Channel Surfing Owner Arrested

[All About UNT]

News Article

"McCarthy could face up to five years in prison based on the single charge he currently faces."

Really?????????? 5 Yrs??????? So then what do you think about this news article? DMN

[Eagle1855]

So then what do you think about this news article? DMN

Yeah, yeah, premeditated murder, blah blah... but stealing money from large corporations...there's just no place for that.

[NTSUEagle]

Amazing that someone from Deer Park was actually be the 'mastermind' of this. But yeah, human lives are worthless these days compared to this.

[KRAM1]

"McCarthy could face up to five years in prison based on the single charge he currently faces."

Folks...tap the brakes a bit on the indignant outrage. The operative word in the statement is "could". The guy has not been tried nor sentenced as yet. I do love the way some try to write this off as a "victim-less crime" and compare the probable outcome to more serious crimes (serious in the opinion and minds of the poster). One can find any number of seemingly "strange" sentences for all sorts of crimes. Not a good idea to compare as you probably were not at the trial and have no real knowledge of what the full circumstances were as presented. I definitely agree that some of this sort of thing makes very little sense, but it is very hard to compare "apples to apples" in the case of courtroom trials, crimes, etc., etc.

None the less...this guy deserves whatever punishment he gets. And, for me, I would shed no tears if he got the full five years! We have been through this in another thread...not the football board, of course, so no need to re-hash it all. The guy is a thief and he is stealing intellectual property and causing others economic harm while probably placing a few more people in the unemployment lines. If you think this sort of thing is "fun" and victim-less, well, you are sadly mistaken and very very naive. Or, you have aided and abetted this crime by participating and thought, "no harm no foul", I'm getting stuff for free...yipee!

Edited March 25, 2011 by KRAM1

[All About UNT]

"McCarthy could face up to five years in prison based on the single charge he currently faces."

Folks...tap the brakes a bit on the indignant outrage. The operative word in the statement is "could". The guy has not been tried nor sentenced as yet. I do love the way some try to write this off as a "victim-less crime" and compare the probable outcome to more serious crimes (serious in the opinion and minds of the poster). One can find any number of seemingly "strange" sentences for all sorts of crimes. Not a good idea to compare as you probably were not at the trial and have no real knowledge of what the full circumstances were as presented. I definitely agree that some of this sort of thing makes very little sense, but it is very hard to compare "apples to apples" in the case of courtroom trials, crimes, etc., etc.

None the less...this guy deserves whatever punishment he gets. And, for me, I would shed no tears if he got the full five years! We have been through this in another thread...not the football board, of course, so no need to re-hash it all. The guy is a thief and he is stealing intellectual property and causing others economic harm while probably placing a few more people in the unemployment lines. If you think this sort of thing is "fun" and victim-less, well, you are sadly mistaken and very very naive. Or, you have aided and abetted this crime by participating and thought, "no harm no foul", I'm getting stuff for free...yipee!

Just remember that this site was a great way for the fanbase to watch our away games.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Just remember that this site was a great way for the fanbase to watch our away games.

You mean to avoid paying the monthly fee to the UNT AD?

[All About UNT]

You mean to avoid paying the monthly fee to the UNT AD?

I pay it...but there are some that don't...and won't

[cdizzle86]

"McCarthy could face up to five years in prison based on the single charge he currently faces."

Folks...tap the brakes a bit on the indignant outrage. The operative word in the statement is "could". The guy has not been tried nor sentenced as yet. I do love the way some try to write this off as a "victim-less crime" and compare the probable outcome to more serious crimes (serious in the opinion and minds of the poster). One can find any number of seemingly "strange" sentences for all sorts of crimes. Not a good idea to compare as you probably were not at the trial and have no real knowledge of what the full circumstances were as presented. I definitely agree that some of this sort of thing makes very little sense, but it is very hard to compare "apples to apples" in the case of courtroom trials, crimes, etc., etc.

None the less...this guy deserves whatever punishment he gets. And, for me, I would shed no tears if he got the full five years! We have been through this in another thread...not the football board, of course, so no need to re-hash it all. The guy is a thief and he is stealing intellectual property and causing others economic harm while probably placing a few more people in the unemployment lines. If you think this sort of thing is "fun" and victim-less, well, you are sadly mistaken and very very naive. Or, you have aided and abetted this crime by participating and thought, "no harm no foul", I'm getting stuff for free...yipee!

Guiltyyyyyy.

[GrandGreen]

Lot of short term views being expressed, stealing from big corporations should not be prosecuted? You know the problem with not paying for things, is eventually people stop making them. It is amazing to me that people who would never think of stealing a dollar seem to think nothing of pilfering intellectual property and entertainment.

[All About UNT]

Lot of short term views being expressed, stealing from big corporations should not be prosecuted? You know the problem with not paying for things, is eventually people stop making them. It is amazing to me that people who would never think of stealing a dollar seem to think nothing of pilfering intellectual property and entertainment.

Is that kinda like how cable companies have been pilfering through our pockets for so long with abhorrent fees and costs associated with their product? This is coming from a guy with every channel known to man (outside of the seedy stations)

[TheTastyGreek]

One question, limited scope, stick to the parameters:

In the past year, I've used Channelsurfing (or other sites like Justin.TV, I think) to watch Formula 1 races live while traveling.

I get cable, I pay for it monthly, when at home I watch the races on a channel that I pay for. When out of town, either in a hotel for work or visiting family in an area that doesn't get Speed on their available cable package, I watch a choppy and inconsistent web stream that's roughly 1/3rd or 1/4th the size of a postcard.

So, I'm watching a stream of something I would otherwise be watching legally over-the-air. The only reason I'm not seeing what I've already paid for is because of a market failure (inefficient distribution of their signal) and I'm watching a very, very inferior substitute. And while I do this, I'm still seeing all the advertisements that I'd be seeing if I were sitting in front of my television instead.

Criminal? Morally wrong? Why?

[eppy4life]

I pay it...but there are some that don't...and won't

Prove it

[Mean Green 93-98]

One question, limited scope, stick to the parameters:

In the past year, I've used Channelsurfing (or other sites like Justin.TV, I think) to watch Formula 1 races live while traveling.

I get cable, I pay for it monthly, when at home I watch the races on a channel that I pay for. When out of town, either in a hotel for work or visiting family in an area that doesn't get Speed on their available cable package, I watch a choppy and inconsistent web stream that's roughly 1/3rd or 1/4th the size of a postcard.

So, I'm watching a stream of something I would otherwise be watching legally over-the-air. The only reason I'm not seeing what I've already paid for is because of a market failure (inefficient distribution of their signal) and I'm watching a very, very inferior substitute. And while I do this, I'm still seeing all the advertisements that I'd be seeing if I were sitting in front of my television instead.

Criminal? Morally wrong? Why?

In fairness, I don't believe the parameters you've given represent the parameters of Mr. McCarthy's offense.

[eppy4life]

In fairness, I don't believe the parameters you've given represent the parameters of Mr. McCarthy's offense.

or the parameters of the majority of offenders. i believe rich phillips has a solution to your problems.

[All About UNT]

or the parameters of the majority of offenders. i believe rich phillips has a solution to your problems.

love the new pic Eppy.

[TheTastyGreek]

In fairness, I don't believe the parameters you've given represent the parameters of Mr. McCarthy's offense.

Okay then, Phase 2:

Sun Belt basketball games are broadcast regularly on CSS. This is a regional cable provider, one that is not available here in Dallas no matter how much I'd be willing to pay for it.

These games are available on cable, just like the cable I'm paying for here in Dallas. But because of regional distribution, I can't access it. Almost without exception, there aren't even any options to go see these games at a sports bar or restaurant, no matter how thorough their premium channel package may be.

If I lived in Alabama or Louisiana (I think), I would be watching this for no additional charge in the comfort of my own home. If it were an option, I'd go to Pluckers or Fox & Hound and watch them there.

Roughly 25-30% of these CSS games end up available on ESPN3.com through contractual arrangement. When that happens, I can watch a web stream of the same broadcast, MINUS commercials, and there is no question that this is just fine. I can access these broadcasts because of the cable/internet provider I already pay for. Not criminal, not morally wrong.

But for the other 70-75% that I have no way to access; if I watch them through Channelsurfing WITH the commercials intact... Is that criminal? Morally wrong? Why?

[MDH]

If I steal my neighbors wifi to watch a UNT home game that is on channelsurfing and I don't pay for cable tv, is that ok? I call it the holy trinity.

Edited March 25, 2011 by mdh0192

[JayDub]

If you think this sort of thing is "fun" and victim-less, well, you are sadly mistaken and very very naive. Or, you have aided and abetted this crime by participating and thought, "no harm no foul", I'm getting stuff for free...yipee!

I think the argument here is not about whether or not he should be punished (he should be), but the fact that our legal system seems to be more than willing to hand out life-ruining, maximum-security prison punishments for first-time offenders of non-violent crimes...as long as the victim in question is a corporation.

[Guest JohnDenver]

Is that criminal? Morally wrong? Why?

You can steal a car to drive a $1000 donation to the Holy Water Church in Oak Cliff and save some babies from dying of hunger. Completely moral and completely criminal. The aren't always on the same side of the ball. You know this. You get it. You are are just giving some sideways arguments for some perhaps ethically reasonable way to use CS .. and I get it.

However every away *football* game people were on here posting links to the UNT game on CS -- when the same exact game was either on PPV or through the AD. That is the case we are talking about. If some how CS were blocking out games that were available for pay in a given market and they were just being Robin Hood for the sport fan -- then maybe I could see it. But that wasn't happening. It was undercutting a PPV service that costs money to run and money to setup.

For your argument about how to watch an event that you would be watching in your home market, but you aren't in your home market to watch it? Slingbox. Get it. Use it. It is legal and way better than CS. In fact, when you watch CS, you aren't seeing the ads that you would be seeing if you were in your living room. You are seeing the other re-broadcaster's market ads. With Slingbox it is like seeing your local market. Then both services profit and you still see your game (err race).

It is absolutely annoying that CSS isn't on espn3 100% of the time. Doesn't make it morally wrong to watch the broadcast, but it isn't legal. I know what you are saying. I get it.

CS is still in the wrong -- despite providing a great service for sport fans like us.

[UNT90]

Okay then, Phase 2:

Sun Belt basketball games are broadcast regularly on CSS. This is a regional cable provider, one that is not available here in Dallas no matter how much I'd be willing to pay for it.

These games are available on cable, just like the cable I'm paying for here in Dallas. But because of regional distribution, I can't access it. Almost without exception, there aren't even any options to go see these games at a sports bar or restaurant, no matter how thorough their premium channel package may be.

If I lived in Alabama or Louisiana (I think), I would be watching this for no additional charge in the comfort of my own home. If it were an option, I'd go to Pluckers or Fox & Hound and watch them there.

Roughly 25-30% of these CSS games end up available on ESPN3.com through contractual arrangement. When that happens, I can watch a web stream of the same broadcast, MINUS commercials, and there is no question that this is just fine. I can access these broadcasts because of the cable/internet provider I already pay for. Not criminal, not morally wrong.

But for the other 70-75% that I have no way to access; if I watch them through Channelsurfing WITH the commercials intact... Is that criminal? Morally wrong? Why?

No to criminal on your part. Yes to criminal on channelsurfing's part.

They are taking money away from the colleges that sell the games through a streaming fee from their athletic website. CSS PAYS to broadcast the games you talk about. The conferences know CSS's coverage area before signing a contract with them for service. Why should CSS have to pay for the games in order to broadcast them, but yet Channelsurfing can broadcast them for free? Does not make sense.

Maybe you are just looking to justify it because it provides a benefit to you?

Hell, maybe I said it is not criminal to watch it because I, too, have watched many a game on that site. Funny how we can justify things we know are wrong when it benefits us. I'm as guilty as anyone.,

[Cr1028]

Is that kinda like how cable companies have been pilfering through our pockets for so long with abhorrent fees and costs associated with their product? This is coming from a guy with every channel known to man (outside of the seedy stations)

Or how ESPN has monopolized the bowl season.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Cr1028