Free TV 2300 Channels - Legal

[imoldernu]

At least that's the claim.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvOCMrOBoavCdE5IdW4xUUp3QU5pN0VvOWVaRElSSmc&single=true&gid=0&output=html
It does work. Not all channels are available, but many work well.
Am still experimenting. Some channels don't come up in full screen, others, not at all, but was able to many, many channels, including multiple football games, and p"pay" channels.
Can feed to regular TV.
One of the things that puzzled a bit, was a partial screen, with an ad... click out of that... click out of ad, then, at the bottom of the screen a tiny X to fill the screen.
Different on different channels.
I expect that with a little tweaking we'll be able to work it all out.
If it all works, could be that option we've been looking for to save some $$$.
Good Luck...
(This may have been discussed on another thread... if so, my bad.!

 

[RunningBum]

I have doubts about the "legal" part. Where do you even see the claim that it is legal?

 

[imoldernu]

I have doubts about the "legal" part. Where do you even see the claim that it is legal?

hmmm... am thinking you are right... When I was looking for sites, there was an article that explained the law, re:rebroadcast... but I think it may have been for one of the other sites...
After playing around with this one, while it works some of the time, it's not dependable. I doubt I'd use it at this point.
Will go back for more legal info... there are at least five or six websites that offer live streaming major broadcast channels. If there's a legal way to get NBC, ABC, CBS and maybe ESPN, it would be enough to cover current programming... Netflix, Hulu and Amazon could fill in for non-current viewing.
Here's a discussion on the legality:

Is Live Streaming of TV Channels legal

and Wiki, on legality:
Copyright aspects of downloading and streaming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bUU]

It is illegal. The sites that offer this are violating US law, but generally shield themselves from prosecution by operating outside the reach of US jurisdiction. This forces copyright holders to have to go through the much more onerous means of protecting their assets by getting courts to order ISPs to block such traffic or report on which subscribers are patronizing such services - it's a big mess promulgated basically by folks who simply don't want to pay the published price for what they want. There seems to be a real disconnect today in our consumer marketplace, with many people apparently not realizing that if you don't like the price for something - if you feel that it isn't worth it - then you should do without it, not seek out and find a way to take it anyway without paying the price.

 

[target2019]

Some of the links in the posted spreadsheet do go directly to the copyright owners' sites. However, some are questionable.

I'd be careful, for sure.

This does suggest a good idea for a blog or something, where links to legit streaming are posted and reviewed. Who wants to take the CSPAN link article?

 

[donheff]

Darn. Peaked my interest since I would like a good list of streaming TV channels for travel. But Target2019 is right about the danger of clicking on links to unknown bad guy's sites. Only a matter of time before you pick up some malware.

 

[Dawg52]

Interesting. I noticed some of the links go through something called Justin TV. I follow a local college sports forum and when a game of interest is not being shown locally, many times you can find the game via Justin TV and it is referenced on the forum. They have been linking to it for several years. Sometimes you can find the same game on ESPN3, which is legal.

Here's some additional info on Justin TV.

Justin.tv - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ..............

Justin.tv has been criticized for failing to ensure that its videos respect the law of copyright,[26] although its policies are in line with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.[27] In August 2009, Justin.tv announced a deal with Fox to actively filter streams in real-time.[28] Justin.tv now uses a filtering system from Vobile to detect and filter out any copyrighted content, and remove the channel from the website.

 

[Tyro]

Who wants to take the CSPAN link article?

Certainly not all, but much of CSPAN content is PD.
C-SPAN Copyright Policy | C-SPAN

 

[Midpack]

If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is...

 

[Dimsumkid]

In 2011, I was looking to watch Michigan Wolverine football games. I was checking to see on Wolverine forums who was broadcasting the game on the radio, local or internet. I found a post about a web based TV broadcast from the UK that advertised "watch all sports online free". You had to live with ad pop ups, but it worked pretty well. I saved the link then when I tried it this year a message popped up "This website has been seized by the FBI".

 

[utrecht]

It is illegal. The sites that offer this are violating US law, but generally shield themselves from prosecution by operating outside the reach of US jurisdiction. This forces copyright holders to have to go through the much more onerous means of protecting their assets by getting courts to order ISPs to block such traffic or report on which subscribers are patronizing such services - it's a big mess promulgated basically by folks who simply don't want to pay the published price for what they want. There seems to be a real disconnect today in our consumer marketplace, with many people apparently not realizing that if you don't like the price for something - if you feel that it isn't worth it - then you should do without it, not seek out and find a way to take it anyway without paying the price.

Serious question here: How can a company, person or basically any entity who is not within the borders and / or jurisdiction of the US, be violating US law? They are not bound by US law anymore than I am bound by laws of Afghanistan. They are not even responsible for knowing US law. If the US wants to make it illegal for someone living in the US to receive a bootleg TV broadcast, that's fine, but they cant legislate what people in other countries do. Actually, they shouldn't, but they do. A few years ago in an attempt to stop online poker, laws were passed that made it illegal for any company in the business of gambling to transfer money to or from a US citizen within the US. Then the US put these people on a watch list and waited for them to enter the US and arrested them for violating this law. One was passing thru and had a layover in a US city and got arrested. As I said, some of these people weren't Americans and don't live here. How can they be prosecuted?

If there is a law in Afghanistan that says its illegal to sell blue jeans, and I have a business that sells blue jeans over the internet and someone in Afghanistan buys my blue jeans, I'm not committing a crime. I can't be responsible for knowing the laws of every jurisdiction in the world.

 

[bUU]

Serious question here: How can a company, person or basically any entity who is not within the borders and / or jurisdiction of the US, be violating US law?

"Congress has the authority to enforce its laws beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States". EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co. (Aramco), 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991)

They are not bound by US law anymore than I am bound by laws of Afghanistan.

If you speak out in support of a free Tibet, even from an American pulpit, and travel to China, China could arrest you, or at least bar you from entry. More to the point: If you're Chinese, and speak out in support of a free Tibet, while in the United States, don't expect to be treated with kid gloves when you arrive home.

They are not even responsible for knowing US law.

The initial violation takes place at the point where someone within the United States (or just over the border in a country that has reciprocal agreements with the United States) breaches content protection (i.e., reception and retransmission). From there, it is little different from possession of stolen property.

If the US wants to make it illegal for someone living in the US to receive a bootleg TV broadcast, that's fine, but they cant legislate what people in other countries do.

Well, they can. And they can take action against violators should they ever come within US jurisdiction, and they can also negotiate with foreign jurisdictions to take action or facilitate extradition.

Actually, they shouldn't

That's a personal opinion. Many people disagree with you about that.

Operationally, the target of action is the reception and retransmission (when someone here, who is allowed to have access to the television programming, makes the transmission available to others - that's illegal) and reception if unauthorized transmission (when someone here accesses foreign sources of illegal retransmissions).

 

[RunningBum]

Serious question here: How can a company, person or basically any entity who is not within the borders and / or jurisdiction of the US, be violating US law? They are not bound by US law anymore than I am bound by laws of Afghanistan. They are not even responsible for knowing US law. If the US wants to make it illegal for someone living in the US to receive a bootleg TV broadcast, that's fine, but they cant legislate what people in other countries do. Actually, they shouldn't, but they do. A few years ago in an attempt to stop online poker, laws were passed that made it illegal for any company in the business of gambling to transfer money to or from a US citizen within the US. Then the US put these people on a watch list and waited for them to enter the US and arrested them for violating this law. One was passing thru and had a layover in a US city and got arrested. As I said, some of these people weren't Americans and don't live here. How can they be prosecuted?

If there is a law in Afghanistan that says its illegal to sell blue jeans, and I have a business that sells blue jeans over the internet and someone in Afghanistan buys my blue jeans, I'm not committing a crime. I can't be responsible for knowing the laws of every jurisdiction in the world.

From what I understand, they will often go after a message board where people post the links. Seriously! Sports related boards in particular. A couple of very strict rules about not posting such links to avoid problems. I don't know anything more about what they actually can do and if they really do it, but it has the board's mods worried.

 

[utrecht]

"Congress has the authority to enforce its laws beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States". EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co. (Aramco), 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991)

If you speak out in support of a free Tibet, even from an American pulpit, and travel to China, China could arrest you, or at least bar you from entry. More to the point: If you're Chinese, and speak out in support of a free Tibet, while in the United States, don't expect to be treated with kid gloves when you arrive home.

The initial violation takes place at the point where someone within the United States (or just over the border in a country that has reciprocal agreements with the United States) breaches content protection (i.e., reception and retransmission). From there, it is little different from possession of stolen property.

Well, they can. And they can take action against violators should they ever come within US jurisdiction, and they can also negotiate with foreign jurisdictions to take action or facilitate extradition.

That's a personal opinion. Many people disagree with you about that.

Operationally, the target of action is the reception and retransmission (when someone here, who is allowed to have access to the television programming, makes the transmission available to others - that's illegal) and reception if unauthorized transmission (when someone here accesses foreign sources of illegal retransmissions).

One more reason why half of the rest of the world hates us. We think we can make laws that the rest of the world has to abide by.

 

[bUU]

I guess you missed the part about how China does the same sort of thing.

 

[BLS53]

The issue isn't that people want to rip the programming off. It's that programmers make the programs available only through cable providers, as part of an elaborate package of channels, the consumer may not want.

The other culprit is the sports leagues and their network providers, who have idiotic territorial rules pertaining to blackout policies.

One will circumvent policies as necessary to see what they want. The FBI isn't going to go door to door arresting people. There's bigger fish to fry, then to worry about Joe Blow stealing ESPN.

 

[utrecht]

I guess you missed the part about how China does the same sort of thing.

China isnt exactly on top of anyone list as far as fairness either.

 

[pb4uski]

The issue isn't that people want to rip the programming off. It's that programmers make the programs available only through cable providers, as part of an elaborate package of channels, the consumer may not want.....

One thing that I don't understand is why all OTA TV isn't available via the web (commercials and all). We live in a rural area where OTA TV reception is poor. I would like to get my local OTA channels via the web and then dump my satellite provider and then go with Hulu Plus/NetFlix, etc for other programming, but the inability to get my locals via web is keeping me on satellite.

 

[Dimsumkid]

One thing that I don't understand is why all OTA TV isn't available via the web (commercials and all). We live in a rural area where OTA TV reception is poor. I would like to get my local OTA channels via the web and then dump my satellite provider and then go with Hulu Plus/NetFlix, etc for other programming, but the inability to get my locals via web is keeping me on satellite.

What OTA shows are you referring to? I can get to ABC, CBS and NBC shows usually 1 day later on the web. FOX makes you wait 8 days if you're not a cable/satellite subscriber.

 

[bUU]

The issue isn't that people want to rip the programming off. It's that programmers make the programs available only through cable providers, as part of an elaborate package of channels, the consumer may not want.

Every rational, data-based analysis shows that most customers benefit from that arrangement. If you need some insights into this, switch to C-Band and see how much it costs per channel. The break-even point for me was 6 channels: ABC Family, USA, Syfy, TNT, CNN, FX, AMC. If you like sports, the break-even point is earlier.

The other culprit is the sports leagues and their network providers, who have idiotic territorial rules pertaining to blackout policies.

This I think indicates the problem with your logic: You're presuming entitlement to high-quality, inexpensive entertainment. There is no such entitlement.

One will circumvent policies as necessary to see what they want. The FBI isn't going to go door to door arresting people. There's bigger fish to fry, then to worry about Joe Blow stealing ESPN.

That much is true, but what you're suggesting reflects the true cancer in society - not media outlet seeking to be compensated for what their offerings are worth, based on what the marketplace is willing to pay - that's tried-and-true American capitalism - but rather the cancer is those within society who seek to place themselves above others by exploiting, abusing, and otherwise transgressing against responsible conduct.

China isnt exactly on top of anyone list as far as fairness either.

Expecting people to pay what something is worth in the marketplace is fair, though.

 

[bUU]

One thing that I don't understand is why all OTA TV isn't available via the web (commercials and all). We live in a rural area where OTA TV reception is poor. I would like to get my local OTA channels via the web and then dump my satellite provider and then go with Hulu Plus/NetFlix, etc for other programming, but the inability to get my locals via web is keeping me on satellite.

[I am assuming pb4uski was talking about live streaming, not just the ability to watch programming online a day later.]

There is nothing preventing the stations from doing that, except the folks who make television programming generally reserve the rights to broadcast over the Internet. They do this for several reasons, money being one of them, but also they make a promise to each station that they'll have exclusive rights to present the programming that they've created for a certain period of time. If some station in another market is freely broadcasting over the Internet, then that takes away from the folks who make television programming their rights to control distribution, and make more money from wider distribution of what they've created.

There is a way around that, now: ISPs know precisely where each connection is coming from, and together they can limit access to specific content to certain geographical areas (in compliance with the wishes of the content creators). Those arrangements are possible. I can get over 40 channels on my Xbox 360, now, because my ISP has gotten together with cable channels to allow what is essentially Internet streaming of those channels to my IP device. We don't see it all that often with the OTA channels because what profit motive are we, consumers, offering content creators and ISPs to invest money in such arrangements?

If we consumers don't do our part, it isn't reasonable to expect what we want to be handed to us on a silver platter.

 

[pb4uski]

What OTA shows are you referring to? I can get to ABC, CBS and NBC shows usually 1 day later on the web. FOX makes you wait 8 days if you're not a cable/satellite subscriber.

My main concern is local and national news of our CBS affiliate. I could live with waiting a day for major network shows.

The local news station we watch the most does have many of their news features as video on their website, but I am lazy and like having them "deliver" the news to me rather than having to go fetch it.

 

[utrecht]

Every rational, data-based analysis shows that most customers benefit from that arrangement. If you need some insights into this, switch to C-Band and see how much it costs per channel. The break-even point for me was 6 channels: ABC Family, USA, Syfy, TNT, CNN, FX, AMC. If you like sports, the break-even point is earlier.

This I think indicates the problem with your logic: You're presuming entitlement to high-quality, inexpensive entertainment. There is no such entitlement.

That much is true, but what you're suggesting reflects the true cancer in society - not media outlet seeking to be compensated for what their offerings are worth, based on what the marketplace is willing to pay - that's tried-and-true American capitalism - but rather the cancer is those within society who seek to place themselves above others by exploiting, abusing, and otherwise transgressing against responsible conduct.

Expecting people to pay what something is worth in the marketplace is fair, though.

Something is only worth what people are willing to pay. If people are willing to commit a crime to get it, the product is probably overpriced.

 

[pb4uski]

Something is only worth what people are willing to pay. If people are willing to commit a crime to get it, the product is probably overpriced.

or the people who are stealing are exceedingly cheap - take your pick.

 

[bUU]

Something is only worth what people are willing to pay. If people are willing to commit a crime to get it, the product is probably overpriced.

If you really believe that, then we have no common basis on which to have a discussion about it.

or the people who are stealing are exceedingly cheap - take your pick.

I prefer the term, "offensively self-entitled". Others would use harsher words like "selfish", but I think they go too far, because our society has done such a poor job communicating reasonable parameters for opportunistic self-enrichment.