Channelsurfing Creator Arresting

DeepGreen · March 9, 2011

This guy is from Deer Park, Texas.

meangreendork · March 9, 2011

He made $90,000 from this and probably didn't ruin any lives in doing so. Was it really worth it?

JayDub · March 10, 2011

He made $90,000 from this and probably didn't ruin any lives in doing so. Was it really worth it?

I wonder how much money was spent tracking this guy down. I guess that's OK, though...wasting taxpayer money is OK when it is in the name of protecting corporate profits.

The Home of the Free*, indeed.

* - Freedom not guaranteed if it infringes on the will of mega-corporations...who have infinitely more rights than the individual.

Edited March 10, 2011 by JayDub

KRAM1 · March 10, 2011

As much as some may disagree, this is a form of stealing and it is clearly illegal. It is an infringement of intellectual property rights among other things. The guy obviously knew he was in the wrong or he would not have tried to "cover his tracks". Folks, you may not be aware or you may not care, but this type of activity is really hurting legitimate artists and legitimate businesses. I know lots of people think this thing is fun because they are getting away with something for "free" that they should rightfully be paying for when used, but that is the heart of the problem. This was not a victimless crime, and whether or not you like the idea of "big corporations" wrong is wrong. If you don't think the law is just, work within the system to change it. Until then, try not to be part of the problem. Stealing is stealing any way you want to cut it, and any person of even normal levels of intelligence knows it as such.

Now, does the arrest, etc. fit the crime? Maybe, maybe not, but I can tell you from the research and policy work that we do here at IPI on Intellectual property and Intellectual property rights...IT IS A VERY BIG PROBLEM and it actually does financially hurt a lot of people...even people not associated with those big corporations some folks like to see as the root of all evil in the world.

My guess, if the programs being downloaded and songs being downloaded "free" were yours and it was a part of the work you did to support your family, you would see it in a bit of a different light. This sort of thing has put many people out of work, cost untold millions in lost tax revenues, etc., etc. That may not be a popular fact with some folks, but is happens to be the truth.

Please think about it the next time you or someone you know downloads a "free" song, movie, tv program, etc., etc. that they have obtained in such a manner. It's all part of a much bigger problem, not the laest of which is simple lack of honesty.

meangreenacct · March 10, 2011

As much as some may disagree, this is a form of stealing and it is clearly illegal. It is an infringement of intellectual property rights among other things. The guy obviously knew he was in the wrong or he would not have tried to "cover his tracks". Folks, you may not be aware or you may not care, but this type of activity is really hurting legitimate artists and legitimate businesses. I know lots of people think this thing is fun because they are getting away with something for "free" that they should rightfully be paying for when used, but that is the heart of the problem. This was not a victimless crime, and whether or not you like the idea of "big corporations" wrong is wrong. If you don't think the law is just, work within the system to change it. Until then, try not to be part of the problem. Stealing is stealing any way you want to cut it, and any person of even normal levels of intelligence knows it as such.

Now, does the arrest, etc. fit the crime? Maybe, maybe not, but I can tell you from the research and policy work that we do here at IPI on Intellectual property and Intellectual property rights...IT IS A VERY BIG PROBLEM and it actually does financially hurt a lot of people...even people not associated with those big corporations some folks like to see as the root of all evil in the world.

My guess, if the programs being downloaded and songs being downloaded "free" were yours and it was a part of the work you did to support your family, you would see it in a bit of a different light. This sort of thing has put many people out of work, cost untold millions in lost tax revenues, etc., etc. That may not be a popular fact with some folks, but is happens to be the truth.

Please think about it the next time you or someone you know downloads a "free" song, movie, tv program, etc., etc. that they have obtained in such a manner. It's all part of a much bigger problem, not the laest of which is simple lack of honesty.

I may not always agree with what you post on this part of the board, but I definitely agree with this. +1

UNTFan23 · March 11, 2011

There is a flip side to the intellectual property battle and it is not pretty. There is an outfit that obtains the copyrights of an article or image and then is basically strong arming people (namely bloggers) into paying thousands of dollars since they don't have the means to take the fight to the courts.

Here are some interesting sites regarding Righthaven and the news papers they "own" copyrights to as it relates to fair use on the internet:

http://righthavenvictims.blogspot.com/

http://www.righthavenlawsuits.com/

There's been some interesting developments in this legal battle and it will be interesting to see how it all turns out.

KRAM1 · March 11, 2011

If you care to read it...here's a little on the piracy issue. My organization, IPI, is quoted in the study. We have done a good bit of work in this arena. Note the point of 71,060 US jobs lost and $2.7billion in worker's earnings lost. This is not small change. Still think it's "fun" to pirate music, videos, TV, etc., etc.? Try asking one of the 71,060.

Pay to play;

Is downloading music illegally really stealing? Experts think so

BYLINE: By Zobia Chunara, Northside, and Nykia Tanniehill, Walter Payton

The battle between the music industry and illegal file-sharing services has been a long struggle that many teens are familiar with. From the crackdown on Napster in 2000 to the recent shutdown of LimeWire in October 2010, the government is slowly fighting back against free consumer access to thousands of unlicensed music files and sharing software.

Once regarded as invincible alternatives, even other peer-to-peer sharing sites such as BearShare, Ares, BitTorrent and FrostWire could be in jeopardy. Among the many music lovers who are disappointed are teens, and while some are becoming comfortable with the idea of paying for their favorite song, others are determined to seek out alternative options.

Though piracy is an age-old offense, these recent cyber shakedowns stemmed from a variety of factors -- many of them being economic. A digital music study conducted by the entertainment research firm NPD Group concluded that in 2009 alone, U.S. consumers had paid for only 37 percent of all the music they acquired that year. Frontier Economics also recently estimated that U.S. Internet users annually consume between $7 billion and $20 billion worth of digitally-pirated recorded music.

Cara Duckworth Weiblinger, vice president of communications at the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) -- a group that represents recording industry distributors in the United States -- says that downloading music illegally is like stealing the artists' work.

"File-sharing sites are clearly recognized as platforms that only cheapen music's value and threaten musicians' ability to put food on the table," Weiblinger said. "File-sharing sites ... threaten investment in new bands and they cost musicians their jobs. We believe in music and the rights of musicians to get paid for their work. Paying for music and legal services helps the next generation of talent succeed and reach the public's collective ears."

However, Kenwood senior Rachel Smith believes that her money is just as valuable. Smith has already discovered other file-sharing and video-converting websites such as beemp3.com and, like many teens, believes that the rise in illegal downloading resulted from a desire to find a more cost-effective option.

"If I paid for all of my music, I would be broke for decades, so I'm pretty much looking out for myself," Smith said.

Smith is not alone. According to the Institute for Policy Innovation (IFPI), many other music lovers are guarding their pockets, and thus emptying those of the industry. IFPI reports that 71,060 U.S. jobs and $2.7 billion in workers' earnings are lost each year as a result of global music piracy.

If it's still difficult to imagine Lady Gaga crying over a dollar lost to illegal file sharing, Professor Jacqueline Lipton, a professor of Intellectual Property Law at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, suggests that teen users think of the issue as being less about an artist's paycheck, and more about protecting his or her intellectual property.

But Lipton thinks that getting teens to understand an artists' right to protect his or her work is growing more difficult in the Internet age.

"The problem is that now we have this 'cut-and-paste' society, where you can make immediate digital copies of any song because it's all software code and code can be copied very easily and very quickly, and it can travel very far geographically," Lipton said. "That wasn't possible before the Internet."

Katherine Graden, a junior at Northside, believes that the chances of artists putting a permanent end to every illegal digital avenue are nearly impossible.

"I think that LimeWire and similar websites are a testament to the teen culture and their determination to have access to all the music they possibly can," Graden said.

RIAA also sees no immediate end. "As long as there's Internet, illegal downloading will always be around," Weiblinger said. "There will always be people who think music should be free and will break however many laws to get it. But what we can do as an industry is make sure fans have the best music experience possible by providing convenient, affordable and legal ways to access their favorite tunes."

Weiblinger is talking about Internet radio sites such as Pandora, Last.fm and MOG, where fans can stream their music for free. These sites also offer a music discovery element, providing fans the opportunity to hear new music from artists with similar sounds as their favorite bands. However, there's a catch.

"If a fan wants to download music and keep it forever, it's likely they'll have to pay at least a few cents for the song itself," Weiblinger said. "Paying to permanently keep songs is one of the ways fans can support musicians and contribute to the investment in new artists."

In the meantime, teen music fans are daring to be creative with their options as well -- subscribing to pay-per-month sites like Rhapsody, sharing files through blog interfaces like Tumblr and WordPress, streaming music on sites such as Pandora, Grooveshark and Epitonic, or following Smith's lead with online video converters.

However, for other teens, like Graden, the end of pirated digital downloading might be an opportunity to share music in more old-fashioned ways that bring music lovers closer together.

"I think the best and most fun way to get new music is to switch iPods for a few weeks with a friend and get a look into different styles you may not have listened to before," Graden said.

MeanGreenTexan · March 11, 2011

If you care to read it...here's a little on the piracy issue. My organization, IPI, is quoted in the study. We have done a good bit of work in this arena. Note the point of 71,060 US jobs lost and $2.7billion in worker's earnings lost. This is not small change. Still think it's "fun" to pirate music, videos, TV, etc., etc.? Try asking one of the 71,060.

Pay to play;
Is downloading music illegally really stealing? Experts think so

BYLINE: By Zobia Chunara, Northside, and Nykia Tanniehill, Walter Payton

The battle between the music industry and illegal file-sharing services has been a long struggle that many teens are familiar with. From the crackdown on Napster in 2000 to the recent shutdown of LimeWire in October 2010, the government is slowly fighting back against free consumer access to thousands of unlicensed music files and sharing software.
Once regarded as invincible alternatives, even other peer-to-peer sharing sites such as BearShare, Ares, BitTorrent and FrostWire could be in jeopardy. Among the many music lovers who are disappointed are teens, and while some are becoming comfortable with the idea of paying for their favorite song, others are determined to seek out alternative options.
Though piracy is an age-old offense, these recent cyber shakedowns stemmed from a variety of factors -- many of them being economic. A digital music study conducted by the entertainment research firm NPD Group concluded that in 2009 alone, U.S. consumers had paid for only 37 percent of all the music they acquired that year. Frontier Economics also recently estimated that U.S. Internet users annually consume between $7 billion and $20 billion worth of digitally-pirated recorded music.
Cara Duckworth Weiblinger, vice president of communications at the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) -- a group that represents recording industry distributors in the United States -- says that downloading music illegally is like stealing the artists' work.
"File-sharing sites are clearly recognized as platforms that only cheapen music's value and threaten musicians' ability to put food on the table," Weiblinger said. "File-sharing sites ... threaten investment in new bands and they cost musicians their jobs. We believe in music and the rights of musicians to get paid for their work. Paying for music and legal services helps the next generation of talent succeed and reach the public's collective ears."
However, Kenwood senior Rachel Smith believes that her money is just as valuable. Smith has already discovered other file-sharing and video-converting websites such as beemp3.com and, like many teens, believes that the rise in illegal downloading resulted from a desire to find a more cost-effective option.
"If I paid for all of my music, I would be broke for decades, so I'm pretty much looking out for myself," Smith said.
Smith is not alone. According to the Institute for Policy Innovation (IFPI), many other music lovers are guarding their pockets, and thus emptying those of the industry. IFPI reports that 71,060 U.S. jobs and $2.7 billion in workers' earnings are lost each year as a result of global music piracy.
If it's still difficult to imagine Lady Gaga crying over a dollar lost to illegal file sharing, Professor Jacqueline Lipton, a professor of Intellectual Property Law at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, suggests that teen users think of the issue as being less about an artist's paycheck, and more about protecting his or her intellectual property.
But Lipton thinks that getting teens to understand an artists' right to protect his or her work is growing more difficult in the Internet age.
"The problem is that now we have this 'cut-and-paste' society, where you can make immediate digital copies of any song because it's all software code and code can be copied very easily and very quickly, and it can travel very far geographically," Lipton said. "That wasn't possible before the Internet."
Katherine Graden, a junior at Northside, believes that the chances of artists putting a permanent end to every illegal digital avenue are nearly impossible.
"I think that LimeWire and similar websites are a testament to the teen culture and their determination to have access to all the music they possibly can," Graden said.
RIAA also sees no immediate end. "As long as there's Internet, illegal downloading will always be around," Weiblinger said. "There will always be people who think music should be free and will break however many laws to get it. But what we can do as an industry is make sure fans have the best music experience possible by providing convenient, affordable and legal ways to access their favorite tunes."
Weiblinger is talking about Internet radio sites such as Pandora, Last.fm and MOG, where fans can stream their music for free. These sites also offer a music discovery element, providing fans the opportunity to hear new music from artists with similar sounds as their favorite bands. However, there's a catch.
"If a fan wants to download music and keep it forever, it's likely they'll have to pay at least a few cents for the song itself," Weiblinger said. "Paying to permanently keep songs is one of the ways fans can support musicians and contribute to the investment in new artists."
In the meantime, teen music fans are daring to be creative with their options as well -- subscribing to pay-per-month sites like Rhapsody, sharing files through blog interfaces like Tumblr and WordPress, streaming music on sites such as Pandora, Grooveshark and Epitonic, or following Smith's lead with online video converters.
However, for other teens, like Graden, the end of pirated digital downloading might be an opportunity to share music in more old-fashioned ways that bring music lovers closer together.
"I think the best and most fun way to get new music is to switch iPods for a few weeks with a friend and get a look into different styles you may not have listened to before," Graden said.

The Greatest!

I'm not sure how channelsurfing is pirating though. I thought they were just tapping into public feeds and putting them on one site? Maybe this is my ignorance.

UNTFan23 · March 11, 2011

The Greatest!

I'm not sure how channelsurfing is pirating though. I thought they were just tapping into public feeds and putting them on one site? Maybe this is my ignorance.

Channelsurfing.net was playing the part of a distributor. The site never streamed any of the content; they only pointed you to the actual video feed.

If you know what you're doing you could do it yourself and bypass the originating site and set up a page on a completely different server and then point to the originating video stream. It's the same as in-bedding a youtube video on a webpage.

greenminer · March 11, 2011

Kram, it's interesting read and I think I'll bite on this discussion just because we have someone on board who works in the field against this.

Preface: (with light sarcastic humor, please) What the heck does file sharing/downloading have anything to do with what this guy did? While this case has everything to do with theft of intellectual property, I read into a lot of what you are talking about as file sharing/downloading. It's just nit pick (which I tend to do around here), but what you are focusing on and what channelsurfing.net was would not be addressed the same way in court...right?

For the sake of playing devils advocate, I never totally agreed with the way they (the law/studies) attack this and the scare tactics (is that an appropriate label?) that are used. The losses estimated, financial and jobs, are presented in a manner that covers up the original legal intended use of file sharing. That is to say, if file sharing were not available...would the product have been purchased in the first place? So those figures seem pretty ghostly to me. The people sitting on their Excel sheets in these corporation budget departments like to drool at the amount of money they could have made if people would just pay for these downloads, never paying mind to the fact that the "thieves" who do this would never bother buying the product anyhow, file sharing available or not. It really does kind of draw a line between what is defined as "loss" vs. "potential profit". I'm not justifying the criminal behavior, I just don't know if I agree with the way these figures are presented...both in courts and in the press.

In the music business myself, I've always tried to look at both sides of the issue. Respecting and abiding all laws that are in place to protect the artist, but at the same time appreciating what these file sharing services can legally be used for...to benefit the artist.

I remember reading that Dave Matthews was very vocal about his support of Napster and the like. People just don't buy CDs anymore (well, except me. I still like having albums. I even buy vinyls every now and then, ha!). They want to hear something first and he strongly felt that his fans purchased more because they were able to try things out first.

Edited March 11, 2011 by greenminer

KRAM1 · March 11, 2011

greenminer...definitely agree that there is a fine line to be walked here, and all "sharing/downloading" is not the same. Not even in the eyes of the artists, courts or anyone else for that matter. But, people who do this know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it. Whether stuff would or would not be purchased is totally beside the point in this discussion. The crux of the matter is that people are stealing intellectual property and that damages the artists and the industry whether or not a few artists think otherwise. I am a big fan of Dave Matthews, but my guess is that when he was first trying to get started and selling few records his ideas of "sharing" might have been a bit different. Now that he is the star that he is, it may not be as big an issue for him...but it still is for the people producing the content and attempting to legally sell it to the public.

Far too many people feel that intellectual property is not "real property" as it is simply ones creation...gee, what did that cost? Well, intellectual property is as much "property" as that new BMW you just bought. That intellectual property is the product to the artist as that BMW auto is to Bavarian Motor Works. I would imagine that BMW would take a hard view of people popping into the factory and just helping themselves to a few shiny new BMW's. Yes, I know, interesting analogy, but proper all the same. Anytime one downloads something that would otherwise be purchased, economic loss occurs. It is a very big issue around the world, and it is getting bigger every day.

If you are in the music business you have seen the effects first hand I would guess. If not, how about "sharing" that new song you just wrote with someone who then goes out and makes good money on it while you get ZERO? Do you sit back and say, "gee this sharing is great stuff", or do you take the guy to court?

I know I am a bit broad in my discussion, but I am simply trying to drive home the point that this stuff is hurtful and it is illegal. The cost is often small when one does it one time, but add that "one time" to thousands and those small costs start adding up pretty fast.

I simply think people are way to quick to write this stuff off as "gee, it really doesn't hurt anyone, and those dollar figures really have no basis in the real world". I beg to differ. Study after study shows those loss jobs and dollar numbers to be pretty darn accurate.

Theft of intellectual property is not just what one thinks of as "artistic work", but includes knock-off handbags, jeans (well, clothing of all kinds), medicine (were you aware that up to 80% of all medicine in many developing nations tends to be counterfeit? Well, that too is a theft of intellectual property as they use the labeling from legit firms...a company's logo is, indeed, intellectual property.

Just food for thought. Nice job with the reply, greenminor. Well done.

Eagle1855 · March 16, 2011

Related to the topic at hand, this guy had to know what he was getting into. A song downloaded here or there is one thing, but TV stations spend a ton of cash to produce what they make and the value of their content is measured in viewers and therefore, advertising. From what I understand, Channelsurfing undermines all of that. I can't believe it was around as long as it was.