to rush out and buy HD cable and have it installed in time for the game now. Or watch it for free over theri rabbit ears but whatever, ICE will get around to arresting these antennas soon enough.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:03pm

    New domain name? -Check
    Wikipedia the US relations with the TLD country? -Check
    48 hours left before superbowl to allow DNS propagation? -Check
    Make sure to email all members the new URL? -Check

    How much money did ICE waste on this again?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:05pm

    Here's an idea...

    Someone needs to release a little widget that overlays a small piece of text over an inconspicuous place of any video being presented that proclaims that...

    "This video is being presented to make a political COMMENT about the IMPORTANCE of FAIR USE within our society."

    Then distribute the code to implement it and let the streams begin... :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Al Bert (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 8:50pm

      Re: Here's an idea...

      Oh i'm sorry, but "Free Speech TM" is a registered trademark of the US Constitution TM. Any political statements contrary to the will of the Establishment are in direct violation of our Intellectual Property.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:05pm

    The streamers are "stealing" from the network

    the network gets paid (next year) based on the viewership... the stats will be off and they'll get less per ad if you don't count the people watching online.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      MrWilson, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:18pm

      Re: The streamers are "stealing" from the network

      This argument only works if there are legal streams or broadcasts everywhere that someone might want to watch it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:19pm

      Re: The streamers are "stealing" from the network

      Presumably the folks watching these streams don't have a legitimate outlet to watch the game/ads...so not letting them stream takes nothing away from the legitimate channels.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      saulgoode (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:34pm

      Re: The streamers are "stealing" from the network

      Rather than say "we don't want more customers because we can't count them", perhaps they should devise better methods of counting.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:49pm

      Re: The streamers are "stealing" from the network

      They don't count real viewer ratings. All rating info is extrapolated from Nielsen still, another wonderfully stupid and outdated monopoly*. So unless a Nielsen family was going to stream the game it won't affect the "ratings"

      Yes, despite us living in an age were networks could be given real time viewer information accurate to the person, they still use Nielsen ratings. Yet another legacy industry that has become completely counter-productive that just refuses to go away.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 3:43pm

      Re: The streamers are "stealing" from the network

      Ahh well good thing for them the entire threat of online piracy of the Super Bowl is being addressed by the fact NBC is streaming the game live all by itself... well except for all those people they will likely cut themselves off from being paid for overseas who will need to watch the game illegally because NBC will probably not allow them to watch it legally.

      http://www.nbc.com/super-bowl/

      It's almost as if they're doing a pre-emptive strike to make sure they never have to admit that the reduction in piracy of the super bowl streaming has anything to do with the fact they're offering it. Why would anyone watch a crappy stream when they can watch it in HD on their laptop legally.

      Oh!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Laughatbs, Feb 23rd, 2012 @ 10:21pm

      Re: The streamers are "stealing" from the network

      Yeah... Because the ratings make laws... Wait what? Ok provide a stream for the game as a ppv... No such thing? Ok then the NFL needs to move into the 21st century and make one. No excuse though for anyone in the US, it's broadcasted on regular tv(not cable) so don't see what the big deal is for a free Internet stream.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    A different Mike (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:20pm

    Blame the advertizing

    Commercials that air on network TV can be both National and local. The cost for National advertizing is a heck of a lot more expensive than advertizing at the local level. Honda (for example) will be paying big bucks to advertize nationally. Joe's Pizza Shack in rural Idaho will only pay a fraction of that to advertize in their local market. If they allow some kid in Idaho to stream the Superbowl, Joe's Pizza's ad reaches people all over the globe. So in a sense, Honda and other National-level advertisers are being "hurt" because they are being charged more for the same global coverage.

    How many peopl ewill watch that kid's stream? The NFL and the network don't know, and can't monetize it, so sorry kid, no stream for you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Makoto (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:30pm

    It's Okay Though

    99% of the ads I'll be able to watch on Youtube either the same day or a week later, and most of the notable football action I'll be able to see about two weeks later. No harm, no foul; advertisers get their publicity, and the NFL doesn't overreact to their copyright being infringed.

    ICE, you're still doing it wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Another Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:35pm

    NBC paid a boat load to air the SB. What they can charge advertisers is based on how many people are watching. If peeps are watching elsewhere than they cannot be counted and NBC has to charge less. DUH! Dont you people every think through what Mike posts or just say BAAAAA! and follow the herd?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:52pm

      Re:

      They don't have those numbers and most would rather watch the SB on a large TV screen, with quality imaging. So I doubt NBC gives a rat's ass about "peeps watching elsewhere" because they guarantee a set number of viewers and they'll meet that.

      The advertisers are benefiting from free distribution, but that does not undercut NBC's revenues one IOTA.

      The sites were seized because they could be. Of the 300, 16 were confirmed to be selling counterfeit merchandise. What about the other 284? Linking to the sites who sell counterfeit merchandise? Can you guarantee that SiteA linking to SiteB means SiteA is fully aware that SiteB has counterfeit merchandise? How many sites proudly pronounce they have counterfeit merchandise? Wouldn't doing so be like painting a bulls-eye on themselves for selling counterfeit goods?

      Can you revise your logic a bit? Maybe provide citations for the accusation that NBC charges less because it's avail online?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      khory (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 3:11pm

      Re:

      So why doesn't NBC stream the game to everyone, everywhere and collect additional revenue from that?

      The streaming available this year is pitiful. Only mobile devices on Verizon? Really??

      No wonder folks turn to unauthorized streams- the options for legit ones are terrible

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Togashi (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 3:14pm

      Re:

      NBC has no clue whether or not my TV is tuned into the broadcast or not. I could watch it on my TV, "illegally" stream it over the internet or not watch it at all, and they would never know the difference.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 4:17pm

      Re:

      I think you shills don't think through what Mike posts either; you're just following a different herd.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    kryptonianjorel (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:42pm

    This sucks

    As a college sports fan, these websites were useful to me, as ESPN and the local channels only carry so many games. First off, I don't have cable service; I can't justify paying that kind of money for the few times I watch tv, and the few channels I would watch. Instead, I rely on OTA for football, and some of my college basketball needs. The games on ESPN, or the games that are not picked up by my local stations are now lost to me without these streaming sites.

    There is no legal alternative for me to view these events, other than a $1200/yr cable bill, plus a subscription to my favorite team's PPV video stream, which is $10/game. So there you go; you're not converting pirates to legitimate customers, you're just driving us to spend our time/effort/money elsewhere

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 4:34pm

      Re: This sucks

      As a college sports fan, these websites were useful to me, as ESPN and the local channels only carry so many games. First off, I don't have cable service; I can't justify paying that kind of money for the few times I watch tv, and the few channels I would watch. Instead, I rely on OTA for football, and some of my college basketball needs. The games on ESPN, or the games that are not picked up by my local stations are now lost to me without these streaming sites.

      There is no legal alternative for me to view these events, other than a $1200/yr cable bill, plus a subscription to my favorite team's PPV video stream, which is $10/game. So there you go; you're not converting pirates to legitimate customers, you're just driving us to spend our time/effort/money elsewhere


      Thus we return to the core issue. You (and other freeloaders) are too fucking cheap to pay, yet are so self-entitled, you don't think you should have to forgo a program or game. All of this talk of censorship and freedom of speech demean those terms. This has always been about getting something of value for nothing and always will be.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        ltlw0lf (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 5:25pm

        Re: Re: This sucks

        There is no legal alternative for me to view these events

        Thus we return to the core issue. You (and other freeloaders) are too fucking cheap to pay, yet are so self-entitled, you don't think you should have to forgo a program or game. All of this talk of censorship and freedom of speech demean those terms.


        So, what part of English is hard for you to understand?

        Or is it just that you rail so hard against your perceived enemy "pirate" that you just don't care to read what the other person says and just yell "But...But...Piracy." If there are no legal streaming options available other than buying a cable box, then it sounds like unmet demands by customers and a poor business decision.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 5:39pm

          Re: Re: Re: This sucks

          So what you are saying is that the available alternative (cable subscription) is too expensive, it's OK to illegally stream it? Got it. Thanks for continuing to make my point. And even if there was no legal alternative, why do you still think you're entitled to it?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            ltlw0lf (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 5:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: This sucks

            And even if there was no legal alternative, why do you still think you're entitled to it?

            Did I say I was?

            Yup...reading comprehension, you don't gots it.

            What I said is that if there is no legal alternative, then it is an unmet demand and a poor business decision. Whether folks turn to piracy or not is their own choice (I personally don't care, as I have no interest in American Football,) but if I was a business person responsible for this, I'd be trying to figure out the best way to make the most amount of money by offering the customers who I am not meeting their demand with a legal option so that I could maximize my profits instead of ignoring them. But you can go on being dense, I believe in natural selection, and those who don't adapt tend to disappear like the Dinosaurs.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 6:16pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This sucks

              If there are no legal streaming options available other than buying a cable box, then it sounds like unmet demands by customers and a poor business decision.

              This is what you said numb nuts. Not simply that there was no legal streaming option. Who's the fucking nincompoop here? Apparently you're one of those sissies who think football is a bunch of guys running around in their underpants kicking a round ball.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                ltlw0lf (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 7:17pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This sucks

                What I said is that if there is no legal alternative, then it is an unmet demand and a poor business decision.

                If there are no legal streaming options available other than buying a cable box, then it sounds like unmet demands by customers and a poor business decision.

                This is what you said numb nuts.


                Yup. That is what I said.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 5:59am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This sucks

                  Ummmm, buying a cable box would be a legal alternative.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    ltlw0lf (profile), Feb 6th, 2012 @ 7:49am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This sucks

                    Ummmm, buying a cable box would be a legal alternative.

                    Do we really want people this intellectually challenged buying laws which affect the rest of us?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Loki, Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 6:09am

        Re: Re: This sucks

        You talk about freeloaders, and yet it is the entertainment industry and the copyright elitists who are the biggest freeloaders of them all. Oh, I wrote a song, I wrote a book, (or more accurately in the vast majority of cases, someone else wrote a song, someone else wrote a book, but I extorted their copyright from them) so pay me for the rest of my life so I don't have to work anymore, and pay my offspring, and perhaps their offspring for the next 70 years after I die so they don't have to work either.

        Stop being lazy. Stop being a whiner. Stop being annoying and go do something productive. But most importantly, just go away. Whatever you think you are contributing to society, I can assure you society can get along with just fine without you. Someone else who feels far less self-entitled will fill in the gaps just fine.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 9:35am

          Re: Re: Re: This sucks

          but I extorted their copyright from them)

          So the studios tell Spielberg or Eastwood if they don't make a movie for them they'll beat them up? This is one of the more laughable examples of the extremism you losers will go to in order to continue to freeload.

          Given the hundreds of millions of instances of infringing around the world, it seems that society can't live without the latest film, book or song. You solution would have us all sitting around watching "Sita Sings The Blues" and other worthless drivel passed off by talentless, cultural bottom-feeders.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Gary, Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 6:45pm

        Re: Re: This sucks

        Not quite we get your bullshit for free and no value there so guess we're screwed again huh troll.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    iamtheky (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 2:54pm

    The entire point of the Super Bowl is to get as many people watching the advertisements as possible.

    So they are into social experiments, since it seems the entire point of the Pro-Bowl is to see how few people they can get to watch.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    CornDogsRock, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 3:02pm

    Why does everyone bother to watch the Super Bowl? Is everyone that into Joe Buck and commercials?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overcast (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 3:03pm

    ICE - here's an idea, just shut down the whole interwebs, problem solved!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 3:05pm

    KY-3 is the place to be...for censorship.

    KYTV Channel 3 in Springfield, Missouri, has announced it will not run the controversial pro-life ads during the Super Bowl. However you feel about the ads or the issue, this is censorship, plain and simple.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Togashi (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 3:18pm

      Re: KY-3 is the place to be...for censorship.

      No, it really isn't. KYTV is not keeping whoever produced the ads from speaking at all. KYTV is simply not broadcasting a viewpoint it does not agree with.

      If I offered to pay you to tell your friends about my political viewpoints, would you be censoring me by not doing it?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        PRMan, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 5:02pm

        Re: Re: KY-3 is the place to be...for censorship.

        If I paid your parent company big bucks to be on your airwaves? Yes.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 4:15am

          Re: Re: Re: KY-3 is the place to be...for censorship.

          So how much you pay can determine whether or not something is considered censorship? Yeah, try again.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Adrian Lopez, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 3:29pm

    The Obama Administration's Priorities

    Taking down domains without a trial; Secretly negotiating international IP treaties (ACTA and TPP); Threatening American ISPs into adopting a "six strikes" policy...

    Judging by its actions, IP enforcement is clearly the Obama Administration's top priority. Is it corruption, or is it just plain disregard for justice and the due process of law?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Marcel de Jong (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 3:34pm

    Come and get us, ICE

    I'll await the ICE's take-down of ESPN America (The European branch of ESPN), because it airs the Superbowl, live, but without the (in)famous Superbowl ads.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      PRMan, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 5:03pm

      Re: Come and get us, ICE

      "but without the (in)famous Superbowl ads."

      You guys are seriously missing the best part.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Marcel de Jong (profile), Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 2:10am

        Re: Re: Come and get us, ICE

        Then enlighten me, what is the best part?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 4:08am

          Re: Re: Re: Come and get us, ICE

          The commercials of course. I could not care less about the football part of the superbowl, but the commercials tend to be great and worth checking out.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Marcel de Jong (profile), Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 5:13pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Come and get us, ICE

            But watching those commercials in a different area of the world is apparently illegal. Wanna bet they are going to issue takedown notices if any ad appears on teh you tube?

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 3:37pm

    ICE RAID

    Did ICE go into this guys house like he was drug dealer ?
    I'd sure like to see his server room...Rack of servers,stack of beer and a cooler filled with ICE....I can see a new
    Bud commercial now...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    infowars, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 4:09pm

    If your...

    Still such a sheep that even watch the "super bowl" (or a bunch of men in tights groping on each other(you can get all that you want at the airport these days)) then I hope they take your domain too. All that trash, you ppl need to wake up and leave all their sh*t alone.. Never mind WW3 is about to pop off, never mind all the fluoride in your water, never mind the NDAA or HR 3166, never mind all the poisons in your shots, never mind they want you distracted and dead.. THE GAME IS ON!!! GO (insert some stupid team name here)!!

    But what do I know.. My tinfoil hat has me protected!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 4:58pm

    Mike, I am amazed that you slam something without considering all the implications.

    Example: The guy streams from detroit, but the feed is viewed in, say, Omaha. Now, the local affiliate in Omaha paid for the rights to insert local commercials for OTA customers in their area. Yet, because of streaming, perhaps people are watching online, which lowers the value of their ads.

    Another: the guy streams from detroit, but the viewers are in the UK. Now, a network in the UK paid for the rights to the superbowl, but because of the streaming feeds (the those precious US special ads) people don't tune into the local UK channel. They lose viewers, which lowers the value of the feed to them, which in turn lowers what they can pay the NFL for the rights.

    Your "innocent streaming" isn't so innocent, sorry!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 5:23pm

      Re:

      The question I have to ask is why would anyone stream the game over the computer if they could simply tune into TV and watch it?

      The only reason that I can think of for anyone to stream the game would be if they had no other way to view it. Streaming shouldn't do anything but increase the total viewers. I mean seriously, who's going to say "forget watching the game in free HDTV OTA... let's go watch it all pixilated on my 19" computer monitor! I love when the stream freezes... so much better than TV!!!!"

      I can kind of understand wanting to stop PPV streams, but this is a free broadcast. Anyone who can watch on TV is going to do so. People trying to stream the game are people who don't have a TV option like living in a country where it isn't broadcast or perhaps they are at work without TV access. Every stream is an additional viewer, not someone choosing that medium over the higher quality option.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 9:09pm

        Re: Re:

        "The only reason that I can think of for anyone to stream the game would be if they had no other way to view it."

        An example of those who might choose a steam over OTA signal would be in Canada. With sim-sub rules, cable and sat companies are required by law to replace the US signal with a Canadian source, meaning that the great superbowl ads are not seen by those people in Canada.

        That loss of people to the "stream" could effect the value of the right for the game in Canada.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Franklin G Ryzzo (profile), Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 9:23am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Ok, that's a reasonable example, but what do you think the prevalence of this activity would be? Do we punish the millions of people who don't have access to watch the game simply because a handful of people might want to watch better commercials? While I understand that may be the industry position, it's completely disproportionate and in the end it's just spiteful.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      RD, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 5:33pm

      Re:

      "Example: The guy streams from detroit, but the feed is viewed in, say, Omaha. Now, the local affiliate in Omaha paid for the rights to insert local commercials for OTA customers in their area. Yet, because of streaming, perhaps people are watching online, which lowers the value of their ads.

      Another: the guy streams from detroit, but the viewers are in the UK. Now, a network in the UK paid for the rights to the superbowl, but because of the streaming feeds (the those precious US special ads) people don't tune into the local UK channel. They lose viewers, which lowers the value of the feed to them, which in turn lowers what they can pay the NFL for the rights.

      Your "innocent streaming" isn't so innocent, sorry!"

      None of which is of ANY concern to me AS A CONSUMER. I dont CARE about their stupid back-end deals. That is THEIR PROBLEM to work out, how they structure their deals with broadcasters, cable, networks, etc. I am just Joe Consumer, and I just want to watch the fucking game. Shouldnt matter TO ME where I live, or how the advertising structure deal is for the game. They have a product they want people (me) to see. They have ads to pay for that. Logic would indicate then that they would want AS MANY PEOPLE to see it as possible. I mean, its a complete "DUH!" If you get paid based on more people seeing it, MAKE IT FUCKING AVAILABLE TO MORE PEOPLE! But nooooooo they have to have some elusive "control" over something they broadcast in the open air, then try to put the cap back on the bottle after all the beer has fizzed out. Idiots, every one of them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 6:28pm

        Re: Re:

        Shouldnt matter TO ME where I live, or how the advertising structure deal is for the game.

        Advertising is what pays for the telecast, you fucking idiot.

        Of course you don't care, because in Freetardville, all content is created instantly out of thin air at no cost.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 11:59pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Does it matter? According to darryl, supporting Rupert Murdoch's system and paying for his content makes you an idiot.

          Why do you shills think it's a good idea to call anyone who supports the systems you like an idiot?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 4:06am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            >Why do you shills think it's a good idea to call anyone who supports the systems you like an idiot?

            I can only assume it's because they are still stuck at the 'schoolyard debate' level, where "Nu-uh, you're just a butthead!" is considered a valid and well thought out rebuttal.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          techflaws.org (profile), Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 4:41am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Says the fucking shilltard. Consider everyone impressed.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 8:08am

        Re: Re:

        As always RD, you are a total idiot.

        "None of which is of ANY concern to me AS A CONSUMER. I dont CARE about their stupid back-end deals. That is THEIR PROBLEM to work out"

        You should be concerned as a consumer, because the only reason there is something there to pirate is because there is a functional business model to support it. You should care that they are making enough money (and selling enough ads) to justify your useless ass getting to sit in front of your computer and watch it.

        Cause and effect, you really need to learn about it.

        Until you understand the basics, I wouldn't be calling anyone an idiot.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 6:26pm

      Re:

      And you're not getting the people who are not watching it on TV, are not watching it on TV anyway.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      TtfnJohn (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 6:53pm

      Re:

      Just how many people, in all honesty, do you think are watching the streamed "version" of the super bowl" rather than on NBC or whatever broadcaster is licensed to broadcast the game in countries outside the United States?

      My bet is it's well below 1% or even a fraction of 1%.

      So it's well beyond probable that the ad purchasers and networks got their monies worth, as will/did NBC.

      The problem, as Mike has written, isn't so much that these sites may have been involved in something illegal as what happens later where due process of law is tossed out of the window.

      In this case, as well, the concern that ICE is acting as a one department enforcement arm of the entertainment industry.

      Never fear, the Super Bowl will be watched by billions, the ads will get to their audience and everyone will be happy. Including those few who will watch it streamed, as it will be.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 9:14pm

        Re: Re:

        Well, let's take it as 1/10 of 1%. What is the licensing fee for the superbowl? Let say something like 50 million. So, even at your very, very small loss factor, you are still looking at $50,000 in lost value.

        Considering ads are selling for 4 million per 30 seconds, the true value of the event is way higher... so you can imagine.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    JBDragon, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 5:03pm

    A scary joke

    So why do we need SOPA or PIPA again when the government is already talking down whatever site it wants??? This is so wrong on so many levels already. It's something CHINA would do!!! There's little recourse in the matter. Right or Wrong, it doesn't seem to matter. ZERO court order. What's worse how is it that ICE of all Government agency's are doing this??? How about they do their real job and protect the boarders!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 5:48pm

    re

    this will all change once Obama is ousted, the govt will be realigned towards important things.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 4:01am

      Re: re

      I love how people like you honestly seem to think that it's one person in the government that's causing all this, and getting that one person out of office is supposed to solve everything.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    John85851 (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 6:02pm

    All about controlling content

    As usual, this isn't a case of publicity or how many people actually see the ads- it's a case of the NFL (etc) controlling their content.
    The TV networks have paid huge amounts of money to the NFL for the rights to air the Super Bowl so the NFL needs to enforce these rights. What would happen to the NFL's airing fees if everyone could see the game or commercials for free?

    Like the article says, the bigger question is why the government is enforcing the NFL's airing rights.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 8:05pm

    ICE: We must destroy the universe to save IP!
    Someone: But you wouldn't exist then.
    ICE: IP is more important than existence itself!
    Someone: Facepalm.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    stonecarver, Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 8:36pm

    logical conclusion ?

    So by this yardstick wouldn't that make ANY bar with the game on the big screen guilty of violating the NFL's "copyright" as they or in fact holding a public viewing and through increased bar sales receiving financial benefit. Where do you draw the line ? If here but not there why not ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Al Bert (profile), Feb 2nd, 2012 @ 8:58pm

      Re: logical conclusion ?

      They draw the line where ever the IP industry tells them to. Of course, i'm sure little nagging doubts like "is anybody watching?" and "how much can i get away with" are big factors too.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 7:23am

    The shills are out to lunch with their BS local ad dilemma being the reason this is necessary. Fact is almost no one who can watch this game on a TV set legally is going to resort to a poor quality internet stream instead. 99.99999% of stream viewers are free eyeballs for the advertisers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    RD, Feb 3rd, 2012 @ 10:53am

    Live streaming does affect income

    Networks airtime rates are based on the number of viewers, unlicensed streaming does not allow them to get an accurate count of viewers and will affect next year's rates. Or course the advertisers would love to reach as many viewers as possible, but networks need to be able to track the number of viewers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 13th, 2012 @ 10:32pm

    Copyright Idea?

    Shows how little ICE understands the difference between Patents and Copyrights. Patents protect IDEAS and American ingenuity. Copyrights protect creativity and expression. With the present MASSIVE war on counter-fitting, I am must believe politicians feel the only value Americans have is to make movies and commercials. It is apparently not worth the governments time to protect commercial innovation.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 29th, 2013 @ 9:58pm

    Seriously, other than a few americans, who cares about NFL...really!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This