[blueisthecolour]

As most people reading this will know, Sky and BT have brought the rights to show 154 Premier League games for the 3 seasons between 2013 and 2017. Discussion is already underway on how this will work in practice, whether BT will sell it's channel to Sky, whether Sky will continue supplying SS1 & 2 at a set price, whether HD channels will be shared between broadcasters, what will be the combined prices etc. However I wonder whether streaming will make all this irrelevant.

Already many pubs are avoiding Sky and ESPN subscriptions by using foreign broadcasters and this has been (sort of) declared legal. And this week we saw the launch of an internet based tv service. So i was thinking, what is to stop foreign broadcasters supplying their games via the internet and selling boxes which can easily show it? We already have a large amount of illegal streams on the web, what is to stop this proliferating in the same way as illegal downloading? A year is a long time in technology and as broadband speeds improve what's to say that this doesn't become a realistic alternative?

Obviously one of the issues is that even under the new deal only 40% of games will be shown. That's not bad for fans for top team clubs who have 75-80% coverage but not so good for fans for less attractive teams. I get the impression that demand for games is increasing all the time and as well all know, if a demand isn't provide through official channels then inevitably it is satisfied through 'unofficial' methods.

What do people think? Is this likely or can broadcasters/Premier League/ISPs police the web fully enough to prevent it? Maybe you think that white van man isn't ready for internet streaming of football but when I go into my local and find the 50 year old landlord trying to broadcast games via Iraq Goals (yes, this was a while ago) I know that things are changing!

[The Phazer]

Already many pubs are avoiding Sky and ESPN subscriptions by using foreign broadcasters and this has been (sort of) declared legal.

I know it was widely misreported, but that is not what happened. At all.

Bits of precedent made a lot of difference to people sat at home, but Murphy still lost the case. She just lost it less badly than the initial verdict.

Viewing online is still a very, very minority passtime. I don't think it will affect the new deal too badly. The deal after that? Or the one after that? We might be getting into different territory.

[richiebabee]

Putting aside illegal streaming (which I agree is a very small minority), I am surprised that with this new deal that the Premier League haven't tried to sell a direct-to-customer streaming deal as well.

If you take a look at the American sports - which, admittedly have a much larger local fanbase, they all have their own direct-to-customer streaming packages (MLB.tv, NHL GameCenter, NFL Game Pass, NBA TV), which allow subscribers to watch any game being played, archives of games that have been played, all streamed in HD.

Given the world-wide appeal of the Premier League, isn't it a surprise that they haven't introduced a legal method of streaming live games? We know that all of the games are covered in HD now (although not necessarily with commentary), and I'm sure fans of individual teams would love the option of watching all of their team's games.

The only two reasons I can think of why they haven't done this yet (besides a complete lack of awareness about how much people are using streaming video now across smart TVs, games consoles, plug-in TV boxes, etc.), is that they think it will affect attendances and/or undermine the money they make off the existing TV deals.

I really think that the PL have missed a trick by not having a legal streaming package available.

[theonlyweeman]

Originally Posted by richiebabee

Putting aside illegal streaming (which I agree is a very small minority), I am surprised that with this new deal that the Premier League haven't tried to sell a direct-to-customer streaming deal as well.

If you take a look at the American sports - which, admittedly have a much larger local fanbase, they all have their own direct-to-customer streaming packages (MLB.tv, NHL GameCenter, NFL Game Pass, NBA TV), which allow subscribers to watch any game being played, archives of games that have been played, all streamed in HD.

Given the world-wide appeal of the Premier League, isn't it a surprise that they haven't introduced a legal method of streaming live games? We know that all of the games are covered in HD now (although not necessarily with commentary), and I'm sure fans of individual teams would love the option of watching all of their team's games.

The only two reasons I can think of why they haven't done this yet (besides a complete lack of awareness about how much people are using streaming video now across smart TVs, games consoles, plug-in TV boxes, etc.), is that they think it will affect attendances and/or undermine the money they make off the existing TV deals.

I really think that the PL have missed a trick by not having a legal streaming package available.

One of the factors in the US sports having this service is due to blackout restrictions, something doesn't affect the PL because the UK isn't large enough and TV infrastructure would struggle to support this .

[bob.cryer]

Watching all the games simultaneously on the last day of the season, using streams was most exciting.

And it was free

[StargateNerd_24]

Originally Posted by bob.cryer

Watching all the games simultaneously on the last day of the season, using streams was most exciting.

And it was free

For you maybe

[blueisthecolour]

Originally Posted by The Phazer

I know it was widely misreported, but that is not what happened. At all.

Bits of precedent made a lot of difference to people sat at home, but Murphy still lost the case. She just lost it less badly than the initial verdict.

Viewing online is still a very, very minority passtime. I don't think it will affect the new deal too badly. The deal after that? Or the one after that? We might be getting into different territory.

Question: Does any foreign broadcaster have the right to stream premier league games live? If so, what is to stop anyone 'hacking' that feed?

Also, if someone in, say, China decided to set up a fully fledged steaming site for all games, on what legal basis could the PL shut it down?

The reason i'm interested is that if more and more tv moves over to being broadcast via the net rather than traditional methods, i'm not quite sure stops people from viewing any nations output. A Russian woman at work who is into boxing told me that she is watching the upcoming Haye fight on a legal online Polish tv feed which she pays a monthly subscription. Under EU laws could not any broadcaster do the same?

[The Wanderer]

Originally Posted by blueisthecolour

The reason i'm interested is that if more and more tv moves over to being broadcast via the net rather than traditional methods, i'm not quite sure stops people from viewing any nations output. A Russian woman at work who is into boxing told me that she is watching the upcoming Haye fight on a legal online Polish tv feed which she pays a monthly subscription. Under EU laws could not any broadcaster do the same?

Abu Dhabi Sports streams all games to Middle East customers, and I'm pretty sure Fox does in the US. If you could get around the geo blocking (and set up an account, have relevant bank details) then I suppose it could be done

[jamcambs]

Originally Posted by bob.cryer

Watching all the games simultaneously on the last day of the season, using streams was most exciting.

And it was free

That's theft, so therefore you are a thief.

[blueisthecolour]

Originally Posted by The Wanderer

Abu Dhabi Sports streams all games to Middle East customers, and I'm pretty sure Fox does in the US. If you could get around the geo blocking (and set up an account, have relevant bank details) then I suppose it could be done

Is that legal? I know how to use different proxies and getting someone in the US to set me up with an account wouldn't be hard.

[The Wanderer]

Originally Posted by blueisthecolour

Is that legal? I know how to use different proxies and getting someone in the US to set me up with an account wouldn't be hard.

I assume at best it would break their T&Cs. But if you have a reilable proxy/VPN, it could be done

[The Cricketer]

No

Because not everyone wants to watch crappy streams, however 'high quality' they may be.

I tried them for a year (non-paid) & paid and decided that the only way to watch games in high quality/HD was via my Satellite box/HD TV

[sigmundv]

Originally Posted by The Cricketer

No

Because not everyone wants to watch crappy streams, however 'high quality' they may be.

I tried them for a year (non-paid) & paid and decided that the only way to watch games in high quality/HD was via my Satellite box/HD TV

Of course. If you want HD quality there is no substitute for that. Many people are happy as long as they see the matches though, regardless of picture quality.

[bob.cryer]

Originally Posted by jamcambs

That's theft, so therefore you are a thief.

I've stolen nothing. The grounds were full so couldnt get a ticket for any of them and im certainly not going to climb over the fence (im not scouse).

[d'@ve]

Originally Posted by bob.cryer

I've stolen nothing. The grounds were full so couldnt get a ticket for any of them and im certainly not going to climb over the fence (im not scouse).

That is irrelevant because by watching such streams on the Internet, you are helping to generate income for illegal broadcasters who do not have the permission of the copyright owners. So you are supporting an illegal activity.

They don't put such streams online as a public service, you know. They do it to make money - and to a certain extent deprive those who do have permission (legitiimate TV broadcasters) of their right to recoup the money they paid for the broadcast rights (and make a profit over and above). This applies whether or not you personally would have paid for such a service.

I'm not being judgemental, I thought it worth mentioning though as it isn't always obvious to everyone (and some won't care anyway).

[Jaycee Dove]

But the point is that if you cannot go to a match, and it is available virtually everywhere other than in the UK, the fault lies with the decision to make it possible to pay to view in Outer Mongolia or LA but not to pay legally to do so in the UK.

It is absurd to call as thieves people who access things they would happily pay for if the powers that be choose not to allow the people in the UK to be able to do so.

If, say, the Houses of Parliament debating something important was transmitted in France but disallowed in the UK - yet was streamed on the net - I doubt many would say it was the fault of the person in the UK who chooses to view.

I agree that declining to pay ESPN and Sky or BT from 2013 when these games are accessible in the UK just to get them for free is theft.

But accessing games that are made available elsewhere but that you cannot pay for to any UK company is not theft.

The fault lies in the refusal of the football authorities to live in 2012 instead of 1912 and provide legal access at a price that would feed money back into the game.

Whatever the reasons (lower league attendances etc) the reality is these feeds are there and it is simply burying your head in the sand to not take advantage of that situation and yet moan if people denied access any other way choose to access what is out there anyway.

[jamcambs]

Originally Posted by bob.cryer

I've stolen nothing. The grounds were full so couldnt get a ticket for any of them and im certainly not going to climb over the fence (im not scouse).

You have as you could have paid to watch those games on TV. Streaming is theft. You stated that you streamed the final games online. When Sky were showing both the vital games. You opted not to pay.

[sigmundv]

Originally Posted by jamcambs

Streaming is theft.

Not all streaming though.

[jamcambs]

Originally Posted by sigmundv

Not all streaming though.

Sorry, yes not all streaming, but the streaming he was talking about. Premiership football.

[krooney]

Originally Posted by bob.cryer

I've stolen nothing. The grounds were full so couldnt get a ticket for any of them and im certainly not going to climb over the fence (im not scouse).

I'm not scouse???

[Hewjars]

Originally Posted by jamcambs

You have as you could have paid to watch those games on TV. Streaming is theft. You stated that you streamed the final games online. When Sky were showing both the vital games. You opted not to pay.

The games he wanted to watch might not have been on TV and if the matches in question were also a sell out, who was he depriving and what was he depriving them of?

[Hewjars]

Originally Posted by krooney

I'm not scouse???

Don't you know ?

[krooney]

Know what??

[Hewjars]

Originally Posted by krooney

Know what??

Whether or not you are scouse?

[jamcambs]

Originally Posted by Hewjars

The games he wanted to watch might not have been on TV and if the matches in question were also a sell out, who was he depriving and what was he depriving them of?

That doesnt matter, still doesnt mean you have to steal. So the same could be said about anything. Pop concerts etc.