What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

U.S. seizes 10 sports streaming websites (1 Viewer)

damageinc

Footballguy
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Ten websites that were allegedly engaged in the live streaming of major sporting events have been seized and shut down by authorities, the government said Wednesday.

The 10 sites were among the most popular on the Internet for users hoping to access copyrighted sporting events, the U.S. Attorney's Office said

According to the government's complaint, which was unsealed Wednesday, each of the seized sites aggregated illegal, pirated broadcasts, and provided links to site visitors.

Some of the world's biggest sports leagues were allegedly victimized, including the National Football League, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, World Wrestling Entertainment and the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said the seizure, carried out just days before the Super Bowl, reaffirms the government's commitment to protecting copyright material.

"The illegal streaming of professional sporting events over the Internet deals a financial body blow to the leagues and broadcasters who are forced to pass their losses off to fans by raising prices for tickets and pay-per-view events," Bharara said.

The sites were disabled Tuesday, and have since been replaced by a posting notifying visitors that "This domain has been seized by ICE - Homeland Security Investigations."

The seizure were carried out by the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

ICE is the principal investigative arm of the larger Department of Homeland Security, and runs the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, which coordinates government efforts to combat intellectual property theft.

Atdhe.net, channelsurfing.net, hq-streams.com, hqstreams.net, firstrow.net, ilemi.com, iilemi.com, iilemii.com, rojadirecta.org and rojadirecta.com are the names of the seized sites

 
Not that I condone theft but this is a bummer for fans who have limited access to cable or difficulty getting a satellite signal. It'd be nice if leagues would get with the times and find a way to allow internet streaming for those willing to pay for it.

The problem ends up being the networks and advertising. But perhaps one day.

edited to add - Thank goodness Homeland Security had nothing better to do yesterday!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"The illegal streaming of professional sporting events over the Internet deals a financial body blow to the leagues and broadcasters who are forced to pass their losses off to fans by raising prices for tickets and pay-per-view events," Bharara said.
:thumbup:
 
"The illegal streaming of professional sporting events over the Internet deals a financial body blow to the leagues and broadcasters who are forced to pass their losses off to fans by raising prices for tickets and pay-per-view events," Bharara said.
:thumbup:
That is the biggest load of horse-puckey ever, isn't it?
It's certainly right up there.With this recent seizure, I suppose it stands to reason that they'll be lowering their prices back down now, right? :)
 
Just another reason why I hate our government, because it does what it wants.

But why do companies like this have their headquarters on US soil?

 
It'd be nice if leagues would get with the times and find a way to allow internet streaming for those willing to pay for it.
This. It is going to happen sooner than later. Really, it is the broadcasting companies' faults that their content is being illegally streamed. They could easily reduce the number of streaming channels by offering an alternative and quality service on the internet.
 
It'd be nice if leagues would get with the times and find a way to allow internet streaming for those willing to pay for it.
This. It is going to happen sooner than later. Really, it is the broadcasting companies' faults that their content is being illegally streamed. They could easily reduce the number of streaming channels by offering an alternative and quality service on the internet.
Absolutely. We don't pay for TV service - we just don't watch much TV besides football, and that comes over the air. I am absolutely not going to pay for DirectTV AND the Sunday Ticket Package to watch 16 games, especially when I was going to get 4-6 of them on TV anyways. How much does all that cost these days?As often as I can I try to "do the right thing" and pay to watch the games in the form of buying some wings and a few beers at a local bar, but I occasionally stream as well. I just have a hard time believing that offering games pay-per-view on the Internet would cause more losses in their TV contracts value than gains in income. But I dunno.

What would you guys be willing to pay per game, assuming a high-quality stream? If it was $5 I would stream every Packers game that wasn't on TV. Maybe even $8. For $10 I'd probably be picky about which ones I watched.

 
It'd be nice if leagues would get with the times and find a way to allow internet streaming for those willing to pay for it.
This. It is going to happen sooner than later. Really, it is the broadcasting companies' faults that their content is being illegally streamed. They could easily reduce the number of streaming channels by offering an alternative and quality service on the internet.
Absolutely. We don't pay for TV service - we just don't watch much TV besides football, and that comes over the air. I am absolutely not going to pay for DirectTV AND the Sunday Ticket Package to watch 16 games, especially when I was going to get 4-6 of them on TV anyways. How much does all that cost these days?As often as I can I try to "do the right thing" and pay to watch the games in the form of buying some wings and a few beers at a local bar, but I occasionally stream as well. I just have a hard time believing that offering games pay-per-view on the Internet would cause more losses in their TV contracts value than gains in income. But I dunno.

What would you guys be willing to pay per game, assuming a high-quality stream? If it was $5 I would stream every Packers game that wasn't on TV. Maybe even $8. For $10 I'd probably be picky about which ones I watched.
Well, I have no problem paying my $9 per month for Netflix. They seem to be doing just fine financially with that number, and that's without things being ad supported. So, I'd gladly pay the same for the NFL. I think the ad model is a key point here. Even if the NFL streamed it, they'd still be getting ad revenue for the online viewers. It's not like they wouldn't show commericals the same way and somehow lose money.

I'd wager they revenue would increase, because they'd be picking up individual subscriber fees in addition.

Make it happen NFL.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just another reason why I hate our government, because it does what it wants.

But why do companies like this have their headquarters on US soil?
I happen to be one who has watched many a game on these pirated stations. The government is enforcing a law that protects legal copyrighted information. If the NFL and the stations that pay a bundle of money for the product didn't care about access the law wouldn't be enforced.

I too would like to see the ability for a pay per view. I would pay a price, within reason, for a streaming telecast.

 
It'd be nice if leagues would get with the times and find a way to allow internet streaming for those willing to pay for it.
This. It is going to happen sooner than later. Really, it is the broadcasting companies' faults that their content is being illegally streamed. They could easily reduce the number of streaming channels by offering an alternative and quality service on the internet.
I'm pretty sure that every league except the NFL does do this. I've personally used the NBA league pass and the MLB package, and one of my friends has the NHL one. It's just the NFL that is holding out, probably because its profits are so high.

 
It'd be nice if leagues would get with the times and find a way to allow internet streaming for those willing to pay for it.
This. It is going to happen sooner than later. Really, it is the broadcasting companies' faults that their content is being illegally streamed. They could easily reduce the number of streaming channels by offering an alternative and quality service on the internet.
I'm pretty sure that every league except the NFL does do this. I've personally used the NBA league pass and the MLB package, and one of my friends has the NHL one. It's just the NFL that is holding out, probably because its profits are so high.
I think the NFL would actually LIKE to do this. They offer that service for countries outside of the US. But their deal with DirecTv prohibits it.
 
Yesterday I went to watch Kentucky vs Mississippi and got that Homeland Security message they siezed this domain, ouch.

 
Just another reason why I hate our government, because it does what it wants.But why do companies like this have their headquarters on US soil?
If by doing what they want you meant to say "enforcing copyright laws" then you would be correct. I enjoy watching games streamed to my CPU, I do also understand that it's completly illegal.
 
"The illegal streaming of professional sporting events over the Internet deals a financial body blow to the leagues and broadcasters who are forced to pass their losses off to fans by raising prices for tickets and pay-per-view events," Bharara said.
:goodposting:
That is the biggest load of horse-puckey ever, isn't it?
It's certainly right up there.With this recent seizure, I suppose it stands to reason that they'll be lowering their prices back down now, right? :rolleyes:
lol
 
Just another reason why I hate our government, because it does what it wants.
You hate the government because they are enforcing laws? That sounds pretty ignorant to me. Personally, I believe that the government has it tentacles in too many things (healthcare for one) and we are better off with less government control, however, if you have a problem with the law, then campaign to change the law. Don't complain about the people that enforce the laws. That's just stoopid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"The illegal streaming of professional sporting events over the Internet deals a financial body blow to the leagues and broadcasters who are forced to pass their losses off to fans by raising prices for tickets and pay-per-view events," Bharara said.
:lmao:
That is the biggest load of horse-puckey ever, isn't it?
It's certainly right up there.With this recent seizure, I suppose it stands to reason that they'll be lowering their prices back down now, right? :)
lol
Just this past Sunday, my son wanted to watch the WWE Royal Rumble. I certainly wasn't going to pay $54 though. I hooked the computer up to the tv, found the event on ilemi.com and found out I had the British feed where the cost was only about $10USD for subscribers in the UK. :blackdot:
 
Were those sites not rebroadcasting with the express written consent of the NFL?

The people running those sites should be ashamed of themselves.

I retain confidence that the gabazillion other sites which were not taken down have secured the necessary consent from the NFL just like they were supposed to.

The United States government is focused on all the right things here. We are blessed to be living in a country totally absent problems more important than this one. Well, and the PED witch hunts...I'm glad our best are working on that one.

Our best chance to catch Bin Laden is if he takes desoxymethyltestosterone and tries to pitch an inning in the majors.

 
I have 3 sons in the computer industry, and they see some bigger issues here.

Some correspondence between us today --

Couch Potato:

Some/all of you may know that I don't pay for cable or other TV services and only use my idiot box to watch Netflix (and now other Roku-available stuff). I sometimes used channelsurfing.net to watch my Sunday/Monday football. I knew it was illegal as hell, but there it was when I wanted it... until now.

Check the link. Yep, it's legit, govt seals and all. Homeland Security shut them down. Turns out 10 sites were shut down including the one I use. Oh well. http://www.channelsurfing.net/

Dad

Son #1:

Yeah, saw that...

It's scary. I'm seeing Homeland Security shutdowns of sites all over the place these days. Lots of news about them. And now they're trying to get an Internet Kill Switch law passed. We saw how well that worked out for Egypt. And the media companies are pushing hard to kill Net Neutrality, which would allow them to sell "packages" of Internet content, or charge more for activities such as streaming. We're already seeing this with Comcast vs. Netflix.

The Internet may look very different in a few years. Or it may be exactly the same, but it's a bit worrisome, especially as other countries are already implementing some of these measures.

Son #2:

This is becoming all too familiar an occurrence. Even happens to sites that aren't hosted or run by people in the USA. If they just happen to use a domain registrar that operates in our country, all it takes for the government to cut off mainstream access to the site is by ordering that registrar to re-route the domain name to the DHS server. The site may still be up under an active IP address, unless the government threatened their ISP as well. But it wouldn't last long at all without ad revenue from the many visitors that know no other way of accessing the site than through the seized domain.

When a site I moderated decided to change servers, it inexplicably became unavailable to several members. While assisting them by getting them set up with an alternate pathway via the Tor network, I determined that all were connecting through Türk Telekom and its subordinates. Turkey's government firewall is disallowing all communication to a range of network addresses at the Amsterdam Internet Exchange backbone which our new server uses to connect to the Internet, blocking out any legitimate resources residing in that block in the process. Turkey is a prevalent example of Internet censorship, from their youtube fiasco to quietly shutting down sites like Noam Chotsky's blog. But that's more so based on ancient religious ideologies than trying to turn a profit by snuffing out the competition, which USA's capitalist infrastructure has been trying to perfect in recent years.

As for Egypt: closer to home in Canada, Rogers Cable has started to impose heavy caps on bandwidth usage and increased their monthly rates. Some are unhappy to be reduced to a 100GB monthly max for certain plans, but that's been the norm with Comcast for a while. While I guess we should count our blessings compared to the total blackout Egypt just experienced, all this control is imposed for superficial reasons, like money (once Internet cables are laid, little relative cost is required for their upkeep) or radical fundamentalism (e.g., looking at new powerful ideas or porn is condemnable, we should block any chance of that ever happening). If it gets bad enough that the general population begins to collectively feel it, I can only hope they aren't too comfortable suckling the product of their corporate gods to react.

Follow up email correction from Son #2 -- Rogers imposes a 25 GB monthly cap now. That's just ~14 Netflix HD films or ~20 SD films, not counting all the youtube that will be viewed over the course of a month. Over-usage will cost heavily, and very artificially.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Look, you should be happy they are taking them down and not putting these guys away. A little inconvenience isnt a problem considering how much money you are saving.

Also, the reason they don't offer it on the Internet is because of how much money is made through TV. A TV deal gives money to everybody involved. The league, the teams, the network, the advertisers, TV manufactures (I'd like to see how many TVs are sold without sports around). The more Internet viewership, the less valuable TV is. And what about Sunday Ticket and all that jazz. That is obsolete considering the price.

 
Just another reason why I hate our government, because it does what it wants.
You hate the government because they are enforcing laws? That sounds pretty ignorant to me. Personally, I believe that the government has it tentacles in too many things (healthcare for one) and we are better off with less government control, however, if you have a problem with the law, then campaign to change the law. Don't complain about the people that enforce the laws. That's just stoopid.
the laws are dumb and not practical with todays biz models/real life. The NFL and every league should be fired for incompetence at following the RIAA and the dying gatekeepers of the information age 1.0

for a counterpoint and another example of how ####### stupid the RIAA is http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/mf_spotify/

19.01

Spotify Is the Coolest Music Service You Can't Use

By Neal Pollack December 27, 2010 | 12:00 pm | Wired January 2011

Illustration: Tom Whalen

On the first Monday in October, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer gave a speech to students at Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. The lecture hall—”one of the most vertical auditoriums I’ve ever been in,” Ballmer told the group—was all blond wood and sensible lighting, simultaneously modern and venerable in that distinctly Swedish way. After discussing cloud computing and extolling the joys of playing Xbox volleyball, Ballmer brought out a special guest who was sure to ignite the crowd: Daniel Ek, CEO of the Swedish startup Spotify.

A soft-spoken, balding 27-year-old Swede, Ek took the stage to enthusiastic applause, all but outshining the Microsoft chief. “It’s great to be here, back in Sweden!” he said, sounding every bit the returning rock star. He then made the day’s big announcement: Spotify, the music service he created, would now be available through a new app for Windows phones in Europe.

If you’ve never heard of Ek or his company, you can’t be blamed. Spotify is perhaps the biggest, coolest, greatest piece of software you’re not allowed to use. It’s a stand-alone application that lets users listen to and share any song by any artist instantly and for free. And it’s entirely legal. The service supports itself (and pays for music rights) with advertising and monthly subscriptions that unlock premium features such as the ability to store songs on an iPod, mobile phone, or tablet.

Spotify is an elegant application, by far the simplest, easiest way to listen to digital music. It’s faster and more responsive than iTunes, torrents, or Pandora. And while there have been all-you-can-eat music services like Rhapsody for some time, none of them let you start listening without laying down a credit card. Not surprisingly, Spotify dominates the markets where it’s available. The company estimates that it has more than 10 million users in seven countries, with more than 500,000 paying subscribers. It has fundamentally changed how people listen to music in Europe.

But, thanks to resistant labels and archaic rights systems, Spotify isn’t available in the US. And this isn’t just a problem for American music fans. It’s also a problem for Spotify—the US is the world’s largest music market, bigger than France, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Italy, and the UK combined. Spotfiy’s lack of a US footprint may even be a problem for the music industry, which has struggled to find new ways to capitalize on digital music and finds itself increasingly crushed under the heavy boot of iTunes.

Since Spotify's launch in 2008, digital download sales have been solid in Europe, as seen here in millions of U.S. dollars.

Source: International Federation of the Phonographic Industry

Ek and his team have been trying to bring Spotify to the US for more than a year now, with little to show for it. Since 2009, the rumors of Spotify’s impending American invasion have fizzled in disappointment every time. For those who’ve followed the effort, Spotify has begun to take on the aura of raw-milk French cheese or certain varieties of Amsterdam flora—a European import that North American connoisseurs just can’t get here. But for its part, Spotify insists that it’s coming to the US, and soon.

Back at the Royal Institute of Technology, Ek gave a short speech about the advantages offered by his software: “People now consume a lot more music by a bigger diversity of artists,” he said. “And the reason they do that is because they no longer discover music from a radio station. They discover music from their friends.” That, he explained, was the key to Spotify’s success and the reason it is important to the music industry. It offers a new, better way to discover music.

Ek signed off by urging his fellow Swedes to “keep sharing music,” and Ballmer stepped back into the spotlight. “I’ve heard a lot about Daniel over the years,” he said. “It’s the first time we’ve met personally. We have a lot to talk about.”

Undoubtedly first on the list was the same question every other North American music fan wants to ask: Where’s my damn Spotify?

Daniel Ek, a self-admitted “early user of Napster,” first became obsessed with digital downloads after the deaths of Napster and Kazaa in the early 2000s. Though he’s not yet 30, Ek has been running tech companies for more than a decade. The first was a web design business he launched in 1997, while still a teenager living in a Stockholm suburb. He later worked as the CTO for Stardoll, a virtual paper-doll site for tween girls; started an advertising company that got purchased by the Internet marketing outfit TradeDoubler; and was part of Tradera, a Swedish auction company, which eBay bought in 2006.

But music downloading was increasingly in the back of his mind. Ek wanted to create a legal service that offered the convenience and immediacy of file-sharing programs like the original Napster. “The reason I started Spotify,” he says, “was not because of my love of music. It was because I saw an opportunity to create something that made it easier for people to do the stuff that they were already doing, but legally.”

Ek discussed his ideas with Ludvig Strigeus, a brilliant developer who is confined to a wheelchair by a rare muscular disease. Strigeus had created uTorrent, a fast, lean, and extremely popular BitTorrent client. Ek soon realized that this was the guy he needed. He and TradeDoubler cofounder Martin Lorentzon teamed up to buy uTorrent, turned around and sold the technology to BitTorrent, and kept Strigeus on as a developer for a new music project.

Ek didn’t know much about the music business. All he knew was technology. So he hired a team of engineers to work with Strigeus and started creating his dream program. Strigeus quickly developed a highly efficient peer-to-peer system that became the heart of Spotify.

With the software complete, Ek finally set out to gain the rights he needed to fill the service with songs. Unlike the US, every European country has a national association of sorts that manages all the rights to broadcast and stream music. In order to earn the privilege of offering digital tracks, a service like Spotify negotiates with these associations—not with individual record labels and copyright holders. Ek didn’t have an easy time of it, but he finally managed to gain rights to stream pretty much any song in Sweden, England, Norway, Italy, Germany, France, and Spain.

Spotify launched in October 2008 and began its European invasion. By the end of 2009, Spotify had more than 6.5 million registered users. By the middle of 2010, the application was such a hit that telecom providers started bundling it with their phones, and manufacturer Sonos included the service in its home-audio systems.

Spotify’s seemingly irresistible appeal stems from the fact that it’s free, at least for the basic service. In addition to letting users listen to any song they want without having to buy it, being free also helps Spotify become a thriving community, è0 la Facebook. Since there’s no impediment to joining, users can share songs and playlists without worrying about who is and isn’t currently a member. To make money, Spotify relies heavily on some portion of users deciding to pay for upgrades—a classic freemium model. Sign up for 5 euros a month and you eliminate ads from the desktop application. A 10-euro subscription allows you to store an unlimited number of tracks on your hard drive or any mobile device, so you can listen even if you don’t have an Internet connection.

It was exactly what music fans had been waiting for, fulfilling the long-sought dream of a “celestial jukebox”—a service that makes every song always available, freely and legally. UK resident Andy Smith, who created Spotibot.com, a web application to help people find new music on Spotify, puts it this way: “Spotify is finally a realization of a much-speculated model of music-as-a-service. I’ve come to think of it almost as a utility. Just as I turn on a tap to get water, I turn on Spotify to get music.”

The company grew rapidly and soon employed 200 people. It moved into fancy new digs in the middle of Stockholm’s trendy Stureplan district and opened equally posh offices in London. To celebrate the company’s second birthday, Spotify threw itself a big party at the KOKO Club in London’s hot Camden section, including a live performance by British rockers the Bees.

Among those drawn to Spotify’s success was Sean Parker, cofounder of Napster and the early president of Facebook—portrayed by Justin Timberlake in The Social Network. Always on the lookout to get in on the hot new thing, Parker contacted Ek about investing, eventually putting an estimated $15 million into the company.

“You get addicted to it,” Parker said of Spotify at a recent tech conference. “You end up building a music library that’s 100 times bigger than anything you’ve ever had, and at that point you have no choice—we’ve got you by the balls. If you want that content on your iPod, you’re going to have to pay for it; if you want that content on your iPhone, you’re going to have to become a subscriber.”

Daniel Ek, the tech nerd turned music mogul behind Spotify, in his London offices.

Photo: Marius Hansen

There’s no question that Spotify would be wildly successful in the US. Already there are breathless blogs and fansites dedicated to discussing the service’s US potential. It might even grab a sizable number of music fans “by the balls.” After all, the celestial jukebox—MP3s, Napster, music-on-tap—is an American invention. But there’s one major difference between Europe and the US: In the US, the labels have direct control over interactive rights.

And that’s the core of Spotify’s problem: There’s no simple way to get a license in the US to offer music on demand over the Internet. Unlike radio in the US—which has a legal right to broadcast music as long as a station or network pays a predetermined fee—digital music services have to negotiate for rights with each record label and individual copyright holder. “The labels have control,” says Les Watkins, a senior vice president at Music Reports, a service that administrates interactive rights. “They have the right to say yes or no.”

Sometimes they do say yes. Paid subscription services like Rhapsody have deals in place with all the majors. Three of those major labels actually have an ownership stake in MySpace Music. But when it comes to Spotify, with its insistence on deploying its freemium business model in the States, the labels have shown little interest.

None of the major labels would talk to Wired about Spotify, but several have made their opinions known. “Free streaming services are clearly not net positive for the industry,” said Warner Music CEO Edgar Bronfman Jr. during a February conference call to discuss his company’s quarterly earnings, “and as far as Warner Music is concerned, it will not be licensed. So, this sort of ‘get all the music you want for free and then maybe we can—with a few bells and whistles—move you to a premium price’ strategy is not the kind of approach to business that we will be supporting in the future.”

Ek finds this point of view extremely shortsighted. He sees Spotify as the best way to turn the industry around. By making it easier to discover music, he says, the market can expand. This will ultimately yield more profits for everyone, even if people are listening to some songs for free. “Do I really believe that in an age where people listen to more music than ever, from a greater diversity of artists, that the real value of music for the entire industry is $17 billion or less?” he says. “No. I believe that we’re actually in a golden age of music consumption. The value should be much, much greater. It should be $50 billion or more.”

It’s easy to see why the labels doubt this. Consider the arithmetic at its crudest: To expand the music industry by $30 billion, Spotify would need 300 million paid users worldwide, tough to pull off when thus far only 5 percent of the service’s members convert to a paid subscription. But to Ek, that math belies a simple truth: The mere fact that people are discovering new artists and songs leads to increased music sales across the board.

Spotify has begun to take on the aura of raw-milk cheese—a European import we just can’t get here.

There’s evidence that Ek may be right. Since Spotify debuted in Sweden two years ago, digital music sales have doubled, according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (though pinpointing how much of this is due to Spotify is tough). Matt Culpin, half of the British electropop duo the Northern Kind, offers an example of why this may be. “There is a paradox,” he explains. “Our first album isn’t on Spotify. Its sales on iTunes have steadily declined since launch, which is to be expected. Our second album was released to Spotify. Its sales have held steadily on iTunes since launch. I can only put this down to its exposure on Spotify.” In other words, giving the music away for free led to more sales.

Even with little sign that the US labels are ready to budge, Spotify has remained doggedly steadfast in its assertion that a deal is imminent. Thanks to the company’s optimism, headlines like “Spotify Planning Late-Summer US Launch” began appearing in July 2009, even though the company hadn’t signed a single licensing deal. At a November 2009 tech forum in Monaco, Ek was forced to admit that it wasn’t going to happen, at least not that year. “The US is a different beast,” he said. “Most people are still not aware of the service or how it works—so we do have to spend time educating the market.”

Then in February 2010 came another round of hope mongering. “We’re in the final stages of setting up,” Ek said. “Yesterday we signed a data center contract, which is huge for us. So, we’re gearing up for a US launch. I can’t say if it’s in one month’s time or two month’s time, but it’s looking pretty good.” Ek gave a keynote speech at the South By Southwest Interactive conference in March, the day before the SXSW music festival, and rumors abounded that he’d announce a US deal. He didn’t, and months passed. Still no Spotify. Frustrated, would-be American Spotify fans took to lampooning the endless stream of promises: “Spotify is now officially the Robbie-Can’t-Break-America-Williams of the music biz,” read one tweet.

While Spotify has so far been able to broadcast only press releases in the US, competing services have begun to emerge. Chief among them is Rdio, a streaming-music service started by Janus Friis and Niklas Zenström, the creators of Skype.

Rdio launched in August, and though it lacks the polish and responsiveness of Spotify, it does have licenses from all four major labels and boasts a catalog of more than 7 million songs. Friis and Zenström, of course, had tried their hand at digital music more than a decade earlier with Kazaa, which the major labels easily squashed. “The irony wasn’t lost on me when I went to get licenses,” Rdio CEO Drew Larner says. “But there wasn’t the pushback expected given the history.”

Rdio users can get unlimited streaming music on their desktop for $5 and on their phone for $10. The business model is remarkably similar to Spotify’s, except for one key aspect: There’s no free option. It’s pay or don’t play, which is undoubtedly the reason Rdio’s been able to get the labels on board.

The fear is that Spotify may eventually have to go this route to crack the US market. And while the stand-alone Spotify application may still be fast and elegant, having only pay offerings would break its most critical and beloved feature, the free basic service. If Spotify were pay-only, Ek’s utopian dream of an infinite postpiracy paradise would essentially become just another subscription-based streaming service.

As late as mid-November, Spotify hadn’t backed down on the claim that it was going to launch in the US, freemium model intact, by the end of the year. The company’s US servers were standing by in Washington, DC, and it had established a US office in Manhattan’s Meatpacking district. Spotify had retained people to do label relations, business development, and ad sales.

Ek himself, however, was hedging. After more than a year of dealing with the US music industry, he knows that launching a new product in the States isn’t easy. “We can’t say it will launch without a shadow of a doubt,” he said. “We’re more sure than we’ve been in the past, but things may still happen.” Or, in this case, not happen.

Neal Pollack (alternadad@gmail.com) is the author of the new book Stretch: The Unlikely Making of a Yoga Dude.

Pages: Previous 1 2 | Full Page | Next

 
Just another reason why I hate our government, because it does what it wants.
You hate the government because they are enforcing laws? That sounds pretty ignorant to me. Personally, I believe that the government has it tentacles in too many things (healthcare for one) and we are better off with less government control, however, if you have a problem with the law, then campaign to change the law. Don't complain about the people that enforce the laws. That's just stoopid.
the laws are dumb and not practical with todays biz models/real life. The NFL and every league should be fired for incompetence at following the RIAA and the dying gatekeepers of the information age 1.0

for a counterpoint and another example of how ####### stupid the RIAA is http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/mf_spotify/
Instead of complaining about it work on changing the law. Not at being upset at the people that enforce laws.
 
Every single domain that was taken down is now back up with a new domain name. DoHS can't do anything except seize the domain name, they're not physically doing anything to stop these companies. This makes for a good headline for the anti-piracy to slap each other on the back, but it's effectively done nothing at all.

 
Just another reason why I hate our government, because it does what it wants.
You hate the government because they are enforcing laws? That sounds pretty ignorant to me. Personally, I believe that the government has it tentacles in too many things (healthcare for one) and we are better off with less government control, however, if you have a problem with the law, then campaign to change the law. Don't complain about the people that enforce the laws. That's just stoopid.
the laws are dumb and not practical with todays biz models/real life. The NFL and every league should be fired for incompetence at following the RIAA and the dying gatekeepers of the information age 1.0

for a counterpoint and another example of how ####### stupid the RIAA is http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/mf_spotify/
Instead of complaining about it work on changing the law. Not at being upset at the people that enforce laws.
complaining/informing others about the law and its idiocy IS helping to change the law.

 
I have 3 sons in the computer industry, and they see some bigger issues here.

Some correspondence between us today --

Couch Potato:

Some/all of you may know that I don't pay for cable or other TV services and only use my idiot box to watch Netflix (and now other Roku-available stuff). I sometimes used channelsurfing.net to watch my Sunday/Monday football. I knew it was illegal as hell, but there it was when I wanted it... until now.

Check the link. Yep, it's legit, govt seals and all. Homeland Security shut them down. Turns out 10 sites were shut down including the one I use. Oh well. http://www.channelsurfing.net/

Dad

Son #1:

Yeah, saw that...

It's scary. I'm seeing Homeland Security shutdowns of sites all over the place these days. Lots of news about them. And now they're trying to get an Internet Kill Switch law passed. We saw how well that worked out for Egypt. And the media companies are pushing hard to kill Net Neutrality, which would allow them to sell "packages" of Internet content, or charge more for activities such as streaming. We're already seeing this with Comcast vs. Netflix.

The Internet may look very different in a few years. Or it may be exactly the same, but it's a bit worrisome, especially as other countries are already implementing some of these measures.

Son #2:

This is becoming all too familiar an occurrence. Even happens to sites that aren't hosted or run by people in the USA. If they just happen to use a domain registrar that operates in our country, all it takes for the government to cut off mainstream access to the site is by ordering that registrar to re-route the domain name to the DHS server. The site may still be up under an active IP address, unless the government threatened their ISP as well. But it wouldn't last long at all without ad revenue from the many visitors that know no other way of accessing the site than through the seized domain.

When a site I moderated decided to change servers, it inexplicably became unavailable to several members. While assisting them by getting them set up with an alternate pathway via the Tor network, I determined that all were connecting through Türk Telekom and its subordinates. Turkey's government firewall is disallowing all communication to a range of network addresses at the Amsterdam Internet Exchange backbone which our new server uses to connect to the Internet, blocking out any legitimate resources residing in that block in the process. Turkey is a prevalent example of Internet censorship, from their youtube fiasco to quietly shutting down sites like Noam Chotsky's blog. But that's more so based on ancient religious ideologies than trying to turn a profit by snuffing out the competition, which USA's capitalist infrastructure has been trying to perfect in recent years.

As for Egypt: closer to home in Canada, Rogers Cable has started to impose heavy caps on bandwidth usage and increased their monthly rates. Some are unhappy to be reduced to a 100GB monthly max for certain plans, but that's been the norm with Comcast for a while. While I guess we should count our blessings compared to the total blackout Egypt just experienced, all this control is imposed for superficial reasons, like money (once Internet cables are laid, little relative cost is required for their upkeep) or radical fundamentalism (e.g., looking at new powerful ideas or porn is condemnable, we should block any chance of that ever happening). If it gets bad enough that the general population begins to collectively feel it, I can only hope they aren't too comfortable suckling the product of their corporate gods to react.

Follow up email correction from Son #2 -- Rogers imposes a 25 GB monthly cap now. That's just ~14 Netflix HD films or ~20 SD films, not counting all the youtube that will be viewed over the course of a month. Over-usage will cost heavily, and very artificially.
:mellow:
 
"Change this IP address to point here instead" is way less dramatic than seizing a website.

I have no prob with this, almost wanna say thanks to the NFL for being so cool about it.

The NFL has at least 50 people that investigate copyright and trademark violations and those guys basically earn their salaries from lawsuits. They knew of these sites and didn't do "jack" for years. It really can't be that difficult to prove or get this done (more later)

Ya gotta figure DirecTV expects the NFL to protect it's brand some if the NFL wants them to pay a ton for the rights to sell The NFL Package so they probably had to.

It used to be (no clue now) that if you report a video on youtube as a copyright violation, they suspend it right away. It's not worth the lawsuit to them.

Craigslist is like a relic the site is so old and all, but it works. There is a California Law that if you steal images from Craiglist they will take your site. It's right in their TOS. (Maybe it's not Cali? I really think it is)

 
Just another reason why I hate our government, because it does what it wants.
You hate the government because they are enforcing laws? That sounds pretty ignorant to me. Personally, I believe that the government has it tentacles in too many things (healthcare for one) and we are better off with less government control, however, if you have a problem with the law, then campaign to change the law. Don't complain about the people that enforce the laws. That's just stoopid.
the laws are dumb and not practical with todays biz models/real life. The NFL and every league should be fired for incompetence at following the RIAA and the dying gatekeepers of the information age 1.0

for a counterpoint and another example of how ####### stupid the RIAA is http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/mf_spotify/
Instead of complaining about it work on changing the law. Not at being upset at the people that enforce laws.
By saying that, u actually believe that we have a say in this crooked government, and if you believe this government is not crooked my friend....you have not lived on this planet long. The laws that govern this country were made many many years ago by old white men who had turned their back on thier own country, yet we believe every law they created and that evolved over time, while also paving the way for how laws are still made today, are the right ones to follow. The laws are still made by old people on capitol hill whos only motive for anything, is how much money they take in for their next campaign. Politicians who make laws lie, cheat, and steal...incase you forgot.The internet laws are so far behind, its not just terrible, its pathetic. Now instead of defending the countries laws, that no doubt just wants to take take take from you, defend the people who want the same thing you want and thats a complete and total freedom. Common Sense should govern society, if you don't believe so, police forces are already virtually privatized (if you want to talk about the people enforcing laws), so get ready for no rights in the years to come (Heard of New World Order?). People do you really believe honest men run this country? The lie to our faces, yet we trust what laws they create? Hmmmmm

And as for the internet copyright law....I believe, once its on the internet, its fair game. Society has deemed that its up to you to keep it off the internet.

Be sure to not rock the boat, cuz if you do...well, just then, you might get something done.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
All the anti government talk is hilarious.

Do you people think you should be allowed to watch any game you want? Why do you feel that is your right?

And the other talk of "I guess they didn't have anything better to do"...just like speeders who get busted then whine that the cops should be out solving real crimes.

 
All the anti government talk is hilarious.Do you people think you should be allowed to watch any game you want? Why do you feel that is your right?And the other talk of "I guess they didn't have anything better to do"...just like speeders who get busted then whine that the cops should be out solving real crimes.
"Do you people think you should be allowed to watch any game you want?"Yes, for a fee. If the league doesn't ensure people have legal access to their product then I have no problems with people finding another way to get access."Why do you feel that is your right?'Because the sports leagues have got me interested in them. If McDonald's advertises some awesome new burger, I'm going to be upset if the local one doesn't sell it.Also, the people who complain about speeding tickets are right. Police should focus on doing their job of protecting and serving the community rather than setting ups speed traps to fine drivers, 90% of which are no danger to anyone around them. The cops causing people to break check usually are more of a danger than anyone speeding. It's just another racket to take money from people.
 
Bummer.

I enjoy the posts from those familiar with the computer/Internet industry linking this to larger trends.

A related question:

After this shut down, I'm sure this creates a new "business opportunity" for others who want to get into the illegal streaming business. The question is, does the government really have the power to cut all this stuff out or are more sites just going to sprout like dandelions.

We have seen in other industries such as drugs, pornography, etc., that if it is lucrative enough, there will always be those willing to do it -- and that makes it almost impossible for the government to stop the practice for good.

How does that apply -- or not apply -- here?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
All the anti government talk is hilarious.

Do you people think you should be allowed to watch any game you want? Why do you feel that is your right?

And the other talk of "I guess they didn't have anything better to do"...just like speeders who get busted then whine that the cops should be out solving real crimes.
"Do you people think you should be allowed to watch any game you want?"Yes, for a fee. If the league doesn't ensure people have legal access to their product then I have no problems with people finding another way to get access.

"Why do you feel that is your right?'

Because the sports leagues have got me interested in them. If McDonald's advertises some awesome new burger, I'm going to be upset if the local one doesn't sell it.

Also, the people who complain about speeding tickets are right. Police should focus on doing their job of protecting and serving the community rather than setting ups speed traps to fine drivers, 90% of which are no danger to anyone around them. The cops causing people to break check usually are more of a danger than anyone speeding. It's just another racket to take money from people.
Exactly, you want McDonalds to sell it...but you want the NFL to give it to you for free.People who complain about speeding tickets are not right. The police are doing their jobs protecting the community as speed is a large cause in traffic fatalities.

 
On "regular TV" you do get some games for free. This is just a typical sales technique of giving people a taste and making them crave more so they'll pay for it. The national games can be ones you like and most often local citizens are fans of the local teams so the NFL isn't cruel here or anything. They're just making you pay if you want extra.

 
All the anti government talk is hilarious.

Do you people think you should be allowed to watch any game you want? Why do you feel that is your right?

And the other talk of "I guess they didn't have anything better to do"...just like speeders who get busted then whine that the cops should be out solving real crimes.
"Do you people think you should be allowed to watch any game you want?"Yes, for a fee. If the league doesn't ensure people have legal access to their product then I have no problems with people finding another way to get access.

"Why do you feel that is your right?'

Because the sports leagues have got me interested in them. If McDonald's advertises some awesome new burger, I'm going to be upset if the local one doesn't sell it.

Also, the people who complain about speeding tickets are right. Police should focus on doing their job of protecting and serving the community rather than setting ups speed traps to fine drivers, 90% of which are no danger to anyone around them. The cops causing people to break check usually are more of a danger than anyone speeding. It's just another racket to take money from people.
Exactly, you want McDonalds to sell it...but you want the NFL to give it to you for free.People who complain about speeding tickets are not right. The police are doing their jobs protecting the community as speed is a large cause in traffic fatalities.
As far as the sites, the NFL isn't the only sport. The sites that were shut down do more traffic in soccer than any American league. Very often, the soccer match I want to watch is not available for any fee from anyone. The league simply either doesn't offer the match for TV or there's 5 matches going on at once and only 1 or 2 networks in the US that cover it. In that case, I see no issue watching some stream from a station in some European country that is broadcasting the match I want to see.Before this year, the NFL was the same for anyone that could not get DirecTV. This year they were wise enough to offer it online to non-DirecTV subscribers. The service was pretty poor though and I often had to go to an illegal stream because of the site issues. Part of the problem here is the broadcast monopolies these leagues are allowed to set up.

For driving, people going 10 over the speed limit are no danger. The speed limits in most areas are way lower than the safe travelling speed and are often set up with the sole purpose of getting people to speed so they can be fined. It has very little to do with protecting anyone.

 
I have friends who are completely on streaming content, using a paid subscription to Hulu to get the streams in real-time (guess you have to wait 24 hours for the free service).

The only drawback, he said, was sports. You would have to contract with different networks online to get their content individually. He also said up in the Pacific Northwest, some online content providers were making deals with different providers to produce package deals.

What does NFL.com provide online for pay? All I watch is football, so would gladly pay some amount to NFL.com to be able to stream pro games.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top