|
Eek!!
May 31, 2023 15:26:29 GMT
Post by skip on May 31, 2023 15:26:29 GMT
I don't care who supplies the stream but in an age where everything can be viewed all of the time (subscriptions permitting) why football is any different is crackers. They just need to think a bit harder and smarter. Anything can be streamed online....most services that offer online streaming though, don't do it for free (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc you pay for their services). If they do that, there isn't a chance in the world that they'd make as much money from individuals signing up for a match a time as they do from Sky, who'll pay hundreds of millions for the whole package and then show it all around the globe. If Sky offered a live match package at an affordable price point, I'd consider it. If I was in a position to be able to go to Stoke with a season ticket I'd take that instead. But like most things, biggest and best brains aren't working to make this happen, and sending someone down for a decade for offering dodgy streams is ridiculous. The current situation is just prohibition but with goals replacing booze.
|
|
|
Eek!!
May 31, 2023 15:34:45 GMT
via mobile
Post by mickmillslovechild on May 31, 2023 15:34:45 GMT
Anything can be streamed online....most services that offer online streaming though, don't do it for free (Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, etc you pay for their services). If they do that, there isn't a chance in the world that they'd make as much money from individuals signing up for a match a time as they do from Sky, who'll pay hundreds of millions for the whole package and then show it all around the globe. If Sky offered a live match package at an affordable price point, I'd consider it. If I was in a position to be able to go to Stoke with a season ticket I'd take that instead. But like most things, biggest and best brains aren't working to make this happen, and sending someone down for a decade for offering dodgy streams is ridiculous. The current situation is just prohibition but with goals replacing booze. I agree totally with what you say about the fact there probably are other avenues they could explore if they wanted to (and edited my previous post with a P.S. to make it clear I'm no fan of how it is currently or trying to defend it) but you have to look at the real world and the fact that they're a businesses. Why would they change what is a huge profit making business because members of the public are annoyed at the sentence laid down to someone who stole their products? The Prem taking someone to court for stealing their goods and then selling them for a huge profit is something that many companies do every single day but don't get slagged off for. It's completely understandable that any company would take you to court for stealing from them and then making a profit off those stolen goods. I sure as hell would if I owned a business. What seems to have pissed most people off is the sentence and that isn't down to the Prem in any way, shape of form. The courts decide that, not the Prem. P.S. I understand why people are annoyed at the sentence in comparison to assualts, rapes, murders etc. but this isn't an attack by the Prem on one or two people who watched an illegal stream. They're not going to come after you and me because we watch a stream on vipbox every now and again instead of paying for Sky. They went after these because they've been publicly warning people for a long time that they will start to prosecute for illegal streams and because these people made millions from it. It's like Napster (if you're old enough to remember) or kickass proxy or Piratebay (if you download films) i.e. they're not coming for Joe public just downloading a couple of things, they're after the people that make millions from those illegal streams/downloads.
|
|
|
Post by skip on May 31, 2023 16:20:34 GMT
It's like Napster (if you're old enough to remember) or kickass proxy or Piratebay (if you download films) i.e. they're not coming for Joe public just downloading a couple of things, they're after the people that make millions from those illegal streams/downloads. I did a concept pitch for Napster when they were about to go legit, and then I can't remember why, but they were sunk. And so was my ace pitch. <stares wistfully out of the window recalling doomed projects> But the difference here was that everyone from Universal to Apple saw the digital musical piracy as a sign to bring technology and intellectual property into a new closer alignment and iTunes was born. Sky and the Premier League, and Football League, could (but won't) do something similar.
|
|