Illegal Streaming Site Streameast Taken Down

[Johnny Bravo]

46 minutes ago, Logic said:

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!

 

Agree to disagree about the first part and agree to agree on the second.  Go Bills!!!

[HomeskillitMoorman]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Bravo said:

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.

 

I don't understand how you only see that one way. I do pay for Sunday Ticket, but I don't get all the gazillion apps to be able to catch all the Bills games, I do go to these sites. 

 

Getting all the different apps isn't worth it to me for what they offer, so I take the route to watch them for free on these sites. I don't think they're the victims for that when they're going out of their way to make this more complex than it needs to be. 

[YattaOkasan]

11 minutes ago, Johnny Bravo said:

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.

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.

Watching games on any streaming service is not illegal!  Else Lebron would be in handcuffs for using the service in public.  If you do think its illegal you better be careful your eyes never are exposed to copyrighted material without the consent of the IP owner.  This is obviously impossible which is why watching is not illegal!!!!

Edited September 3 by YattaOkasan

[Johnny Bravo]

53 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

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.

I didn't say they have a mandate to be as greedy as possible.  I said they have a RESPONSIBILITY to maximize return for their investors. 

 

But again, greed is such an interesting word because it is ALWAYS the other guy who is being greedy.  You certainly aren't being greedy when you are negotiating with your employer to maximize your income.  You aren't being greedy when you negotiate with the car dealer to pay as little for your car as possible.  In all cases you are motivated exclusively by altruism and have found the exact sweet spot between being greed and trying to maximze your income and how much of it you keep.

[Captain Hindsight]

3 hours ago, billsfan714 said:

From AI---Robert Kraft did not set the price for Sunday Ticket but testified that the NFL wanted to keep the service a "premium offering" rather than a widely accessible, lower-priced product, as evidenced by the rejected ESPN proposal for a much cheaper package. 

 

Seems pretty clear the owners dont want a cheaper package.  

Kraft does like paying for small packages to be played with 

[Johnny Bravo]

6 minutes ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

 

I don't understand how you only see that one way. I do pay for Sunday Ticket, but I don't get all the gazillion apps to be able to catch all the Bills games, I do go to these sites. 

 

Getting all the different apps isn't worth it to me for what they offer, so I take the route to watch them for free on these sites. I don't think they're the victims for that when they're going out of their way to make this more complex than it needs to be. 

"Getting all the different apps isn't worth it to me for what they offer, so I take the route to watch them for free on these sites."

 

Let's be a little more clear with our language.  "Getting all the different apps isn't worth it to me for what they offer, so I watch them on illegal streams so I don't have to pay."

 

I'm not trying to be some moralizing crusader here.  If people were just honest and would say the truth.  that they want something but don't feel like they should have to pay, I'd leave it alone.  Its the supporting arguments about how they are justified in doing wrong because of greed, or whatever that I find so bothersome.

[Big Turk]

3 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

sportsurge has all of them, but I actually pay for my streams now because I can get every sporting event in the world, and I like Australian Rules football and snooker. Trying to figure out Cricket too, but it's pretty confusing.

 

It's like baseball except you only run 2 bases, you can hit the ball in any direction and there are more people and the field is bigger. And the games can literally go on for a week 🤣

 

 

Edited September 3 by Big Turk

[Billy Claude]

The NFL is purely demand driven.  The reality is that the only way prices go down is if people don't pay because either they don't watch or watch illegally.  So the illegal streaming services lower the legal prices, not the opposite.

[Firstandgoal]

FYI, from Reddit info, it's not actually down and is still up and running.

[WotAGuy]

When I watch streams for free, I’m just getting a refund on those tax dollars I didn’t want to pay for a stadium to a billionaire for his team to play in. 

3 minutes ago, Firstandgoal said:

FYI, from Reddit info, it's not actually down and is still up and running.

I saw that too, but many of those posts about it being up and running are from last year when Streameast was beginning to be shut down. 
 

I think they went after the biggest streamer in hopes it would send a message, as opposed to actually limiting piracy. The NFL is probably the source of much of the malware on those sites anyway 🤣

[Simon]

14 minutes ago, Johnny Bravo said:

I'm not trying to be some moralizing crusader here.

 

It just comes naturally?

 

 

[Mikie2times]

4 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Again, whatever folks need to tell themselves to justify STEALING, good for them.  If you don't think that consumers are footing the bill for enhanced security measures, subscription bleed, etc., you're totally delusional IMO.  Just because you can't see all of the measures taken w/r/t digital content (as opposed to the fiberglass locking shelves at CVS, etc.), doesn't mean that expensive measures aren't being implemented.  And those of us who pay full freight are paying for them.  (Again, I know that a prevailing world view now is that if you pay full price you're a sucker.  Times have changed.)

 

It's like trolling a Ravens fan on a Bills message board. It doesn't even register on my moral radar. 

[Simon]

 

In a civil society, at what point are we longer obligated to treat the unethical ethically?

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, BullBuchanan said:

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.

 

The whole fiduciary responsibility thing is also not a mandate to do ***** business practices to make a little more money in the short term at the possible expense of business health longer term. Often times companies use that justification for ***** business practices that juice profits short term but damage the business longer term because the executives at the top are just raiding the business for a few years trying to squeeze out their excessive salaries. 

 

But in reality the mandate to make as much money as possible while true also has no time frame. You are perfectly justifiable in giving up a little bit of short term gains in order to secure longer term health for your brand/business. So the idea that companies having to make as much money as possible justifies every short sighted thing they do is just factually wrong and often times poor business.

[billsfan89]

43 minutes ago, Johnny Bravo said:

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.

 

 

You are being very much purposefully dense. The term victimless crime is often used to describe a crime where a victim either non-existent literally or the victim is a non-sympathetic figure. The NFL in this case is the victim but they aren't really a sympathetic victim of piracy for game streaming. If you want to say wrong is wrong, fine, but I think that argument is going to fall on deaf ears because the crime's victim isn't a sympathetic victim given that those who legally buy the product aren't paying more for it as a result of piracy. 

 

If you want to make someone feel bad because they watch a regional Bills game illegally because the poor owners should get more money then go ahead and make that argument...

[Roundybout]

 

[Dan]

Here’s another point… “people” typically say let the market decide.  If you don’t want to pay for something or don’t like the practices of a company, don’t give them your money.  If enough people do that… the company will have to change their business model to win you back. 
 

so millions of people don’t like the price of paying for 10 or 12 different streaming services and are speaking with their voice and finding an alternative.  Rather than the NFL changing their practice, or working with different streaming services to lower the cost, they choose to go to the authorities and shut down any competition for their services.  
 

Honestly, I use a lot of the free streaming sites just because I’m too lazy to look up which channel which service which thing I need (and I already have most) to download on my phone each week to see a game.  It’s just so much easier to go to a free site and watch some of the Thursday night game or whatever night it is before I turn it off because the referee screwed the team over.  
 

so why would argue for some people it’s not about money it’s just about ease.  The NFL is making it practically impossible to watch all their games.  

[BillsVet]

1 hour ago, Simon said:

 

In a civil society, at what point are we longer obligated to treat the unethical ethically?

 

A civil society without commonly held values trends toward legalism in outlining ethical standards.  And legalism alone won't hold together long enough when debates like this surface.  

 

In this case, just saying that these NFL game streams is wrong because the law says so can get into the mud like it is here.  And that's because the issue of taking a product for free isn't considered along any moral lines by a larger cross-section of people.  We're so fragmented on that it's never going anywhere, so we go back to the legalist framework which inevitably leads to people trying to justify something or make a case that it's not legal.   

[WotAGuy]

It seems to have come down to this: those that see viewing illegal streams as “stealing” and morally wrong, while everyone else has a rationalization for “stealing” and viewing the illegal streams.

We get it.
Can we get back to suggesting replacement illegal streams now?

[Johnny Bravo]

1 hour ago, Simon said:

 

In a civil society, at what point are we longer obligated to treat the unethical ethically?

Never.  And who, and by what standard, judges who or what is unethical and therefore disserving of mistreatment?

Edited September 3 by Johnny Bravo