307 More Websites Seized by the US Govt

44 replies
In what is becoming a yearly event, the US Government is seizing domains relating to piracy of the Puppy Bowl, err, the Super Bowl.

Super Bowl tackles Web piracy - Jennifer Martinez - POLITICO.com

Do you get the feeling seizures will become so common and widespread that in a couple years they will not be newsworthy?

Interestingly, or disturbingly to those who continually wonder if they must comply with US laws even though they are not in the US, these are not all US domains and websites. But I assume they had US based hosting that would allow a takedown:

http://torrentfreak.com/feds-seize-s...ckdown-120202/

.
#307 #govt #sezied #websites
  • Profile picture of the author hotlinkz
    They could not get SOPA passed so they are going at it in a different way.

    It's great when criminals are caught this way. Not so great when a blanket solution like SOPA is initiated.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5540664].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Why should Internet pirates get any more consideration when it comes to property forfeiture than drug dealers and other criminals?

      Like other crimes, busts of this size will likely still make news. As will any that look like a good David & Goliath story.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5540685].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
    I am 100% for shutting down piracy, but...

    I wonder what would happen if I put up a website that said "Watch the Super Bowl for FREE" and then told people how to hook up an antenna?

    That's a serious question.

    Would the omnimpotent government know the difference? Would they take the time to find out? Or would they shut down my site without question and without warning? In fact, I wonder if the six words I put in quotes, in a post on a forum, would be enough for them to come after me.

    Sleep tight kiddies.



    All the best,
    Michael
    Signature

    "Ich bin en fuego!"
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5540692].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
      Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

      I am 100% for shutting down piracy, but...

      I wonder what would happen if I put up a website that said "Watch the Super Bowl for FREE" and then told people how to hook up an antenna?

      That's a serious question.
      In the takedowns last year many of them involved websites that linked to the streaming sites telling people exactly that - here is where you can watch the Super Bowl online.

      The difference, though, is your example involves telling people how to do something that is legal. Linking websites are assisting in promoting illegal activity.

      Still, there is obvious concern about liability for just linking.

      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541197].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Brenny76065
        In fact, I wonder if the six words I put in quotes, in a post on a forum, would be enough for them to come after me.

        Michael,

        Any black sedans parked out front?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541242].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
          Originally Posted by Brenny76065 View Post

          Michael,

          Any black sedans parked out front?
          I don't know. With how advanced their cloaking technology is, it's too difficult to determine the color.
          Signature

          "Ich bin en fuego!"
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541451].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Tunnah
      Originally Posted by Michael Oksa View Post

      I am 100% for shutting down piracy, but...

      I wonder what would happen if I put up a website that said "Watch the Super Bowl for FREE" and then told people how to hook up an antenna?

      That's a serious question.

      Would the omnimpotent government know the difference? Would they take the time to find out? Or would they shut down my site without question and without warning? In fact, I wonder if the six words I put in quotes, in a post on a forum, would be enough for them to come after me.

      Sleep tight kiddies.



      All the best,
      Michael
      Michael,
      Judging by a recent case of a UK student that set up a site that contained links to sites that detailed how to get music legally and illegally and is now being extradited to the US to be be sentenced I'd say yes. That by the way is after he took down the site after the US Gov contacted him to say he was doing something wrong.

      Rich
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541406].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Richard Tunnah View Post

        Judging by a recent case of a UK student that set up a site that contained links to sites that detailed how to get music legally and illegally and is now being extradited to the US to be be sentenced I'd say yes.
        The "legally and illegally" is relevant, surely?

        Michael suggested nothing illegal.

        And it's "is now being extradited to the US to be tried", surely? And "sentenced" only if convicted?

        Originally Posted by Richard Tunnah View Post

        That by the way is after he took down the site after the US Gov contacted him to say he was doing something wrong.
        Well, that sounds like quite good mitigation, I think? But (Brian will correct me if I'm wrong?) mitigation is mostly relevant to the sentence, not to whether someone broke the law, I think, Rich?

        (Don't get me wrong, I think it's most regrettable and worrying, in that specific case, if he's actually extradited.)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541443].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tpw
    Originally Posted by kindsvater View Post

    Interestingly, or disturbingly to those who continually wonder if they must comply with US laws even though they are not in the US, these are not all US websites. But I assume they had US based hosting that would allow a takedown:

    .

    Technically, in the arrests and take-down of the file sharing site last week, they did use the U.S. Hosting as part of their jurisdiction argument.

    However, in the case of the Super Bowl take-downs, we all know in advance that the NFL prohibits rebroadcast without written permission, and those providing live video streams of the SuperBowl and those advertising those illegal streams know in advance that they are breaking copyright law.

    You have seen the FBI-notice on the tail-end of movies right?

    Next, we should consider how many countries have signed multi-national treaties with the U.S. and other countries, regarding copyright enforcement.

    Few countries are not party to those international agreements, and therefore, few people are excluded from those laws.

    If one hopes to be exempt from this enforcement, then they should be certain not to live in a country that has signed the copyright enforcement treaties, not buy hosting from companies that reside in those countries, not use dot com websites or country code extensions of countries that have signed onto the copyright enforcement treaties.

    I know that we should not mention such things as N3w W0rld 0rder, but that is where the world is moving.

    Most of the "civilized" nations are party to the copyright treaties that are governing the ability of the U.S. government, and subsequently, U.S. companies to pursue copyright-infringing individuals worldwide.

    The main area where I differ with you on this issues Brian is that you seem to view them all as "chilling" examples of how our liberties are disappearing.

    Yet, the people whose liberties are disappearing in the case of the Super Bowl rebroadcasts are people who are knowingly breaking the law, and those who support the criminal element engaged in breaking the law.
    Signature
    Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
    Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5540758].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
      It looks like many of the domains are .tv domains. Since Verisign, a US company apparently operates the top level domain for the independent country of Tuvalu, the US apparently claims jurisdiction to seize the domains / property. (From what I have read. I have not seen the papers the US filed in court.)

      I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.

      You have counterfeit Tebow jerseys in your Hilton Paris hotel room. Since Hilton is a US company the US government can go into France, enter the private hotel, knock down the door, and take your stuff?

      Obviously not a perfect analogy.

      Personally, I like to see the pirates taken out. But I am concerned about how it is done and the ramifications.

      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5540834].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author espresso
    what channel shows the superbowl in the US
    is it a paid for tv channel
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5540810].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Being anti-censorship doesn't mean that many of use condone piracy in any way. I don't mourn the sites that are engaging in illegal streaming or sales of counterfeit goods.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5540847].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Originally Posted by espresso View Post

      what channel shows the superbowl in the US
      is it a paid for tv channel
      The Superbowl is shown on a rotating basis among the major broadcast networks. They pay multiple billions for the right to broadcast NFL games. Yes, billions with a 'B'.

      They then charge advertisers amounts that would be ludicrous for any other event. Last report I saw said a 30-second spot was going for something like $3.75 million. The report said there would be 70-some spots available during the broadcast. Do the math. It's a big investment with a big payoff.

      Why should some pissant pirate steal it for their own profit?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5540986].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Entrecon
        Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

        Why should some pissant pirate steal it for their own profit?
        Because it doesn't "cost" the network anything and it increases the viewership of the commercials? Isn't that a value add for the companies that are buying the commercial? Not only do you get the television viewership, but you get estimated X number of additional viewers through multiple online streams!
        Signature

        Visit My website http://kipferguson.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541059].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
          Originally Posted by Entrecon View Post

          Because it doesn't "cost" the network anything and it increases the viewership of the commercials? Isn't that a value add for the companies that are buying the commercial? Not only do you get the television viewership, but you get estimated X number of additional viewers through multiple online streams!
          When pirate sites talk about streaming live events, it usually involves stealing the raw video feed - sans commercials - so they really are reducing viewership and making the investment worth less. The pirates then turn around and sell their own advertising.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541228].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author tpw
          Originally Posted by Entrecon View Post

          Because it doesn't "cost" the network anything and it increases the viewership of the commercials? Isn't that a value add for the companies that are buying the commercial? Not only do you get the television viewership, but you get estimated X number of additional viewers through multiple online streams!

          Because no one is permitted to "rebroadcast" any NFL games without written permission from the National Football League.

          What it boils down to is that the NFL gets to decide WHO profits from their product, and that usually requires that the NFL will benefit from those "rebroadcasts" financially.

          It is not about the commercials, but someone profiting from the process, without paying for the right to profit from the process.

          For the sake of your argument, let's consider the following scenario...

          Consider if you had your business name on the side of your car, and I came to your house and stole YOUR car to deliver Paris Hilton to the next paparazzi event.

          Now one could argue that since your business name was on the side of your car that I did you a favor getting your business name in a paparazzi picture with Paris Hilton.

          Yet, at the end of the story, I still committed "auto theft", and now I am trying to convince you that you should not prosecute me, because I helped advertise your business!!

          Would you be willing to forgive my "stealing your car", if I could show you some positive benefit as a result of my having done so?
          Signature
          Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
          Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541266].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
            (Thanks y'all for letting me look like an idiot with a typo in the thread title. I found it myself and fixed it.)

            Did anyone else see this quote from Tom Brady:

            "Last year, you know, I was rehabbing my foot, you know, in Costa Rica, watching the game on an illegal Super Bowl website ... and now I'm actually playing in the game. So it's pretty cool."

            .
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541314].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
            Originally Posted by tpw View Post

            Yet, at the end of the story, I still committed "auto theft", and now I am trying to convince you that you should not prosecute me, because I helped advertise your business!!
            Except with video streaming the owner still actually has their original car in the driveway.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541346].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author tpw
              Originally Posted by Fraggler View Post

              Except with video streaming the owner still actually has their original car in the driveway.

              A digital vehicle is different from an actual vehicle, because it is still sitting on my hard drive after it has been stolen from me?

              I still lose revenue, to people who did not have the right to distribute my digital products and people who did not have a right to possess my digital products.

              Maybe it is a good thing that you are in the services business instead of the products business.
              Signature
              Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
              Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541391].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Fraggler
                Originally Posted by tpw View Post

                A digital vehicle is different from an actual vehicle, because it is still sitting on my hard drive after it has been stolen from me?

                I still lose revenue, to people who did not have the right to distribute my digital products and people who did not have a right to possess my digital products.

                Maybe it is a good thing that you are in the services business instead of the products business.
                I was only stirring!



                The point about getting increased exposure through streaming to places that don't have access to a broadcast is good one. It is something that the old school are fighting against while the open minded and creative people are running with.

                If I living beyond the black stump can't get access to the Superbowl through a TV service but my internet access is strong, then I'm never going to be a measurable viewer unless they make it available to my circumstances.

                These companies should be asking themselves WHY are these pirates streaming this content which is readily accessible legitamately for others and how can we meet what they want while still retaining control and financial reward.

                Shutting down domains isn't the solution but providing a service that eliminates the need to pirate is.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541671].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author tpw
                  Originally Posted by Fraggler View Post

                  I was only stirring!

                  It is all good. I do more than my fair share of stirring. :p
                  Signature
                  Bill Platt, Oklahoma USA, PlattPublishing.com
                  Publish Coloring Books for Profit (WSOTD 7-30-2015)
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541705].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author sal64
                  Originally Posted by Fraggler View Post

                  I was only stirring!



                  The point about getting increased exposure through streaming to places that don't have access to a broadcast is good one. It is something that the old school are fighting against while the open minded and creative people are running with.

                  If I living beyond the black stump can't get access to the Superbowl through a TV service but my internet access is strong, then I'm never going to be a measurable viewer unless they make it available to my circumstances.

                  These companies should be asking themselves WHY are these pirates streaming this content which is readily accessible legitamately for others and how can we meet what they want while still retaining control and financial reward.

                  Shutting down domains isn't the solution but providing a service that eliminates the need to pirate is.
                  But here's the rub...

                  The Superbowl and NFL are not public enterprises.

                  They own every single aspect of their IP.

                  Bottom line: they are the boss.

                  So it's up to them to decide who watches and who attends etc. if they want no one there and only access is via pay per view.. it's their call.

                  If they are happy with the status quo, then that's their prerogative.

                  And they have every right to protect their IP... as we all do.

                  Sal
                  Signature
                  Internet Marketing: 20% Internet - 80% Marketing!
                  You Won't See The Light Until You Open Your Eyes.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541839].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author sal64
          Originally Posted by Entrecon View Post

          Because it doesn't "cost" the network anything and it increases the viewership of the commercials? Isn't that a value add for the companies that are buying the commercial? Not only do you get the television viewership, but you get estimated X number of additional viewers through multiple online streams!
          That's the biggest BS argument I have heard in ages.

          What about those who have paid big $$$ for the rights to broadcast?

          If you forked out your own millions for that right, I suspect your argument would be a little different.

          With respect.
          Signature
          Internet Marketing: 20% Internet - 80% Marketing!
          You Won't See The Light Until You Open Your Eyes.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541509].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RodMacb
    Discussions like this on how theft is somehow legal...or should be condoned...always amuses me.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541084].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Oksa
      Originally Posted by RodMacb View Post

      Discussions like this on how theft is somehow legal...or should be condoned...always amuses me.
      Who has said that?
      Signature

      "Ich bin en fuego!"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541103].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimboJim
    I haven't seen anyone condone the theft of the Superbowl. It's a good thing these pirates are being taken down, they are the reason the government wants PIPA and SOPA put into action. This is how it should have been before, take down the pirate sites, not everyone else.

    Speaking of which, why is "The Pirate Bay" still up? It's in the name, and they have so many illegal files it isn't even funny.
    Signature
    Ready for some great content at a low cost?
    PresentPLR Newest Pack: LED Grow Lights
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541132].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HairyPoppins
    The whole content piracy thing is not an ok thing in my book. Is it bad when the gov't shuts down illegal sites? No, it's not bad when they shut down a crack house either. But, I am afraid that with in time the feds will start taking a little too much power and get trigger happy. There's just so much corruption on every level for me to trust them.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541135].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author cameronpalte
    Banned
    What is wrong with this? If you think about it in the real world of you steal a script from a movie writers office in la you get in trouble so why not here. it is easier to just use original content and not have to worry about this
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541176].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541333].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gareth
    Will they do a govt auction on flippa - ha ha ha
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541351].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Fullman
      Here's a silly little example of how I broke the law.

      I've had a couple of beers, so don't expect a rational argument.

      So...I was on business in Ireland. I wanted to *listen* to a soccer match from the BBC website (they stream the radio commentary).

      I couldn't do it, because the streaming commentary is only available in the UK. Bummer.

      Instead, I found a website streaming the BBC's commentary, and used that.

      Did I feel guilty? Nope. I pay my license fee to the BBC. My conscience is clear.

      But, because of territorial rules, I was "forced" to find my thrills on the dark side.

      Was I justified? Really...who cares?

      I suppose some bright spark will try and compare this to selling a product, e.g.

      1) Sell a product
      2) Use PayPal as the payment processor
      3) Prospect lives in a country where PayPal is not accepted
      4) Ergo Steve, following your idiotic argument, the prospect must have the 'right' to steal the product

      Well...maybe? I dunno, I'd have to think about that.

      This stuff reminds me of Napster, who came along and revolutionized the music biz...albeit illegally.

      Totally unethical and immoral, blah blah, until Apple etc came along and wrapped up the self same pent-up consumer demand inside a business case, and satisfied the desire for cheap music, one track at a time.

      Same goes for NetFlix.

      Question:

      Did you ever record the Superbowl -- or "that" episode of Friends -- on your VCR, and loan it to a friend?

      CRIMINAL! CALL THE FEDS!

      Have you ever made a mix-tape for a girlfriend?

      CRIMINAL! CALL THE FEDS!

      Seems to me, these "major media companies" haven't got a clue about who their market is, what their market wants, or how their market want to consume their stuff.

      And instead of rethinking, they lob everyone in a basket labelled 'pirate' and stick their heads back in the sand. Easier that way.

      Enough. More beer.

      Cheers,
      Steve
      Signature

      Not promoting right now

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541546].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author solado
    I’m from the UK so I don’t have much room to comment on the US actions, But what springs to mind firstly is why not spend the money on areas that really need it? Solve real crimes like murders, dysfunctional families and suffering areas... I think that’s the main area money should be invested.


    The internet has worked absolutely fine the past few decades but now corporations are sticking their necks into the fray with their out of date business models failing.
    Signature


    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541358].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Fullman
      Originally Posted by solado View Post

      I’m from the UK so I don’t have much room to comment on the US actions, But what springs to mind firstly is why not spend the money on areas that really need it? Solve real crimes like murders, dysfunctional families and suffering areas... I think that’s the main area money should be invested.


      The internet has worked absolutely fine the past few decades but now corporations are sticking their necks into the fray with their out of date business models failing.
      With you here my friend

      As my US friends and acquaintances here will testify, I love America!

      However, it always makes me chuckle when I hear the:

      "Gasp...isn't it shocking that someone wants to watch the SuperBowl from...an *illegal website*. Humanity has reached an all-time low etc"...

      ...argument, from the same folks who are quite happy with a law which says they can legitimately carry a tool which expels a highly explosive lump of metal with the power to render fellow human beings DEAD.

      SuperBowl sites online = morally bankrupt.
      Carrying a deadly weapon = A basic human right!

      You guys! You kill me!

      Cheers,
      Steve
      Signature

      Not promoting right now

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541639].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sal64
        Originally Posted by Steven Fullman View Post

        With you here my friend

        As my US friends and acquaintances here will testify, I love America!

        However, it always makes me chuckle when I hear the:

        "Gasp...isn't it shocking that someone wants to watch the SuperBowl from...an *illegal website*. Humanity has reached an all-time low etc"...

        ...argument, from the same folks who are quite happy with a law which says they can legitimately carry a tool which expels a highly explosive lump of metal with the power to render fellow human beings DEAD.

        SuperBowl sites online = morally bankrupt.
        Carrying a deadly weapon = A basic human right!

        You guys! You kill me!

        Cheers,
        Steve
        No doubt Julian Aussange from Wikileaks can feel the irony.
        Signature
        Internet Marketing: 20% Internet - 80% Marketing!
        You Won't See The Light Until You Open Your Eyes.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541789].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Steven Fullman
          Originally Posted by sal64 View Post

          No doubt Julian Aussange from Wikileaks can feel the irony.
          Lol.

          Cheers,
          Steve
          Signature

          Not promoting right now

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541814].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sal64
    lol...

    So to all those against closing down the sites - if someone illegally sells your online product / ebook etc... is that ok?

    I have to laugh at how as soon as a big corp takes action like Google, Paypal etc... they are automatically evil.

    IP is IP regardless if it belongs to the NFL or the average Joe who invents a can opener in his shed.

    Sal

    PS: If being in a dysfunctional family is a crime... then 98% of the world should be locked up.
    Signature
    Internet Marketing: 20% Internet - 80% Marketing!
    You Won't See The Light Until You Open Your Eyes.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541480].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ettienne
    Today was the first time I noticed one of those FBI Warning signs when I was forwarded to that Megaupload site. Just another step towards world domination for the US in my opinion. Sneaky sneaky.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541497].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jimmy586
    Banned
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541917].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Steven Fullman
      Originally Posted by Jimmy586 View Post

      Why should Internet pirates get any more consideration when it comes to property forfeiture than drug dealers and other criminals?
      Different dynamic? Different ecosystem? Different culture? Different circumstances?

      I hear you, and agree (to some extent), but carte-blanche statements like these don't really equate.
      Signature

      Not promoting right now

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541945].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Quote:
        Originally Posted by Jimmy586 View Post
        Why should Internet pirates get any more consideration when it comes to property forfeiture than drug dealers and other criminals?


        Originally Posted by Steven Fullman View Post

        Different dynamic? Different ecosystem? Different culture? Different circumstances?

        I hear you, and agree (to some extent), but carte-blanche statements like these don't really equate.
        He's not here to debate Steve. He's a cookie stuffer.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541997].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Steven Fullman
          Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

          Quote:
          Originally Posted by Jimmy586 View Post
          Why should Internet pirates get any more consideration when it comes to property forfeiture than drug dealers and other criminals?




          He's not here to debate Steve. He's a cookie stuffer.
          Thanks Suz. Good question for a stuffer. They're obviously upping their game!

          Cheers,
          Steve
          Signature

          Not promoting right now

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5542018].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Steven Fullman View Post

            Thanks Suz. Good question for a stuffer. They're obviously upping their game!

            Cheers,
            Steve
            It's copied from John McCabe's post. Probably a bot or a really lazy cookie stuffer. His post is full of hidden images.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5542030].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Entrecon
    For the record.....

    My argument was dripping with Sarcasm. It is just hard to show that in a forum post.
    Signature

    Visit My website http://kipferguson.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5541975].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
    Guess I better not use my slingbox to watch it at church...
    Signature
    Screw You, NameCheap!
    $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

    SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5542093].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GarrieWilson
    I couldn't do it, because the streaming commentary is only available in the UK. Bummer.

    Instead, I found a website streaming the BBC's commentary, and used that.
    You could have used a UK proxy. Which is still technically illegal.
    Signature
    Screw You, NameCheap!
    $1 Off NameSilo Domain Coupons:

    SAVEABUCKDOMAINS & DOLLARDOMAINSAVINGS
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5542114].message }}

Trending Topics