Johnny Bravo

No. What you are doing is allowed. It’s when you charge people to come watch the game you paid for.

There is a user agreement for everything we stream. Netflix, Hulu, Sunday Ticket. Those user agreements state the terms which we agree to follow as part of the deal for being able to stream. of course none of us ever read them, but we all have to acknowledge them when we sign up.

To me, the guarantee of victory would take away the joy that came with it. When I picture the clock hitting zero in a Super Bowl with the Bills on top I think of all the pain and disappointment over the years and all the angst that will go into the lead up to the game itself, and how they won’t matter anymore. All the previous hurt and worry will actually fuel the joy I’ll have at the Bills finally being champs. If I know we a will win in advance, I won’t get to have that singular moment in the same way.

I think what you are describing is not the issue. Of course you can have friends over to watch the game with you. Same as with PPV, etc. The prohibitions come in if you start charging people to come watch the game at your place and that scenario is covered in the agreement you sign when you subscribe. There is a separate product and pricing structure for businesses like sports bars. I think the gray area comes in with two friends who share the subscription costs. I did that years ago with a friend and I went over to his house every to watch games together. This was before streaming. Now in the streaming age we would have the option of each watching at our own home and I am not sure about the legality or morality of doing that.

I appreciate that brother. go Bills!

NFL fans didn’t help build the NFL. They just bought a product. I buy from Amazon…but I didn’t build it. Jeff Bezos did. As far as what I can afford, I can afford Sunday ticket because I live a very modest lifestyle. I don’t have a car payment, I don’t eat out, I don’t buy TVs or take expensive vacations. My biggest line item in my budget after housing is charitable giving. I can afford Sunday Ticket because of choices I make. If I made different choices and could no longer afford to pay for it I wouldn’t be justified in stealing it. And your point description of people’s piracy as being some sort of protest is not realistic. These “protesters” have more in common with looters who simply take what they want but paint it as some sort of moral stance against corporate greed or whatever. A little suspicion of the motives of any protestor who suffers nothing and gains a benefit for his stand is always warranted.

Okay…so stop consuming their products and feeding their greed. if they are alienating their customers then the customers have every right to reject them and their business. But none of us have any right to their products without paying for them. Their greed doesn’t justify our theft.

First, you are right. Watching your favorite football team live is not a need. Second, even with needs like water, the fact that they are needs doesn't change what it costs to provide them. In a natural disaster, the costs of providing those needs goes up and should be reflected in the price. In fact, in a free market high prices in a time of disaster are a good thing for a few reasons. 1) because they discourage hoarding. If a bottle of water costs $10 people will buy only what they really need therefore rationing the scarce critical resource so that everyone can have it. 2) because the high prices signal a demand from consumers (and they signal a chance for profits for providers)-which incentivizes those providers to provided the critical resources needed. I say that only to say that it is NEVER as simple as greedy and evil-even though thinking that way can be used to justify doing what we want to do. In the end, if one really believes that the owners are being greedy, one should then refuse to feed into their greed by boycotting their product Otherwise, you are left with trying to defend the idea that two wrongs make a right-they are "greedy" so it is okay for me to steal.

How are they ripping you off? The NFL offers a product that comes for a price they are charging. If you think the product is worth the price you buy it. If you don’t, then you don’t. We all love the Bills here. For me, frankly, the idea of not being a Bills fan anymore is analogous to not being a brother to my brother. It’s unthinkable. But that love of the Bills and decades of devotion doesn’t give me any right to someone else’s product that I haven’t paid for. i live in Virginia where I don’t get every Bills game for free like Buffalonians do. I want to watch the games live so I pay for the Sunday Ticket. In the past when I couldn’t afford Sunday Ticket I watched the recorded games on GamePass through NFL.com. Lastly. Why is it that the owners are considered greedy? I notice it is always the other person who is being greedy. I’m certainly not greedy when I try to maximize my salary from my employer and I would assume no one here would consider themselves greedy for doing the same. But an NFL owner wants to maximize the return on his BILLION dollar investment and he is condemned for being greedy. An owner doing the same thing I do-trying to maximize a return on investments-isn’t more greedy than I am just because his net worth has a lot more zeros than mine does.

I liked Solomon coming out of the draft so I may have some confirmation bias going, but I felt like Solomon flashed quite a lot last year-sacks and pressures.

Living your life with the belief that you are a perpetual victim being constantly ripped off by evil people more powerful than you rather than a grown man with agency whose life is a product of his own decisions sounds really awful. I think that way of thinking is really destructive (and I don’t think that paradigm reflects reality) but I admire people who are able to keep pressing on even though they believe that. I’m not sure I could.

I was logging in just to say Kurt Schultz. He was a really good player

NFL's Gamepass lets you watch every game on one platform for a pretty reasonable price. You can't watch the games live but you get them a few hours later with no commercials and you also get access to live audio. I used that service for years when I couldn't afford Sunday ticket and it was great.

Short version: I want it, but don't want to pay

Of course the NFL has competition-MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS, College Football, etc. And that competition is just in sports. Expand that out a bit and there is competition from all the streaming services, movies, books, time with family and 10,000 other leisure pursuits and recreation. The fact is that the NFL has a product that you want more than those alternatives and you somehow feel justified in enjoying it without paying for it. The very fact that you still use its product disproves your statement that the NFL has zero regard for it's customer's wants (unless you are in the habit of spending your free time doing things you don't like). You can subscribe directly through YouTube and watch games there as well without YouTubeTV.

This doesn't prove or disprove your argument, but Bernard won us the Ravens playoff game with the strip and fumble recovery. Josh was human in that game and we were literally hanging on at the end. I agree he didn't seem as impactful last year as in 2023, but the whole defense struggled last year.

I don’t think anyone is questioning that the Bills paid two second rounders picks. What everyone is saying is that those two picks (plus a 4th) got back more than just TJ. It got back TJ, pick 72, and a 7th. You keep arguing against a trade that didn’t happen-two seconds for TJ as though the other picks aren’t included. why are you doing that?

TJ Sanders and the 72 pick cost pick 56 and pick 62. Every trade can sound bad if you don’t count everything you get back.

I really try to be respectful, but your statement absolves me of that responsibility. So thank you. Obviously you can read since you are on a message board. It’s comprehension (which really is the main point of reading) where you struggle. Or you’re just a snarky jerk. I listed a second question. I also explained (patiently) that my point is NOT about what I believe regarding the truth of the allegations made against Wiley. My argument is about whether we should be able to ask questions about those questions-whether it is one, two, or one hundred. It’s obvious that you don’t think we should ask any questions, we should just believe whatever allegations are thrown out. I suppose that is much easier to live that way than it is to have to think and examine things critically. So explain to me again why we should accept the allegations made against Matt Araiza.

Well first off, to me why wait 30 years is a huge question. Let’s not just dismiss that. It’s like saying besides the eyewitnesses and DNA, what evidence do you have that I committed the murder? Why a civil trial, where you can be awarded money and have a lower burden of proof than a criminal trial where Wiley could actually face jail time? Thats really it. I don’t have 100 questions. I don’t need 100 questions because my point isn’t that Wiley is innocent and that these women are liars. My point is about the reaction to even asking these questions…the accusations and name calling against guys who ask them is ridiculous and tantamount to demand to believe the women because of the seriousness of their charges.

Who is saying otherwise? Of course victims of sexual violence should be treated with compassion. That isn’t the question here. The question is whether these women are actually victims of sexual violence just because they say they are. None of us know these women or Wiley. All we know is what they said and what he said. We don’t have any obligation to treat the women as victims or to treat Wiley as an innocent man falsely accused based on their respective say-sos.

Nobody is. I’m crazy. I thought I was called a misogynist and labeled as ignorant for saying there are reasons to be skeptical of the accusations (not even that those accusations are false, just that there are legitimate questions about them that need to be answered), but I was mistaken. Sarcasm aside, the syntax of the words used doesn’t matter. It is obvious that to some people in this chat, there is only one acceptable way to think about this issue and to treat the accusation.

That’s odd. I didn’t think it would be hard to follow. I’ll try again. There was a past similar case to this one discussed on this message board. We know now that the accuser made up that entire account. The people who demanded that the accuser be believed then are demanding the same thing now. Worse, they still accuse anyone who even raises questions about the allegations of all order of misogyny, ignorance, etc.

I will admit I was skeptical of Cosby’s accusers too for many of the same reasons I am skeptical now. I changed my opinion as we learned more about the case-particularly his testimony in his civil case. The lesson from Cosby and Araiza is to be humble, admit we don’t know everything, scrutinize the claims, and learn the facts before we form an opinion. My skepticism about the current claims isn’t my opinion about Wiley’s guilt or innocence, it is just a hurdle that the evidence presented at trial will have to overcome.

You are asking “why wait” as though there are no plausible reasons beside trauma. I’m not saying this is what happened, but it’s what could have happened… Maybe now our culture is full of people predisposed to believe any accusation regardless of the absence of any evidence. And they will shout down and shame anyone who even questions their claims. So the climate is much more conducive to making that claim now. This thread is full of people saying the same things now about people questioning the claims of Wiley’s accuser that they did about people question Matt Araiza’s accuser. Now we KNOW that she wasn’t telling the truth, but if Araiza hadn’t stopped at an ATM that night he could be in jail. It is frustrating because there is no humility or introspection about past rushes to judgement, just more of the same preaching against apostates who even dare to raise questions about these new claims.