Illegal Streaming Site Streameast Taken Down

[Coach Tuesday]

1 hour ago, Simon said:

 

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

 

I mean, fair question, but the slope is beyond slippery.  Who gets to decide which laws to follow?  Without totally derailing this thread (but since a Mod asked the question), it's wild to me that many of the same people in this thread who are defending this particular law-breaking are, in other parts of this very website, defending giving the maximum punishment (and beyond) to sandwich-throwers and illegal border-crossers because "they broke the law and there needs to be consequences."  I mean, who gets to decide these things?  Once everyone gets to decide what laws they will and will not follow, civil society is basically over.  And maybe that's where we are - Luigi Mangione certainly thinks so.

Edited September 3 by Coach Tuesday

[Johnny Bravo]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

 

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...

I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad and I don't expect anyone to change their behavior either. 

 

I do think it is important to label things correctly, and I think that everyone hiding behind euphemisms like corporate greed, etc are just not being real with themselves.  I think that those arguments are all just rationalizations for doing what they want to do regardless of whether it is right or wrong.

 

(And I've NEVER heard the term victimless crime used to describe a situation where the victim is not sympathetic.)

[WotAGuy]

4 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

I mean, fair question, but the slope is beyond slippery.  Who gets to decide which laws to follow?  Without totally derailing this thread (but since a Mod asked the question), it's wild to me that many of the same people in this thread who are defending this particular law-breaking are, in other parts of this very website, defending giving the maximum punishment (and beyond) to sandwich-throwers and illegal border-crossers because "they broke the law and there needs to be consequences."  I mean, who gets to decide these things?  Once everyone gets to decide what laws they will and will not follow, civil society is basically over.  And maybe that's where we are - Luigi Mangione certainly thinks so.

What law is being broken by viewing an illegal stream?

[GunnerBill]

5 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.)

 

So I generally agree. As I said at the start I only ever illegally stream stuff that I cannot access legitimately - which is mainly college football where access to games in the UK is patchy. If there were a college football equivalent of NFL gamepass international I would subscribe without hesitation. 

 

I agree that when some don't pay those that do are essentially subsidising. But I have to say sports broadcasting deals are not a great example of the market operating according to proper market principles. The NFL isn't nor is the Premier League here in the UK. They are very good examples of profiteering. Given free reign I'd regulate the hell out of them and fix the problem. I certainly don't think a two tier solution of those that pay and those that steal is the answer but I do have some sympathy with those who say "sod the billionaires they are just greedy." It's true. They are.

[Coach Tuesday]

9 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So I generally agree. As I said at the start I only ever illegally stream stuff that I cannot access legitimately - which is mainly college football where access to games in the UK is patchy. If there were a college football equivalent of NFL gamepass international I would subscribe without hesitation. 

 

I agree that when some don't pay those that do are essentially subsidising. But I have to say sports broadcasting deals are not a great example of the market operating according to proper market principles. The NFL isn't nor is the Premier League here in the UK. They are very good examples of profiteering. Given free reign I'd regulate the hell out of them and fix the problem. I certainly don't think a two tier solution of those that pay and those that steal is the answer but I do have some sympathy with those who say "sod the billionaires they are just greedy." It's true. They are.

 

Oh I agree with that too.  It's a monopoly propped up by taxpayers.  But you know who can do something about that if they want to?  Your elected representatives...

10 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

What law is being broken by viewing an illegal stream?

 

By viewing?  No criminal laws but definitely civil copyright laws.  By facilitating, hosting, etc.?  Several big criminal ones.

Edited September 3 by Coach Tuesday

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Oh I agree with that too.  It's a monopoly propped up by taxpayers.  But you know who can do something about that if they want to?  Your elected representatives...

 

 

Ha. Yep. Although increasingly they are less powerful than the big media companies. I won't share the full story here but I have personal experience of even when elected representatives think a regulatory measure on a media or social media giant is a good idea they can easily be frightened out of it by the power that they weild now. It's a long term concern for democracy.... but going further down that rabbit hole is definitely for PPP!

[WotAGuy]

10 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Oh I agree with that too.  It's a monopoly propped up by taxpayers.  But you know who can do something about that if they want to?  Your elected representatives...

 

By viewing?  No criminal laws but definitely civil copyright laws.  By facilitating, hosting, etc.?  Several big criminal ones.

You sure about that?

[HomeskillitMoorman]

2 hours ago, Johnny Bravo said:

"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.

 

Because that last part does change things. I understand what you're saying but I do think there's a level of egregiousness happening here that is sending more people in this direction...but I also get that at least a chunk of people would be doing it anyway. 

 

Someone just made a post in this thread mentioning Luigi...some of that is that it's pretty tough to fight back. It's not the same obviously because this is a luxury and healthcare isn't...but in the context of this, you're depriving yourself of something you enjoy if you just abstain from it. So people see finding illegal streams to watch for free as the mode to fight back. 

[Buffalo Boy]

Man, six pages read and I feel edified about all things moral and not…..

yay

I stopped DirecTV when the ticket went to YouTubeTV. I tried to get it on YTTV with their sign up deal and got absolutely screwed.

I feel zero moral failure from watching the games the way I choose to now.

The NFL has become quite unlikable and I truly want to win a SB so I can phase it out of my life like many other things that have just gone wrong in this country.

PS: Let’s revisit this subject in two seasons after a bunch of you have gotten a taste of the new tax payer funded stadium ticket and concession prices🤔

[HomeskillitMoorman]

46 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

I mean, fair question, but the slope is beyond slippery.  Who gets to decide which laws to follow?  Without totally derailing this thread (but since a Mod asked the question), it's wild to me that many of the same people in this thread who are defending this particular law-breaking are, in other parts of this very website, defending giving the maximum punishment (and beyond) to sandwich-throwers and illegal border-crossers because "they broke the law and there needs to be consequences."  I mean, who gets to decide these things?  Once everyone gets to decide what laws they will and will not follow, civil society is basically over.  And maybe that's where we are - Luigi Mangione certainly thinks so.

 

That hypocrisy you mentioned definitely exists, I wouldn't even deny that. I think all or mostly all people want to in some ways be the gatekeepers on what's OK to follow and what isn't based on what we think is legitimate. 

 

There is a danger, as which happened with Luigi and sympathy for him that followed...where people get to this point if they keep getting pushed around. Again as I mentioned to someone else, watching NFL games is obviously a luxury and not a necessity like healthcare so it's way different, but people are going to try to find ways around the system when it feels like it's futile to fight back the "right way". 

 

Also not to derail this but I helped someone I knew that was older set up a lawsuit in Florida (I assume it's probably like this in most states) against a health insurance company to fight back the "right way" and they make it really difficult to do it. They have the State on their side in making it difficult. You have to file a dispute with the State, you have to get a certificate from a doctor among other things and this person would not have been able to do all that themselves and couldn't afford an attorney until one finally took the case a little later on. But it's all by design, they want you to give up and just accept it. 

 

That's a long-winded way to say I think it's a two-way street. Maybe it's not the best way to say it...but they're kind of asking for it. 

Edited September 3 by HomeskillitMoorman

[RobbRiddick]

Noooooooooo! BIG_BAZOOKA_BOOBIES is gone?

 

Oh never mind

[Freak-O]

Where I am I can watch the NFL, UFC, MLB, NHL, NBA and most soccer leagues live streamed on betting sites. Not great quality, but free and good enough if watched on phone. 

[Your Brown Eye]

I go after mom and pop stores. F your livelihood if you think you are going to charge me 30% more than Home Depot because it's a "family-owned business". I'll buy this hammer, but I'll pocket some nuts and bolts when you aren't looking.

[Bockeye]

7 hours ago, Bockeye said:

Ha!  

 

All musicians music should be free anyway, going to be AI soon enough.  People like Taylor Swift and others gig people for TONS of $$.  

I stated above tongue in cheek as I’m certain everyone that gave a thumbs down to my post would agree that streaming is stealing. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.  No one is forcing you to watch the NFL. Same as restaurants - if the food is awesome, but the price is too high, just keep on walking.  

Edited September 3 by Bockeye

[BullBuchanan]

3 hours ago, Johnny Bravo said:

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.

Greed is about power and the ability to exploit. You can't be "greedy" without it. Greed isn't about making an extra 1%. It's about destroying anything in your path to make that extra 1%. You can see this first-hand at any fortune 500 company.

There's no magical dollar value associated with greed, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the dollar value, and everything to do with what an entity will do to get it.
 

[finn]

6 hours ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

To this point, one of the things that has come out of released NFL documents is that the league has had several opportunities to move to host their own affordable and legal streaming service. Hell, they operate NFL+ and stream Redzone. We know they have the capacity.

 

They don't want to do it. They want their product to be a premium subscription like HBO and conveniently seem to miss how that's going right now

 

Honestly, I've made my peace with it for now. I know I evangelize NFL+ Premium, but I legitimately enjoy the radio stream more than some of the TV announcers and matched with RedZone I sometimes actually feel like I know what's happening better.

 

I'm looking at less than a third of games at the 1 pm slot, and the Bills are a major draw at the 4 pm time not to mention all the primetime. I don't *need* to pirate right now

 

But I'm not going to say boo to anyone who does 

So I can watch the Bills every Sunday with NFL+ premium? (I live in Maine and the "home team" is the Pats*)

[Westside Madness]

Obviously it depends on the details, but outside of "here just click this link" pirating, I see it as an activity that requires some skill, knowledge and a willingness to keep current as in most cases, a pirated service for shows, movies, sports isnt simply a one and done ordeal. I feel likel my saving some level of $ due to my skill, knowledge, and willingness to stick with it (changing software, updating software, having the correct ISP, premium billing changing countries) is fair. Such a small % of the population have these attributes that like with most large companies, there is always an expected margin of write off.

 

There are times that out of convenience, I will simply pay for services. The last few years I turn on Hulu Live TV for the football season as it covers most games. Hell, at times I will hook up my 3 foot wide antennae so I dont havw the delay (I live less than a mile and a half from the stadium).

 

And one of, if not the most beneficial reasons I have my set up, is to access old stuff. If you want to watch all of Star Trek: Next Gen right now, you can find it after some hunting. I type in the search bar.

 

Not without it's own investment costs. I have multiple media PCs set up around the house at $350 a pop. I have to avoid certain ISPs who tattle *cough*Spectrum*cough*. I also pay an offshore 'company' for premium sourcing. Then of course all the PC maintinence and reconfigurations when Interpol get lucky.

 

I am in the write off margin. Technically not, as I appears as simply a non-customer. I grew up poor and watched Adelphia --> Spectrum just rip people off for half my life. I also do not share/teach/provide to others. The more that can do the thing, the wider the margin gets.

 

I believe I have written this in a way that does not offend the terms of service of the site. No links and no info that could be used to do illegal things, but if I have that wrong, please delete.

Edited September 3 by Westside Madness

[HappyDays]

8 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Again, I know that a prevailing world view now is that if you pay full price you're a sucker.  Times have changed.

 

I still don't really understand what happened that made everyone so entitled. Back in the day it was well established that you would pay for albums, you would pay for magazine and newspaper subscriptions, etc. You would have been considered a nutjob if you publicly advocated for stealing that stuff at your own pleasure. But today that is the default position. People get angry at 2 minute ad reads in the middle of a free podcast. I guess the modern opinion is that entertainers should do their work for free and feel lucky to have an audience. So I'm with you on this 100%. But there's no stopping the wave now.

 

Edited September 4 by HappyDays

[WotAGuy]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I still don't really understand what happened that made everyone so entitled. Back in the day it was well established that you would pay for albums, you would pay for magazine and newspaper subscriptions, etc. You would have been considered a nutjob if you publicly advocated for stealing that stuff at your own pleasure. But today that is the default position. People get angry at 2 minute ad reads in the middle of a free podcast. I guess the modern opinion is that entertainers should do their work for free and feel lucky to have an audience. So I'm with you on this 100%. But there's no stopping the wave now.

 

Back in the day there wasn’t an easy way to access products online like there is now. I don’t think people have changed as much as the technology has. 
 

There has been more than one generation that was accustomed to getting TV and radio for free, then it became the norm to have to pay for those things, and I think people are still feeling ripped off that those things are no longer free (for the most part). So maybe that plays into the entitled attitude?

[ganesh]

9 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Perhaps the victims are the law-abiders who pay higher prices because others are stealing?  How is it any different from shoplifting from Target?  

I doubt the big corporations are charging paying customers if stealing is going on 

 

corporate greed is at an all time high and if I bet any - they will simply increase the price because they are a monopoly.