What’s happening to it? No premier league at the weekend, and today, after me happily watching day one and two of the windies England test on it whilst ‘working’, that’s not there either. They been litigated against do we think?
I think it is a coincidence. Ive read previously that the PL have put pressure on Cloudflare to reveal their details so they have **** themselves.
They put out a statement last week saying they will no longer broadcast any football matches illegally. Cant remember if it was just English matches or not
Maybe if the people at the Premier League, FA, Football clubs and television companies weren't such a set of greedy lovely people (typed that myself not a swear filter) genuie prices would be lower (or free if they insist on getting advertising revenue) and we could all enjoy legally.
I use Livenettv as an alternative. Also someone on here suggested "Reddit football streams" and that worked for me. Until it went down after a few minutes. It did work well until it went belly up. Try it. Last saturday it was linked into Rams TV and on Tuesday I think it linked to the IFollow stream, with commentary.
I don't really get the moral argument for illegal streaming tbh. These companies are making money from adverts etc but not putting anything into the games they show.
Sorry for repeating myself but I feel strongly about this. Why do we, as consumers pay our hard earned money to watch adverts? We shouldn't (IMHO). BBC aside (different argument that I'm not getting into here) all television channels are supported by adverts so they don't need the subscriptions. I would accept a nominal fee for the upkeep of EPGs, and your latest Sky Q boxes so you can record 88 channels whilst watching 27 at the same time. ITV have the right idea on their hub. You can pay and have no adverts or watch for free with the ads. I just think Sky, and cable and many others are double dipping and we, as consumers are happy to take it.
To further my point and to widen this issue to copyright in general, I do think that the copyright should expire after a time. All the royalties must be paid for shows originally broadcast in the 1960s, and 1970s.
Not really sure I agree with illegal streaming to be honest. Yes companies like sky take the piss and the distribution of money in football is unfair. However, I don't think two wrongs make a right and streaming illegally is just the same as stealing a KitKat from your local supermarket. But people are happier to watch illegal streams because they aren't going to get caught.
Many people simply can't afford to watch legitimately. Either they literally don't have the few quid to spend on it, or it would be considered an irresponsible purchase. If they choose to watch a stream, they're not depriving the broadcaster of money because they wouldn't have received it either way. Victimless crime imo unless you have plenty of money to afford it and just choose not to.
I understand that, but watching football is not a necessity is it? Stealing food from a supermarket is equally victimless in my opinion. But I imagine a lot of people would be against me doing so. I've streamed many a game in the past, but I don't think it's "right", when other people are paying 40 quid a month for the same privilege.
the other side of the argument is, folk who can no longer get to games would be happy to Chuck a tenner into their clubs funds to watch the game if it was legal but the league don’t allow it, so it’s either don’t watch or try to search a stream out. ( or obviously fly out somewhere)
Look at the music industry. Napster and Kazaa was rife in the late 90s early 2000, but the music industry did something about it. From those beginnings we have good legal systems like Spotify. Other media need to follow this example.
Simple answer to no Hesgoal is!......go down to Oakwell and watch the game legitimately, is not that what happened before the days of illegal streaming when you would have no choice?
99% of the world's artists would probably tell you that they make a pittance from Spotify and would go back to the era of CDs in a heartbeat. Don't get me wrong, I use it every day, but barring a handful of artists they receive very little income from it. If we translate this model to football and TV rights, all bar the top half dozen would do well financially out of it. The model would need to be adjusted for it to work, as if it was based on say individual match views (like Spotify) a lot of clubs would go bust.
They would go back to the era of CD's of course, it was the golden age, but that age was a very small blip in the timeline of the history of music, yet it's held up by musicians as the standard remuneration. I personally think that time was a bad deal for the consumer. Musicians now make less money from streaming, but have the potential for far greater reach. They all still have the ability to build a following, and combine their musical output with business savvy to sell merch and make money from touring. Seems like a far more honest way of making money to me.
It's also the middle man (the agents, or the record labels) making the money. They are the leeches of society, not the guy who goes who uses Napster or watches a live football match on a dodgy site - quite often because our rules prevent the matches being broadcast between 3 and 5pm on a Saturday. We also have the capacity to show every professional football match live in this country if we wanted.
