Live stream providers getting taken to court...

The only way Sky could beat it is to offer Sky Sports for free, or close to it. Even if Sports was slashed to something like £10 per month you'd still get people using these streaming sites.

It's a something for nothing culture I'm afraid.

I know this is somewhat of an old fashioned and uncool view of things, but the way I look at it, if I can't afford it, I don't get it. Simple as that really.

 

There are many channels around the world that show premiership football for far more reasonable prices only sky have tried to monopolise who is allowed access to the games here. If people and pubs had free access to subscribe to foreign suppliers then I would agree with you. But they don't. They are banned from buying a product from one provider and forced to buy it from another.

It is a silly and outdated model when we live in a global digital age. Of course people will just look for poorer quality alternatives online if they cannot afford to pay an over inflated price.

Again, I can see why sky want to close these sites. I can see why people are happy to use them.

 

And that is the biggest irony of it all: market regulation defending big capitalists by restricting the free market.

 

I know the EPL have lots of tv deals with countries all round the world but not all. What about fans that live in a different country n just want to watch their team? I understand your coming from a business point of view but that's the problem here. It doesn't seem to be affecting the EPL at the moment or in the last 10 years as a matter of fact, it just keeps getting more profitable. So basically their just thinking of money n nothing else. Not about the average fan that's stuck in a country with no coverage or a soldier in iraq with nothing but the wifi the millitery provide them. Examples obviously but its the usual from that mob.

But I guess its irrelavent because as the guys said before, you can just change your proxy if Britain ban it. I use one on my phone to watch bbciplayer called VPNTraffic. And just like someone else said, they just change the website n update you about how they have changed it. Then it takes the courts another 6-12 months to shut down the new one. They need to give up n stop wasting their money.

 

I'm not arguing with any of that, and I'm certainly not a fan of Sky as a company, that's for sure. I do enjoy their product, and deem it to be worth what I pay for it.

I'm simply saying that expecting Sky not to try and fight against people getting their product for free is ridiculous.

 

Pretty simple, you would think.

 

Rules are there to be broken mate ,If its staring you in the face for nothing ,why pay for it.

 

Personally, I pay for it for the reasons I listed above. I prefer to watch my Champions League football in HD, on my television and without it buffering or cutting out for stupid adverts every ten minutes.

I deem the sheer amount of content provided by Sky Sports to be well worth the asking price, so I have no issue paying it.

 

You will be okay as it is only uk ISP that they are trying to stop.

We should still be able to watch as normal or better without all them UKers slowing the stream down.

 

That depend on what streams you use and the spec of your machine ,personally its like watching the TV for me mate

 

It's never going to match watching it in HD on a 70 inch TV, with the choice of pausing and rewinding, watching it delayed and in stereo sound mate.

 

I think that because he is an unscrupulous * who is playing a large part in pricing the working man out of football that any right-minded individual should be delighted to see him * over.

* bSkyB, * Rupert Murdoch and * everyone who looks like him.

 

70 inches eh?

Looks like someone is overcompensating for something...

 

Yup, bad eyesight! :smiley-laughing002:

 

Couldn't just get glasses like everybody else, ya flash git. :smiley-laughing002:

 

I bet you bought a hummer instead of a mini for the same reason.

 

I do agree to some extent, but basically you are cutting off a large amount of people becaus they aren't as wealthy as you. Doesn't necessarily mean these people work any less hard than the next person so if they can get a little something for nothing or can save on bills I don't see the problem with them doing that.

It's not affecting you, you're happy to pay for service as you believe by doing so you're getting a better quality product, they can't afford to or don't want to so they get a third rate product which they are happy enough with. I don't see a problem really.

 

Isn't there a way for those who have a Sky package without Sports to get the sports channels online anyway?

 

Yeah , Streams :bbpd: