Nonetheless, the moderators don't want to encourage illegal activity by participating in a legal activity that relies on an illegal activity.
Live Streams of Games
- Thread starter scootsy
- Start date
Nonetheless, the moderators don't want to encourage illegal activity by participating in a legal activity that relies on an illegal activity.
addictionary
Well-Known Member
People who doesn't have the money should be able to watch sports too. Stream quality sucks so it is a fair change. Farthest seats to the lowest Romans.
Why? Would you say the same thing for a singing concert? A play? A drama on HBO?
I will grant you that if you are talking about national teams, supported by the public treasury, you have a fair point.
Content providers pay out considerable sums to make content, and deserve to rewarded for their work.
addictionary
Well-Known Member
Same applies to all. Content providers can still make their money. No need to capture an area of crappy copy of their content. What business did piracy destroyed up to this day? And I am not even counting the popularity boost piracy gives to those "content"s.
We'll never know which songs/movies/etc. were not produced because piracy changed a projected small positive net to a projected small negative net.
My goodness. Are you not aware that the music industry is imploding due to music piracy.
Now, what I'm talking about is the music industry. A lot of fat rich guys who don't know how to play an instrument will be out of the game. It might just be that it's more possible for quality artists to get their work to more people now more than ever, but at the same time that probably means those artists will need to think about how they intend to pay their bills, because performing music will probably not be the way.
addictionary
Well-Known Member
Recording music and selling cd s might not be the way. I think the damage piracy gives to music biz is limited to that part. you can't pirate an experience of an actual gig. That is why they have to tour like drifters now if they wanna make big bucks. I think the popularity boost beats the Damage to the sell rates of cd s by far.
scootsy
Well-Known Member
This is actually not true. The model was broken. Piracy actually showed media industries how consumers want to consume their media. People will pay for a good service, even if they can get the same service for free.
That's why Netflix has 40 million subscribers. That's why spotify has 8 million subscribers. And beats music. And the reason that singles sell millions of copies of iTunes and other services. Piracy is negligent. The people who pirate are either people who don't have good access or wouldn't pay for the product anyways.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I am a fan of the try before you buy model. If I didn't get to see a movie in the theater, let's say, then I prefer to borrow a copy from a friend and see if I like it before I plunk down $20+ for the DVD version. If I like it, far more often than not I will buy it, as I like to add to my DVD collection. If I don't like it, then I don't have to buy it and I don't waste the money on the copy that ends up in a landfill (btw, plastic in the landfill...bery bery bad). Same goes for music, but music is much easier to try before you buy due to youtube. I can youtube a few songs from the album and if I like them then I can buy the singles or the album. I do not think the availability of songs on torrents have changed my buying habits at all realistically. In fact I am pretty sure I have bought more than I would have done due to being able to buy singles, and not being tied down to the whole album. I think the impact of piracy has been way overblown.
Didn't Metallica see a serious uptick in album sales during the whole Napster thing, and then see a rebound drop off after they got Napster to stop? I seem to remember reading that.
I would be interested in seeing statistics supporting either side though, although I doubt you can get unbiased stats on this topic very easily.
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
You can't really compare them.
Sports for the most part are still a live event(appointment TV). People are much more likely to watch commercials even if they are live streaming the game.
As for the cable companies that pay to carry networks like ESPN I view them as a parasite. They offer a 1980's service that they keep relevant by monopolizing sports content. It's little different than a ticket scalper that buys up all available seats so as to resell them at a higher price.
As for the public treasury
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-05/in-stadium-building-spree-u-s-taxpayers-lose-4-billion.html
https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Stadium-subsidies-are-financed-by-pension-cuts-5645594.php
All things considered it is odd that people that cannot afford to add cable to their (i would argue necessary) internet connection are the ones that are referred to as pirates.
b_line
Well-Known Member
What about teams who play in publicly funded arenas? Why do we keep finding these giant buildings if we are not able to watch what goes on inside them?
Also, what about a non profit organization like the nfl? Should their product be free for consumers? I mean, they are the ones who decided that they didn't want to make a profit.