Illegal Streaming Site Streameast Taken Down

[Virgil]

3 hours ago, Brand J said:

There are still many more, but Streameast was always a go to.

 

Such as....😇

[Johnny Bravo]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The NFL Turned down more money from ESPN for the NFL Sunday Ticket Package because ESPN wanted to charge less for it and offer single team offers. I'm not gonna say that piracy is the moral thing to do but I am also not going to say that piracy leads to consumers paying more because the NFL actively took less money to make sure the price stays higher. 

So what?  Does the NFL’s decision then make it okay for you to take something that you didn’t pay for?

[HomeskillitMoorman]

2 hours ago, Logic said:

You're not paying higher prices because others are stealing.

You're paying higher prices because of corporate greed, which would exist with or without piracy.

 

Right, and I could have more sympathy if they weren't so outwardly gouging us. 

 

Like if you just bought Sunday Ticket and got all the games instead of having to have like 8 different apps to actually be able to watch all your teams games or even just the ones you want, I could probably get there. 

 

But what they're doing, charging the amounts they are and on top of it making it this complicated, I fully support the piracy sites. 

[Johnny Bravo]

1 hour ago, Dick_Cheney said:

It is genuinely sad to see people defending corporations in the year 2025 because "stealing is bad no matter what."

 

Get real. How do those boots taste?

It even worse to see people taking what they want without paying for it without an ounce of shame.  In fact, they not only are devoid of shame, but they talk about their theft in moral terms as though they are bravely standing up against some form of injustice rather than just simply seeking to satisfy their desire to watch Bills games for free.

 

its really pathetic and symptomatic of much larger societal issues.

[HomeskillitMoorman]

2 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

LOL ok.  

 

Yeah I get that this is a prevailing view these days - theft from big companies is fine because they're greedy.  I don't agree that it's fine, nor do I agree that it's victimless, but again, I understand that it's a commonly-held core belief now.

 

Because they're so egregiously taking advantage of us. If they wanted to both make money and do right by the fans, they would consolidate this whole thing into just Sunday Ticket. This mess they've created of how to actually watch all the games you want to is in your face proof of how much they want to gouge us. 

 

That core belief is bred from their actions and intentions. 

[billsfan89]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Bravo said:

So what?  Does the NFL’s decision then make it okay for you to take something that you didn’t pay for?

 

I never said it was OK, if you read back at what I said the idea that piracy drives up the price of Sunday Ticket is not really valid because the NFL turned down more money to keep the price higher. That if piracy were made magically impossible that it would result in lower prices is simply not accurate. Piracy is stealing but the victim is the NFL not the paying customer. 

[Johnny Bravo]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I never said it was OK, if you read back at what I said the idea that piracy drives up the price of Sunday Ticket is not really valid because the NFL turned down more money to keep the price higher. That if piracy were made magically impossible that it would result in lower prices is simply not accurate. Piracy is stealing but the victim is the NFL not the paying customer. 

Again, so what?  How do any of these points you are making justify someone watching NFL games they haven’t paid for.

 

if you are saying it doesn’t justify that behavior,  then it doesn’t matter whether or not prices go up, go down or stay the same as a result of that theft.  It’s an interesting side discussion, but doesn’t change the fundamental thrust of the point that you were responding to…that people who watch NFL games they haven’t paid for are stealing and stealing is wrong-even when stealing from a corporation.

[Roundybout]

18 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

Such as....😇

You’ll have to take a CRACK at finding STREAMS yourself. The NFL likes to take a BITE out of the pirate streams. 

[billsfan89]

1 minute ago, Johnny Bravo said:

Again, so what?  How do any of these points you are making justify someone watching NFL games they haven’t paid for.

 

if you are saying it doesn’t justify that behavior,  then it doesn’t matter whether or not prices go up, go down or stay the same as a result of that theft.  It’s an interesting side discussion, but doesn’t change the fundamental thrust of the point that you were responding to…that people who watch NFL games they haven’t paid for are stealing and stealing is wrong-even when stealing from a corporation.

 

The argument was being made the piracy was a victimless crime (that the only victim is the NFL) and others were saying that the victims are the paying customers who have to pay more because people steal (linking it to shoplifting). My counter was that the NFL turning down more money to keep the price higher disproves that. The cost of piracy is not passed onto the consumer is just a fact in this instance. 

 

Thus the only person you are really stealing from is the NFL and the argument that it is a victimless crime is valid. Overall, I link piracy of the NFL's events to telling a kid a lie about something to spare their feelings. Is lying wrong? Yeah technically, but is it a big deal in every instance? No. If you want to say that stealing under no circumstances is right even if there is no actual victim then go ahead. I just don't think this is really one of those instances. 

[BullBuchanan]

46 minutes ago, Johnny Bravo said:

What is the difference between greed and seeking to maximize profits (which every publically traded corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders-like me and everyone else who owns their stocks either individually or through indexes, mutual funds, retirement accounts, etc-to do)?

 

Please be precise and explain the exact dollar amount they start being greedy and I and other shareholders should be okay with them not trying to maximize return on our investments l.

 

I’m being facetious of course because you cant do it.  People who complain about greed use the term to describe a feeling they have towards other people.  They themselves are never greedy of course-that is always a crime committed exclusively by others.

As someone that works in corporate and has 100% of my NW in stocks, this is all bull####. Just because a corporation has a fiduciary mandate to be as greedy as possible doesn't give them moral carte blanche. Also, you thinking that share value has anything to do with prices and corporate policy just shows you don't even understand the market.

Edited September 3 by BullBuchanan

[Logic]

39 minutes ago, Johnny Bravo said:

What is the difference between greed and seeking to maximize profits (which every publically traded corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders-like me and everyone else who owns their stocks either individually or through indexes, mutual funds, retirement accounts, etc-to do)?

 

This is where I tell you that I see end stage free market capitalism as a hideous medley of crass materialism, brazen greed, and the prioritization of profits over the good of human beings, and that one need only walk down the street of any major city, talk to any struggling family, listen to any medical procedure cost horror story, or look at the profit margins of any billionaire to see that the unchecked and voracious financial appetites of money-obsessed corporations and the politicians who enable them is destroying this country and its people from the inside out.

And then you tell me that I must be come kind of anarchist or communist, and that I should take my pinko propaganda to the PPP, and "America, love it or leave it". And some of the things that I said and some of the things that you said are probably true, but not all of them in either case.

Now let's shake hands and agree that we probably disagree wildly on a lot of things other than Bills football, and then stick to that instead.

Go Bills!

 

[Delete_Delete_Delete]

3 hours ago, Logic said:

I remember when they shut down Napster and it ended illegal music downloading forever!

Thanks god for Lars Ulrich single handedly saving music…

[ChronicAndKnuckles]

3 hours ago, WotAGuy said:

See you in hell buddy!  🤣🤣

Dofu was great; only one pop up to navigate and had a nice iPhone app. Looking for a replacement. I found Streameast to be too annoying with all the ads. 

DOFU app was amazing. You could get links to games right on YouTube. Sometimes they would crash, but beggars can’t be choosers. It was a lifesaver when I moved out of New York and no longer had MSG for Knicks/Sabers games. 
 

As far as the original topic… as someone posted before, there will be 5 more sites to take its place. If I have the money I will most definitely pay like I am this year, but I don’t see anything wrong w/ streaming if you can’t afford it. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

31 minutes ago, Delete_Delete_Delete said:

Thanks god for Lars Ulrich single handedly saving music…

underrated post

 

[YattaOkasan]

2 hours ago, Metal Man said:

The mistake many make in these piracy debates is counting the pirated content as lost revenue.

 

If piracy ceased to exist 100% of those who pirated would not instantly start paying for the content.

 

Honestly how much is lost if peeps are still seeing ads. I get that subscription fees are big revenue now but if I’m watching a live event that has ads broadcast from an illegal stream or through a legal one what is the difference. I’m just as likely to purchase the product and thus the value of the ad during the event is agnostic of the service that provided it. 

[Breakout Squad]

2 hours ago, Bullfrog said:

Sadly everyone wants more money. I make mid 40k and I don't have the cash to pay for all these subscriptions. I wish my pay went up like the nfl does. 

I am not saying stealing is right. I am just saying I get why people are doing it.

Heck the grocery store gets me for $200-$250:every week for the family. Everything is skyrocketing.

Billionaires don't know these problems.

Amen brother! Same salary give or take. It’s hard out there. I cannot believe how expensive steak has gotten too. Never noticed food prices like I do now 

[TheBrownBear]

I use the site somewhat regularly, because I do not value the content enough to pay for it. (I pay for the NFL+ app and just watch the games as soon as they conclude). Most of the time I'll use a site like StreamEast for a game or event that I'm only moderately interested in (say, the odd baseball or college football game). Now that's it's shut down, I just won't watch it.  I'm guessing that's the case for the majority of streamers. 

[YattaOkasan]

1 minute ago, Breakout Squad said:

Amen brother! Same salary give or take. It’s hard out there. I cannot believe how expensive steak has gotten too. Never noticed food prices like I do now 

Moral versus ethical challenge here.  Its not ethical to host a stream of a game illegally (watching for obvious reasons is totally legal but dont tell johnny bravo) but could be moral to many (robinhood scenario).  Laughing as people tell me how to be moral.  not your place.  

[Johnny Bravo]

59 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The argument was being made the piracy was a victimless crime (that the only victim is the NFL) and others were saying that the victims are the paying customers who have to pay more because people steal (linking it to shoplifting). My counter was that the NFL turning down more money to keep the price higher disproves that. The cost of piracy is not passed onto the consumer is just a fact in this instance. 

 

Thus the only person you are really stealing from is the NFL and the argument that it is a victimless crime is valid. Overall, I link piracy of the NFL's events to telling a kid a lie about something to spare their feelings. Is lying wrong? Yeah technically, but is it a big deal in every instance? No. If you want to say that stealing under no circumstances is right even if there is no actual victim then go ahead. I just don't think this is really one of those instances. 

You literally said there is a victim when you said the only one being stolen from is the NFL.  The NFL is the victim of this stealing.  Now you might say they are unsympathetic victims or that the owners have enough money, but people who stream illegally are enjoying the owner's product and not paying them for it.

1 hour ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

 

Because they're so egregiously taking advantage of us. If they wanted to both make money and do right by the fans, they would consolidate this whole thing into just Sunday Ticket. This mess they've created of how to actually watch all the games you want to is in your face proof of how much they want to gouge us. 

 

That core belief is bred from their actions and intentions. 

They aren't taking advantage of you.  If the Sunday Ticket isn't worth the price they charge for the service they offer, then don't buy it.  But then don't tur around and watch the games illegally.

 

I will never understand this desire some people have to see themselves as victims or as being screwed over somehow just because they can't have everything they want.

[YattaOkasan]

This thread really needs to clarify that watching a stream is not illegal.  Hosting (thus distributing content) is.  If you download copyrighted content onto your device (thus taking undo ownership) that is also illegal.  Thats why they hit the streamers and not the viewers.