Thread removed and its reference removed

[The Bristol Nest 517]

How about 'woke'?😉

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

9 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I like (in the sense that I notice with contempt) how 'virtue signalling' has been adopted by the right as an all-purpose derogatory synonymous phrase for what actually is an ethical stance. I suppose it was inevitable, though, given the right's general unease with ethical stances and the whole concept of altruism.

I'd actually edited it out just as you posted as I felt that was a bit harsh, so I therefore can't disagree with your post.

Because actually.... the reasons people are against illegal streaming is precisely why I continue to throw £10 at most games. I don't disagree with the stance, just think it is a bit flawed.

Personally I can easily justify dropping a tenner on a Saturday game, I sit down with a couple of beers, get it on the box while checking other scores, get the old final scores on towards the end, sit and whatsapp my mates about the game, have a look on here. 

I'm loathe to drop a tenner on a night game sometimes, never really get into them and I'm knackered from work.... yes, I could just choose to not watch these games, but my curiosity gets the better of my general indifference. Last night was one of those times. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[shefcanary 2,444]

"Every time you've used an illegal stream, you were affecting the finances of our club negatively. When they negotiate the TV deals, they take into account the use of illegal streams and any monies given is less than it would have been as a result."

The moral argument is lost in the above.  Leakage is budgeted within the TV agreements.  The fact the EFL have been screwed down in the value of the rights obtained on behalf of the clubs is to my mind a bigger issue, as is the whole issue of the funding of the football pyramid.  If you all argued about this I would much appreciate it.  This thread is just a distraction as the amounts involved change nothing.

 

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,898]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

It's crazy to me that people saying 'don't steal' is seen as some holier than thou moralising. 

If you're referring to my post King, that's not what I said.

Have you ever used an illegal stream before?

OTBC

[Ian 1,136]

1 minute ago, shefcanary said:

"Every time you've used an illegal stream, you were affecting the finances of our club negatively. When they negotiate the TV deals, they take into account the use of illegal streams and any monies given is less than it would have been as a result."

The moral argument is lost in the above.  Leakage is budgeted within the TV agreements.  The fact the EFL have been screwed down in the value of the rights obtained on behalf of the clubs is to my mind a bigger issue, as is the whole issue of the funding of the football pyramid.  If you all argued about this I would much appreciate it.  This thread is just a distraction as the amounts involved change nothing.

 

Interesting point, where is the quote from? I don't really follow the logic entirely. Surely any TV deals are going to be negotiated based on the revenue the TV companies expect - suggesting that illegal streams definitively and substantially reduce this revenue doesn't seem to make logical sense to me.

It's a bit like saying that the TV companies have reduced monies because people have gone round their mates' to watch the match, but would be very interesting to see further justification round it.

 

[Fuzzar 1,702]

52 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

I can't be bothered to get bogged down in semantics, I think I gave as much context as was necessary in my prior post:

"I will freely admit that I used to watch illegal streams when we were in the PL if they were available; I pay for a Sky Sports and BT Sport subscription, thus contributing to the club through the TV deal, so had no problem with sourcing an illegal stream for those games that weren't available via normal means.

This season, the club has given us a legal option to watch all the matches, with some of the proceeds going directly to the club, therefore I am using the legal option. I'm not claiming to be some kind of moral crusader; I'm just saying that where the club itself provides a legal platform to watch matches from which it benefits financially, as fans I think we have a responsibility to support that legal process.

If there was no other way of watching the match than via an illegal stream, then bollócks to the EPL cash cow. Support your club."

Spot on Wolfie.

Ifollow is costing me a small fortune this season. But when we play like we did last night, I'd like a full refund.

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,898]

5 minutes ago, Ian said:

Interesting point, where is the quote from? I don't really follow the logic entirely. Surely any TV deals are going to be negotiated based on the revenue the TV companies expect - suggesting that illegal streams definitively and substantially reduce this revenue doesn't seem to make logical sense to me.

It's a bit like saying that the TV companies have reduced monies because people have gone round their mates' to watch the match, but would be very interesting to see further justification round it.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/65064a11-02f8-404e-8c23-622eddb0dfb4

Edit - Bah! The link works via a google search but not by directly clicking. Strange.

Quote from the story:

Last year Yousef Al-Obaidly, chief executive of beIN Sports, the Qatar-based broadcaster that has paid £1.3bn since 2015 to screen the Premier League in the Middle East, said that due to piracy it considers media rights “wholly non-exclusive” and that in future “our commercial offers will reflect that.” 

 

OTBC

Edited December 3, 2020 by Disco Dales Jockstrap

[dylanisabaddog 4,970]

32 minutes ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

Agree with what has been said about illegal streams etc, but can I just say that whoever complained about Bill should have had the gumption to speak to him directly first, can't stand snitches, my approach in life has always been to never say something behind some ones back that I wasn't prepared to say to their face............

People have been saying it consistently for as long as I can remember. He never listened 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

The very first time I viewed an illegal stream was 16 January 20 when we beat Colchester 5-0. Somebody posted on the match thread  a link to it.

Since then we have become aware of the amount of sites offering streams.

I never used to bother much because the quality was awful and it buffered. In fact I used to satisfy myself with the Chris Goreham commentary on the club website. Who can forget the Derby match ending?

Then the club decided they were no longer prepared to let us in the outposts of the regions listen for free. They wanted a premium for audio. And Radio Norfolk plays music instead of the commentary for me. Unless I use an illegal site the provides a Radio Norfolk link.

So I might as well watch an illegal stream and get video as well as audio.

I fail to see why people have this image that the club is a foundation for Norwich supporters. It has a commercial department that would like you to spend as much money with the club as possible. Hence the store.

And the prices within the ground are ridiculous. So lets not get carried away that Delia is Mother Teresa.

Nothing as ambiguous as charging £60 for a shirt made by someone in a foreign land and then quoting morals.

 

[The Bristol Nest 517]

Thanks Dale, it's a great picture and Radio Norfolk commentary.

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,898]

Just now, The Bristol Nest said:

Thanks Dale, it's a great picture and Radio Norfolk commentary.

I had to read that twice before I got that!!! 😆

OTBC

[The Real Buh 3,474]

...Plot twist...

The original thread never existed and only you saw it. Yeah, you. Reading this post right now.
 

Everyone else thinks I’m talking to them but actually I’m just talking to you!

[dylanisabaddog 4,970]

5 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Then the club decided they were no longer prepared to let us in the outposts of the regions listen for free. They wanted a premium for audio. And Radio Norfolk plays music instead of the commentary for me. Unless I use an illegal site the provides a Radio Norfolk link.

So I might as well watch an illegal stream and get video as well as audio.

 

 

Was it the club that decided that policy? 

[Midlands Yellow 4,040]

Bill TV had nearly 400 views for the Coventry match. It was probably people disgusted that such a post was viewable. 

[Ian 1,136]

11 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Was it the club that decided that policy? 

Actually an interesting point though. Presumably Chris Goreham et al are publically-funded via the national TV license fee, and are not paid privately by the clubs/broadcasters for their services when broadcasting commentary? If so, what is the justification for preventing UK-based persons listening to it via the internet?

[Midlands Yellow 4,040]

Roll call, who paid the tenner last night and who just followed via text and tweets? Obviously no one viewed  a naughty stream so hopefully the club made some money. 

[king canary 7,654]

1 minute ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Roll call, who paid the tenner last night and who just followed via text and tweets? Obviously no one viewed  a naughty stream so hopefully the club made some money. 

Or y'know, watched it on Sky sports...

[king canary 7,654]

32 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

If you're referring to my post King, that's not what I said.

Have you ever used an illegal stream before?

OTBC

In my lifetime? Sure. I used to quite a lot in my 20's, then I got Sky.

Last season, simialr to FTW, I streamed a couple of 3pm kick offs. 

This season I've either watched via Sky, iFollow or followed via twitter.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,836]

I went down the iFollow route three times in August, and only once did it work properly. If I knew that I was paying £10 for a service that was definitely going to work I'd probably do it, but when it doesn't work and they don't give refunds or credit the next game then I'm not going to risk paying £10.

But £10 is very expensive anyway, all things considered. To compare The Championship with the Italian Serie B for example, for €10 a month to DAZN you get all Serie B games (not just your team, but ALL games) plus matches from Serie A, La Liga, Ligue Un, Eredivisie, Europa League, The Championship and others, plus NFL, NBA, Moto GP, Top 14 rugby, all darts majors, all big boxing matches and more. All that for a month, for the same price as we pay for one football match.

Even in the UK, a full month of everything Sky Sports has to offer costs considerably less than a month of watching all Norwich iFollow.

 

[Midlands Yellow 4,040]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

Or y'know, watched it on Sky sports...

Ok, the Coventry match then. 

[king canary 7,654]

1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Interesting though that the stance has no inbetween. 

So I've just checked and have paid £110 to iFollow this season, generating approximately £77 in revenue for the club.

I've watched three illegal streams.

Yet your moral stance would say that it is more ethical for me to give £0 to the club and not watch any games at all.

Its an interesting topic, earlier you mentioned the impact of illegal torrents on the creative industries, yet this doesn't seem to have any basis in reality. This is the size of the UK film industry, the red arrow is when uTorrent was founded, which for years was the biggest torrent source aggregator.

What I think we are seeing is the beginning of a wider shift in the way people watch live sports, its quite late for disruption isn't it. Music has been disrupted by things like Spotify, so has the film industry with things like Netflix. 

PPV / pay per game will be the standard in ten years. The old Sky subscription model is in decline.

Interesting because it was once said that Spotify was destroying the music industry, now its the first place artists put their music and they labels work the algorithms and can make great money.

1000 plays on Spotify generates $3-$4..... which means James Blunt is sharing in about $30000 a month in Spotify commissions. He hasn't released anything noteworthy for years, reckon if things had never changed he'd be selling 3000 albums a month through HMV and Virgin Megastore at the moment to achieve equivalent revenue? 

And production companies are now producing stuff with Netflix success in mind. They used to be called 'B movies' or 'straight to DVD', things not worthy of cinematic release. Now they can go straight on Netflix and other streaming services.

This is a much needed evolution. But spotify has killed illegal downloads of music, Netflix makes torenting largely unnecessary. 

Some very smart guys in Silicon Valley adapting to what the market wants will probably follow the current **** poor offerings e.g. ifollow. Sky Sports are the CD or DVD, its a market sitting there waiting to be disrupted. 

 

The spotify stuff is interesting- you can argue it killed music downloading, you can also argue it only exists due to music downloading.

The industry realisd they couldn't stop the pirating so they ended up agreeing to the spotify model that gives artists such a pitiful share of the profits. Sure it works well for a James Blunt type but it actively harms new and upcoming bands who can't make money through selling their actual CD's or downloads as everyone just heads straight for Spotify. Overall it has a hugely limiting affect on the industry. 

[Feedthewolf 4,865]

1 minute ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Ok, the Coventry match then. 

The only time I used an illegal stream this season was for the first game on iFollow - I paid my £10 and the stream wouldn't work for me, so I then found a stream in order to be able to watch the match I'd paid to watch. I've since been given tech advice that means iFollow has worked perfectly for me ever since. I actually prefer it to Sky's red button coverage.

[king canary 7,654]

3 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Ok, the Coventry match then. 

Followed it via twitter/sky sports news.

[Feedthewolf 4,865]

Just now, king canary said:

The spotify stuff is interesting- you can argue it killed music downloading, you can also argue it only exists due to music downloading.

The industry realisd they couldn't stop the pirating so they ended up agreeing to the spotify model that gives artists such a pitiful share of the profits. Sure it works well for a James Blunt type but it actively harms new and upcoming bands who can't make money through selling their actual CD's or downloads as everyone just heads straight for Spotify. Overall it has a hugely limiting affect on the industry. 

Yeah, this. I think I was just making the point that most musicians (barring the extremely famous/popular) and stage actors make the majority of their income from live performances, and we should make the effort to support those in our local area as soon as we're able to - in the same way that we've seen a large increase in shopping local and community endeavours compared to pre-pandemic. I support Norwich and Norfolk in more ways than just NCFC, and I think I was probably conflating the two in my original post... arguing separate points at the same time, really.

[GenerationA47 758]

11 minutes ago, Ian said:

Actually an interesting point though. Presumably Chris Goreham et al are publically-funded via the national TV license fee, and are not paid privately by the clubs/broadcasters for their services when broadcasting commentary? If so, what is the justification for preventing UK-based persons listening to it via the internet?

I believe it’s something to do with locality restrictions inherent to the BBC’s local broadcasting offer & funding criteria , and/or the rules around how local radio frequencies are allocated. More specifically how the advice have been translated for the digital era.

 

[king canary 7,654]

Just now, Feedthewolf said:

Yeah, this. I think I was just making the point that most musicians (barring the extremely famous/popular) and stage actors make the majority of their income from live performances, and we should make the effort to support those in our local area as soon as we're able to - in the same way that we've seen a large increase in shopping local and community endeavours compared to pre-pandemic. I support Norwich and Norfolk in more ways than just NCFC, and I think I was probably conflating the two in my original post... arguing separate points at the same time, really.

Without meaning to anger all those who see this as 'virtue signaling' or similar, I do try and follow a certain code when it comes to this sort of thing.

I use sportify but if I like a new artist I'll make sure I buy a physical copy of their album/EP and maybe some merch if I like it.

I don't download films and will go out of my way to catch something in the cinema if I can. Otherwise it's netflix/prime/sky store.

I'm also a pro-wrestling fan and follow a couple of UK independent promotions- if I want to watch their shows I join their streaming services. 

Not saying everyone else has to do the same, but if you want new bands to be able to get off the ground (not just those from upper middle class backgrounds whose parents can support them through the 'getting established' process), if you don't want cinemas chock full of remakes and marvel movies and you want smaller, independent things to thrive then it helps.

[PurpleCanary 5,579]

17 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Roll call, who paid the tenner last night and who just followed via text and tweets? Obviously no one viewed  a naughty stream so hopefully the club made some money. 

As a season ticket holder I could have watched for free but I couldn't face what I correctly guessed would be the dire prospect...

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

So we are now categorising when it is OK to watch them and when it isn't.

We cannot dip in and out of the law but our human frailty makes us prone to do it.

Ifollow is good and it should have happened a long time ago. But it was £5 originally. Now it is £10. 100% increase in one season. £5 a month for commentary. It was free.

 

 

[wcorkcanary 4,337]

4 hours ago, king canary said:

This, basically.

I'm amazed at the sheer amount of people who think they basically shouldn't have to pay for entertainment.

New film out? Just torrent it.

New album? Torrent or streaming

Football match? Stream it.

Yet I doubt any of these people would, 15 years ago, walk into their local HMV and steal a DVD or a CD, nor would they sneak into the ground without a ticket. Yet because its online and easy, people forget it is stealing.

I suppose technically  it's more like handling stolen goods.  The streamers are the ones doing the stealing. At a tenner a match, it's really not a bad deal, not a great deal,  but I've had no issues with I follow. ...so am happy enough  to pay.

[The Real Buh 3,474]

Is Bill the hacker known as 4Chan?