premier league wanting to kill joan!

[Ted Hughes]

I would bet the number of people who use rivers as an alternative to paying a broadcaster every month is actually smaller than the number of people who use rivers because they cant afford to pay broadcasters. I would also put forward a theory that the broadcasters would gain more financially from reducing their pricing per month compared to lobbying ISPs to censor their customers.

Personally I pay for watching football. I used to use streams and download quite a bit of music, but i''ve had a re-think. I'm quite tired of people who think that it's a human fucking right to get sport, entertainment and music for free.

That said, the providers should offer two types of accounts - one premier that gives you access to their content both trough your tv and online, and one just for online viewing. Pricing the second one a lot lower would make a lot of people who are today stealing their footy pay foe it.

That's the way to combat illegal viewing, IMO.

Agree with you, but more especially for music, books, independent films where the artists are being directly robbed and may not be very well off. Sky in the UK do have different pricing for online only and I'm looking at this now with an IP provider as a way to view football in 2 countries without Foxtel and True Vision subscriptions...

I pay for Sky & I use rivers.

I don't go to away games anymore, so I use the PC to watch them & we don't have the option of watching City away games on tv unless Sky select them for broadcast, so even though I am paying through the nose for Sky, I still can't watch City half the time.

If they bring in individual channels for fans to watch whichever clubs they want, the rags will end up holding everyone to ransom for more money.

[john@staustell]

I would bet the number of people who use rivers as an alternative to paying a broadcaster every month is actually smaller than the number of people who use rivers because they cant afford to pay broadcasters. I would also put forward a theory that the broadcasters would gain more financially from reducing their pricing per month compared to lobbying ISPs to censor their customers.

Personally I pay for watching football. I used to use streams and download quite a bit of music, but i''ve had a re-think. I'm quite tired of people who think that it's a human fucking right to get sport, entertainment and music for free.

That said, the providers should offer two types of accounts - one premier that gives you access to their content both trough your tv and online, and one just for online viewing. Pricing the second one a lot lower would make a lot of people who are today stealing their footy pay foe it.

That's the way to combat illegal viewing, IMO.

I watch Joan when our games aren't on TV - that's all. If they put them all on TV I'd probably pay for them all.

[Crossie]

Good look shutting down Joan.


It's not possible.

If they do well, everyone will move to the dark net anyway, where its impossible to shut anyone down because its impossible to find where someone's server is.

Dickheads.

I'd pay for a specific club season ticket with match replays and on demand so I could watch the games at my convenience.

Our website does its best but is still limited by Sky.

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

The whole point of my post was to highlight there are ways to give football fans something that they want in order to make streams even less attractive than they already are - and that broadcasters are approaching the problem from the wrong angle. You're applying a magnifying glass to one small spot of the post.

I was merely pointing out that one of the methods you proposed wiuld be catastrophic for football and superb for our out of town neighbours.
Watching live streams is so bad, I'd sooner just go and do summat else and find out the ft score later.

[Socrates]

I would bet the number of people who use rivers as an alternative to paying a broadcaster every month is actually smaller than the number of people who use rivers because they cant afford to pay broadcasters. I would also put forward a theory that the broadcasters would gain more financially from reducing their pricing per month compared to lobbying ISPs to censor their customers.

Personally I pay for watching football. I used to use streams and download quite a bit of music, but i''ve had a re-think. I'm quite tired of people who think that it's a human fucking right to get sport, entertainment and music for free.

That said, the providers should offer two types of accounts - one premier that gives you access to their content both trough your tv and online, and one just for online viewing. Pricing the second one a lot lower would make a lot of people who are today stealing their footy pay foe it.

That's the way to combat illegal viewing, IMO.

Agree with you, but more especially for music, books, independent films where the artists are being directly robbed and may not be very well off. Sky in the UK do have different pricing for online only and I'm looking at this now with an IP provider as a way to view football in 2 countries without Foxtel and True Vision subscriptions...

I pay for Sky & I use rivers.

I don't go to away games anymore, so I use the PC to watch them & we don't have the option of watching City away games on tv unless Sky select them for broadcast, so even though I am paying through the nose for Sky, I still can't watch City half the time.

If they bring in individual channels for fans to watch whichever clubs they want, the rags will end up holding everyone to ransom for more money.

is a good point actually, is bizarre that can see more of the games live on TV if not actually in the UK. It is a policy that most definitely encourages streaming.