Premier League wins anti-piracy court order

[Bill 1,788]

Another chapter in the battle

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40727972

[Making Plans 936]

It''ll make no difference - the streamers are too clever for the likes of Sky & BT and will soon find a way round it.Not that it bothers me because the chances of us being in the PL anytime soon are remote.

[FenwayFrank 2,450]

Plans, it depends as I have my broadband with sky and they''re definitely trying to clamp done on things as I''ve had a couple of times where I''ve tried to stream a match only to get a message that they don''t support that particular isp

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Making Plans"]It''ll make no difference - the streamers are too clever for the likes of Sky & BT and will soon find a way round it.Not that it bothers me because the chances of us being in the PL anytime soon are remote.[/quote]But it is an indication of the way things are going.Part of the subscription numbers is the amount that can be charged for advertising which affects both the clubs and the TV company.Revenue and payment to clubs is done on a ''hand to mouth'' basis ie subscribers money comes in and is then passed on to clubs. Any sudden down turn in subscriptions would see an immediate effect on clubs as with ITV Digital.What provision clubs have made for this possiblity will probably only be known if it were to happen.My thought has always been thatto keep the cost of broadcasting down the TV companies are laying themselves open to ''piracy''. No great loss when it is by those who would not have paid a subscription but when Joe Soap finds a mate down the pub who can ''sort him out '' for games for a fraction of the cost then it is then lost income.I also suspect there are far more amateurs out there who can attack their (TV)systems than their those working for the TV companies trying to plug the holes.

[SwindonCanary 455]

A tip for anyone out there, if it''s shown anywhere in the world use the ''Tor'' browser to obtain it.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="SwindonCanary"]A tip for anyone out there, if it''s shown anywhere in the world use the ''Tor'' browser to obtain it. [/quote]Tor browserhmmm

[westcoastcanary 173]

There is huge shift taking place away from traditional TV ("This is our programming schedule, if it doesn''t suit you, too bad"), towards pick and choose subscription services. A good illustration is the rise of services like Netflix and the corresponding collapse of the traditional TV film-watching audience. As I commented elsewhere, in focussing on illegal streaming the Premier League are being Canute-like, attempting to turn back the tide. As in the case of music streaming, the answer is not to try and fight the inevitable but to join in the new bonanza. Music showed that people are prepared to pay for legal access to content, but don''t want to be forced to pay for a lot of content they don''t want access to. The TV companies themselves have begun to adapt, but the EPL can''t follow because it would undermine their business model and the basis on which the league operates. Hence, in my view, in its present form its days are numbered.

Look at the club allegiance figures for the EPL''s global audience (two or three years back Man Utd alone accounted for 50% of the total), and imagine the situation if individual clubs owned the media rights to their own matches and offered pay-as-you-view access. 

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]There is huge shift taking place away from traditional TV ("This is our programming schedule, if it doesn''t suit you, too bad"), towards pick and choose subscription services. A good illustration is the rise of services like Netflix and the corresponding collapse of the traditional TV film-watching audience. As I commented elsewhere, in focussing on illegal streaming the Premier League are being Canute-like, attempting to turn back the tide. As in the case of music streaming, the answer is not to try and fight the inevitable but to join in the new bonanza. Music showed that people are prepared to pay for legal access to content, but don''t want to be forced to pay for a lot of content they don''t want access to. The TV companies themselves have begun to adapt, but the EPL can''t follow because it would undermine their business model and the basis on which the league operates. Hence, in my view, in its present form its days are numbered.

Look at the club allegiance figures for the EPL''s global audience (two or three years back Man Utd alone accounted for 50% of the total), and imagine the situation if individual clubs owned the media rights to their own matches and offered pay-as-you-view access. 

[/quote]Westcoast, Canute knew he couldn''t turn back the tide. That was rather the point he was making.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

I don''t really see how the shift from old-style "watch what''s scheduled" broadcasting to on-demand services is really an issue for the Prem - the whole point about live sport is that it can command a premium because people want to watch it live.  In the UK, normally when people subscribe to watch the Prem, they''re paying extra, either as an add-on in a bundle, or they buy a package which includes football and which is more expensive than without it.   If you don''t want to pay to watch the Prem (I don''t) then you don''t have to... 

Actually I think Sky was at the forefront of this change in viewing habits, with live football at the centre of what it offered back in the 90s as a major pull to get people to sign up, and the others (Netflix, Amazon etc) are really just more recent entrants to the market pioneered by Sky.  And that extra competition for live sport content has been the major driver pushing up the value received by the Prem for TV rights both in the UK and abroad.

 

I think the Prem''s money from TV rights will only be threatened if either piracy becomes so pervasive as to undermine the income it generates (which would be a problem for all on-demand broadcasters) or there''s some drop-off in the viewing numbers for the Prem.  And there''s no sign of either, yet, for all that we love to whinge about the Prem it still has a massive viewing appeal.

 

 

[Indy_Bones 441]

What annoys me about the whole argument is the idea that fans are ''stealing'' content from the likes of SKY et al by using streaming services, whilst ignoring the fact that in the majority of cases - the games aren''t even available in the UK regardless if you subscribe or not!Back in 2013, I wrote a blog article comparing the number of times clubs had been shown live on SKY (not including ESPN etc), and found that over the course of that season, we''d had just 5 games shown, a figure which paled in comparison to the likes of Liverpool on 16, Man City and Spurs on 14 each, and Arsenal and Man Utd 13 times each. Yet apparently they want fans to pay £20+ a month for a Sky Sports subscription to view a third of the games that fans of other clubs get, and which represents an outlay of nearly £50 per game just to watch us a handful of times play live!Why should fans of clubs like us, Stoke, Swansea and similar receive far less games for our own clubs for the exact same money that fans of other clubs pay??? I don''t give a damn if the matches are of more interest to the neutral fan, or that the ''big'' clubs have more fans in many cases, it should be a fair and even distribution which allows ALL fans to see their team play the same amount over a season, rather than the current method which is horribly uneven and totally biased.Then on top of this you have all the 3pm kick-off''s that are NEVER available in the UK, but can be easily and freely accessed from outside the UK (sometimes for no charge at all), all the time whilst using the argument that if they made this content available for UK fans, stadiums would empty, atmosphere would disappear, and clubs would lose too much money from ticket sales, which is in fact a steaming pile of the proverbial, and in fact you''d likely find that many clubs would be much better off financially if they were part of a subscription deal where fans could pay to watch their team play each week.I''d happily pay a fair and sensible price to SKY (or whoever) for access to watch us play live each week - just like exiled fans outside the UK are able to through services like ifollow etc, but I''m absolutely not going to pay £20 a month to watch everyone BUT us play! You only need to look at this season alone to see it''s already pathetic in terms of coverage, with us having ONE game available on SKY over the next 2 MONTHS, and that''s at the end of September (nearly into October), and they want fans to pay £20 a month for THAT!!! Total f**king joke.

[SwindonCanary 455]

Well said Indy_Bones  

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Westcoast, Canute knew he couldn''t turn back the tide. That was rather the point he was making.[/quote]

Only according to the (apocryphal) accounts provided by persons utilising the story to further their own agendas. Which is exactly what I am doing, with equal legitimacy but considerably less repute! [:D]

[Guest]

I''d happily pay a fair and sensible price to SKY (or whoever)

I find it farcical that £110 or the equivalent gets you 46 of our matches in the USA. Yet there has to be more exiles in the UK who would happily pay double that to watch all the games. I hope it is an experiment only and will be available soon in this country.

[shefcanary 2,377]

And then there is this story:

Sky profits sag as football costs rise

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40720962

This story backs up the "Sky are now using the wrong business model" claims in this thread - great to launch the whole digital TV piece, but it is now the wrong model for digital TV of the future. The high churn rate may have been driven in part by access to digital streams, but cutting access to it is now too late a move, once people have left they find other ways to occupy their time!

I''ve argued this with the Sky people on the phone - give me access to my club''s matches on an individual basis and I might actually make you more money, but I sure as hell ain''t going to pay for something that gives me limited access at best to my club.

As Netflix, Amazon and others have found, targeting niche markets makes you more money, more quickly. Blanket coverage is a turn off (unless you''re a ManUre fan, but they have their own MUTV which is also taking much of Sky''s revenue already!).

Sky are unlikely to repeat their current EPL contract in future (especially if taken over by Fox who will no doubt foist even more US sport on us). The EPL will probably be able to maintain their level of income without a repeat of the Sky business because the games will increasingly be cut up into smaller and smaller packages in the UK whilst overseas income will continue to grow. It''s only a matter of time before Archant buy up local clubs TV rights to drive people to their products because traditional media no longer cuts it!

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Getting that into perspective, what we''ve seen is a massive step up in the Prem UK TV rights over the last few years due to real competition coming into the market for those rights from BT etc.  Once the market stabilises (i.e. no new bidders come in seeking TV rights) you''d expect that to level off or there might even be a drop off (gasp!) if one of the big players were to pull out of the market, although I think they''re probably to far invested for that to happen, but you never know.

 

This year Sky has seen a 6% fall in profits to £1.5 billion, a large factor was apparently the increase of £629m in what Sky paid for Prem TV rights - which it was largely forced to do by that competition.

It will be interesting to see what gets bid for the next round of TV rights. 

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

PS the block on showing live games at 3pm Saturday is down to the Premier League itself (actually it dates back to before the Prem existed) and is nothing to do with Sky/BT, it''s because of concerns that showing the Saturday games live would affect live attendances.  I''m pretty sure Sky would love to be able to screen games at 3pm.

[Stone 0]

I remember when BT first entered the fray it was said that the competition they would offer Sky would see subscription prices tumble... Back then Sky had pretty much all football packages available with other bits being held with ITV (Champions League) and Channel 5 (Europa League).

Now there is pretty much no football available on terrestrial TV (a share of FA Cup games only) and if you''re an armchair fan you need both packages if you want the best of the domestic and European football, so is effectively more expensive for the consumer.

People will continually find ways to access illegal streams if this is the case and that''s not taking into account the 3pm kick offs which will remain highly in demand as no domestic provider can supply them.

This will run indefinitely and the only way I see around it is if the Satellite providers start providing games on a Pay Per View basis at sensible prices, including those at 3pm Saturday... and that''s a long, long way off.

[Making Plans 936]

I spend a lot of time in Portugal and I have the Portuguese equivalent of Sky (MEO)I can watch almost any sport that''s shown on Sky or BT.5 Channels of Sport TV costs 23.99 Euro a month (or about £5 per week)They show up to 8 PL matches live per matchday.

[Captain Birdseye 0]

Makes no odds to me being a real fan I go to the games home and away

The plastics out there should try it sometime

[dylanisabaddog 4,846]

If you are using Kodi or similar I would suggest hiding your IP address. Just Google ''hide IP''.

Sky lost 14% of its Sports customers last year yet the big clubs are still spending stupid money on players and giving them contracts that last way beyond the current tv deal. It will end in tears.

I''m not giving Murdoch a penny and have no moral problem watching Sky TV for free. 5 million people already do safe in the knowledge that they won''t be caught and they''re not helping to pay average footballers £40k a week. Howson and Ruddy being good examples.

[westcoastcanary 0]

There are two different but interconnected issues here, one the changing face of the media, the other the implications for the EPL. If I understand him aright, It''s Character Forming''s view is that, even if the way coverage of live matches is provided and paid for, the billions will continue to pour into EPL coffers for the simple reason that the EPL owns the media rights. So a critical question is whether a shift to more targeted provision, e.g. being able to subscribe to particular matches as opposed to a packaged selection as now, would see clubs insisting on reclaiming their media rights from the EPL. When first set up the EPL/SKY partnership served a useful purpose, offering access to live matches to a far larger audience than individual clubs could at that time reach out to themselves. The digital revolution means that that is no longer the case.

[hogesar 9,611]

One thing people are forgetting is that for the most part we are all lazy fucks.

So whilst it''s true that you''re never going to stop illegal streaming completely they are putting in obstructions which are making it just slightly more difficult for an everyday non it person to deal with. That''ll result in many just going for the sky bundle etc.

I don''t agree that fans in this country should get to watch every one of our games either on TV or on demand. They should be encouraged to attend games etc instead. Maybe exiles in this country should have an option to watch 5 games a season via ifollow or something but nothing more.

[BigManInTheBarclay 75]

It''s very easy to combine a good vpn with a legit NBC Sports account and watch every prem game live at 3pm. Having a choice of all the games in HD (sometimes 3D or even dual-camera angles) puts Sky/BT to shame with regards to choice/cost.

[Bill 1,788]

You appear to have missed the major point here.That for every one or two trying to stop the broadcasting illegally there are thousands trying to allow it. The cost of making the broadcasting far more secure would not be financially feasible. And as I said it''s ok to have a few cheapskates accessing somethingwhen they never be paying but it is akin to thousands leaving Carrow Road to watch by itting in the hotal (were it possible). Revenue is then being lost vial low volume of subscriptions and advertising fees.What is not often understood is that payments to club are made on a staggered basis as the subscriptions etc come in. Any serious loss would be passed on to clubs.The PL knows that if it allows clubs to split away from a collective payment system it would be the death kneel for the PL. Clubs like Man Utd would clean up whilst the Burnleys etc would be left with the crumbs. Great some might think, but it would merely reduce the PL to that of the Scotish PL.No one can predict if or when any crash might happen - though I would say for certainwwere it to happen it would be much like the ITVDigital collapse. One day here, the next day gone.

[BigManInTheBarclay 75]

This is also completely legal as you are paying for the full service offered by the provider and a vpn is also legitimate.

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

Personally I find it amazing how co-operative our courts are when Sky''s commercial interests are threatened but when it comes to tackling access to sites that tell you how to make bombs or provide child pornography then all of a sudden they seem to lose interest.

[hogesar 9,611]

One thing people are forgetting is that for the most part we are all lazy fucks.

So whilst it''s true that you''re never going to stop illegal streaming completely they are putting in obstructions which are making it just slightly more difficult for an everyday non it person to deal with. That''ll result in many just going for the sky bundle etc.

I don''t agree that fans in this country should get to watch every one of our games either on TV or on demand. They should be encouraged to attend games etc instead. Maybe exiles in this country should have an option to watch 5 games a season via ifollow or something but nothing more.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="hogesar"]I don''t agree that fans in this country should get to watch every one of our games either on TV or on demand. They should be encouraged to attend games etc instead. Maybe exiles in this country should have an option to watch 5 games a season via ifollow or something but nothing more.[/quote]Nice attitude to take Hog, basically f**k every fan that can''t afford to attend many games or deal with the necessary travelling to do so...I''m all for supporting the idea that if you live relatively locally (within say 30-40 miles), and are in sound enough condition to attend games, and can afford to attend, then this should be prioritised over paying to watch on TV, but for everyone else it''s not that simple.We''ve already got complaints that football is driving away the ''average'' fan due to rising ticket costs etc, and now you want to punish exiles even further for either not having the disposable income to support regular attendance, or having it available but being unwilling to spend that large an amount on attending games.For reference, it would cost me over 2k a year to attend every home game (roughly £100 per match to account for fuel, ticket price and a simple bit of food for the day), with a 7 hour+ round trip journey each time. Frankly I don''t have a spare 2k in cash each year to spend on attending games, nor would I likely spend it if I did, nor do I relish a day where I spend a significant time on the road in exchange for 90 minutes of football. All of which means I rarely get to Carrow Road, and instead rely on away games in the near vicinity (Sheff Wed, Barnsley, Derby etc), or tv footage.A subscription based model would actually put more money into the club''s coffers for fans such as myself over a season, at little to no cost to the club by doing so, and yet fans such as yourself want to block even this - just why???? WTF have us exiled fans done to you to want to stop us watching the team we both love???

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Such a sense of entitlement amongst the armchair fans. Why do you expect to be spoon fed all the coverage you want, whilst proper fans actually make an effort to get to games?

[Molly Windley 76]

This is a bit off topic but if there are any TalkTalk broadband and phone customers on the forum or anyone coming up to the end of their contacts and want to switch they have a cracking deal on at the moment.Existing and new customers can get all 8 Sky Sports channels for £8.50 a month through their TalkTalk tv for 18 months with no additional tie in.Only drawback for me was that it is only supplied through the old style digital tv aerial and as mine has not been in use for years and no longer works the cost of reinstalling one made the deal prohibitive.Deal here if anyone is interested    https://www.talktalk.co.uk/shop/tv-and-broadband