ATDHE.net domain seized by Homeland Security

[Ark2]

I have no idea why it is illegal to watch streamed live events that are full of commericals. If I lived in Alberta, I would get Sportsnet West in my basic cable package, so what's the difference? Corporations need to spend less time on trying to make things like they were before the internet and more time trying to figure out how to best take advantage of this situation.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by Ark2

If I lived in Alberta, I would get Sportsnet West in my basic cable package, so what's the difference?

I don't disagree with your post, but I wanted to note that Sportsnet West is not in the basic cable package here, at least on Shaw. You have to get Tier 1 Cable to pick it up (Channel 27).

[Locke]

Haha! And their new format is better than ever!

I love this for soccer, especially in Canada, we get such limited soccer that streaming is a must.

I always keep 3 or 4 sources available just in case Homeland Security decide to be jerks on a Liverpool gameday.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Locke

Haha! And their new format is better than ever!

I love this for soccer, especially in Canada, we get such limited soccer that streaming is a must.

I always keep 3 or 4 sources available just in case Homeland Security decide to be jerks on a Liverpool gameday.

They're probably doing you a favour this season. I'll admit to having watched the odd Norwich City game on there that simply isn't available in Canada. I have also paid $15 for a month of Setanta just for a single Norwich City game.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

They're probably doing you a favour this season. I'll admit to having watched the odd Norwich City game on there that simply isn't available in Canada. I have also paid $15 for a month of Setanta just for a single Norwich City game.

Setanta really have to get HD going on, $15 a month is pretty steep for no HD and almost exclusively Chelsea and Man U games.

I also watch a bunch of other matches, like Bayern Munich or whatever is available sometimes. Its good to have options that TV just cant give you.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I have no idea why it is illegal to watch streamed live events that are full of commericals. If I lived in Alberta, I would get Sportsnet West in my basic cable package, so what's the difference? Corporations need to spend less time on trying to make things like they were before the internet and more time trying to figure out how to best take advantage of this situation.

Its because shaw pays sportsnet west 50 cents of whatever the fee per subscriber.

The only channels they dont pay for use is CBC CTV and Global, all over the air channels.

If you remember in 2007 when NFL network launched alot of cable companies wouldnt carry it on their basic sports package, which means NFL network lost out on alot of guaranteed money.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by OilKiller

Now with CBC, TSN, SN and SN Flames and no PPV, who cares....

Pretty much anybody outside of Alberta? I have CI and still use it.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Ark2

I have no idea why it is illegal to watch streamed live events that are full of commericals. If I lived in Alberta, I would get Sportsnet West in my basic cable package, so what's the difference?

It's not that I don't agree with what you are saying but if everything was streamed online for free, even with commercials, there would be no need to pay Shaw for cable. So it may not only hurt the show itself, but the provider who brings TV to your house, which could be higher prices for basic things.

Also as someone pointed out Shaw pays Sportsnet or whoever to broadcast their channel per subscriber, if say a million people switch to online veiwing versus Shaw, Sportsnet could be losing $500-750k per month in subscriber fees.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Also as someone pointed out Shaw pays Sportsnet or whoever to broadcast their channel per subscriber, if say a million people switch to online veiwing versus Shaw, Sportsnet could be losing $500-750k per month in subscriber fees.

But if the industry were set up appropriately (not saying it is), then Sportsnet would recognize those additional veiwers and obtain higher rates for its ads. They would then charge less out to shaw per subscriber.

[gargamel]

I haven't been this upset since the mall hired security guards.


Signed,

Gargamel, Esq., copyright attorney

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Ducay

But if the industry were set up appropriately (not saying it is), then Sportsnet would recognize those additional veiwers and obtain higher rates for its ads. They would then charge less out to shaw per subscriber.

But why would an advertiser pay more?

If I watch normal TV but cancel my cable and start watching TV online I'm not adding to the viewership, I'm just finding a differerent way to view it. So as an advertiser you aren't gaining anything for the cost.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by HOOT

But why would an advertiser pay more?

If I watch normal TV but cancel my cable and start watching TV online I'm not adding to the viewership, I'm just finding a differerent way to view it. So as an advertiser you aren't gaining anything for the cost.

You might not be adding viewship if you are going from cable to online streaming but other people living outside of Alberta will be. Online streaming will add many more viewers around the world where as only Albertans are watching Sportsnet West through cables right now.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Well this sucks how the MPAA/RIAA lawyers are running the US now. Didn't Obama just appoint another one to government?

So ATDHE is a threat to national security? WTF?

Yes, the seizing of a domain used to violate federal law means that the US is being run by MPAA/RIAA lawyers. What a moronic statement.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by HOOT

But why would an advertiser pay more?

If I watch normal TV but cancel my cable and start watching TV online I'm not adding to the viewership, I'm just finding a differerent way to view it. So as an advertiser you aren't gaining anything for the cost.

True, but as an advertiser, you would also have more opportunities to advertise your product/service online via banners. Additionally, you would gain all the people that never subscribed to cable in the first place because they always managed to find what they wanted to watch online. I just think that the time of the subscription is coming to an end. Why would I subscribe to HBO when I can watch any HBO program I want online, in HD, an hour after it airs? Sure, my parents might not know how to do that, but even that could change in the near future. Then what? Send Home Land Security after quicksilverscreen and every copy-cat that appears afterwards?

[OilKiller]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Pretty much anybody outside of Alberta? I have CI and still use it.

Well, then that is what CI is for. If you live outside the region, then before all the games were broadcast and before PPV was gone, CI was great. People outside the region would get ALL the games and the PPV games included.

Those of us in the region had to shell out for the PPV games and there were games that were just not available to watch legally.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Online streaming will add many more viewers around the world where as only Albertans are watching Sportsnet West through cables right now.

Okay well that's assuming they can get national or worldwide coverage for that game. Do you think the NHL would approve something like this when they charge $200/year for that same product? I don't, at least not for free.

Only way I could see it ever happening is if Sportsnet paid MUCH more to have the rights to the games and at that point would it be worth it for Sportsnet?

My guess is when/if streaming is available to Sportsnet, if it's not already, that they would have to black out IP address outside the region the game is being broadcast. It will be exactly how we see it today but just online.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by gargamel

I haven't been this upset since the mall hired security guards.


Signed,

Gargamel, Esq., copyright attorney

Those old guys need a job though

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Okay well that's assuming they can get national or worldwide coverage for that game. Do you think the NHL would approve something like this when they charge $200/year for that same product? I don't, at least not for free.

Only way I could see it ever happening is if Sportsnet paid MUCH more to have the rights to the games and at that point would it be worth it for Sportsnet?

My guess is when/if streaming is available to Sportsnet, if it's not already, that they would have to black out IP address outside the region the game is being broadcast. It will be exactly how we see it today but just online.

This goes back to the discussion of how the corporations should adapt to technology. Would NHL make more money trying to gouge every cent from their limited fans (which by the way does nothing to fight piracy) or would they make more profit adapting to the current technology (support free online streaming) by expanding their market for viewership (more profit through advertisements) and merchandise purchases from new fans they gain.

[Matata]

Beware of replacement sites, people have been setting these up (<removed>) and all they do is try to install malware.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Matata

Beware of replacement sites, people have been setting these up (<removed>) and all they do is try to install malware.

Wait, <removed> is malware?.....rut roh