Channelsurfing.net

[Rodya RR]

I've noticed a handful of recent references and links to www.channelsurfing.net being posted on this board. Considering ShockerNet's good reputation for self-control in favor of promoting and protecting Shocker Athletics, I was somewhat surprised and disappointed by this development.

Look, I'm all for watching the Shockers, but utilizing this public forum to distribute and promote links to illegal, pirated broadcasts is in conspicuously poor taste. This tastelessness is exacerbated by the fact that such behavior directly conflicts with the interests of the Athletic Department's official internet broadcast offerings.

Don't just watch the Shockers. Support them. ;-)

The Athletic Department offers Shocker Vision for a small fee ($79.95/annually). They have even gone the extra mile - this year - and made it available in South Central Kansas. A legal service is available to you, and if you can't afford it, you may have bigger issues to address than your devotion to college athletics (even the Shockers).

You wouldn't sneak into a game, so don't support pirated broadcasts. I would hate to think that we are THOSE kind of fans.

So, with that... tsk-tsk to those who know better, but don't choose to DO better. It's another great day to be a Shocker!

[SB Shock]

I thought channelsurfing was just website that basically searches out and organizes free online broadcasts on the web?

Are you saying they have hacked into Shockervision?

[Maggie]

Pardon my ingornace, but can someone explain exactly what www.channelsurfing.net is and does?

I was considering trying it out this weekend because I refuse to pay for Shockervision due to all of the complaints. It may only be $80 a year but I won’t pay for a substandard product – cost is irrelevant.

[tropicalshox]

Support our school by using Shockervision. Until I know that it's against my morality (which isn't thought to be too good anyway by somebody) I will continue to use Channelsurfing for other games.

[rjl]

Channelsurfing.net is essentially an aggregate of sling-boxes that people have uploading to the internet. In the case of Shocker basketball games, someone is either taking the feed from Cox 22, sending it to their computer and then uploading it to the internet, or is taking their feed from Shockervision and returning it to the internet.

No, it is not legal. A simple perusal of the "channels" offered should be enough to inform one of that.

That said, I refuse to pay a cent for a site with as many problems as have been reported with Shockervision. The free market will inevitably find ways to address discrepancies such as a small broadcast area (as in the case with Cox 22) or poor reliability (as is the case with Shockervision.)

IMHO, if WSU was interested in promoting the brand it would broadcast the feed free of charge just like many other schools. Make the viewer sit through an ad or two. But charging what WSU charges for the product it's putting out will inevitably lead to people searching for alternative means of viewing it, or perhaps worse, losing interest and never viewing it at all.

[Maggie]

Thanks rjl and, with respect to this issue, we are on the same page.

[Rodya RR]

It looks like others have chimed in while I was typing... but anyways.

-----------

Channelsurfing is an aggregation site for the publication of various streaming broadcasts. A handful of these streams are free, the vast majority of them are not. Channelsurfing does not differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate streams.

Today, it is incredibly easy to broadcast a wide variety of content to the world - whether you own the rights to that content or not.

The content is not, to my knowledge, streamed directly by ChannelSurfing, only a link to the material is provided. Among the more common streaming techniques is to provide a link to justin.tv or ustream.com where content can be broadcast by individuals. I'm sure that even the most un-tech savvy folks have at least heard of Sling-Box, and how easy it is to capture streams and send them dancing around cyberspace. By not directly streaming the content, themselves, Channelsurfing stands on the tenuous legal ground that is inhabited by torrent sites and other sites that provide access to a plethora of copyrighted content.

Larger (read: wealthier and more powerful) institutions, like the NFL, have the resources and manpower to seek out and shut down pirate broadcasters. Smaller organizations, like our Shockers, simply lack the capacity to orchestrate such a campaign. Additionally, I'm sure there are concerns about generating negative publicity by stamping on their fans. Think of the backlash generated when various organizations started to crackdown (or charge) for tailgating. Also, recall the negative publicity created by the musicians who initiated legal proceedings against Napster.

There is clearly a gap between the level of service and access that we -as consumers and more specifically as fans - would prefer and what is available to us. However, stealing (let's call a spade a spade, here) is not a long-term solution. I am confident that the quality of Shocker Vision will improve as the number of subscribers increase. Not surprisingly low-rent projects receive low-rent attention. This becomes more important as we move back to the days of continuous sell-outs at the Chuck.

The decision to pirate proprietary content is a personal decision. Like all personal decisions, we are responsible for the ones we make.

I know it's hard to say no to something free. It's especially hard when no one is looking. But I don't think that the denizens of ShockerNet - and by extension the rest of Shocker Nation - want to develop a public reputation for openly stealing from the program they claim to support.

Ultimately, we are ALL responsible for the type of community we want to be.

--------------------------
P.S. If the ChannelSurfing links are just re-streams of the ShockerVision feed, then the argument against the quality of ShockerVision falls apart pretty quickly.

[Shox151]

Except Rodya, you don't have to pay for the crappy re-stream.

[vancedave56]

In my case, I am 80 miles away from Wichita, and do not have tickets. I am paying for Shockervision and also the MVC Network. Since this game is on 22, it isn't available on either of these - I have paid approximately $170 for these services. Now, if I lived in another State, I could watch it on Shockervision. I can't watch it on 22 - it's not carried by Dish Network - So...it blows.

[Maggie]

I am confident that the quality of Shocker Vision will improve as the number of subscribers increase.

Oh – I don’t think so. An increase in the number of subscribers would not provide an incentive for “the powers that be” to improve the quality of Shockervision. Rather, it would be seen as evidence, by its creators, that the product has been accepted, as is, by the public. The converse of your stated position is actually more likely: An investment in Shockervision which resulted in improvements in the quality and reliability of the product would increase the number of individuals willing to pay for Shockervision.

That is, by far, my driving attitude in all of this. I just don't want to pay for it. I am not going to shell out $80 of my money for aggravation. It’s not that I don’t think Shockervision is a good idea – I think it is a great idea. But I don't want to pay for it. I refuse to pay for it.

And I know my feelings are shared by others and, right or wrong, this provides an incentive (rjl is correct) for people to explore other alternatives.

Thank you for the further explanation and I do appreciate your concerns – which on the whole I think have merit.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

Im with RJL on this.

Except I am paying for shockervision, and I live in Wichita. 12 bucks a month is alot cheaper than shelling out $80 a game.

With that said Channelsurfing >>>>

[Dan]

you could also subscribe on a monthly basis to Shockervision for $12.95 per month and just watch the Dec-March games. Saves a little money.

[ShockBand]

I haven't really paid much attention to the channelsurfing thing, but it does appear to be an outright copyright violation at worst and of dubious legality at best. To that end, please make no more mention of it regarding links nor post links to it here at SN.

That being said, I agree with the sentiment that WSU Athletics should make the feeds free, viewing it more as a marketing tool than a revenue stream. Do they honestly think that a low quality broadcast production with a standard definition (at best) web feed is going to keep people from buying tickets? I'm sorry, but those who have the means and time are going to get tickets to see the game live - people viewing on the net are ones who likely wouldn't or couldn't make it to the game otherwise. Thus, a free Shockervision should mean more eyeballs on the product, which turns into more talk (hopefully good) about your product, which is EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT.

Perhaps a donor could step forward and make an annual donation to "Free Shockervision"...

[WuDrWu]

How many people remember Shocker Sports Superchannel?

[Maggie]

How many people remember Shocker Sports Superchannel?

I do.