StreamEast: A Story of Remedies and Rebirth

Cassidy Serger, Contributing Member 2024-2025

Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal

I. Introduction

Streaming live games and events has become crucial to the sports industry, and direct to user streaming is becoming a default method of consumption for fans.[1] With the vast array of entertainment services available to consumers, streaming can be difficult to coordinate and expensive. StreamEast, consequently, aimed to be a free platform for all sporting events.[2] Unfortunately, however, sports broadcasts are copyrightable subject matter and are owned by their creators.[3] As a result, StreamEast’s activities are illegal, and media companies and the government attempted to stop this practice.[4]

This article explores the recent domain seizure by Homeland Security Investigations of StreamEast, a free sports streaming platform.[5] Part II provides background on StreamEast and copyright law as it applies to sports and remedies. Part III discusses the remedy applied, other possible strategies for the government, and possible avenues for StreamEast. Finally, Part IV concludes by discussing the state of Copyright Law in the sports community. 

II. Background 

What Happened

StreamEast is a free sports streaming website, where viewers can access high-quality live streams for free of professional sports.[6] StreamEast boasts NBA, MLB, NFL, and others.[7] StreamEast’s mission is to provide access to sports games live and free of charge.[8]

However, the law enforcement division of the United States Department of Homeland Security has seized several domain names operated by StreamEast.[9] A United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana issued a warrant for the seizure.[10] Under 18 U.S.C. § 2323, it is unlawful to reproduce or distribute copyrighted material including sporting events, television shows, movies, music, software or games without authorization.[11] Specifically, the domains of thestreameast.to, streameast.io, streameast.xyz, and streameast.live were seized.[12]

Copyright Doctrine

The Constitution authorizes Congress to secure limited and exclusive rights to authors and inventors.[13] Copyrights exist to promote creativity and protect the creative expression within a work.[14] Original works of authorship are copyrightable subject matter.[15] Specifically, copyright secures a limited monopoly over the expression it contains.[16]

Further, the Copyright Act contains a Transmit Clause, extending the exclusive right to the right to: “Transmit or otherwise communicate a performance of the [copyrighted] work to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance… receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.”[17]

Therefore, not only are copyright holders entitled to the exclusive ownership of their creative expression, but they also have an exclusive right to communicate this expression.[18]

Copyright Jurisprudence

In Baker v. Selden, a plaintiff obtained a copyright for a book that detailed a method of book-keeping.[19] The defendant wrote a book detailing almost the exact same system.[20] The plaintiff sued for infringement, but the Court held that the copyright does not extend to the method described in the book.[21] Instead, the book, not the system of book-keeping, is what is protected by copyright.[22] Copyright protects expression, not inventions or methods of manufacturing.[23]

Similarly, in Wheaton v. Peters, the Court endorsed the view that the Copyright Act created a federal right to copyright expressive material.[24] In Wheaton, the plaintiff authored books and volumes of the reports of cases argued before the Supreme Court.[25] Unauthorized, nearly-exact copies were made by a clerk in the court when the plaintiff was transferring his copyright to another.[26] The Court held that although judicial opinions are not eligible for copyright protection, compilations can be.[27] Therefore, the Court remanded the case to the district court to ensure that all statutory prerequisites for valid copyright were met.[28]

Thus, copyright secures a limited monopoly over the expression it contains.[29]  Ideas and facts are excluded from copyright protection.[30] Further, scenes-a-faire, or incidents, characters or settings which are as a practical matter indispensable or standard, are not eligible for copyright protection.[31] Selection and coordination of the materials as well as creative arrangement can constitute the minimum level of expressive contribution that courts must look for when determining which parts of a work warrant copyright protection.[32]

In Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Services, a plaintiff sought a copyright over a compilation of addresses and phone numbers.[33] However, the Court held that facts are not copyrightable, but compilations of facts can be.[34] Specifically, works must possess at least some minimal level of creativity to be eligible.[35] The threshold inquiry is low, but some creativity must be present.[36]

Copyrighted materials enjoy protection and are a form of property. By passing the threshold test for minimally expressive content, the government has deemed the material sufficiently expressive to warrant protection. Multiple remedies are available, but the most effective option varies frequently based on the nature of the infringement. 

Copyright Infringement Remedies

Holding a copyright would be useless without a legal avenue to enforce the right. In this case, the government’s seizure was authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 2323.[37] This statute states that articles, property, or trafficking that is prohibited under copyright statutes is subject to forfeiture to the United States Government.[38] 17 U.S.C. § 506 criminalizes willful infringement of copyright.[39] Materials that fall under this category are then subject to the forfeiture authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 2323.

In addition, individual infringers can be held liable for their contributions or individual infringement.[40] Title 18 U.S.C. § 2319 outlines the punishments and penalties for copyright infringers.[41] Specifically, it authorizes imprisoning individuals who infringe copyrighted works.[42]

A similar form of relief is available in trademark law. The Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) authorizes mark holders to initiate a civil action in which they ask a court to transfer a domain.[43] This is an especially powerful remedy where a competitor is mimicking a known mark.[44] A party is eligible for this form of injunctive relief when a trademark is distinctive and the domain name is confusingly similar.[45]

III. Discussion 

First, sports broadcasting passed a threshold test for copyrightability, meaning that there is protectable expressive content. This is critical because without the presence of copyrightable subject matter, a court would have no content to protect. Specifically, sports broadcasts must contain a minimum amount of expressive conduct.[46] This can be things like league and team logos, sounds (like jingles), and commentary or annotations on the field of play. Although sports may not seem expressive–and may look more like a fact or compilation of facts–courts have set a low threshold for copyrightability.[47] As such, even small creative interpretations, like adding lines on a football field, can result in copyright protection.

In this instance, the Government employed seizure to enforce the copyright. However, StreamEast simply opened up new domains and continues to operate.[48] While the method was effective for one domain, infringement continues to occur on a plurality of different platforms on the internet, likely by the same individual or group.

Another remedy the government could have pursued was criminal prosecution of the individuals behind the service. Here, this would likely look like prosecuting the administrators of the site. This would be difficult logistically because of the amount of administrators behind it, not all of whom are likely engaged in the same levels of infringement.[49]

In addition, the remedy available in trademark law of transferring the domain name to the real owner would be similarly impracticable. StreamEast hosts games from many different sports networks and leagues, so a 1:1 transfer is not possible. Instead, StreamEast is infringing on a wide array of copyrights in a wide array of sites. For example, transferring the domain to just the NFL would leave other leagues, like the NBA, without a remedy. Further, it would not stop the infringement as the new owner would then be infringing on the other groups the domain was not transferred to. As such, this remedy would be ineffective.

While the seizure of domains may have temporarily stopped the infringement, other sites remain on the internet and continue to stream various sports and leagues. With the vast array of infringement that can happen on a singular site, current remedies lack the ability to prevent the wide-reaching, expansive copyright infringement that is possible on the internet.

IV. Conclusion 

Therefore, the domain seizure is likely the most effective remedy, even if the infringement was only temporarily put on hold. The remedies available in response to internet copyright infringement are not capable of keeping up with the mass infringement that the internet enables. Seizing single domains or prosecuting individuals does not effectively prevent mass distribution of copyrighted material. The internet has provided an unprecedented avenue for infringement, and as such, laws and remedies need to change to reflect this reality that copyright holders face.

---

[1] Ernesto Van der Sar, Feds Seize Domain Names of Sports Streaming Site Streameast, TorrentFreak (Aug. 19, 2024), https://torrentfreak.com/feds-seize-domain-names-of-sports-streaming-site-streameast-240819/ [https://perma.cc/G2LS-RA69].

[2] Id.

[3] See NBA v. Motorola, 105 F.3d 841, 847 (2nd Cir. 1997), holding that recorded broadcasts of sports games are entitled to copyright protection.

[4] StreamEast, http://streameast.io/ [https://perma.cc/VCU4-3NAM].

[5] Id.  

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Van der Sar, supra note 1.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] U.S. Const. article 1, § 8, cl. 8.

[14] See Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 103 (1879).

[15] 17 U.S.C. 102(a).

[16] See Hoehling v. Universal City Studios, 618 F.2d 972, 978 (2nd Cir. 1980).

[17] 17 U.S.C. § 101.

[18] Id.

[19] Baker, 101 U.S. at 100.

[20] Id.

[21] Id. at 103.

[22] Id.

[23] Id. at 102.

[24] Wheaton v. Peters, 33 U.S. 591, 661 (1834).

[25] Id. at 591.

[26] Id.

[27] Id. at 668.

[28] Id.

[29] See Hoehling, 618 F.2d at 978.

[30] See Mason v. Montgomery Data, 967 F.2d 135, 138 (5th Cir. 1992).

[31] Hoehling, 618 F.2d at 978.

[32] Id.

[33] Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 498 (1991).

[34] Id.

[35] Id.

[36] Id.

[37] 18 U.S.C. § 2323.

[38] Id.

[39] 17 U.S.C. § 506.

[40] 18 U.S.C. § 2319.

[41] Id.

[42] Id.

[43] 15 U.S.C. § 1125.

[44] See Sporty’s Farm LLC v Sportsman’s Market, 202 F.3d 489, 492 (2nd Cir. 2000).

[45] Id. at 500.

[46] See Feist,499 U.S. at 498.

[47] Id.

[48] Streameast, https://www.streameast.co/home/ (last visited Nov. 22, 2024).

[49] Dwyer and Michaels, Feds Seize Popular Streaming Website Used by North Carolinians, 97X (Aug. 20, 2024), https://97x.com/feds-seize-streameast-website/ [https://perma.cc/B29J-BKWN].