Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon

OT: Channelsurfing.net operator arrested & charged

58 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
March 4th, 2011 at 12:37 PM
#1
MBAgoblue
MBAgoblue's picture
Joined: 07/09/2008
MGoPoints: 2120
OT: Channelsurfing.net operator arrested & charged

Channelsurfing.net was shut down by federal agents in February, and now the Texas based operator has been arrested and charged by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

 

NEW YORK - The operator of a website that illegally streamed live, copyrighted sporting events on the Internet was arrested this morning by agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

Bryan McCarthy, 32, of Deer Park, Texas, was taken into custody at his home and is charged with one count of criminal infringement of a copyright. He was the operator of channelsurfing.net, which was seized by federal authorities on Feb. 1, 2011, as part of an ongoing HSI investigation into websites that illegally streamed copyrighted sporting telecasts and pay-per-view events.

The investigation into McCarthy revealed that he made more than $90,000 in profits from online merchants who paid him to advertise on the website. Since the seizure of the site, it has received more than 1.3 million hits.

 

Federal charges make it likely that other streaming sites look good and hard at continuing to offer service. The party may be over for out of market Michigan fans hoping to catch a game on TV...

http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1103/110303newyork.htm

Top
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
March 4th, 2011 at 12:46 PM
#2
4godkingandwolv...
4godkingandwolverines's picture
Joined: 08/06/2008
MGoPoints: 15772
Too bad...

... but I'm more concerned that this is what Homeland Security is focused on these days. 

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 12:50 PM
(Reply to #2) #3
MBAgoblue
MBAgoblue's picture
Joined: 07/09/2008
MGoPoints: 2120
I too found that odd. The

I too found that odd. The U.S. Attorney for Southern NY is leading the investigation, which is not surprising, but why not FBI agents on the arrest?

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:28 PM
(Reply to #3) #4
Hepkat
Hepkat's picture
Joined: 12/08/2010
MGoPoints: 85
Isn't that the same U.S. Attorney's Office

that shut down Internet Poker for a short time for U.S. players a few years back? 

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 2:43 PM
(Reply to #28) #5
loosekanen
Joined: 10/03/2009
MGoPoints: 830
It's definitely had an effect

It's definitely had an effect on the amount of good players vs fish. Depositing has become much harder for a weekend warrior just looking to have some fun at the tables. Stars is a completely different landscape than it was before RIAA legislature took hold in 2006.

But streaming tv? Are they going to chase people outside the states that run these sites? Can they even do that? What about someone operating a site under false information? This guy is unlucky because he was the guinea pig, but I can almost assure he and maybe a few others will be the first and last of a very few that see jail time for this.

Top
March 7th, 2011 at 9:48 AM
(Reply to #3) #6
Callahan
Callahan's picture
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 3399
ICE has an international

ICE has an international cybercrime division. That's why it was the agency that seized the site.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:00 PM
(Reply to #2) #7
OMG Shirtless
OMG Shirtless's picture
Joined: 08/16/2009
MGoPoints: 1735
Haven't you watched The Wire before?

They changed the name of a division of the FBI that was focused on organized crime and drugs to Homeland Security just for appearances sake.  It's like how the Secret Service is in charge of tracking down counterfeiters.  International interweb crime has to go somewhere, they put it under homeland security for some bizarre reason.

/I don't think any of this is even close to correct, but it's Friday so I don't give a shit.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:06 PM
(Reply to #9) #8
MBAgoblue
MBAgoblue's picture
Joined: 07/09/2008
MGoPoints: 2120
Yes, I watched The Wire, but

Yes, I watched The Wire, but only learned that it's best to use a burner phone when in the narcotics trade, not to let your girlfriend change burner buying protocol, do not let a junkie put a hat on your head, and West Baltimore drug dealers do not care for East Baltimore drug dealers

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:09 PM
(Reply to #11) #9
OMG Shirtless
OMG Shirtless's picture
Joined: 08/16/2009
MGoPoints: 1735
To this day, I refuse to let

To this day, I refuse to let anyone put a hat on my head.  You never know who's up in those buildings across the street.  I also speak in code in the presence of any and all tennis balls.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:55 PM
(Reply to #15) #10
03 Blue 07
03 Blue 07's picture
Joined: 07/01/2008
MGoPoints: 3494
I also avoid anyone peddling

I also avoid anyone peddling street wares while using the phrase "Junk maaan, JUNK" to catch my attention, no matter how much I may want to get my hands on that scrap metal. It's just not worth it to get dragged into that world, man.

I also compulsively fear any man in a bowtie who appears to be a member of the Nation of Islam, as I automatically assume he is a steel-nerved assassin.

I also don't get into business with Greek or Eastern European importers/exporters. Just too risky.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 2:58 PM
(Reply to #32) #11
BlueDragon
BlueDragon's picture
Joined: 11/14/2010
MGoPoints: 21718
Preaching to the choir

I watched God of War.  Nicholas Cage had a "legitimate" import/export business: after he delivered the arms, his planes loaded up on trade goods and flew back to base.  I know how these guys launder their operations.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:10 PM
(Reply to #9) #12
zazapachulia
Joined: 03/04/2011
MGoPoints: 1
It's actually a lot like what

It's actually a lot like what The Wire depicted. The FBI has so much work to do with counterterrorism now that ICE has a lot more federal law enforcement responsibility. It's the second largest law enforcement agency in the federal government, and intellectual property theft is one of ICE's top priorities.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:18 PM
(Reply to #16) #13
MBAgoblue
MBAgoblue's picture
Joined: 07/09/2008
MGoPoints: 2120
I, for one, am pleased that

I, for one, am pleased that ICE is on the case. If there is a problem yo he'll solve it. 

As for counterfitting, will it ever stop? Yo, I don't know.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 2:17 PM
(Reply to #23) #14
4godkingandwolv...
4godkingandwolverines's picture
Joined: 08/06/2008
MGoPoints: 15772
Ha!

 That ICE is on a case of copyright infringement is pretty funny and I think is that thing I think is irony but is actually just coincidence. 

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 2:39 PM
(Reply to #2) #15
IvyLeague
Joined: 07/30/2009
MGoPoints: 1039
I agree

Maybe spending time doing this is why we can't find Bin Laden.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 12:52 PM
#16
The Mick
The Mick's picture
Joined: 12/06/2009
MGoPoints: 240
If one site goes down, two

If one site goes down, two new ones go up. That's how it's gonna be as long as money can be made off it.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 12:58 PM
(Reply to #4) #17
ZooWolverine
ZooWolverine's picture
Joined: 02/27/2009
MGoPoints: 1918
Ehh

That's the case with sites that just get shut down, but when there's a concerted effort to not only shut the site down but to actually prosecute the person running the site, I'm not so sure that'll be the case.

Then again, a few will probably just start up outside the country, so maybe you're right.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:07 PM
(Reply to #7) #18
madtadder
madtadder's picture
Joined: 03/24/2009
MGoPoints: 2159
Right, because the RIAA has

Right, because the RIAA has TOTALLY won the war against illegally downloading music.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:15 PM
(Reply to #13) #19
theyellowdart
theyellowdart's picture
Joined: 09/03/2008
MGoPoints: 1188
Sorry

Apples to Oranges really.  Two very very different situations.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:21 PM
(Reply to #19) #20
madtadder
madtadder's picture
Joined: 03/24/2009
MGoPoints: 2159
Both are illegally

Both are illegally downloading something copywritten that you can get by paying for. And the government and RIAA are both playing the enforcer and going after and prosecuting people that are breaking their laws. How are they different situations?

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 2:36 PM
(Reply to #25) #21
ZooWolverine
ZooWolverine's picture
Joined: 02/27/2009
MGoPoints: 1918
I think the P2P distinction

I think the P2P distinction is important here.  Once I've got a copy of Kung Fu Panda downloaded, I can give it to you for free without much of any effort--the file on a DVD, sharing on a network, or running a P2P program (as long as it's decentralized since the centralized Napster was easily shut down like this).  To stream live television is more complex and takes more effort and bandwidth.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were plenty of decentralized alternatives that spring up and do take the place of sites like this, but the differences between live entertainment and recorded entertainment make it not a given IME.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:19 PM
(Reply to #13) #22
lunchboxthegoat
lunchboxthegoat's picture
Joined: 10/07/2008
MGoPoints: 2978
absolutely they

absolutely they have!

 

/signed guy who has only bought maybe 5 CDs in the past 5 years and has 11,000 songs on his ipod...

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 12:58 PM
#23
Tater
Tater's picture
Joined: 08/13/2008
MGoPoints: 30564
Me, too...

I fail to see what some guy streaming sports has to do with homeland security.  It's bad enough that the entertainment industry has the FBI as their lapdogs. 

The irony here is that the NCAA, agents, and TV have already exploited the players much more than some guy finding streaming sports has exploited anyone.

The networks and cable companies should just bypass cable altogether and let people watch their channels for the dollar a month they want to charge the cable companies.  Most people only have ten or so favorite channels anyway. 

I would gladly pay $1 each a month for CBS, NBC, Fox, ABC, ESPN 1 and 2, BTN, Golf Channel, USA, TNT, and Spike, along with around four regional Fox Sports channels.   $15 a month for 15 channels would be a lot cheaper than paying $60 or more for a bunch of crap I don't even watch. 

Besides, all they are really doing is making it easier for the sites in Europe to get viewers.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:05 PM
(Reply to #5) #24
ZooWolverine
ZooWolverine's picture
Joined: 02/27/2009
MGoPoints: 1918
If you only paid for the

If you only paid for the channels you wanted to watch, the per-channel fee would need to be much higher.  If USA streamed to you for the $1 they get from your cable fee, and other channels did the same, the end result would be that USA didn't make any extra money off of you, and they lost a lot of money from people who are currently paying the $1 even though they're not watching USA.  I think you'd end up paying close to $60/month anyways, and just get far fewer channels out of the deal.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:08 PM
(Reply to #10) #25
chisf
Joined: 09/27/2009
MGoPoints: 84
Absolutely

Looks like your comment beat mine.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 3:48 PM
(Reply to #10) #26
thisisme08
thisisme08's picture
Joined: 12/02/2008
MGoPoints: 2701
Hell I would pay $60 for just

Hell I would pay $60 for just those 20 channels I want.  You know why? b/c flipping through 60+ channels of god/home shopping/cooking/public access is a pain in the ass and the opportunity cost to me is worth it.

 

(Disclaimer: My wonderful cable provider would charge me $10 extra a month for another HD box for the bedroom TV, of which you can only get the On-Screen Channel guide with a set top box and therefore all my channel numbers are different from HD #'s that I recieve in the living room)

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:17 PM
(Reply to #5) #27
MI Expat NY
Joined: 07/24/2008
MGoPoints: 7495
You're too hung up on the

You're too hung up on the words "homeland security."  The Department of Homeland Secuirty is just an umbrella group of agencies that are often merely tangentially relate to security and anti-terrorism.  Really, the agency basically simply covers any federal enforcement agencies that don't neatly fall into the Depts. of Justice or Defense.  

For whatever reason, enforcement of copyrights falls to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, I think because they are the primary enforcement agency of federal regulations on trade.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 12:58 PM
#28
bluesouth
bluesouth's picture
Joined: 11/02/2008
MGoPoints: 2401
Breaking the law

I thought thats what the interwebs and all of it's tubes were invented for.  I'm going to have to ask Al Gore if thats it's pupose since he invented this thing.

/s

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 2:54 PM
(Reply to #6) #29
BlueDragon
BlueDragon's picture
Joined: 11/14/2010
MGoPoints: 21718
It's fuzzy math, yo.

It's fuzzy math, yo.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 12:59 PM
#30
kenfizzle
Joined: 07/11/2008
MGoPoints: 382
this is a good response to this kind of stuff

good read: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110303/02203613336/minecraft-creator-...

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:13 PM
(Reply to #8) #31
ZooWolverine
ZooWolverine's picture
Joined: 02/27/2009
MGoPoints: 1918
That argument makes no sense

By that argument, we should dismantle all copyright and patent laws because they don't protect tangible items.

They're conflating two different types of lost sales and pretending they're the same.  However, someone choosing not to use your product is very different from someone using your product and not paying for it (if you're not choosing to give it away).

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:27 PM
(Reply to #17) #32
kenfizzle
Joined: 07/11/2008
MGoPoints: 382
i don't think you get the point

the point is instead of spending resources stopping people from pirating your stuff, spend resources on making a product they will actually want to buy. thanks for being an ass about it though.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:47 PM
(Reply to #27) #33
MBAgoblue
MBAgoblue's picture
Joined: 07/09/2008
MGoPoints: 2120
I never understood that

I never understood that argument. The rules are in place, a business produces a product and price it according to those rules to make money, and the fact that someone doesn't want to pay and steals your product means that you should change your model?

Probably tilting at windmills as illegal downloading will happen no matter what, but why shouldn't an artist or publisher be pissed when something is stolen from them? If you want to break the law doesn't mean I have to make it easy for you.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:59 PM
(Reply to #31) #34
03 Blue 07
03 Blue 07's picture
Joined: 07/01/2008
MGoPoints: 3494
I see both sides, really. The

I see both sides, really. The argument for the laws is that without them, in the long run, the incentives to create are diminished, leading to potential creators of unique content either leaving the market, creating less, or not getting into the market to begin with. The basis for us having copyright law is this incentivizing, as the underlying philosophy is that we want to encourage creativity as a society and protect those creators economically.  

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 2:16 PM
(Reply to #27) #35
Mr Miggle
Mr Miggle's picture
Joined: 10/07/2010
MGoPoints: 31239
I think I get the point.

Somebody has found that frequent updates to his software give people a reason to buy it. They are getting something of value they don't get from a pirated copy.  How does that apply here? That's what I don't get. Do you have any suggestions for what a broadcaster of live events could do?

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 2:18 PM
(Reply to #27) #36
BiSB
BiSB's picture
Joined: 08/15/2009
MGoPoints: 44839
That makes no sense

"instead of spending resources stopping people from pirating your stuff,  spend resources on making a product they will actually want to buy."

That argument somehow assumes that really good products aren't pirated, which is totally backward.  The better the product, the higher the demand.  The higher the demand, the more likely someone will make a pirated version available.  It's like saying that if you want someone to stop selling cheap knock-offs of your Gucci purses on New York street corners, you should just design more desirable purses.  The whole reason they SELL knock-offs of those purses are BECAUSE they are desirable.

Economics dictates that if two products are identical, and one is free, then people will most often choose 'not paying' over 'paying'

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 2:21 PM
(Reply to #27) #37
MaizeAndBlueWahoo
MaizeAndBlueWahoo's picture
Joined: 07/02/2008
MGoPoints: 32944
Just because you make a

Just because you make a product better does not mean people will not want that product free if it's possible to do so.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 3:54 PM
(Reply to #42) #38
thisisme08
thisisme08's picture
Joined: 12/02/2008
MGoPoints: 2701
I get the econ theory

I get the econ theory but if broadcast/music/movie companies put out better items and stop raping people, they will return to the days where they have a nice baseline profit level. 

I will pay $10 dollars for a CD I will not pay $20.

I will pay $7 a ticket to the movies but I will not pay $13 for post-production shitty 3D. 

I will follow a broadcast show if you promise NOT to cancel it after 6 episodes because its not getting 35 million viewers an episode because I am not like the rest of America and I actually like to watch something with a story not mindless drival such as American Idol and B*tchwives of Whatever county. 

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:07 PM
#39
chisf
Joined: 09/27/2009
MGoPoints: 84
Networks will never allow a la carte

They'd lose far too much money, and most of their leverage.  It also would be very very expensive.  ESPN charges cable companies something like $5 per customer for ESPN.  If customers could individually purchase networks, ESPN no longer would have, say 50 million subscribers at $5 a pop.  Say only 35% of that 50 million want it.  ESPN will make up that lost revenue by jacking the price way up. 

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:38 PM
(Reply to #21) #40
MBAgoblue
MBAgoblue's picture
Joined: 07/09/2008
MGoPoints: 2120
Bundling forces you to take

Bundling forces you to take more channels to get the ones you actually want. You are subsidising your grandmother watching the Oprah channel, and she is subsidizing your ESPN and BTN viewing while both pay $79/month.

Disintermediation or unbundling of this market will not happen as it is not in the interests of the broadcaster nor the cable/satellite companies.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 2:04 PM
(Reply to #21) #41
chisf
Joined: 09/27/2009
MGoPoints: 84
Media consolidation

A few programmers own most of the channels.  It's a bit scary.  Big reason they can't be purchases individually is that the programmer will require the cable company to carry a network on a certain tier.  Where depends on who has the most leverage.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:16 PM
#42
BlockM
BlockM's picture
Joined: 07/03/2008
MGoPoints: 28426
It's illegal for them to

It's illegal for them to stream it, but it's not illegal for me to watch what they're streaming, so I don't care. There will always be someone out there that will put it online, and I intend to find them if I don't have the particular channel I want to watch.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:25 PM
#43
buddhafrog
buddhafrog's picture
Joined: 09/28/2009
MGoPoints: 8274
europe, baby

a lot of great streaming sites are based in europe where the governments generally don't waste their time trying to make criminals in these types of scenerios.  Ridiculous.  As a Wolverine living in Korea, where I can't even pay for most online streams or watch "free" espn or cbs streams b/c I'm out of the country (don't ask me why, but they are usually blocked outside of the USA), I'm all for p2p streaming.

Power to the masses of faceless sports fans.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 1:36 PM
#44
MichiganAggie
MichiganAggie's picture
Joined: 11/10/2008
MGoPoints: 1493
Deer Park

God that place is a shit hole.  I'm not surprised that someone decided to stay inside (away from the chemical plant fumes) and try to make a buck

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 2:01 PM
#45
MGoRob
MGoRob's picture
Joined: 03/14/2010
MGoPoints: 4149
Ok, this is what I don't

Ok, this is what I don't get.  The material is copyrighted, yet the only reason these fans are watching them online is because their local feed doesn't carry the game.  These fans aren't going to be watching whatever other game is on.  They want their game.  So by watching these "pirated" streams, their viewership is actually going up.  Most of the streams usually broadcast the commercials as well so I don't really see the problem with it!  Now if they offered the games a la carte or PPV, then that would be different.  But 99.9% of the time, that isn't an option.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 2:19 PM
(Reply to #34) #46
2plankr
Joined: 03/13/2009
MGoPoints: -433
That's not 'the only

That's not 'the only reason"

The real reason is that these people don't want to pay a premium for packages like Gameday, or go to a bar that has paid a premium

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 2:04 PM
#47
Brooklyn_Blue
Joined: 09/03/2009
MGoPoints: 482
Replacement for those that don't know

www.channelsurf.eu

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 2:14 PM
#48
Black Socks
Black Socks's picture
Joined: 11/30/2009
MGoPoints: 14365
What blows my mind is that

What blows my mind is that nobody is investigating WTC 7, when it fell at free fall speed and a peer reviewed journal found nanothermite in all dust samples.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 2:24 PM
(Reply to #37) #49
BiSB
BiSB's picture
Joined: 08/15/2009
MGoPoints: 44839
Ruh ruh...

DANGER, Will Robinson...

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 2:57 PM
(Reply to #37) #50
BlueDragon
BlueDragon's picture
Joined: 11/14/2010
MGoPoints: 21718
(No subject)

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 3:36 PM
(Reply to #37) #51
MBAgoblue
MBAgoblue's picture
Joined: 07/09/2008
MGoPoints: 2120
(No subject)

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 5:11 PM
(Reply to #37) #52
ShockFX
ShockFX's picture
Joined: 07/16/2008
MGoPoints: 4069
I'm not going to weigh in on

I'm not going to weigh in on conspiracies or not, but when I read about the nanothermite I was all, WTF?!?!?

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 6:25 PM
(Reply to #37) #53
wmu313
wmu313's picture
Joined: 01/30/2010
MGoPoints: 908
Someone

Someone has been watching that  sloppily researched video made by a couple of snot nosed college kids... What's it called? Loose Screws?

Top
March 7th, 2011 at 4:01 PM
(Reply to #37) #54
08mms
Joined: 07/02/2009
MGoPoints: 2047
Bring out the tin foil, its

Bring out the tin foil, its hat making time.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 3:41 PM
#55
Bez
Joined: 12/31/2010
MGoPoints: 340
Pay per game

I don't know why they don't pay to stream online. I realize that there is a huge hosting/loadbalancing cost consideration and I'm sure they have done the numbers and it doesn't make sense...

It's total bullshit in 2011 that they don't provide that option. It would be popular--charge me 2-4 bucks per game. I'd prefer that anyways because chasing down a good reliable feed is a pain in the ass

I'm relatively poor and I can't afford to pay for the level of access I would need to watch all Michigan games.

Top
March 4th, 2011 at 7:00 PM
#56
phork
phork's picture
Joined: 11/01/2009
MGoPoints: 4486
Nothing is over until we

Nothing is over until we decide it is.  So by rule does this make a Slingbox illegal to use to broadcast your TV?

Top
Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.