So glad I've never paid for illegal streams.. I wonder what, if any, action will be taken against people who subscribed?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65697595

No action will be taken, and rightly so.

Venkys4eva wrote: ↑

Tue May 30, 2023 10:02 pm

So glad I've never paid for illegal streams.. I wonder what, if any, action will be taken against people who subscribed?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65697595

None whatsoever

Glad I joined a book club.

I suppose the question is why the hell would anybody pay for illegal streams when they are so easily accessible for free?

I can categorically say "I have never paid for an illegal stream"

Bosscat wrote: ↑

Tue May 30, 2023 10:20 pm

I can categorically say "I have never paid for an illegal stream"

Ha ha

I don't know as I'm not in the UK, but how much would it cost to subscribe to Sky, BT (and whatever others you would need to watch football) per month ?

Vegas Claret wrote: ↑

Tue May 30, 2023 10:33 pm

I don't know as I'm not in the UK, but how much would it cost to subscribe to Sky, BT (and whatever others you would need to watch football) per month ?

I was on a very good deal and had them all for £60 a month a couple years back. However, the biggest issue with this and probably why 99.9% of people use illegal streams is because of the 3pm blackout. You either have to watch it on an illegal stream or not at all.

Foshiznik wrote: ↑

Tue May 30, 2023 10:39 pm

I was on a very good deal and had them all for £60 a month a couple years back. However, the biggest issue with this and probably why 99.9% of people use illegal streams is because of the 3pm blackout. You either have to watch it on an illegal stream or not at all.

it's a lot of money nowadays for many families, I bet there aren't many now that get them all for 60 quid and yes the 3pm blackout is just daft

Vegas Claret wrote: ↑

Tue May 30, 2023 10:33 pm

I don't know as I'm not in the UK, but how much would it cost to subscribe to Sky, BT (and whatever others you would need to watch football) per month ?

You’d need Sky + BT + Amazon to be able to watch all available games but like others have said the main thing is not being able to watch games due to blackout

Sky Sports £46pm
BT sports £30pm
Amazon £9pm

So £85 pm compared to similar price for a year “service” where you can watch any game you want

wilks_bfc wrote: ↑

Tue May 30, 2023 10:58 pm

You’d need Sky + BT + Amazon to be able to watch all available games but like others have said the main thing is not being able to watch games due to blackout

Sky Sports £46pm
BT sports £30pm
Amazon £9pm

So £85 pm compared to similar price for a year “service” where you can watch any game you want

that's a lot of money isn't it to many people in these times

These threads pop up more regular every month
Nothing the big guns can do about it

Ridiculous sentences, you're treated more leniently if you abuse children.

I'm simply too tight to pay for streams either illegal or through the providers. Would rather go without than pay.

roperclaret wrote: ↑

Tue May 30, 2023 10:17 pm

I suppose the question is why the hell would anybody pay for illegal streams when they are so easily accessible for free?

Cos the free ones buffer like Billyo?

Vegas Claret wrote: ↑

Tue May 30, 2023 10:33 pm

I don't know as I'm not in the UK, but how much would it cost to subscribe to Sky, BT (and whatever others you would need to watch football) per month ?

Sky Sports & BT add about £15 a month to my package. But, as others have said, you can't watch 3pm kick offs (and normally a few other games that are rearranged but not on TV).

Obviously if it is a service that isn't offered in the UK then it's a bit difficult to show any loss from illegal streaming of 3pm kick offs.

AmbleClaret wrote: ↑

Tue May 30, 2023 11:14 pm

Ridiculous sentences, you're treated more leniently if you abuse children.

Typical for Freud I’d say. It’s not child a use, but don’t forget those Freud laws are all that make it safe to shop. It needs to be a deterrent.

AmbleClaret wrote: ↑

Tue May 30, 2023 11:14 pm

Ridiculous sentences, you're treated more leniently if you abuse children.

Typical for Freud I’d say. It’s not child a use, but don’t forget those Freud laws are all that make it safe to shop. It needs to be a deterrent.

It's about time every game was made available to watch, and at reasonable cost.
I do not think it will affect the crowds at games at all, the authentic experience of going to the game is so much more than just the game itself.

Plus, if they do not do this then games will almost always be pirated anyway, so you may as well cash in a small amount to reduce the total piracy.

aggi wrote: ↑

Wed May 31, 2023 12:06 am

Sky Sports & BT add about £15 a month to my package. But, as others have said, you can't watch 3pm kick offs (and normally a few other games that are rearranged but not on TV).

Obviously if it is a service that isn't offered in the UK then it's a bit difficult to show any loss from illegal streaming of 3pm kick offs.

Good post. That is one of the reasons people subscribe to these “illegal” tv services. Many of them subscribe to Sky and BT also.
I’m usually watching the Clarets on Saturdays but a friend I know used to have both Sky and BT and also paid to watch the streaming service for Saturday afternoon football.

It’s illegal but not unwise.

elwaclaret wrote: ↑

Wed May 31, 2023 12:41 am

Typical for Freud I’d say. It’s not child a use, but don’t forget those Freud laws are all that make it safe to shop. It needs to be a deterrent.

Is that a Freudian or Fraudian slip?

11 years wow

What you in for mate ?

‘Manslaughter what about you’

‘Streaming Burnley v Brentford mate’

Thing is, while some of us may think sentences harsh, or the broadcasting rules around football grossly unfair (I know I certainly do), the guys convicted knew what would happen if they were caught and took that risk in what was a £££M operation.

Even Robin Hood knew what would happen if he got busted.

How much do people in the US and the rest of the world pay for legitimate 'all you can eat' EPL subscriptions? One thing is for sure, it's nowhere near what we mugs pay here in the UK.

Also, the sentencing says everything you need to know about Rip Off Britain. Child rapists get much lighter sentencing, and it's the same with seriously violent crimes against children and adults, but then again, they aren't billion-pound companies with the right connections.

Always seems to be the case that crimes against property receive harsher sentences than those against people. Especially when the "property" is owned by wealthy and powerful people or organisations. I wonder why that could be.......

ClaretsPadiham wrote: ↑

Wed May 31, 2023 7:57 am

11 years wow

What you in for mate ?

‘Manslaughter what about you’

‘Streaming Burnley v Brentford mate’

I read yesterday that it was being used to fund other organised crime, and who knows what. One of the gang was found with indecent images of children on his computer.

I've never subscribed to anything like this and I've only ever watched one illegal stream. That was for a pre-season friendly at Blackpool which resulted in me getting a threatening email from the Burnley FC chairman.

roperclaret wrote: ↑

Tue May 30, 2023 10:17 pm

I suppose the question is why the hell would anybody pay for illegal streams when they are so easily accessible for free?

ISPs blocking illegal streams made this an even bigger problem.

If you try to watch a free stream especially on a Saturday without a VPN most won't work or will drop after a few seconds. Your ISP is actively blocking access to it (a court order forced them to do this).

I don't know how they work well enough to say why, but Firesticks don't seem to suffer from the same problem. Probably have built in proxies or VPNs or encryption I don't know.

So for convenience and the fact that you can watch it easily on TV, £10/mo seems like a steal to most normal people when it usually costs £30-40 or more.

The criminals provide the Firesticks with the software, and then the streams ultimately come from places like these guys.

Tl;dr something that was freely accessible by non technical people now needs them to pay £10/month for an illegal firestick or a similar amount for a VPN. Easiest option for most is a firestick because they don't understand VPNs.

roperclaret wrote: ↑

Tue May 30, 2023 10:17 pm

I suppose the question is why the hell would anybody pay for illegal streams when they are so easily accessible for free?

They say that it’s the ease of use, on their tv, and the familiarity of a nice User Interface without having to sift through schedules online, including clicking through millions of ads when you do find the stream you’re looking for. Goes on to say They’re a lot more reliable, less buffering, and the quality of picture is indistinguishable from the real thing.

They humbly suggest that whilst some may think it’s daft to pay for something you can indeed get online, £4 a month is more than reasonable for a halfway house between the real thing and taking your chances scrambling around to find one online on the day.

This would mostly go away if the UK didn't rip off potential legitimate subscribers. Remember when people used to download their music from torrent sites? I don't know anyone who does that any more. Most people in my social circle pay for Spotify or one of the other subscription services like Apple or Deezer etc. Why? Because it became affordable and hassle-free.

Somehow shaved my opening paragraph off On the statement above.

The opening paragraph said I know someone who pays for a service like this and they gave me their reasons. Hopefully rest of it makes sense now

Fretters wrote: ↑

Wed May 31, 2023 9:53 am

I read yesterday that it was being used to fund other organised crime, and who knows what. One of the gang was found with indecent images of children on his computer.

From the Athletic article on the case:

“The investigation also found significant evidence of other serious criminality with Felvus subsequently convicted of multiple unrelated offences, including being in possession of indecent child imagery.”

There’s much to be said about the unfairly high price of watching football these days (actually utter rip-off just about covers it), but it is this that groups like this exploit to make money, lots of money, for themselves. They are not revolutionary anarchists viewing property as theft etc etc, they are criminals who see an opportunity to exploit and make money from. Until now the penalties for this have been pretty lax and the sentences handed down, especially the ring leader’s, are statements of intent.

Now compare this with knock-off fags. Pretty victimless crime eh? Well, actually, no. Those OCGs doing that do so because they make an eye watering amount of money from it. The profit margin for illegal fags as opposed to cocaine or other such drugs is massive, and again the penalties are relatively minimal - often just fines. But these ventures don’t operate in isolation, they are linked to organised crime of other types, drug trafficking, and where there’s drug trafficking there’s people trafficking, and so on etc.

My guess is that as broadcasting corporations apply more pressure to internet providers to block these streams, and dodgy streams become more and more monetised, we’ll see more and more of this exploitation. Maybe this lot aren’t mixed up in all that, but it won’t be long before OCGs get a whiff of the money to be made.

And all the while none of it benefits fans who just want to watch their teams but are faced with punishingly high prices.

Finally, let’s not have the distasteful comments comparing sentences between illegal piracy and CSE. It does nobody any credit, ignores the nuances of this case and it’s wider perspective, and trivialises abhorrent offences.

It won't go away, though. It doesn't matter what barriers are put in place, tech will always find a way. The cat is out of the bag, and it's time the industry caught up.

Like I said, people had largely stopped paying for music because they could get it for free from the likes of Kazaa or torrents. Or if they didn't have a PC, they bought counterfeit CDs and preloaded USB sticks. Nobody does this any more because legitimate, superior services came along that were affordable.

In India, you can legally stream every single game in the PL (and Championship I think) for £7 a month. We get absolutely fleeced over here.

This kind if activity is nothing new and I remember a student called Charlie Wong who used to film film from back of cinema and put on DVD to sell.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhMV37a7xmY

Clovius Boofus wrote: ↑

Wed May 31, 2023 11:28 am

It won't go away, though. It doesn't matter what barriers are put in place, tech will always find a way. The cat is out of the bag, and it's time the industry caught up.

Like I said, people had largely stopped paying for music because they could get it for free from the likes of Kazaa or torrents. Or if they didn't have a PC, they bought counterfeit CDs and preloaded USB sticks. Nobody does this any more because legitimate, superior services came along that were affordable.

This is true and I feel like football is simply trying to delay the inevitable. It’s only moving in one direction, and that is for everyone to choose which game they stream for a small fee.

Seems too huge a change and with lots of consequences but it happened to the music industry globally and in a very short time frame. It’s going to happen to football.

It will be interesting though, and you can understand their fear of it as music is no longer the vast money spinner for all it was. There’ll be winners and losers but I don’t know enough about it to predict who.

Music piracy was a huge issue until a platform that centralised it all in one place, at a reasonable cost, emerged; Spotify. Music piracy died a death after that for the most part.

MancunianClaret wrote: ↑

Wed May 31, 2023 11:33 am

In India, you can legally stream every single game in the PL (and Championship I think) for £7 a month. We get absolutely fleeced over here.

No arguments we get fleeced, but what is that £7 as a proportion of the average income in India? Think I remember seeing somewhere India was, in terms of cost of living, 66% cheaper than UK. The different prices may not be entirely comparable.

RicardoMontalban wrote: ↑

Wed May 31, 2023 11:56 am

No arguments we get fleeced, but what is that £7 as a proportion of the average income in India? Think I remember seeing somewhere India was, in terms of cost of living, 66% cheaper than UK. The different prices may not be entirely comparable.

Good point. Just had a look and the average monthly income in India is £145/mo. So this would account for about 5% of monthly income.

Versus median income in the UK £2833 per month. Say it would cost around £150 per month for all sports subscriptions (which still wouldn't get you 3PM kick offs). Also about 5% per month.

So, it's comparable as you rightly theorized! Still, the costs of production of the content don't change dependent on where it's broadcast so I'm not convinced "as a percent of income" would be the best measure of value.

The thing to note with Spotify is that it might have killed off music piracy but it's also drastically decreased the money artists actually earn for their music.

Football should be much more reasonably priced (and we've probably reached the point where the 3pm blackout is out of favour even for those of us who fully support the reasons behind it) but the powers that be will absolutely not want to counter piracy by pricing more people in.

There's still plenty of piracy of film and tv because it would still cost a lot to get all the streaming services but streaming companies still see more value in increasing subscription cost than stamping piracy out.

RicardoMontalban wrote: ↑

Wed May 31, 2023 11:00 am

From the Athletic article on the case:

“The investigation also found significant evidence of other serious criminality with Felvus subsequently convicted of multiple unrelated offences, including being in possession of indecent child imagery.”

There’s much to be said about the unfairly high price of watching football these days (actually utter rip-off just about covers it), but it is this that groups like this exploit to make money, lots of money, for themselves. They are not revolutionary anarchists viewing property as theft etc etc, they are criminals who see an opportunity to exploit and make money from. Until now the penalties for this have been pretty lax and the sentences handed down, especially the ring leader’s, are statements of intent.

Now compare this with knock-off fags. Pretty victimless crime eh? Well, actually, no. Those OCGs doing that do so because they make an eye watering amount of money from it. The profit margin for illegal fags as opposed to cocaine or other such drugs is massive, and again the penalties are relatively minimal - often just fines. But these ventures don’t operate in isolation, they are linked to organised crime of other types, drug trafficking, and where there’s drug trafficking there’s people trafficking, and so on etc.

My guess is that as broadcasting corporations apply more pressure to internet providers to block these streams, and dodgy streams become more and more monetised, we’ll see more and more of this exploitation. Maybe this lot aren’t mixed up in all that, but it won’t be long before OCGs get a whiff of the money to be made.

And all the while none of it benefits fans who just want to watch their teams but are faced with punishingly high prices.

Finally, let’s not have the distasteful comments comparing sentences between illegal piracy and CSE. It does nobody any credit, ignores the nuances of this case and it’s wider perspective, and trivialises abhorrent offences.

Thanks, that's where I read it.

One of the TV news channels summed this up. Last weekend, they had a film crew outside a ground and were asking fans if they streamed football from none-legitimate sources. Most smiled and muttered something about the alternative being too expensive. This carried on until they got to two fans from the USA. They said something along the lines of - why bother, we only pay a few bucks per month for the real deal.

daveisaclaret wrote: ↑

Wed May 31, 2023 12:12 pm

The thing to note with Spotify is that it might have killed off music piracy but it's also drastically decreased the money artists actually earn for their music.

Yes, revenue share for artists is an issue - but I don't think that's related to the uptake of pirated/non-pirated content by end users. That's a structural issue with how profits are shared. This (hopefully) would be less of an issue if clubs or leagues owned their own platforms.

MancunianClaret wrote: ↑

Wed May 31, 2023 12:20 pm

Yes, revenue share for artists is an issue - but I don't think that's related to the uptake of pirated/non-pirated content by end users. That's a structural issue with how profits are shared. This (hopefully) would be less of an issue if clubs or leagues owned their own platforms.

Well the question is if Spotify charged say £50 a month, would it have had the same effect on piracy? The free access and the cheap price for premium options are as big a part of the accessibility as the ease of use/fact it isn't illegal. The product would definitely be a lot better if the Premier League/Football League had an all-in-one monthly subscription with full access to all games but it would still need for them to accept earning less money for it to really impact the current streaming platforms.

MancunianClaret wrote: ↑

Wed May 31, 2023 12:08 pm

Good point. Just had a look and the average monthly income in India is £145/mo. So this would account for about 5% of monthly income.

Versus median income in the UK £2833 per month. Say it would cost around £150 per month for all sports subscriptions (which still wouldn't get you 3PM kick offs). Also about 5% per month.

So, it's comparable as you rightly theorized! Still, the costs of production of the content don't change dependent on where it's broadcast so I'm not convinced "as a percent of income" would be the best measure of value.

I reckon we could get ourselves tied up in knots if we really decided to dig into it, but, and this is purely a guess, the broad span of income, from lowest to highest may be wider in India? Where despite its meteoric rise in gdp still has large swathes of grinding poverty, so maybe they’re aiming at a fairly narrow demographic? Who knows.

What is certain is these businesses, and surely there are few as effective and efficient as the EPL, know how to rinse the most money out of its consumer base. On whatever sliding scale is used, that £7 or 700ish rupees, will be the optimal number they’ve hit upon. Charge more, lose customers, charge less, make less money. That’s the crux of it.

daveisaclaret wrote: ↑

Wed May 31, 2023 12:12 pm

The thing to note with Spotify is that it might have killed off music piracy but it's also drastically decreased the money artists actually earn for their music.

I wholeheartedly agree. I feel sorry for new bands who have to tour their arses off just to make a living. However, what's the alternative? We can't go back to what we had before because the industry was dying. They were getting next to nothing when piracy was at its height.

daveisaclaret wrote: ↑

Wed May 31, 2023 12:24 pm

Well the question is if Spotify charged say £50 a month, would it have had the same effect on piracy? The free access and the cheap price for premium options are as big a part of the accessibility as the ease of use/fact it isn't illegal. The product would definitely be a lot better if the Premier League/Football League had an all-in-one monthly subscription with full access to all games but it would still need for them to accept earning less money for it to really impact the current streaming platforms.

Yes, you are totally correct on this. Uptake obviously wouldn't be as high if the price were increased significantly. I just had a quick look and it looks like Spotify take 30% and the rest goes to the "rights holder" (e.g. usually the label). What the artist gets depends on their agreement with their label - so is it that there's not enough revenue to fairly compensate artists, or that artists are being exploited via poor agreements with labels?

In any case, I think we can agree that if matches were centralised on a single platform and priced competitively, that we'd see a reduction in illegal streaming. As you also rightly point out, this might mean a hit to profits somewhere.

MancunianClaret wrote: ↑

Wed May 31, 2023 12:36 pm

Yes, you are totally correct on this. Uptake obviously wouldn't be as high if the price were increased significantly. I just had a quick look and it looks like Spotify take 30% and the rest goes to the "rights holder" (e.g. usually the label). What the artist gets depends on their agreement with their label - so is it that there's not enough revenue to fairly compensate artists, or that artists are being exploited via poor agreements with labels?

In any case, I think we can agree that if matches were centralised on a single platform and priced competitively, that we'd see a reduction in illegal streaming. As you also rightly point out, this might mean a hit to profits somewhere.

Another point for consideration, while Spotify may have been that first single steaming platform to kick this all off, there are now others - Apple and Amazon have got on board as well. Maybe there are others.

Does the fact there are competing services selling the same product act as the mechanics for keeping it affordable?

And it’s the exclusivity around football broadcasting that allows such inflated charges?

From a consumer POV it feels like there needs to be a massive overhaul, but where it differs is that in the case of music, the artists were also getting stiffed (they still do, but they at least get something). Now, the way the tv deals work the clubs get theirs and the broadcasters get theirs. Where’s the incentive for the industry to change a system that works for them?