Sky TV and their coverage

[Mad Cyril]

So refreshing that among the many threads giving pelters to the club for not splashing out in the transfer window, there is another one of those threads where we can share tips on watching our team for free....

[sh1t_ref_again]

10 minutes ago, Mad Cyril said:

So refreshing that among the many threads giving pelters to the club for not splashing out in the transfer window, there is another one of those threads where we can share tips on watching our team for free....

What are you on about, its on Sky sports only which Sky pay the clubs to broadcast. If someone has not got sky and watches via a stream it does not make 1 penny difference to the club

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

What are you on about, its on Sky sports only which Sky pay the clubs to broadcast. If someone has not got sky and watches via a stream it does not make 1 penny difference to the club

The twisted, selfish logic of the 'something for nothing' generation.

So, good Sir, kindly explain how the value of the Sky/BT deal with the EFL is derived? If Sky/BT Sports subscribers switched to illegal streams do you believe Sky/BT would continue to pay what they do? And if value diminishes and clubs suffer is that not the fault of those watching illegal streams?

Interesting to hear what other forms of theft, for that is what it is,  you consider have no impact? Burglary at your next-door neighbours, shoplifting from Tesco's, picking somebody's pocket?

[IAmNick]

17 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The twisted, selfish logic of the 'something for nothing' generation.

So, good Sir, kindly explain how the value of the Sky/BT deal with the EFL is derived? If Sky/BT Sports subscribers switched to illegal streams do you believe Sky/BT would continue to pay what they do? And if value diminishes and clubs suffer is that not the fault of those watching illegal streams?

Interesting to hear what other forms of theft, for that is what it is,  you consider have no impact? Burglary at your next-door neighbours, shoplifting from Tesco's, picking somebody's pocket?

The something for nothing generation are the boomers I'm afraid, certainly not anybody young - unless you'd like to compare house prices, university prices, cost of living and so on...

Even if it were younger people it'd only be because they saw what their parents had handed to them on a platter!

I'd gladly give City my £10 for the match. Is it possible to buy a single game on Sky? I'm not forking out for a month+ subscription for one game, personally.

[Sheltons Army]

23 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The twisted, selfish logic of the 'something for nothing' generation.

So, good Sir, kindly explain how the value of the Sky/BT deal with the EFL is derived? If Sky/BT Sports subscribers switched to illegal streams do you believe Sky/BT would continue to pay what they do? And if value diminishes and clubs suffer is that not the fault of those watching illegal streams?

Interesting to hear what other forms of theft, for that is what it is,  you consider have no impact? Burglary at your next-door neighbours, shoplifting from Tesco's, picking somebody's pocket?

What a laughable comparison

Watching a stream is neither illegal or theft by any legal definition

Get a grip 

(I’m not a streamer btw nor have I stolen anything from neighbours , Tesco’s or anywhere else)

[BTRFTG]

35 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

The something for nothing generation are the boomers I'm afraid, certainly not anybody young - unless you'd like to compare house prices, university prices, cost of living and so on...

Even if it were younger people it'd only be because they saw what their parents had handed to them on a platter!

I'd gladly give City my £10 for the match. Is it possible to buy a single game on Sky? I'm not forking out for a month+ subscription for one game, personally.

Sky used to do non-subscription day passes for around the sun you mention. Not sure what you need to watch, probably a box or dongle I guess?

[BTRFTG]

37 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

What a laughable comparison

Watching a stream is neither illegal or theft by any legal definition

Get a grip 

(I’m not a streamer btw nor have I stolen anything from neighbours , Tesco’s or anywhere else)

Send the details of you accessing an illegal stream to Sky and see whether they consider it theft? Hint: (you are intentionally taking Sky's property and irrevocably using it without their consent, without the intention to recompense them for so doing. That's theft, same as pilfering wine from Tesco or nicking your neighbour's laptop.)

 

[phantom]

1 hour ago, BTRFTG said:

The twisted, selfish logic of the 'something for nothing' generation.

So, good Sir, kindly explain how the value of the Sky/BT deal with the EFL is derived? If Sky/BT Sports subscribers switched to illegal streams do you believe Sky/BT would continue to pay what they do? And if value diminishes and clubs suffer is that not the fault of those watching illegal streams?

Interesting to hear what other forms of theft, for that is what it is,  you consider have no impact? Burglary at your next-door neighbours, shoplifting from Tesco's, picking somebody's pocket?

In short, Sky will pay us the same amount whether 1 person is watching or 100,000 people are watching 

[Bristol Rob]

30 minutes ago, phantom said:

In short, Sky will pay us the same amount whether 1 person is watching or 100,000 people are watching 

Get that, but there is also the argument that if people didn't stream games, the broadcaster would have more customers, make more money and come renewal time might need to pay more to win the rights to show games.

[Sheltons Army]

44 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Send the details of you accessing an illegal stream to Sky and see whether they consider it theft? Hint: (you are intentionally taking Sky's property and irrevocably using it without their consent, without the intention to recompense them for so doing. That's theft, same as pilfering wine from Tesco or nicking your neighbour's laptop.)

 

As a Sky subscriber since BSB I won’t bother thanks

Your theory unfortunately fails at the first hurdle as a Stream / Picture / Broadcast is not ‘Property’ 

Theft Act 1968

 

As I say comparison with burglary or other crime all legislated under the 1968 act is laughable 

[sh1t_ref_again]

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

The twisted, selfish logic of the 'something for nothing' generation.

So, good Sir, kindly explain how the value of the Sky/BT deal with the EFL is derived? If Sky/BT Sports subscribers switched to illegal streams do you believe Sky/BT would continue to pay what they do? And if value diminishes and clubs suffer is that not the fault of those watching illegal streams?

Interesting to hear what other forms of theft, for that is what it is,  you consider have no impact? Burglary at your next-door neighbours, shoplifting from Tesco's, picking somebody's pocket?

You make a lot or rather silly assumptions, firstly I am nowhere near the something for nothing generation and as it happens I have Sky TV and very happy to pay for that or Robins TV rather than a non pop up poor quality stream, also I have very strong views on theft etc as I own a very successful business.

My point was it is not on Robins TV, its on Sky which does not directly affect the club, and to try to turn into sky are going to reduce money to clubs because some people access a stream or worse your comment therefore I must be a young thieving toerag is both deluded and stupid.

 

 

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, phantom said:

In short, Sky will pay us the same amount whether 1 person is watching or 100,000 people are watching 

Jeez. I'd love to understand what business you work in?

[phantom]

45 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Get that, but there is also the argument that if people didn't stream games, the broadcaster would have more customers, make more money and come renewal time might need to pay more to win the rights to show games.

Exactly the machine that is Sky would make more money

It's a bidding war out there so Sky have no control in what is required to cover the games

There are plenty of other broadcasters now that could cover the EFL

[BTRFTG]

36 minutes ago, Sheltons Army said:

As a Sky subscriber since BSB I won’t bother thanks

Your theory unfortunately fails at the first hurdle as a Stream / Picture / Broadcast is not ‘Property’ 

Theft Act 1968

 

As I say comparison with burglary or other crime all legislated under the 1968 act is laughable 

Again you are incorrect. Whilst for the greater part you are most likely to be privately prosecuted for commercial copyright infringement, which as you point out is a civil not criminal matter, the fact is the original, unencrypted feed you watch will have been purchased by somebody or other, thus making it their 'property under licence' from the broadcaster (it's property as it may be recorded, stored and replayed for personal use using their proprietary system for which they've paid.) Now that owner will not associate themselves with any re-broadcast of the feed for very good reason (that being a very serious offence and liable for severe punishment.) So, de facto, without their permission so to do you will have stolen from them the licenced right to use the broadcast. That is theft, same as if you used somebody's Netflix or Amazon account without their permission.

I'll get my coat.

[BTRFTG]

25 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

You make a lot or rather silly assumptions, firstly I am nowhere near the something for nothing generation and as it happens I have Sky TV and very happy to pay for that or Robins TV rather than a non pop up poor quality stream, also I have very strong views on theft etc as I own a very successful business.

My point was it is not on Robins TV, its on Sky which does not directly affect the club, and to try to turn into sky are going to reduce money to clubs because some people access a stream or worse your comment therefore I must be a young thieving toerag is both deluded and stupid.

 

 

You stated that somebody watching via an illegal stream does not impact the club, whilst I pointed out it does, alongside all the other clubs benefitting from TV broadcast deals, the value of which are linked to subscriptions, viewers and advertising. By your logic we could all watch for nothing yet clubs would not lose out.

Really, you believe that?

[Sheltons Army]

18 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Again you are incorrect. Whilst for the greater part you are most likely to be privately prosecuted for commercial copyright infringement, which as you point out is a civil not criminal matter, the fact is the original, unencrypted feed you watch will have been purchased by somebody or other, thus making it their 'property under licence' from the broadcaster (it's property as it may be recorded, stored and replayed for personal use using their proprietary system for which they've paid.) Now that owner will not associate themselves with any re-broadcast of the feed for very good reason (that being a very serious offence and liable for severe punishment.) So, de facto, without their permission so to do you will have stolen from them the licenced right to use the broadcast. That is theft, same as if you used somebody's Netflix or Amazon account without their permission.

I'll get my coat.

Good luck trying to prosecute an end user under the Theft Act

Subscribing to a an illegal IPTV system is treading more dangerously , and a Stream distributor  / supplier strays into avenues of criminal prosecution, as certainly the suppliers of illegal boxes do ,

but that’s not what we are talking about

 

 

[Norn Iron]

12 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

You stated that somebody watching via an illegal stream does not impact the club, whilst I pointed out it does, alongside all the other clubs benefitting from TV broadcast deals, the value of which are linked to subscriptions, viewers and advertising. By your logic we could all watch for nothing yet clubs would not lose out.

Really, you believe that?

Actually, the watching of a streamed broadcast is not illegal. You cannot be prosecuted for watching tonight's game on a non-Sky site.

However, the person providing the stream can be prosecuted. The providing of the stream without the owner's permission is the illegal bit. 

It is a morality issue for the watcher. 

I phoned Sky last October and haggled. I got a six month rolling contract for £20 per month. When we're not on the telly, I use my Robins Radio subscription like I have for the past 15 years.

In fact, when we're on Sky, I still use the Gary Owers version. I just record the Sky feed and hit Pause as the ref blows his whistle to commence the game. The internet radio brizz feed version can be up to a minute in delay. This works for Red Button games as well, but you must record in order to pause.

Personally speaking, I have got used to listening to Saturday matches on RobinsTV subscription. Now that Sky are linking up to every City match, you'll see the goals within a minute or two anyway. 

For me though, I won't watch a non-licensed streamed City match purely from a moral viewpoint. 

 

[sh1t_ref_again]

41 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

You stated that somebody watching via an illegal stream does not impact the club, whilst I pointed out it does, alongside all the other clubs benefitting from TV broadcast deals, the value of which are linked to subscriptions, viewers and advertising. By your logic we could all watch for nothing yet clubs would not lose out.

Really, you believe that?

You did not merely point that out about streaming you made other insinuations and obnoxious comments without the first clue about me.

I was not condoning watching the stream, more pointing out that it is not take money directly from BCFC as was sky not Robins TV. If the volume of streaming started to affect Sky and the money it puts in to football, Sky would do a lot more to protect its investment by going after the streaming sites.

[Alex_BCFC]

1 hour ago, phantom said:

Exactly the machine that is Sky would make more money

It's a bidding war out there so Sky have no control in what is required to cover the games

There are plenty of other broadcasters now that could cover the EFL

And what if everyone watched free streams? Would anyone bid on the games? 

[BTRFTG]

46 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

You did not merely point that out about streaming you made other insinuations and obnoxious comments without the first clue about me.

I was not condoning watching the stream, more pointing out that it is not take money directly from BCFC as was sky not Robins TV. If the volume of streaming started to affect Sky and the money it puts in to football, Sky would do a lot more to protect its investment by going after the streaming sites.

You are either happy to take and use something to which you have no entitlement or you are not. It's binary honesty. I didn't for one moment suggest YOU did any of those things (read what I wrote, though you appear to condone others to indulge in illegal streaming, which DOES take money from City and other clubs.) Rather I questioned if you consider it acceptable for one to use illegal streams what's the difference between that and stealing from others? Where do you draw the distinction as to what is and what isn't theft? The simple answer is there is no distinction, much as I'm sure you wouldn't think it acceptable were somebody to take your car because they considered it ok so to do.

I'm glad to learn you do neither and would expect nothing less from a fellow City fan.

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Norn Iron said:

Actually, the watching of a streamed broadcast is not illegal. 

As previous, the use without permission of another's property (a paid for subscription service is that, though not a free access service,) is theft (not in this case from Sky but from the subscriber.) Rarely do streaming sites use licenced content they themselves have procured. It's also illegal to use a communications system to convey property stolen from another - I won't go into the detail of the IPA(2016) but we had to work up and legally test several scenarios with the relevant legislators when establishing the monitoring agencies demanded by the ECJ prior to it being enacted. Whilst it would be disproportionate to investigte and obtain your CD in respect of watching a single City game, it wouldn't be so we're that stream to be evidentially linked to other offences.

[Jeez]

3 hours ago, phantom said:

In short, Sky will pay us the same amount whether 1 person is watching or 100,000 people are watching 

True & the only people wining are the illegal streaming sites that are busy harvesting viewers data to sell on or hack. I wouldn't touch the illegal streams, no such thing as watching for free. I guess it all depends on how much you value you data & privacy.

[phantom]

52 minutes ago, Alex_BCFC said:

And what if everyone watched free streams? Would anyone bid on the games? 

That's as daft as saying everyone would be at the game so nobody would watch it on TV

Out of interest if no TV company was paying for the coverage what do you think people would be watching on the free stream??

[Norn Iron]

24 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

As previous, the use without permission of another's property (a paid for subscription service is that, though not a free access service,) is theft (not in this case from Sky but from the subscriber.) Rarely do streaming sites use licenced content they themselves have procured. It's also illegal to use a communications system to convey property stolen from another - I won't go into the detail of the IPA(2016) but we had to work up and legally test several scenarios with the relevant legislators when establishing the monitoring agencies demanded by the ECJ prior to it being enacted. Whilst it would be disproportionate to investigte and obtain your CD in respect of watching a single City game, it wouldn't be so we're that stream to be evidentially linked to other offences.

If only I had worked in Broadcasting...oh I did for almost 10 years. My ex-colleague best mate now owns a UK radio station. I was merely conveying what he said to me last year! I must be and more importantly, he must be wrong on broadcasting law....

 

[BTRFTG]

19 minutes ago, Norn Iron said:

If only I had worked in Broadcasting...oh I did for almost 10 years. My ex-colleague best mate now owns a UK radio station. I was merely conveying what he said to me last year! I must be and more importantly, he must be wrong on broadcasting law....

 

Not sure 'broadcasting law' comes into it. Think of it as any other service you purchase. Say you pay for 4 devices on Netflix and I've bagged one slot without you knowing (whether or not you are using all 4,) I've nicked something that you could use and is yours. I haven't defrauded Netflix (they only ever provided you 4,) I have however defrauded and stolen from you.

In the case of Sky streams its copyright infringement from Sky (or the relevant copyright owner,) theft from the subscriber who's paid for the service.

[Alex_BCFC]

33 minutes ago, phantom said:

That's as daft as saying everyone would be at the game so nobody would watch it on TV

Out of interest if no TV company was paying for the coverage what do you think people would be watching on the free stream??

It’s totally different.

But that’s the point - someone has to pay to televise it so why should people watch for free illegally? It would kill off live sport on tv. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t love sky or anything. 

[phantom]

2 hours ago, Alex_BCFC said:

It’s totally different.

But that’s the point - someone has to pay to televise it so why should people watch for free illegally? It would kill off live sport on tv. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t love sky or anything. 

On the basis that illegal streaming has been around for well over a decade and the amounts TV companies are paying to broadcast live fixtures, there isn't going to be any issue for years to come 

[phantom]

5 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Jeez. I'd love to understand what business you work in?

On the basis that contracts are bid on and paid for many years in advance and then run for a number of seasons, they clearly don't bid purely on a minimum number of viewers.

If they were that worried about having high viewing figures why would they bid for EFL cup ties etc

[exAtyeoMax]

8 hours ago, IAmNick said:

The something for nothing generation are the boomers I'm afraid, certainly not anybody young - unless you'd like to compare house prices, university prices, cost of living and so on...

Even if it were younger people it'd only be because they saw what their parents had handed to them on a platter!

I'd gladly give City my £10 for the match. Is it possible to buy a single game on Sky? I'm not forking out for a month+ subscription for one game, personally.

you buy a day pass on Now tv for £10

[Southport Red]

8 hours ago, IAmNick said:

The something for nothing generation are the boomers I'm afraid, certainly not anybody young - unless you'd like to compare house prices, university prices, cost of living and so on...

Even if it were younger people it'd only be because they saw what their parents had handed to them on a platter!

I'd gladly give City my £10 for the match. Is it possible to buy a single game on Sky? I'm not forking out for a month+ subscription for one game, personally.

Heartily sick of baby boomers being blamed for everything. We all have to live in the Economy that presents itself to us. Yes I got free University Education, I also paid huge amounts of tax for forty years!  Please do not stereotype, it’s such a easy game to play. You cannot be sexist or racist but blaming over 60’s for everything you don’t like about your own life is free and fun, so let’s all pile on.