RIP: www.channelsurfing.net

[pizza delivery]

http://twitter.com/#!/channelsurf

Damn, Damn, Damn!!!!!!!

Homeland Security or something.

[X Factor]

Same with atdhe.net!!

I use both these sites for UFC fights, college basketball, NFL, and NBA games! That sucks.

[SixFig]

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-03-24/1237933752960.jpg

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lgI2ZQVyrBo" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>

[paulxu]

This will make it very difficult to participate in the LiveChat discussions.
It's like bacon and eggs....without the bacon.

[pizza delivery]

my local tavern just made 40 bucks a game from here on out. economic recovery at it's best!

[ThePowerOfX]

Wow, definitely shocked...but then again I guess it was bound to happen eventually...

[Espe]

New site. I don't know why they even try to shut these down, they'll just reappear under a new address.

http://atdhe.me/

[Xavier Nation]

It will be missed

[STL_XUfan]

Son of a b*******.

[xubrew]

It will be missed

it will be back. in the meantime, justin.tv and other similiar sites based outside the united states are still up and running.

[Art Vandelay]

Damn the Man!!

[Xman95]

Friggin' Obama!:D

[REF]

Dimes to dollars a sec. 1983 action prevails and costs all of us substantial $$$ in the process. Thanks big brother!

[muskies34]

www.channelsurf.eu

[The_Mack_Pack]

Well...At least we now know what Homeland Security does.

[LA Muskie]

Well...At least we now know what Homeland Security does.
It's called blatant copyright infringement, folks. It's very much illegal.

[XU Cowbell Kid]

It's called blatant copyright infringement, folks. It's very much illegal.

It's called a blatant joke. It's very much commonplace in this forum.

[bobbiemcgee]

www.channelsurf.eu

it's back!

[GoMuskies]

I missed it so much for several hours.

[GuyFawkes38]

woot europe!!!!

[SixFig]

On the third hour it rose again, in fulfillment of the scripture: "thou shalt watch Xavier on the GW video board feed through an Albanian satellite via a slingbox from Nepal"

[waggy]

That's in Isaiah right?

[D-West & PO-Z]

Horrible news. My bro was trying to watch the Knicks game a couple nights at and it wasn't working. Guess that's why. Oh, now I see that it's back on a different site name huh? Nice.

[PM Thor]

The copyright angle is easy to get around. Stop using logos. And its not about dissemination of copyrighted material. The Man is trying to shut them down because they provide links to other, numerous sites that provide feeds, all available through the interwebs. Csurf isn't providing any feed themselves, simply direct peole to other sites. I just read how another site was run through the wringer twice for this very same thing in Spain, both times they eventually won, but were shit down by The US in a hot minute, even though the site didn't even have any US affiliation. It's a little bit frightening how easily it gets done.

I HATE dayton.

[pizza delivery]

www.channelsurf.eu

my local tavern just lost 40 bucks a game from here on out. economic recovery at it's finest!

[LA Muskie]

The copyright angle is easy to get around. Stop using logos. . . . I just read how another site was run through the wringer twice for this very same thing in Spain, both times they eventually won, but were shit down by The US in a hot minute, even though the site didn't even have any US affiliation. It's a little bit frightening how easily it gets done.
The logo is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. Taking a logo off does not excuse copyright infringement.

Copyright law protects' the exclusive right of copyright owners to control and monetize the distribution and performance of their works in all territories. Internet transmission is a distribution of their work that is not authorized. It's a clear copyright violation (there's not even a legitimate question under US law). The fact that the transmission begins outside the US does not matter, if the transmission is viewed in the US. It may be convenient, but that doesn't make it right. (Nor was Napster and nor are the many file-sharing services that do effectively the same thing.)

[GoMuskies]

If channelsurfing is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

[PM Thor]

But Csurf isn't transmitting nor disseminating anything, they are simply providing links to other sites. If the gobment wants to go after copyright laws, go after the sources, not a site that just finds links.

I HATE dayton.

[xubrew]

But Csurf isn't transmitting nor disseminating anything, they are simply providing links to other sites. If the gobment wants to go after copyright laws, go after the sources, not a site that just finds links.

I HATE dayton.

this is correct as i understand it. channelsurfing.net is nothing more than an index of links to other websites that stream videos. they themselves aren't streaming a damn thing, and shutting it down doesn't make the streams go away. all of the sites that actually do the streaming will still exist and still be doing their thing.

in other words, they're not violating any copyright laws. they're just linking other sites that do. if anything, one could argue that they're doing the feds a favor by providing them with an index of websites that are violating copyright laws.

[REF]

Actually, as I understand it, they don't do a thing other than provide links. The government siezed the property of a foreign business entity that is within all legal bounds and even moreso they are now laying claim to that very property themselves. The government has violated a dozen or more international treaties and therefore 'international law.' Not that we've ever given a sh!t about other people or countries.

The website did not violate any copyright or trademark laws. The US government doesn't even appear to have gone through ICANN before simply hacking - yes, hacking - in to take over the DNS registries for the video link site (ie redirected the DNS to their 'seized' page).

[Michigan Muskie]

my local tavern just made 40 bucks a game from here on out. economic recovery at it's best!


my local tavern just lost 40 bucks a game from here on out. economic recovery at it's finest!

:D

Funny sheet.

[D-West & PO-Z]

If channelsurfing is wrong, I don't wanna be right.

Made me laugh this morning, reps.

[LA Muskie]

But Csurf isn't transmitting nor disseminating anything, they are simply providing links to other sites. If the gobment wants to go after copyright laws, go after the sources, not a site that just finds links.
It's called contributory copyright infringement, and it's as illegal as direct copyright infringement. And it's fairly easy to take down the site; all you have to do is issue a DMCA takedown notice to their ISP. If the ISP ignores it, they risk liability as well. Needless to say, the ISP doesn't want that risk.

I know all of this because I'm an intellectual property lawyer. But I don't want to be one on this site. It's my respite. So that's going to be it from me on this issue. Which I'm sure the rest of you are happy to hear as well, because frankly it's not an interesting sports discussion (and I know I introduced it).

[Mrs. Garrett]

For many of us outside of Cincy, it's the only way to catch a game. I would pay to watch the games if there was a way to do it. I'm not trying to rip anyone off, I will just do whatever it takes to watch Xavier basketball.

In 2011, I should be able to watch any game I want.

[coasterville95]

I get that, LA, in fact I seem to recall us saying when we first heard of channelsurfing "I wonder how that's going to last" and other statements to the effect of "Enjoy it till it gets shut down" Now that it may be taken away, I can't get over how many peole are trying to rationalize it by saving its only a links page. Just like a smuggler is only a link to the person who is actually supplying the illegal goods.

At first, the thing that I wondered about was how it fell into Homeland Security's jursidiction to take action on it. Then I had this thought. I beleive customs and immigration is now part of HomeLand security, right? If I were to obtain counterfit merchandise created without authorization of the copyright holder abroad, and tried to get it through customs, they'd be all over that. That is a stated part of the goal of customs, to prevent the importation of illegal material where illegal material includes 'counterfiet' goods. I suppose in a digital age, this is the same thing. Somebody is acting as a runner for counterfeit video streams, and customs, or HomeLand security is stopping that.

I do think that sets a bad precedent if HomeLand Security can block incoming international traffic it feels is dangerous. It's your sports streams today, but what if later they decide ala China that sites with anti-american views are "dangerous to the security of this country"

Channelsurfing.net being a US registered domain probably made the take over and shut down process a lot easier on them, which may explain the move to the .eu.

[Juice]

For many of us outside of Cincy, it's the only way to catch a game. I would pay to watch the games if there was a way to do it. I'm not trying to rip anyone off, I will just do whatever it takes to watch Xavier basketball.

In 2011, I should be able to watch any game I want.

I don't get why some of these channels don't embrace the internet online streaming and charge people for the games or simply include the online numbers in their deals with advertisers. I would think there would be money to be made if this was done correctly.

[bobbiemcgee]

Our game is listed tonite wooooooohooooo

[LA Muskie]

I don't get why some of these channels don't embrace the internet online streaming and charge people for the games or simply include the online numbers in their deals with advertisers. I would think there would be money to be made if this was done correctly.
Depends on their deal with the NCAA (which, like the professional sports organizations, technically owns the copyright I believe). They may have separate online deals that prohibit the broadcaster from distributing via internet. But clearly some can get that right -- ESPN3.com, for example. And my recollection is that CBS has had internet rights for NCAA tourney games in the past.

[LA Muskie]

Channelsurfing.net being a US registered domain probably made the take over and shut down process a lot easier on them, which may explain the move to the .eu.
It's less about the domain -- ICANN is ultimately the source of all domains.

The real issue is the ISP. If the ISP is based in the US or wants to do business in the US, it must comply with US law -- which includes the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) pursuant to which take-down notices are issued.

[dc_x]

An article with some background

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48692.html

[golfitup]

it's back!

God bless the internet.

[toledodan]

makes you wonder if they could come back on us for watching?

[LA Muskie]

makes you wonder if they could come back on us for watching?
Technically, yes. Realistically, no.

[xubrew]

For many of us outside of Cincy, it's the only way to catch a game. I would pay to watch the games if there was a way to do it. I'm not trying to rip anyone off, I will just do whatever it takes to watch Xavier basketball.

In 2011, I should be able to watch any game I want.


that should be manageable. just subscribe to directv and get the sports packs. i live outside of cincinnati and can watch every game.

[xubrew]

Now that it may be taken away, I can't get over how many peole are trying to rationalize it by saving its only a links page

i wasn't really rationalizing it. i just didn't know the laws. there are loopholes that are just as ridiculous. for instance, in many states it is legal to buy and sell certain types of fireworks, but illegal to set them off.

anyway, i'll take LA's word for it that it is illegal. i stand corrected. having said that, this is a ridiculous quote....


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,” said Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney in Manhattan. “With the Super Bowl just days away, the seizures of these infringing websites reaffirm our commitment to working with our law enforcement partners to protect copyrighted material and put the people who steal it out of business.”


online streaming of the super bowl is a financial body blow?? the game is on network television. it's free anyway. the only people who will be watching on the internet are those who, for whatever reason, can't be near a television. it's not taking any viewers away.

besides, most people that are watching it, are watching a stream of the networks coverage, so they're seeing all the same commercials and corporate sponsorship as everyone else. it's not as if they're watching some other pirated feed of the game.

that, i don't get. it would make more sense to crack down before a big pay per view event. the super bowl is a free event. it's available to everyone with the most basic of basic tv packages.

[Kahns Krazy]

this is correct as i understand it. channelsurfing.net is nothing more than an index of links to other websites that stream videos. they themselves aren't streaming a damn thing, and shutting it down doesn't make the streams go away. all of the sites that actually do the streaming will still exist and still be doing their thing.

in other words, they're not violating any copyright laws. they're just linking other sites that do. if anything, one could argue that they're doing the feds a favor by providing them with an index of websites that are violating copyright laws.

I have never used one of these sites. If they don't actually do anything, what's the economic model?

[xubrew]

I have never used one of these sites. If they don't actually do anything, what's the economic model?

i have no idea. probably similiar to this place. i never use peer to peer sharing. i can't imagine that's all that economic either.

[Kahns Krazy]

online streaming of the super bowl is a financial body blow?? the game is on network television. it's free anyway. the only people who will be watching on the internet are those who, for whatever reason, can't be near a television. it's not taking any viewers away.
.

It's not free. It's paid for by the network and owned by the network. Without going into the whole economics of the thing, it should be a good enough explanation that they own it and they want it that way.

We used to all laugh at that disclaimer at the beginning of every baseball game about about the rebroadcast of the transmission without the express written consent of major league baseball being forbidden. This is what they're talking about.

[Kahns Krazy]

i have no idea.

You could make this your signature and save a lot of time.

[X-band '01]

As far as the NFL goes, keep in mind that many of these sites post links to the games which is direct competition to the NFL Sunday ticket. Concievably, diehard Bengal fans could go onto ChannelSurfing and watch the feed of blacked out Bengal games. While it does screw Mike Brown (and I have no sympathy for him whatsoever), I can definitely see how leagues lose money over stuff like this.

I'd venture a guess that they also have links somewhere to stuff like boxing matches, MMA events and WWE events that are supposed to be pay-per-view as well. That's a blatant copyright violation right there.

[Mrs. Garrett]

that should be manageable. just subscribe to directv and get the sports packs. i live outside of cincinnati and can watch every game.

I had direct tv. It was the biggest piece of shit. The whole thing would freeze up at the slightest drop of rain. Maybe it has improved, but when I had the sports package I still didn't get every game.

[LutherRackleyRulez]

A mate from London e-mailed me this site's addy

to view sports via net....

btw: never surfed it to watch a NCAA B'ball game




http://www.vipstand.me/

[coasterville95]

I have never used one of these sites. If they don't actually do anything, what's the economic model?

Why do I want to say there is NO economic model for it. Just pure intrinsic motivation from sports fans who want to spread the wealth around to those who otherwise can't watch the games. In theory if we were net savy enough to ferret out the streaming links for oursevles, we wouldnt't need them, but they do provide a (free volunteer non-profit service) that makes things a whole lot easier.

As I recall there was no advertising on channelsurfing.net, and if, as stated above, its only a links page, with very little graphics except some tiny logo files, I imagine they can serve up a LOT of page views with only the most basic of basic web hosting packages. Much more if there are some interested sports minded people kicking into the kitty.

That also makes it very easy to pop up faster than the moles in Whac-A-Mole if one site gets shut down. The hardest part of that is getting word out of the new URL. Given the fact that a totally unscientific casual study reveals channelsurfing instantly became a hot topic on just about every major sports fan forum known to man within hours of its demise, followed by posts of the new links, and even some links we may not have known about. Their PR/Marketing arm is also a free service, provided by sports fans, for sports fans.

[xubrew]

It's not free. It's paid for by the network and owned by the network. Without going into the whole economics of the thing, it should be a good enough explanation that they own it and they want it that way.

We used to all laugh at that disclaimer at the beginning of every baseball game about about the rebroadcast of the transmission without the express written consent of major league baseball being forbidden. This is what they're talking about.

kahn, by saying it was free i meant that costs the viewer nothing to watch the game. i think you knew what i meant.

my question is why they would crack down before the super bowl as opposed to something that wasn't free....i mean...something that the viewer WOULD have to pay money to see?? why would people watch a super bowl stream, when they can just turn on their tvs and watch it that way??

ufc, wwf, boxing, nfl sunday ticket, etc, are events that people must pay more than their standard cable bill to watch. i can see why channelsurfing.net would be appealing for events such as those. i don't see why it would be appealing for an event like the super bowl, which can be viewed for free all over the place anyways.

[LA Muskie]

kahn, by saying it was free i meant that costs the viewer nothing to watch the game. i think you knew what i meant.

my question is why they would crack down before the super bowl as opposed to something that wasn't free....i mean...something that the viewer WOULD have to pay money to see?? why would people watch a super bowl stream, when they can just turn on their tvs and watch it that way??

ufc, wwf, boxing, nfl sunday ticket, etc, are events that people must pay more than their standard cable bill to watch. i can see why channelsurfing.net would be appealing for events such as those. i don't see why it would be appealing for an event like the super bowl, which can be viewed for free all over the place anyways.
This one's easy: because the NFL is about at aggressive as they get when in comes to privacy in general -- and the Super Bowl in particular. They go after bars for advertising "Super Bowl Parties" unless the bar licenses use of the term "Super Bowl" -- for which the NFL has successfully obtained a trademark registration.

As for true cost to the NFL, I suspect that their attorneys would argue two things: (i) they have reserved (and possibly licensed) internet rights, and therefore the internet retransmission of broadcast either infringes on that separate license or diminishes its value; and (ii) the degraded internet transmission dilutes the value and goodwill of the NFL and the Super Bowl.

[xubrew]

This one's easy: because the NFL is about at aggressive as they get when in comes to privacy in general -- and the Super Bowl in particular. They go after bars for advertising "Super Bowl Parties" unless the bar licenses use of the term "Super Bowl" -- for which the NFL has successfully obtained a trademark registration.

As for true cost to the NFL, I suspect that their attorneys would argue two things: (i) they have reserved (and possibly licensed) internet rights, and therefore the internet retransmission of broadcast either infringes on that separate license or diminishes its value; and (ii) the degraded internet transmission dilutes the value and goodwill of the NFL and the Super Bowl.

are they as aggressive during the regular season?? it's $300 for nfl sunday ticket, or it's free on channelsurfing. so, why wait until now to crack down??

i'm not saying they're not within their rights. i'm saying that it seems odd to me that they go after them before an event that is probably the most accessable american television broadcast anyway. nfl sunday ticket is not accessable to people outside the viewing area that don't pay the $300 bucks. wouldn't it make more sense to crack down during that??

i guess i should point out that i hardly ever use channel surfing. i max out my sports packages because given the choice, i'd rather watch it on my tv than watch an internet stream on my computer that may or may not go out. i watch soccer on myp2p, and i do watch games on the internet on sites like espn3 and ustream, but those sites are all legal anyway. the links on channel surfing are generally nothing more than direct links to those sites anyway. from my vantage point, i don't care if it goes away or not. i'd rather not watch a pirated feed not so much because i feel it is morally wrong, but because the qualiity is usually piss poor, and my tv is much better than my laptop screen. i don't mind paying ten bucks a month for better quality. with that in mind, i'm kind of perplexed as to why in the hell anyone would watch the super bowl on the internet, when they can just watch it on tv...

[LA Muskie]

are they as aggressive during the regular season?? it's $300 for nfl sunday ticket, or it's free on channelsurfing. so, why wait until now to crack down??

i'm not saying they're not within their rights. i'm saying that it seems odd to me that they go after them before an event that is probably the most accessable american television broadcast anyway. nfl sunday ticket is not accessable to people outside the viewing area that don't pay the $300 bucks. wouldn't it make more sense to crack down during that??

i guess i should point out that i hardly ever use channel surfing. i max out my sports packages because given the choice, i'd rather watch it on my tv than watch an internet stream on my computer that may or may not go out. i watch soccer on myp2p, and i do watch games on the internet on sites like espn3 and ustream, but those sites are all legal anyway. the links on channel surfing are generally nothing more than direct links to those sites anyway. from my vantage point, i don't care if it goes away or not. i'd rather not watch a pirated feed not so much because i feel it is morally wrong, but because the qualiity is usually piss poor, and my tv is much better than my laptop screen. i don't mind paying ten bucks a month for better quality. with that in mind, i'm kind of perplexed as to why in the hell anyone would watch the super bowl on the internet, when they can just watch it on tv...
I think Customs is using this as an opportunity to make a point/example. They can't possibly do this every week, so they're trying to make a big splash to scare some folks off. Customs is horribly under-staffed, and they basically handle all forms of piracy -- from this to fake purses.

[Juice]

This one's easy: because the NFL is about at aggressive as they get when in comes to privacy in general -- and the Super Bowl in particular. They go after bars for advertising "Super Bowl Parties" unless the bar licenses use of the term "Super Bowl" -- for which the NFL has successfully obtained a trademark registration.

As for true cost to the NFL, I suspect that their attorneys would argue two things: (i) they have reserved (and possibly licensed) internet rights, and therefore the internet retransmission of broadcast either infringes on that separate license or diminishes its value; and (ii) the degraded internet transmission dilutes the value and goodwill of the NFL and the Super Bowl.

I would say MLB is the most protective. No MLB games were on channelsurfing. You can't even stream a Reds game on your computer using 700 WLW's feed. It's blacked out. You have to buy the radio or video feed from mlb.com.

[LA Muskie]

I would say MLB is the most protective. No MLB games were on channelsurfing. You can't even stream a Reds game on your computer using 700 WLW's feed. It's blacked out. You have to buy the radio or video feed from mlb.com.
That's very true. MLB and the NFL are aggressive in very different ways (NFL is ridiculous about the "Super Bowl"), but you're right -- MLB is extremely aggressive when it comes to online streaming or retransmission of its games. That's probably because they've actually monetized internet transmission of games in a way that others have not.

[Kahns Krazy]

Why do I want to say there is NO economic model for it. Just pure intrinsic motivation from sports fans who want to spread the wealth around to those who otherwise can't watch the games. In theory if we were net savy enough to ferret out the streaming links for oursevles, we wouldnt't need them, but they do provide a (free volunteer non-profit service) that makes things a whole lot easier.

As I recall there was no advertising on channelsurfing.net, and if, as stated above, its only a links page, with very little graphics except some tiny logo files,....


You're fooling yourself. Channelsurfing.eu is riddled with advertising. They are making money by providing links to known copyright violators. There is nothing free or non-profit about it.

Even if it wasn't a situation of someone making money off someone else's product, it's still facilitating an illegal activity. It's the internet equivilent of driving the getaway car. Maybe you didn't pull the gun on the teller, but you're still part of the crime.

[xubrew]

I have never used one of these sites. If they don't actually do anything, what's the economic model?



You're fooling yourself. Channelsurfing.eu is riddled with advertising. They are making money by providing links to known copyright violators. There is nothing free or non-profit about it.

Even if it wasn't a situation of someone making money off someone else's product, it's still facilitating an illegal activity. It's the internet equivilent of driving the getaway car. Maybe you didn't pull the gun on the teller, but you're still part of the crime.


so.....do you use these sites and/or know about their economic model, or not??

[xubrew]

In theory if we were net savy enough to ferret out the streaming links for oursevles, we wouldnt't need them, but they do provide a (free volunteer non-profit service) that makes things a whole lot easier.

i would guess that many of those sites send the links to them. the horizon league, for instance, streams all the games for free on their sites via ustream and they send the links out to channelsurfing and others like it to get more traffic.

i would imagine that's how they find most of them.

[coasterville95]

You're fooling yourself. Channelsurfing.eu is riddled with advertising. They are making money by providing links to known copyright violators. There is nothing free or non-profit about it.

Even if it wasn't a situation of someone making money off someone else's product, it's still facilitating an illegal activity. It's the internet equivilent of driving the getaway car. Maybe you didn't pull the gun on the teller, but you're still part of the crime.

Ok then, where is the money coming from? The people watching the streams aren't paying, the content providers aren't paying to be listed (otherwise it wouldn't be illegal, and usually money flows the other way in those deals(. No one overtly advertises on that site as they don't want to be linked with illegal activity. Are you suggesting the people who already paid for advertising spots on the original feeds are supporting this (at least under the table)?

I just don't see who is their profit coming from.

And no argument about them being the getaway car.

[XULucho27]

Ok then, where is the money coming from? The people watching the streams aren't paying, the content providers aren't paying to be listed (otherwise it wouldn't be illegal, and usually money flows the other way in those deals(. No one overtly advertises on that site as they don't want to be linked with illegal activity. Are you suggesting the people who already paid for advertising spots on the original feeds are supporting this (at least under the table)?

I just don't see who is their profit coming from.

And no argument about them being the getaway car.

Most of their revenue comes from outside the U.S. When I was in Spain two years ago for New Year's I tried to watch some bowl games on my laptop using the old channelsurfing. It turns out that in Europe and outside the U.S. (also happened in the British Virgin Islands) you have to pay a small one-time (or monthly I can't be sure) fee to access the games.

I've also talked with a buddy of mine who lives in Spain that says channelsurfing was quite popular and a good amount of people he knew would fork over the money to get basically unlimited access to all soccer games and whatever American sports are usually on there (NFL, NBA, NCAA etc.) I'm pretty sure that's where the bulk of their revenue is made.

[coasterville95]

Ah, so it's "free" for us to "obtain live sports feeds in a less than moral and ehtical manner", but other nations PAY to "obtain live sports feeds in a less than moral and ethical manner"

Makes sense to me, I guess.

[Kahns Krazy]

so.....do you use these sites and/or know about their economic model, or not??

I looked it up after my original post, smart guy. It's blocked at work, so I looked it up later at home. It is possible to gain knowledge over time. Well, for the rest of us at least.

[xubrew]

I looked it up after my original post, smart guy. It's blocked at work, so I looked it up later at home. It is possible to gain knowledge over time. Well, for the rest of us at least.

well, initially you asked me. i don't know why you'd think i'd know the answer to that, or even care to know the answer to that. i sure as hell don't know why you'd be condesending when i responded by saying i had no clue what their economic plan is.

i don't know what the economic plan for mattsarzsports.com, or warrennolan.com, or collegesportsinfo.com is either. i would guess that it ranges somewhere between miniscule and nonexistent. i think they do it just because they like doing it. other than getting free t-shirts from video coordinators across the country, i don't think matt sarz gets anything out of his site.

[Kahns Krazy]

Ok then, where is the money coming from? The people watching the streams aren't paying, the content providers aren't paying to be listed (otherwise it wouldn't be illegal, and usually money flows the other way in those deals(. No one overtly advertises on that site as they don't want to be linked with illegal activity. ....

I'm not sure why you say this. The top section is all advertising, and those advertisers are paying to be on the site. They only pay because channelsurfing is getting the traffic. They only get the traffic because of the links. Click through some of those links and see where they take you. There's also some sort of stupid dating site popup.

When you click a link, for example to watch ESPN, there is a banner ad floating above the video stream.

channelsurfing is making money because they are providing these links.

[newtsac]

SAVE THE CS OWNER (http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/dhscomplaint/?akid=359.176080.Gbccl4&rd=1&t=1)

[Masterofreality]

SAVE THE CS OWNER (http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/dhscomplaint/?akid=359.176080.Gbccl4&rd=1&t=1)

Well, it probably is copyright infringement.

Cable companies and Direct TV pay for programming. While it's cool to get stuff you can'[t otherwise get, it is most likely illegal.

[newtsac]

Well, it probably is copyright infringement.

Cable companies and Direct TV pay for programming. While it's cool to get stuff you can'[t otherwise get, it is most likely illegal.

This is equivalent of arresting your mother after she points out a crack house as you drive through a bad neighborhood.

Just because it's illegal and someone tells you where it's found does not make them a criminal. Geez, if that was the case, publishers of the elementary Health textbooks would all be in federal prison.

[coasterville95]

Did anybody notice some of the ads for the CBS or NCAA online stereaming websites on TV stress the word "LEGAL" in their copy.