I was gonna say that ilemi wasn't shut down so there's always that.

Also, I'm sure this is common knowledge but I don't think that the government/NFL understand that people don't stream the NFL because they don't want to pay for it but rather because of their inane broadcasting rules where they won't only show the games in certain markets.

I would gladly pay a few bucks to watch my team play on sunday. They could even show advertisements based on where they believe my IP address to be. I won't watch them because I'll mute it during the commercials and play xbox or something but the idea is solid

downstairs: Look, I understand its technically illegal. But why would the NFL even care? The streams are going to show all the commercials. And its not like the Super Bowl hurts for ratings (by all accounts, this one could easily be the most watched TV show in TV history. Or close.)

They lose nothing.

Although, like someone said above... why the hell would you watch a crappy, compressed stream when its on TV in most every country in the world?

LOL no.

I love how the nfl can't wrap their head around the fact that some people like teams that don't play for the state they currently live in, and would rather watch the game at home vs a bar that might be playing the game they want to see.

Weaver95: The response of Firstrow stands in sharp contrast with that of ICE Director John Morton yesterday.

"In sports, players must abide by rules of the game, and in life, individuals must follow the laws of the land. Our message is simple: abiding by intellectual property rights laws is not optional; it's the law," Morton said.

yes but...how does any of this relate to international terrorism? look - i'm not arguing about intellectual property or file trading or any of that stuff. What I want to know is why the Dept of Homeland Security is involved in this. web video and file trading is NOT terrorism. it's not even a criminal offense, its a civil case. WTF is homeland security doing being involved in a CIVIL matter? this is NOT YOUR MANDATE!!!!



FTFA: "The people who operate Firstrow don't live in the US, and neither are their servers located there. In fact, Firstrow says that their site is perfectly legal where they are based..."

Man oh Man.

President Barack Hussein Obama and his entire administration, especially his U.S. Department of Justice, are well on their way to going completely over the top. They do what they want to and are apparently accountable to no one -- least of all The People of the United States of America -- much less The People of the Rest of the World.

Seize assets and property first -- whatever the continent on the globe ... prove it was within the law later. Guilty until proven innocent, indeed.

_{/nb4 the bds (bush derangement syndrome)}

ManateeGag: the game is being broadcast on network television. Why would I watch it on the internet?

You generally need a television to watch television broadcasts.

I'm sure the UFC / Strikeforce was pushing to shut them down.

Weaver95: The response of Firstrow stands in sharp contrast with that of ICE Director John Morton yesterday.

"In sports, players must abide by rules of the game, and in life, individuals must follow the laws of the land. Our message is simple: abiding by intellectual property rights laws is not optional; it's the law," Morton said.

yes but...how does any of this relate to international terrorism? look - i'm not arguing about intellectual property or file trading or any of that stuff. What I want to know is why the Dept of Homeland Security is involved in this. web video and file trading is NOT terrorism. it's not even a criminal offense, its a civil case. WTF is homeland security doing being involved in a CIVIL matter? this is NOT YOUR MANDATE!!!!

[notsureifserious.jpg]

ICE is Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Stopping infringing IP at the border is a Customs function.

Meatzilla: FTFA: "The people who operate Firstrow don't live in the US, and neither are their servers located there. In fact, Firstrow says that their site is perfectly legal where they are based..."

... Seize assets and property first -- whatever the continent on the globe ... prove it was within the law later. Guilty until proven innocent, indeed.

They didn't seize assets or property anywhere on the globe other than the US... Firstrow, it might be noted from their firstrow.eu registration, still have their servers. All that were "seized" was their US-registered domain names.

downstairs: troymccluresf: ManateeGag: the game is being broadcast on network television. Why would I watch it on the internet?

You generally need a television to watch television broadcasts.

I love how the "I don't own a TV" crowd need to seek out TV broadcasts. You're doing it wrong.

Uh, the point is that 99% of the time, we don't need to seek out TV. I'm not buying another monitor (which is what TVs are these days anyway) with a TV antenna for the few times I need a live broadcast. Though I do certainly wish MLB.tv would get its head out of its ass and sell me my local teams' games. That's really the only downside left.

Sleeping Monkey: shower_in_my_socks: Sleeping Monkey: And if it's free anyway, why even care if someone re-streams it?


Because it's not "free" - the television networks and carriers have their entire businesses built around airing content and paying big money for these deals. The people who are re-streaming it are stealing their feed, making money off of it ILLEGALLY, and deserve to get smacked down.

How does it cost them anything to have someone else steam exactly what they are showing?

Because the value of the property is in the exclusivity. If it's no longer exclusive, then it's not worth as much.

Sleeping Monkey: Theaetetus: Because the value of the property is in the exclusivity. If it's no longer exclusive, then it's not worth as much.

I'm sure they're feeling it....

That's a different argument than your "How does it cost them anything to have someone else steam exactly what they are showing?"

Maybe you meant to ask "why should rich people be allowed to earn more money?" But that's more for the Politics tab than the Geek tab.

As it's been mentioned above, for the Super Bowl it's not as big of a deal because it's both on TV and streamed legally. The problem comes in regular season games. In my case, even though I live like 60 miles from Detroit, I'm not in the "Detroit Market", so 3 or 4 games a year I don't get on my tv, I have to either listen on the radio(the station that carries the game barley comes in), stream it, or wait until the game is over to see what happened. I'm sure there's a lot of other cities/areas that have the same problem. The problem roots from the stupid broadcasting rules, and until they change(they wont), then illegal streams will continue to be a problem.

Scruffinator: As it's been mentioned above, for the Super Bowl it's not as big of a deal because it's both on TV and streamed legally. The problem comes in regular season games. In my case, even though I live like 60 miles from Detroit, I'm not in the "Detroit Market", so 3 or 4 games a year I don't get on my tv, I have to either listen on the radio(the station that carries the game barley comes in), stream it, or wait until the game is over to see what happened. I'm sure there's a lot of other cities/areas that have the same problem. The problem roots from the stupid broadcasting rules, and until they change(they wont), then illegal streams will continue to be a problem.

I live in NH so 95% of Lions/Wings/Tigers games aren't shown on TV here, streaming is my only option. I'd be happy to pay for it but I'm not going to pay $200 (like gamecenter) to do it. Bring it down to $50 for the entire year, then prorate it so I'm not paying $50 for 30 out of 82 games if I decide to get it 1/2 way through the season.

Theaetetus: Meatzilla: FTFA: "The people who operate Firstrow don't live in the US, and neither are their servers located there. In fact, Firstrow says that their site is perfectly legal where they are based..."

... Seize assets and property first -- whatever the continent on the globe ... prove it was within the law later. Guilty until proven innocent, indeed.

They didn't seize assets or property anywhere on the globe other than the US... Firstrow, it might be noted from their firstrow.eu registration, still have their servers. All that were "seized" was their US-registered domain names.

Oh yes. I see. Domain Names are not 'property' and nor are they 'assets' whatever country you're in no matter where you register them.

I see. Okay then. Thanks for correcting me there. The more you know, right?

zippolight2002: I live in NH so 95% of Lions/Wings/Tigers games aren't shown on TV here, streaming is my only option. I'd be happy to pay for it but I'm not going to pay $200 (like gamecenter) to do it. Bring it down to $50 for the entire year, then prorate it so I'm not paying $50 for 30 out of 82 games if I decide to get it 1/2 way through the season.

Yeah that's another issue as well. I hear MLB.tv is really nice, but I don't remember how much it costs, and they only have an offseason package right now. It's a move in the right direction, though. It really is the fault of the damn broadcasting rules, no matter how you look at it, though. Just let us choose what games we want to watch on our remote! shiat!

Meatzilla: Theaetetus: Meatzilla: FTFA: "The people who operate Firstrow don't live in the US, and neither are their servers located there. In fact, Firstrow says that their site is perfectly legal where they are based..."

... Seize assets and property first -- whatever the continent on the globe ... prove it was within the law later. Guilty until proven innocent, indeed.

They didn't seize assets or property anywhere on the globe other than the US... Firstrow, it might be noted from their firstrow.eu registration, still have their servers. All that were "seized" was their US-registered domain names.

Oh yes. I see. Domain Names are not 'property' and nor are they 'assets' whatever country you're in no matter where you register them.

I see. Okay then. Thanks for correcting me there. The more you know, right?

Huh, that's odd. I didn't say that they weren't property. I said that the property seized was in this country. You can tell, based on how I said: "They didn't seize assets or property anywhere on the globe other than the US." In other words, "they did seize assets or property in the US."

So, I'm not really sure how you got "Domain Names are not property or assets" from "Domain names are property or assets." Would you care to explain your interpretation, or just act like an illiterate dick?

Theaetetus: Weaver95: The response of Firstrow stands in sharp contrast with that of ICE Director John Morton yesterday.

"In sports, players must abide by rules of the game, and in life, individuals must follow the laws of the land. Our message is simple: abiding by intellectual property rights laws is not optional; it's the law," Morton said.

yes but...how does any of this relate to international terrorism? look - i'm not arguing about intellectual property or file trading or any of that stuff. What I want to know is why the Dept of Homeland Security is involved in this. web video and file trading is NOT terrorism. it's not even a criminal offense, its a civil case. WTF is homeland security doing being involved in a CIVIL matter? this is NOT YOUR MANDATE!!!!

[notsureifserious.jpg]

ICE is Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Stopping infringing IP at the border is a Customs function.

That, and they're afraid they'll lose their jobs if they get caught arresting or deporting any illegal immigrants.

Tee hee. They think they're changing things.

downstairs: rocky_howard: downstairs: Look, I understand its technically illegal. But why would the NFL even care? The streams are going to show all the commercials. And its not like the Super Bowl hurts for ratings (by all accounts, this one could easily be the most watched TV show in TV history. Or close.)

They lose nothing.

Although, like someone said above... why the hell would you watch a crappy, compressed stream when its on TV in most every country in the world?

LOL no.

LOL, yes. 23 countries (most of them are amongst the most populous) are broadcasting it. And "Latin America" is lumped in as one country in the list I saw, which is 20 countries. So ~43. That's most of the world for the sake of this argument.

Yeah, I understand you're not going to see it in Ethiopia or North Korea for obvious reasons.

Not on open air TV. It's going to be through Cable and Satellite TV.

That's why the online streams exist. Not everybody has those services.

/also, so people can see it from their jobplace, lol.

downstairs: rocky_howard: downstairs: Look, I understand its technically illegal. But why would the NFL even care? The streams are going to show all the commercials. And its not like the Super Bowl hurts for ratings (by all accounts, this one could easily be the most watched TV show in TV history. Or close.)

They lose nothing.

Although, like someone said above... why the hell would you watch a crappy, compressed stream when its on TV in most every country in the world?

LOL no.

LOL, yes. 23 countries (most of them are amongst the most populous) are broadcasting it. And "Latin America" is lumped in as one country in the list I saw, which is 20 countries. So ~43. That's most of the world for the sake of this argument.

Yeah, I understand you're not going to see it in Ethiopia or North Korea for obvious reasons.

Except since kickoff is 6:30 ET on a Sunday pretty much all of Europe is asleep already and people in Asia are eating breakfast/heading to work on Monday morning. By the time people are awake/not at work to watch it and it's rebroadcast, the winner will already have been plastered all over the internet/news/radio/television/etc.

Of all the people I know who watch football outside the U.S., not a single one watches games live unless they are Sunday Noon kickoffs since they're on in the evening, and that's only people who actually buy extra TV packages. And since it's impossible to avoid finding out who won something like the Superbowl if you wait for a rebroadcast, they just read a summary in the paper, download the HDTV copy that's up minutes after the game ends and watch it in peace without the commercials.

Wiziwig.tv
Firstrowsports.eu
livetv.ru
vipbox.tv


The only one of my usual sites that I can't get to is atdhenet.tv. Anybody have a new link for it?

Never mind, found it.

Atdhe.eu

downstairs: troymccluresf: downstairs: troymccluresf: ManateeGag: the game is being broadcast on network television. Why would I watch it on the internet?

You generally need a television to watch television broadcasts.

I love how the "I don't own a TV" crowd need to seek out TV broadcasts. You're doing it wrong.

Uh, the point is that 99% of the time, we don't need to seek out TV. I'm not buying another monitor (which is what TVs are these days anyway) with a TV antenna for the few times I need a live broadcast. Though I do certainly wish MLB.tv would get its head out of its ass and sell me my local teams' games. That's really the only downside left.

You realize you can cheaply attach an antenna to your PC and turn it into a real TV?

Yeah, I've looked into it. But honestly, I like baseball on the radio, and can always find a stream if I need to. And if that doesn't cut it, I'm surrounded by great bars that'll be showing whatever it is I'm trying to watch.

Theaetetus: Meatzilla: Theaetetus: Meatzilla: FTFA: "The people who operate Firstrow don't live in the US, and neither are their servers located there. In fact, Firstrow says that their site is perfectly legal where they are based..."

... Seize assets and property first -- whatever the continent on the globe ... prove it was within the law later. Guilty until proven innocent, indeed.

They didn't seize assets or property anywhere on the globe other than the US... Firstrow, it might be noted from their firstrow.eu registration, still have their servers. All that were "seized" was their US-registered domain names.

Oh yes. I see. Domain Names are not 'property' and nor are they 'assets' whatever country you're in no matter where you register them.

I see. Okay then. Thanks for correcting me there. The more you know, right?

Huh, that's odd. I didn't say that they weren't property. I said that the property seized was in this country. You can tell, based on how I said: "They didn't seize assets or property anywhere on the globe other than the US." In other words, "they did seize assets or property in the US."

So, I'm not really sure how you got "Domain Names are not property or assets" from "Domain names are property or assets." Would you care to explain your interpretation, or just act like an illiterate dick?

Ha. Name calling now, huh? Weak minds... and all that stuff.

No matter how you mix the semantics, the apples, and the oranges, what I said stands true. Your response doesn't hold water. Although, we already know that most knee-jerk defensive responses do not but don't let that stop you from it anyway.

Theaetetus: Would you care to explain your interpretation?

Meatzilla: No

Theaetetus: Theaetetus: Would you care to explain your interpretation, illiterate dickhead?

Meatzilla: No need to whatsoever

FTFY

Meatzilla: Theaetetus: Theaetetus: Would you care to explain your interpretation, illiterate dickhead?

Meatzilla: No need to whatsoever

FTFY

[shrug] I'll agree with you. You're an illiterate dickhead.

heh, good luck, number of proxies, etc.

downstairs: Look, I understand its technically illegal. But why would the NFL even care? The streams are going to show all the commercials. And its not like the Super Bowl hurts for ratings (by all accounts, this one could easily be the most watched TV show in TV history. Or close.)

They lose nothing.

Although, like someone said above... why the hell would you watch a crappy, compressed stream when its on TV in most every country in the world?

The analog to digital switch left a lot of rural areas in the dark.

Theaetetus: Meatzilla: Theaetetus: Theaetetus: Would you care to explain your interpretation, illiterate dickhead?

Meatzilla: No need to whatsoever

FTFY

[shrug] I'll agree with you. You're an illiterate dickhead.

Meh. You're a lawyer (claimed, anyway). You'll agree to anything if it's self-serving and/or profitable -- including agreeing you're wrong without actually saying you're wrong. I understand.