streaming

[sherlyegg]

The EFL are after the streamers....

For Sheffield Wednesday's WIN at Birmingham they found 14 illegal streams, 11 were shut down.

Picking on us ageean

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8962349/EFL-claim-lost-500-000-illegal-streaming-matches.html

 

 

[Guest HillsboroughOwlNI]

They really are picking on us. The fact they spent so long searching for a win and a goal for their headline image, proves that point.

[prowl]

They say money has been lost because of illegal streaming. Don't they realise that people use streams because they can't afford or aren't prepared to pay the proper price. In reality very little has been lost.

 

They've lost £250M because fans can't attend but taken in £8M from showing games. That's a good indication that fans aren't that bothered about watching games without the crowds being there. Time they realised that fans are the important thing in football. Without the crowds football is nothing.

 

Time to stop treating fans like cash cows and start treating them like the most important part of the industry. Football without the fans in the stadiums will lose it's appeal and TV companies won't pay fas much for the rights. 

[PortlandOwl]

They should be paying us to watch at the moment.

[@owlstalk]

 

£10 for a single match streamed is a ridiculous price 
In fact (and I"m not getting dramatic or emotional here) it's a pretty disgusting price when you think about it)

(But i keep paying it - haven't missed one yet since lockdown)

 

But should be £4.99 MAX

[gbear05]

14 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

£10 for a single match streamed is a ridiculous price 

(But i keep paying it - haven't missed one yet since lockdown)

 

But should be £4.99 MAX

I would pay £4.99 regularly, even if we’re playing particularly terribly/boring.

 

but £10, I know it’s not that much more but I wouldn’t ever pay that unless it was a really high profile game.

 

Do they count each viewer of an illegal stream as lost income? Because I would guess that the vast majority of people watching an illegal stream wouldn’t consider paying the £10. It’s not like most of those people who are watching the illegal stream would pay the £10 if their illegal stream was unavailable.

 

I think this needs a re-think. £4.99 a game Or £15 a month for all of the games, but £10 is ridiculous. Have they watched Sheffield Wednesday under Gary Monk or Luhukay? 10pence would be a lot for that dross 

[yeadonowl]

bit of non story this. all it mentions are re-streams from public areas such as Facebook and Twitter

 

what they are not able to close down are the actual source of the streams because they have no idea where they are coming from. The Premier League have got a high court order so ISP's can block content but a simple VPN navigates that

 

iFollow itself appears to be very hit and miss for different clubs, so to pay £10 a match for it is a rip off.

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, yeadonowl said:

what they are not able to close down are the actual source of the streams because they have no idea where they are coming from. The Premier League have got a high court order so ISP's can block content but a simple VPN navigates that 

 

This just simply is not true

 

https://www.joe.co.uk/sport/one-of-the-most-popular-football-streaming-sites-has-been-shut-down-by-the-courts-112100

[@owlstalk]

Italian anti-piracy authorities have closed 114 online sites that were illegally streaming matches from Serie A, the top tier of soccer in Italy.

 

The move came as part of an operation called ‘Free Football’, which is being carried out by several Italian anti-piracy financial police units with the support of Serie A and the league’s domestic rights holders, pay-TV broadcaster Sky Italia and streaming service DAZN. 

 

Luigi De Siervo, chief executive of Serie A, told Corriere dello Sport: “Our product, our brands and the rights of the fans must be defended and protected from counterfeiting.”

 

Serie A launched a new anti-piracy campaign for the 2019/20 season in August. The initiative includes calling for quicker IPTV blocking times by ISPs and hosting sites, a campaign to raise awareness of the issue of piracy among fans, and requesting stricter penalties for violations.

[yeadonowl]

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

 

This just simply is not true

 

https://www.joe.co.uk/sport/one-of-the-most-popular-football-streaming-sites-has-been-shut-down-by-the-courts-112100

these are free to air streaming sites with pop ups galore. this is streaming from 5 years ago at least

 

if you pay for an IPTV service they do not use Roja or sites like this. 

[OwlOnWheels]

They can shut down all the sites they like. New alternatives will pop up to replace them just as quickly.

 

The current price of £10 is way too much.  They can’t base lost revenue on the number of illegal streamers at this price. Many will be streaming because they’re not prepared to pay the price being asked for what’s being offered. Make it dirt cheap so that users don’t have to even think about going down the illegal route.

 
Look at music streaming as a perfect example. Is not been hard to get whatever music you want illegaly for years, going back to the lime wire and Napster days. They made it so easy and cheap to do legally, that most folks will now pay the small fee to legal stream because it feels like a fair deal and it’s easier.

Offer a deal where fans feel like they’re getting a fair deal and they’re more likely to sign up.

[@owlstalk]

3 minutes ago, OwlOnWheels said:

 Look at music streaming as a perfect example. Is not been hard to get whatever music you want illegaly for years, going back to the lime wire and Napster days. They made it so easy and cheap to do legally, that most folks will now pay the small fee to legal stream because it feels like a fair deal and it’s easier. 

Agree 100%

We're in the situation with streaming that music was in when people were buying blank CD's in bulk, downloading their favourite albums and burning them off onto them.

 

 

[morganowl]

1 hour ago, prowl said:

They say money has been lost because of illegal streaming. Don't they realise that people use streams because they can't afford or aren't prepared to pay the proper price. In reality very little has been lost.

 

They've lost £250M because fans can't attend but taken in £8M from showing games. That's a good indication that fans aren't that bothered about watching games without the crowds being there. Time they realised that fans are the important thing in football. Without the crowds football is nothing.

 

Time to stop treating fans like cash cows and start treating them like the most important part of the industry. Football without the fans in the stadiums will lose it's appeal and TV companies won't pay fas much for the rights. 

if those all the figures ie 250m lost only 8million from games then im delighted , what worries me is if they got there money they wouldnt give a stuff if crowds didnt come back 

[darra]

38 minutes ago, gbear05 said:

I would pay £4.99 regularly, even if we’re playing particularly terribly/boring.

 

but £10, I know it’s not that much more but I wouldn’t ever pay that unless it was a high profile game.

 

Do they count each viewer of an illegal stream as lost income? Because I would guess that the vast majority of people watching an illegal stream wouldn’t consider paying the £10. It’s not like most of those people who are watching the illegal stream would pay the £10 if their illegal stream was unavailable.

 

I think this needs a re-think. £4.99 a game Or £15 a month for all of the games, but £10 is ridiculous. Have they watched Sheffield Wednesday under Gary Monk or Luhukay? 10pence would be a lot for that dross 

Just checked. We play 8 games in December. £80 if you watch all of them. You can just about get all of Sky for less than that.

Edited November 19, 2020 by darra

[@owlstalk]

5 minutes ago, morganowl said:

if those all the figures ie 250m lost only 8million from games then im delighted , what worries me is if they got there money they wouldnt give a stuff if crowds didnt come back 

 

This is another aspect

All those years of the facilities at grounds not getting upgraded or brought into the modern age, cold pies, poorly poured overpriced pints, rubbish tacky stuff in the club shops and prices being ridiculous tell me everything I need to know about how billionaire football owners view their clubs fans. 

They've had years to make it better, put it right, and make the matchday experience a more modern feeling, respectable one

We've even had owners of football clubs argue with their fans over things like ticket pricing saying "I tell you now, your money pays for nothing" etc

Now we have football complaining because the price they've set their I-Follow/Streams is so expensive that fans are looking for the cheaper alternatives.

Music learnt it's lesson - it used to charge £25 for a new CD from an artist at one point, but soon changed once everyone used Napster to download the latest albums. (although Music's now ripping fans off with the ticket prices for live perforrmances)

Football needs to accept this streaming war only exists because of it's out of touch pricing.

£10 a match - really?

You're right about 'would football club owners be in the least bit bothered if fans watched extremely high priced streams and never came back to the stadiums?'

Players/managers/media people will obviously want fans back

But are club owners really that bothered about having to put up with ordinary working class blokes in their stadiums with their booos and moans and shouts for managers heads?

[@owlstalk]

3 minutes ago, darra said:

Just checked. We play 8 games in December. £80 if you watch all of them you can just about get all of Sky for less than that.

 

 

And Sky's pricing is hardly a bargain

[morganowl]

2 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

And Sky's pricing is hardly a bargain

he cant be very good at cutting a deal . i got the lot not inc bt etc for £45 a month even got new dish install 2tb box and mini box for nothing ,i was kinda pleased  with that offer. i said yes pretty quickly to that. ive been doing it since 1990 since sky started too, must have saved pushing 10 grand over that time getting it not much above half price. 

[@owlstalk]

Just now, morganowl said:

he cant be very good at cutting a deal . i got the lot not inc bt etc for £45 a month even got new dish install 2tb box and mini box for nothing ,i was kinda pleased  with that offer. i said yes pretty quickly to that. ive been doing it since 1990 since sky started too, must have saved pushing 10 grand over that time getting it not much above half price. 

 

 

True - to be fair I've never paid full price for Sky as I do the old 'I'm cancelling' trick and have never failed to get a discount

 

[andytrig]

It is bonkers to think that overseas viewers can get a season subscription for roughly £170 as opposed to domestic viewers being charged £10 a game.

 

You'll probably lose 8 games a season to Sky if you're overseas so that's £170 for 38 games, £4.47 a match, so a fiver would be a lot fairer.

[morganowl]

Just now, @owlstalk said:

 

 

True - to be fair I've never paid full price for Sky as I do the old 'I'm cancelling' trick and have never failed to get a discount

 

i play hard ball big time with the negotiations , as there is no way im paying upto 100quid a month for that . shame our club aint got the same operators when it comes to negotiating contracts , id have sneakily stuck in a clause if you dont play x amount of games your contract hoes down by half ,that would have soon got shut of a few this past 3-4 years