Swansea away 5.2.21 NOT on Ifollow

[Greavsy 2,413]

13 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

We have played just over half a season and they have reduced the prices. If you think its OK, fair enough, but I shall not be buying one anymore. I think the club is morally wrong and I will make my choice as Greavsy said I could.

You've made your choice, but are now complaining if you'd have waited you could have got the same item for less. 

Im struggling with the logic there, you can't have your cake and eat it. 

Plus they have always reduced their merch prices as the season progresses. 

[hogesar 9,658]

4 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

And as it's illegal, why hasn't it been taken down? These sites aren't exactly difficult to find.

I realise you can't stop someone speeding or another false declaring on a tax form, you could easily close a website. Given the millions it must be costing Sky in missed revenues, I'm surprised such sites even exist.

Theyre not that easy to take down, I mean hundreds of thousands are taken down but the more organised outfits have a little more too it.

1) Privately registered domains

2) Multiple servers and redirecting under different technologies to confuse people where the site is actually hosted.

3) Backups all over the world. They'll have an exact snapshot of the current website hosted across a multitude of cloud servers all over the world so the instant one is taken offline another one is powered up. And someone has to do the 'taking offline' bit which gives the website owners more time to duplicate backups etc etc.

[hogesar 9,658]

1 minute ago, Greavsy said:

You've made your choice, but are now complaining if you'd have waited you could have got the same item for less. 

Im struggling with the logic there, you can't have your cake and eat it. 

Plus they have always reduced their merch prices as the season progresses. 

Is it morally wrong that films are more expensive when they're first released as opposed to 6 months later? Thats essentially the argument here.

[Midlands Yellow 3,980]

This remains a riveting read. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

14 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

You've made your choice, but are now complaining if you'd have waited you could have got the same item for less. 

Im struggling with the logic there, you can't have your cake and eat it. 

Plus they have always reduced their merch prices as the season progresses

I'm not asking for a reduced price. I know in reality I am getting ripped off at £50, especially as I live in Cornwall and cannot wear it to a game and I'm not naff enough to wear it out.

I just think it is morally wrong with just over half a season gone to lower it when most have paid full price. And don't tell me they have done because they have overstocked. They have sold them for so many years now, they have a fair idea how many sell.

Just as I think its morally wrong when airlines double ticket prices in school holidays. Just as I think its morally wrong when insurance companies up your premium only to reduce it when you complain.

In my mind, its taking the pish.

[Greavsy 2,413]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

I'm not asking for a reduced price. I know in reality I am getting ripped off at £50, especially as I live in Cornwall and cannot wear it to a game and I'm not naff enough to wear it out.

I just think it is morally wrong with just over half a season gone to lower it when most have paid full price. And don't tell me they have done because they have overstocked. They have sold them for so many years now, they have a fair idea how many sell.

Just as I think its morally wrong when airlines double ticket prices in school holidays. Just as I think its morally wrong when insurance companies up your premium only to reduce it when you complain.

In my mind, its taking the pish.

Its called business - Simple as. 

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

25 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Is it morally wrong that films are more expensive when they're first released as opposed to 6 months later? Thats essentially the argument here.

Everything that can be reduced dramatically after a period of time could be argued was morally overpriced.

I will give you an example. As a Printing Trade Union Secretary I had to meet with publishers. In most industries, companies work out their costs etc and the final unit carries a markup, usually a percentage sell at that price.

In publishing its different.

Hoggy writes a book. Never heard of him. How much do you think we can charge? Not a lot. The public won't pay much for him. OK £5.

JK Rowling writes a book. The world loves her. How much can we charge? Quite a lot. The public will pay anything. OK £20.

Then they have the gall to tell you its to help new talent. No. Its to take adavantage. Morally wrong.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

8 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Its called business - Simple as. 

 

Sounds you like you are unsure whether you think its morally right then.

[Greavsy 2,413]

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

Sounds you like you are unsure whether you think its morally right then.

 Business and morals are totally different. 

[Greavsy 2,413]

4 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Everything that can be reduced dramatically after a period of time could be argued was morally overpriced.

I will give you an example. As a Printing Trade Union Secretary I had to meet with publishers. In most industries, companies work out their costs etc and the final unit carries a markup, usually a percentage sell at that price.

In publishing its different.

Hoggy writes a book. Never heard of him. How much do you think we can charge? Not a lot. The public won't pay much for him. OK £5.

JK Rowling writes a book. The world loves her. How much can we charge? Quite a lot. The public will pay anything. OK £20.

Then they have the gall to tell you its to help new talent. No. Its to take adavantage. Morally wrong.

 

Surely thats down to supply and demand. 

Ive had the other extreme where less popular books (work reference ones for example) have a shorter print run, and are significantly more expensive, as the price to produce per copy are higher. Many ways to slice a cake.  

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

18 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Surely thats down to supply and demand. 

Ive had the other extreme where less popular books (work reference ones for example) have a shorter print run, and are significantly more expensive, as the price to produce per copy are higher. Many ways to slice a cake.  

Probably by a smaller publisher. Most larger ones work on what the public will pay. And have so many printed non UK.

Its hardly supply and demand with an airline. The plane has a finite amount of seats. Its not ebay. So if they can make a profit filling a plane during term time, why do they double the same plane with the same amount of seats. They advertise at the higher rate before they sell them. Is it morally right to charge parents more? That isn't business, its greed.

But these are my gripes and others may see things totally different.

[Greavsy 2,413]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Probably by a smaller publisher. Most larger ones work on what the public will pay. And have so many printed non UK.

Its hardly supply and demand with an airline. The plane has a finite amount of seats. Its not ebay. So if they can make a profit filling a plane during term time, why do they double the same plane with the same amount of seats. They advertise at the higher rate before they sell them. Is it morally right to charge parents more? That isn't business, its greed.

But these are my gripes and others may see things totally different.

Its business - maximize profit.  Which then benefits the shareholders (who could also be staff). Makes sense to me. Obviously id wish to pay less, who wouldnt, but if I wanted to secure  my place / ticket / id sign up early. Morals dont come into business at all KGD. 

And streams  still remain illegal, despite you taking this down other unrelated routes. 

[Ken Hairy 3,772]

1 minute ago, Greavsy said:

And streams  still remain illegal, despite you taking this down other unrelated routes. 

No more illegal than using the face of a 60s footballer on public forum without the consent of said footballer, presuming you're not Jimmy Greaves that is?...... 😏

[Greavsy 2,413]

1 minute ago, Ken Hairy said:

No more illegal than using the face of a 60s footballer on public forum without the consent of said footballer, presuming you're not Jimmy Greaves that is?...... 😏

Im not aware of anyone being prosecuted for it, so must be legal, surely? 

I only stumbled across the image, when looking for something else, so im in the clear!  

Damn, Youve rumbled my true identity! 

[Greavsy 2,413]

On a serious point, wont the copyright sit with the photographer / publishers rather than the individual themselves? 

[Ken Hairy 3,772]

3 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Im not aware of anyone being prosecuted for it, so must be legal, surely? 

I only stumbled across the image, when looking for something else, so im in the clear!  

Damn, Youve rumbled my true identity! 

A wise man once said "If only we could all be selective over which laws we care to abide by!" 

 

[Ken Hairy 3,772]

1 minute ago, Greavsy said:

On a serious point, wont the copyright sit with the photographer / publishers rather than the individual themselves? 

Depends whether they received permission I suppose. 

[Greavsy 2,413]

He sounds very wise and informed! 

1 minute ago, Ken Hairy said:

A wise man once said "If only we could all be selective over which laws we care to abide by!" 

 

 

 

[Greavsy 2,413]

1 minute ago, Ken Hairy said:

Depends whether they received permission I suppose. 

These days with Intellectual rights etc, im sure there are agreements with the clubs and hence the players that images taken of them are allowed and the EPL / EFL would have that all tied down. 

Not sure it would have been the case in (uncle) Jimmy's case (ooops given away more of my identity there!) 

[king canary 7,605]

57 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Everything that can be reduced dramatically after a period of time could be argued was morally overpriced.

I will give you an example. As a Printing Trade Union Secretary I had to meet with publishers. In most industries, companies work out their costs etc and the final unit carries a markup, usually a percentage sell at that price.

In publishing its different.

Hoggy writes a book. Never heard of him. How much do you think we can charge? Not a lot. The public won't pay much for him. OK £5.

JK Rowling writes a book. The world loves her. How much can we charge? Quite a lot. The public will pay anything. OK £20.

Then they have the gall to tell you its to help new talent. No. Its to take adavantage. Morally wrong.

 

At this point you're just getting angry at capitalism. This is fine of course but a but weird to somehow expect Norwich City to steadfastly ignore the system they exist in.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

13 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Its business - maximize profit.  Which then benefits the shareholders (who could also be staff). Makes sense to me. Obviously id wish to pay less, who wouldnt, but if I wanted to secure  my place / ticket / id sign up early. Morals dont come into business at all KGD. 

And streams  still remain illegal, despite you taking this down other unrelated routes. 

I take it you ignored the legal opinion I posted. 

And profit is good. But greed is not.

And we got to the tangent because someone questioned my morals. Which they are entitled to do but I wished to illustrate that morality is subjective.

6 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Im not aware of anyone being prosecuted for it, so must be legal, surely? 

I only stumbled across the image, when looking for something else, so im in the clear!  

Damn, Youve rumbled my true identity! 

I refer to the legal opinion I posted which you clearly haven't read. Is that because you don't want to?

[Greavsy 2,413]

Greed / profit are much the same thing, very hard to distinguish between the two.  

I have read your posts - but because you post them one here, doesn't mean they are correct. As you have stated its legal opinion, so by definition cannot be argued against, as it is exactly that, OPINION, not law. 

Are you checking my homework? ?    

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

At this point you're just getting angry at capitalism. This is fine of course but a but weird to somehow expect Norwich City to steadfastly ignore the system they exist in.

Not capitalism. I've always been angry at that and for the life of me cannot understand why so many of you, who gain beggar all out of it, support it.

What I was referring to is predatory capitalism.

Nothing wrong with the club selling its shirts cheaper is there. Do they have to charge the same as everyone. Or does that tell us, that in reality, they are no different from the rest.

[Ken Hairy 3,772]

6 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Greed / profit are much the same thing, very hard to distinguish between the two.  

I have read your posts - but because you post them one here, doesn't mean they are correct. As you have stated its legal opinion, so by definition cannot be argued against, as it is exactly that, OPINION, not law. 

Are you checking my homework? ?    

This whole debate has been interesting, however I don't think either Hoggy or KGD have ultimately proven their case either way. Both have claimed to provide legal evidence to back up their debate but all either have done is provide links and quotes to various legal opinions. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen either of them provide a link to an actual law? Now of course, without wanting to stir the pot 😏, if there is no link to a specific law to this, then that without proving KGD argument, adds more weight to it. (the streaming side of it obviously, not the club selling reduced shirts part, that's just nonsense). 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Ken Hairy

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Greed / profit are much the same thing, very hard to distinguish between the two.  

I have read your posts - but because you post them one here, doesn't mean they are correct. As you have stated its legal opinion, so by definition cannot be argued against, as it is exactly that, OPINION, not law. 

Are you checking my homework? ?    

There isn't a law that covers users watching streams. I posted that there is a bill before congress that will make it illegal. That will be the first one and unless it goes to Supreme Court, will be adopted worldwide.

At the moment it is only illegal if you subscribe such as a £5 a month for an IPTV.

I think we have exhausted this topic in as much as we are not going to agree about the existence of a law that says the particular item we are talking is illegal.

OTBC

[Greavsy 2,413]

I'm happy to agree to disagee KGD, and of course respect your point of view (even if it is incorrect 😉 ) and your right to discuss. i hope you dont get caught, and use the internet for your defence! 

Certainly not looking to fall out over it! 🤝

I have a family member who is a solicitor, specializing in IP Law, so when we are next on a family zoom call, Ill ask their views. 

 

 

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

2 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

. Given the millions it must be costing Sky in missed revenues, I'm surprised such sites even exist.

I doubt that many who habitually stream would pay if streaming sites were taken down. Hooky streams are an inferior product. Some are happy with that.