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.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?
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.
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?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, copyright, dhs, domains, ice, streaming, super bowl
Companies: nfl
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
=]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe one of the few streaming sites was one of Masnick's favorites.
waa waa.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Got a citation for that, AC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Feel free to leave, boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Paying For Ads
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(I think)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OTA is Stealing
How can it be a crime to stream the Superbowl, or any programming, that is simultaneously broadcast over the air for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OTA is Stealing
How can watching the Super Bowl without a television be legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sure people will go find a legitimate stream now...
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm sure people will go find a legitimate stream now...
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
300 sites!?
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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 300 sites!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2012/01/28/ads_are_longer_stakes_higher_for_supe r_bowl_commercials/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:No Local ads in the Superbowl
ICE not only P***es me off but makes me laugh too. Watch an old Matt Helm movie and find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:No Local ads in the Superbowl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pre-Crime
Also, since this is obviously motivated by the content industry, will the seizure page link to the official free-stream? Yeah, probably not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pre-Crime
Maybe Masnick was planning on watching the Super Bowl on one of those sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pre-Crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pre-Crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pre-Crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pre-Crime
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pre-Crime
Home Rabbit Ears are Killing Football!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's an idea...
"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... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's an idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The streamers are "stealing" from the network
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The streamers are "stealing" from the network
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The streamers are "stealing" from the network
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The streamers are "stealing" from the network
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The streamers are "stealing" from the network
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The streamers are "stealing" from the network
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The streamers are "stealing" from the network
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blame the advertizing
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Okay Though
ICE, you're still doing it wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sucks
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This sucks
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This sucks
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This sucks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This sucks
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This sucks
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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.
Yup. That is what I said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This sucks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This sucks
Do we really want people this intellectually challenged buying laws which affect the rest of us?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This sucks
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This sucks
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This sucks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
KY-3 is the place to be...for censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: KY-3 is the place to be...for censorship.
If I offered to pay you to tell your friends about my political viewpoints, would you be censoring me by not doing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: KY-3 is the place to be...for censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: KY-3 is the place to be...for censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Obama Administration's Priorities
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Come and get us, ICE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Come and get us, ICE
You guys are seriously missing the best part.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Come and get us, ICE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Come and get us, ICE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Come and get us, ICE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ICE RAID
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...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ICE RAID
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If your...
But what do I know.. My tinfoil hat has me protected!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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. 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why do you shills think it's a good idea to call anyone who supports the systems you like an idiot?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Considering ads are selling for 4 million per 30 seconds, the true value of the event is way higher... so you can imagine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A scary joke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All about controlling 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone: But you wouldn't exist then.
ICE: IP is more important than existence itself!
Someone: Facepalm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
logical conclusion ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: logical conclusion ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Live streaming does affect income
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright Idea?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]