SKY AND BT SPORTS NEXT SEASON.

I posted the same quote, the difference being you've cut off the second line which gives the context

For the hard of thinking i.e. YOU

If the cost of the purchase of the rights increases (as it has every round since '93) then for Sky to keep it's margin it needs to pass on the increase to its subscribers. The MORE subscribers there are the less the burden.
I've already explained that this time round they're not even passing on the full amount, as they patently think this will have an adverse effect on both expansion and retention of their customer base.

Oh and as for 'wound up' I'm not arsed in reality, I just think it's a tad rich when people take something, knowing it's wrong and then justify it to themselves as if it's somehow morally acceptable and fail to acknowledge that they're the wrong side of the line.

 

Just to reiterate... I don't stream illegally. I've got no issue with those that do.

 

Is it actually illegal to watch an illegally hosted stream?

No one word answers please.

 

Oh and tobes is talking shyte, if more people streamed, sky would put their prices down to a point where people would think about rejoining. Thereby forcing down the price of the premiership TV deal meaning clubs would have to cut player wages. Oh what a shame that would be.

 

Yes.

It's an infringement of copyright.

That said those watching are unlikely to be sought by the owners of the copyright, they'd only be interested in those hosting the stream and would aim to track them via their ISP. I mentioned it earlier but Sky now put a unique ID number above the Sky Sports logo when showing live events, to make the tracking of anyone putting their feed on a stream easy to trace.

 

Don't hold your breath like......

#realityvsdreamworld

 

That's bullshit Tobes and you know it. Sky will charge whatever people will pay. They won't have a profit line they want to hit and reduce costs once they've reached it. People illegally streaming as no effect on the price, Sky just know they can rape people!

 

You would imagine that's what would cover it but di you have any examples of a legal judgement or precedent?

 

Sort of yes, however are you saying broadcasters would still bid mega bucks for the TV deal if everyone was streaming?

 

which is why most of the best feeds are from usa and fox soccer and why the most average of streams can simply cover the area with the logo

 

As far as I know it is not illegal to watch them, only to broadcast them, if the broadcaster doesn't own the copyright to distrubute the property of the PL.

I could be wrong, but that's how I understood it to work atm

 

Isn't it based on floor area or something like that. Seem to remember the guy that used to own my local saying that sky had based his monthly charge on the total floor area of his pub and restaurant, even though the resurant had no direct access from the bar and had no TV's installed in it.

 

Something like that. It's calculated on potential lost earnings for Sky for each individual that could be in the pub watching rather than paying for access at home. Of course, this completely omits the possibility of an individual paying for home access but deciding to go to the pub instead.

 

I explained exactly what I meant by that earlier, I didn't say the price would come down, I said the amount of subscribers dictates how far it goes up! Sky want to balance out increased subscribers with retention of existing customers, the amount of people who stream who would ordinarily pay does affect the price, you're delusional if you believe otherwise.

 

Or a scam, some of us might call it that.

 

It's illegal to stream live football. So if you're sat watching it you're infringing the copyright of the owner. As I said earlier it's highly unlikely anyone would ever seek to prosecute as they're after those who are setting up the streams, but it doesn't alter the fact.

 

If you genuinely think Sky would charge less if more people subscribed then you are clearly the delusional one. They'll charge whatever they can get away with.

 

Yeah have to say I agree with this

Sky Exec 1: Woah! We got 50,000 new subscribers this month
Sky Exec 2: Holy ****! We better lower the subscription costs then, can't make too much money!

Went no conversation ever

 

But copyright context is always on Youtube, including PL copyrighted material and there is nothing on youtube about you breaking the law by watching said videos, that I could find anyway, the channel that has the illegal context is dealt with but not viewers.

Gis a source will you, am interested to read it.

 

Thing is these sites including Youtube offer video for free. How are we to know if they hold the copyright to any given video they are offering you for free, do we know if Netflix is holding copyright license, who checks? Are we legally obliged to check?

It's tricky. Also, there is the whole TV lincense dealio for some countries, if BBC already have aired a show you downloaded online I fail to see how you can be done for that as you paid to see it and there is no law preventing you from recording it from the TV on a DVD recorder, redistributing it is entirely another set of laws and where copyright comes it I tihnk, because you are copying it and redistributing it.

It is illegal to have copyright material without a license obviously, but video going into your eyes from a screen is different from downloading the actual movie because you are again, breaking copyright because you are making a copy of it, but by streaming it you are not copying it. The broadcaster is copying it. I can only see it being very difficult to prosecute someone for streaming video (not copying). Laws vary in different countries though. They are looking to fix all that with TTIP and TTP. No doubt if signed the majority of these sites will go dark within months possibly.