Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

TV packages

I don't watch that much tv anymore so bye bye sky. I don't want the standard channels, any recommendations, Netflix, Amazon etc?
«1

Comments

  • Now TV do an okay package.

    £17.99 line rental, £9.99 for Entertainment Sky channels and all other freeview channels. Including box sets etc. also includes your internet (standard broadband price is above) on no contract. I'll be switching over to this once BT is over.
  • edited August 2016
    forget about looking at the tv part of any package. just go with whoever offers the best internet speed/price combo for your area and take the most basic tv with them if you want to watch and record live tv. then spend 20 pounds on a firestick, stick Kodi on it and have everything you could ever want to watch. I would have gone with now tv but their download speeds are poor in my area so virgin wins
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    rina said:

    forget about looking at the tv part of any package. just go with whoever offers the best internet speed/price combo for your area and take the most basic tv with them if you want to watch and record live tv. then spend 20 pounds on a firestick, stick Kodi on it and have everything you could ever want to watch. I would have gone with now tv but their download speeds are poor in my area so virgin wins

    So to sum up, steal all content and hope enough other people pay for it so you can keep stealing it?
    Do you still work for sky? ;)
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    rina said:

    forget about looking at the tv part of any package. just go with whoever offers the best internet speed/price combo for your area and take the most basic tv with them if you want to watch and record live tv. then spend 20 pounds on a firestick, stick Kodi on it and have everything you could ever want to watch. I would have gone with now tv but their download speeds are poor in my area so virgin wins

    So to sum up, steal all content and hope enough other people pay for it so you can keep stealing it?
    If it wasn't so ridiculously overpriced then people wouldn't feel the need to do it.
    I've just about had enough of Sky. We seem to get a letter from them every other month, telling us that some part of our package is going up in price. I don't see why I should be paying for the stupid wages/transfer fees in the Premier League, when Sky is showing less and less football.
    I'll be ringing them to see what deal I can get and, if not satisfied, I'll be cancelling everything.
    Agree on the sneaky price increases - even if you agree 6-12 months at a price.
  • edited August 2016
    I keep banging on about this, but I'm chuffed to fuck with my set up. I use a Roku box, although I imagine the Amazon Fire offering is just as good.

    I use this set up for 2 TVs in my flat, as well as my mothers TV at her house - where I've set the exact same system up. I was paying around £60 for TalkTalk with their YouView box and I've got a better deal now that covers 3 TVs for a quarter of the price. That's without a contract too.

    £7.50 for Netflix is a steal, there's some quality movies on there - but also some documentaries and TV series. (A lot of ex-BBC stuff too)

    I then pay another £7 for NowTV for £7 a month, no contract. This gets me:

    - Sky 1
    - Sky Living
    - Sky Atlantic
    - Sky Arts
    - ITV Encore
    - Fox
    - Gold
    - Comedy Central
    - MTV
    - Discovery Channel
    - Nat Geo Wild
    - ABC

    It's a pretty decent selection of channels, but the real beauty is the amount of On Demand stuff - complete boxsets etc. Plus if there's any decent football or sports on, you can buy a daypass for Sky Sports.

    Lastly, I have 4OD, ITV Player, iPlayer, Youtube and some other stuff installed (for free) on my Roku box. You could get a NowTV box - it's exactly the same as the Roku 3 but cheaper and branded by Sky. Unfortunately Sky block the ability to install Netflix etc though, so you lose most of the features.

    If you like your sports, switch to BT Broadband and they're doing BT Sports for a fiver at the moment - not sure when it increases and how much it increases too though.
  • Oh, another thing though - if you go the route of using the internet for your TV, remember you'll be using a lot of data. So make sure you get an unlimited broadband package, I think mine with BT costs £23 p/month, but £18 of that is Line Rental.

    If you don't mind not having a landline, I think it's cheaper to get Fiber Optic internet now - as you automatically lose the £18 p/m line rental fee.
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    C_A_F_C said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    rina said:

    forget about looking at the tv part of any package. just go with whoever offers the best internet speed/price combo for your area and take the most basic tv with them if you want to watch and record live tv. then spend 20 pounds on a firestick, stick Kodi on it and have everything you could ever want to watch. I would have gone with now tv but their download speeds are poor in my area so virgin wins

    So to sum up, steal all content and hope enough other people pay for it so you can keep stealing it?
    Do you still work for sky? ;)
    Just about! I work for Sky Cinema. And if I didn't get it all as part of my salary, I wouldn't pay for Sky Cinema (unless I was on amazing money). I watch my movies through Store mostly. And Netflix can fill a back catalogue hole.

    But I don't feel as though I have a God given right to be able to watch movies and TV shows. I don't pretend that, because I can't afford it, the only alternative is to steal it, while blaming the rights holders for daring to make money.

    There are so many options (as Lucky Reds explains above) that I don't think it's necessary to go down the Kodi route.

    Kodi users tend to bemoan the astronomic, unfair prices. But I think that's an excuse to hide behind. I'll never be an Amazon Prime customer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pirate their content any more than I'm going to break into their warehouses to get an immediate delivery.
    You don't have to hide behind anything as it is not illegal. It is not just daring to make money though is is it, distributors use physical and geographical location as a way to exploit people when they are not constrained by such things in the age of digital distribution. While they continue to deny my access to other markets I will not use the system they impose on me. If I wanted to but a can of coke I could order it from this country or another, why are they allowed to block me from doing this just because of where I live? How many other companies control the distribution once they have sold it to their retailers?
  • Sponsored links:


  • I was in Cyprus in the Summer and a mate who lives out there gets all the Sky channels, BT Sport and loads of other stuff for twenty-odd euros a month. He uses a Mag 150 box (I think) which provides IPTV over broadband and it's all legit. I think the box was 150 euros. Why do we pay the best part of £100 a month for similar?
  • edited August 2016

    JiMMy 85 said:

    C_A_F_C said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    rina said:

    forget about looking at the tv part of any package. just go with whoever offers the best internet speed/price combo for your area and take the most basic tv with them if you want to watch and record live tv. then spend 20 pounds on a firestick, stick Kodi on it and have everything you could ever want to watch. I would have gone with now tv but their download speeds are poor in my area so virgin wins

    So to sum up, steal all content and hope enough other people pay for it so you can keep stealing it?
    Do you still work for sky? ;)
    Just about! I work for Sky Cinema. And if I didn't get it all as part of my salary, I wouldn't pay for Sky Cinema (unless I was on amazing money). I watch my movies through Store mostly. And Netflix can fill a back catalogue hole.

    But I don't feel as though I have a God given right to be able to watch movies and TV shows. I don't pretend that, because I can't afford it, the only alternative is to steal it, while blaming the rights holders for daring to make money.

    There are so many options (as Lucky Reds explains above) that I don't think it's necessary to go down the Kodi route.

    Kodi users tend to bemoan the astronomic, unfair prices. But I think that's an excuse to hide behind. I'll never be an Amazon Prime customer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pirate their content any more than I'm going to break into their warehouses to get an immediate delivery.
    You don't have to hide behind anything as it is not illegal. It is not just daring to make money though is is it, distributors use physical and geographical location as a way to exploit people when they are not constrained by such things in the age of digital distribution. While they continue to deny my access to other markets I will not use the system they impose on me. If I wanted to but a can of coke I could order it from this country or another, why are they allowed to block me from doing this just because of where I live? How many other companies control the distribution once they have sold it to their retailers?
    Illegal is debatable. But it is certianly unlawful. And unsustainable. Nobody has been prosecuted for receiving the end product, but that's not quite the same as it being legal. FACT are more interested in taking down those who are supplying the content, most definitely illegally. It's a profi-making venture for criminals involved in a variety of other, far more immoral endeavours.

    Also, exactly how are you/ we being exploited?


    While they continue to deny my access to other markets

    Deny your access? Are you serious? I deny you access to my home - are you going to bust in because you've decided you should have access?

    allowed to block me

    Honestly, to me, you sound like you have a huge sense of self-entitlement. It's their content. Can you give me a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to decide which territories receive the stuff they pay to make? Sky don't operate in the US, so of course you need local rights. Amazon or Netflix would have a monopoly on movies across the world, no?

    There are a couple of posters on here who are involved in film distribution, and watching their stuff on illegal streams has a HUGE effect on their success, and subsequent ability to produce more interesting, low-to-mid range budget films. Sure, using Kodi to watch Civil War won't dent Disney or their billion dollar receipts, but then again I'd rather see more mid-budget movies. But Kodi fucks those filmmakers over.
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    C_A_F_C said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    rina said:

    forget about looking at the tv part of any package. just go with whoever offers the best internet speed/price combo for your area and take the most basic tv with them if you want to watch and record live tv. then spend 20 pounds on a firestick, stick Kodi on it and have everything you could ever want to watch. I would have gone with now tv but their download speeds are poor in my area so virgin wins

    So to sum up, steal all content and hope enough other people pay for it so you can keep stealing it?
    Do you still work for sky? ;)
    Just about! I work for Sky Cinema. And if I didn't get it all as part of my salary, I wouldn't pay for Sky Cinema (unless I was on amazing money). I watch my movies through Store mostly. And Netflix can fill a back catalogue hole.

    But I don't feel as though I have a God given right to be able to watch movies and TV shows. I don't pretend that, because I can't afford it, the only alternative is to steal it, while blaming the rights holders for daring to make money.

    There are so many options (as Lucky Reds explains above) that I don't think it's necessary to go down the Kodi route.

    Kodi users tend to bemoan the astronomic, unfair prices. But I think that's an excuse to hide behind. I'll never be an Amazon Prime customer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pirate their content any more than I'm going to break into their warehouses to get an immediate delivery.
    You don't have to hide behind anything as it is not illegal. It is not just daring to make money though is is it, distributors use physical and geographical location as a way to exploit people when they are not constrained by such things in the age of digital distribution. While they continue to deny my access to other markets I will not use the system they impose on me. If I wanted to but a can of coke I could order it from this country or another, why are they allowed to block me from doing this just because of where I live? How many other companies control the distribution once they have sold it to their retailers?
    Illegal is debatable. But it is certianly unlawful. And unsustainable. Nobody has been prosecuted for receiving the end product, but that's not quite the same as it being legal. FACT are more interested in taking down those who are supplying the content, most definitely illegally. It's a profi-making venture for criminals involved in a variety of other, far more immoral endeavours.

    Also, exactly how are you/ we being exploited?


    While they continue to deny my access to other markets

    Deny your access? Are you serious? I deny you access to my home - are you going to bust in because you've decided you should have access?

    allowed to block me

    Honestly, to me, you sound like you have a huge sense of self-entitlement. It's their content. Can you give me a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to decide which territories receive the stuff they pay to make? Sky don't operate in the US, so of course you need local rights. Amazon or Netflix would have a monopoly on movies across the world, no?

    There are a couple of posters on here who are involved in film distribution, and watching their stuff on illegal streams has a HUGE effect on their success, and subsequent ability to produce more interesting, low-to-mid range budget films. Sure, using Kodi to watch Civil War won't dent Disney or their billion dollar receipts, but then again I'd rather see more mid-budget movies. But Kodi fucks those filmmakers over.
    I'm not into stealing but where I think your argument falls down is that in many cases those that 'steal' movies would never buy them so the people that own the rights are not losing out. If they couldn't watch the movies (or TV shows) for free they just wouldn't watch them.

    I'm not suggesting that the rights holders should be grateful for someone that watches a film for free and tells a friend about it, who then pays to see it, but I do think that the 'lost income' argument fails when you are talking about people that either can't afford it or won't pay for it, or both.
  • edited August 2016
    Also, and I'm not being deliberately argumentative (even though I so often am) but would you class those that borrow a DVD from a relative as being in the wrong and taking money away from the makers of content?

    I don't know if they still do but copyright holders used to put something on a Video (or DVD) that said that lending the movie was a copyright infringement.

    Years ago I used to borrow several DVDs from the rental shop (that was a half hours drive away) and copy them all over the weekend and take them back. I, then, used to watch them over the next week or two and then throw the disks away. I always thought that having paid to rent it I was 'morally ok' to watch it at a time that suited me better, and avoid going to the shop six times to watch six films.

    These days I might buy a DVD from the supermarket but I would then sell it on eBay when I'd watched it. Surely that reduces the income the distributor gets, especially if it is sold on eBay a dozen times or more.
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    rina said:

    forget about looking at the tv part of any package. just go with whoever offers the best internet speed/price combo for your area and take the most basic tv with them if you want to watch and record live tv. then spend 20 pounds on a firestick, stick Kodi on it and have everything you could ever want to watch. I would have gone with now tv but their download speeds are poor in my area so virgin wins

    So to sum up, steal all content and hope enough other people pay for it so you can keep stealing it?
    I think this is the case law that says it's not stealing though I may well have linked to the wrong one

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=153302&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=399092

    you may not like it but it isn't stealing
  • edited August 2016

    JiMMy 85 said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    C_A_F_C said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    rina said:

    forget about looking at the tv part of any package. just go with whoever offers the best internet speed/price combo for your area and take the most basic tv with them if you want to watch and record live tv. then spend 20 pounds on a firestick, stick Kodi on it and have everything you could ever want to watch. I would have gone with now tv but their download speeds are poor in my area so virgin wins

    So to sum up, steal all content and hope enough other people pay for it so you can keep stealing it?
    Do you still work for sky? ;)
    Just about! I work for Sky Cinema. And if I didn't get it all as part of my salary, I wouldn't pay for Sky Cinema (unless I was on amazing money). I watch my movies through Store mostly. And Netflix can fill a back catalogue hole.

    But I don't feel as though I have a God given right to be able to watch movies and TV shows. I don't pretend that, because I can't afford it, the only alternative is to steal it, while blaming the rights holders for daring to make money.

    There are so many options (as Lucky Reds explains above) that I don't think it's necessary to go down the Kodi route.

    Kodi users tend to bemoan the astronomic, unfair prices. But I think that's an excuse to hide behind. I'll never be an Amazon Prime customer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pirate their content any more than I'm going to break into their warehouses to get an immediate delivery.
    You don't have to hide behind anything as it is not illegal. It is not just daring to make money though is is it, distributors use physical and geographical location as a way to exploit people when they are not constrained by such things in the age of digital distribution. While they continue to deny my access to other markets I will not use the system they impose on me. If I wanted to but a can of coke I could order it from this country or another, why are they allowed to block me from doing this just because of where I live? How many other companies control the distribution once they have sold it to their retailers?
    Illegal is debatable. But it is certianly unlawful. And unsustainable. Nobody has been prosecuted for receiving the end product, but that's not quite the same as it being legal. FACT are more interested in taking down those who are supplying the content, most definitely illegally. It's a profi-making venture for criminals involved in a variety of other, far more immoral endeavours.

    Also, exactly how are you/ we being exploited?


    While they continue to deny my access to other markets

    Deny your access? Are you serious? I deny you access to my home - are you going to bust in because you've decided you should have access?

    allowed to block me

    Honestly, to me, you sound like you have a huge sense of self-entitlement. It's their content. Can you give me a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to decide which territories receive the stuff they pay to make? Sky don't operate in the US, so of course you need local rights. Amazon or Netflix would have a monopoly on movies across the world, no?

    There are a couple of posters on here who are involved in film distribution, and watching their stuff on illegal streams has a HUGE effect on their success, and subsequent ability to produce more interesting, low-to-mid range budget films. Sure, using Kodi to watch Civil War won't dent Disney or their billion dollar receipts, but then again I'd rather see more mid-budget movies. But Kodi fucks those filmmakers over.
    in many cases those that 'steal' movies would never buy them so the people that own the rights are not losing out. If they couldn't watch the movies (or TV shows) for free they just wouldn't watch them.
    Would you seriously try and use that defence in a court of law? Would you apply it to anything else in life? Let's say your mate gave you the diamonds from a robbery, would you keep them on account of the fact that you wouldn't normally buy diamonds?

    I honestly don't think the argument does fall down, because those streaming content without paying for it are taking work from other people, without paying for it. Their intentions otherwise are irrelevant.

    I think the DVD question is an interesting one, but at least in that instance someone HAS paid for it, and a relatively small number of other people have benefited from it. If I pay for a DVD and then upload it, potentially hundreds, or thousands of people might then watch it. But if I buy a DVD and lend it about, what's that figure going to be, realistically? Probably no more than five people?
    rina said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    rina said:

    forget about looking at the tv part of any package. just go with whoever offers the best internet speed/price combo for your area and take the most basic tv with them if you want to watch and record live tv. then spend 20 pounds on a firestick, stick Kodi on it and have everything you could ever want to watch. I would have gone with now tv but their download speeds are poor in my area so virgin wins

    So to sum up, steal all content and hope enough other people pay for it so you can keep stealing it?
    I think this is the case law that says it's not stealing though I may well have linked to the wrong one

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=153302&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=399092

    you may not like it but it isn't stealing
    That's the standard defence that you guys trot out, that one link is like the holy grail of streaming defences. Personally, I think you're lying to yourself if you think it isn't stealing. As I said above, it's definitely unlawful, if not currently illegal to be the end user. FACT are aware that going after the million illegal streamers is unrealistic so they try to stop it at source instead. You can't possibly deny that the bona fide criminal gangs who run the websites you use are on the right side of the law here. I also don't think that ruling is going to be the last on the matter...
  • edited August 2016
    Jimmy, I think you missed my point. I do accept that my point is rather pointless though.

    I'm not justifying the downloading and I'm not saying that if one was not going to buy it then it's ok to steal it. I'm saying that those that do download are not, actually, taking money from the owners of the rights because they were never going to buy it.

    To compare it to the diamonds, as they are not 100% reproducible for virtually nothing, the fairer comparison is that if you cant afford them they stay with the chap that owns them. With this type of theft there is no reduction of ownership if a copy is acquired without payment. A fairer comparison would be of a famous painting. If you took a photo of it you don't, in any way, reduce the enjoyment of the painting itself, and the artist doesn't expect to be paid a small fee every time someone looks at it.

    Just to clarify I'm not defending those that download and on that basis I was not, in any way, making a defence that I would use in court. I was merely pointing out that there is a significant proportion that would never buy it but that will 'take it for free'. It is my belief that the revenue that the rights owners would get if downloading/streaming was stopped permanently is probably insignificant. Those that don't pay would just watch something else instead. The 'free' TV channels are full of content that is 'better' than having to pay for something else that will, in the end, make it's way on to Free-to-Air TV anyway.

    On a side note, it is easy to see how many feel no guilt at all when some of the beneficiaries of 'royalties' have so much money and are so crude with it. Also if someone that makes audio or visual arts is unable to earn as much as they would like there is nothing to stop them from getting another job. Technology has (and let's face it that's what we are talking about) caused the loss of many jobs and occupations over the years.

    Those that make this kind of content have been looking for cheaper and cheaper ways to produce and sell it for years. They, eventually, came up with a great way. No need for manufacturers (sorry chaps you manufacturers will have to do something else for a living), no need for physically distributing the content (sorry chaps you haulage and delivery boys have to do something else for a living) no need to sell it in shops (sorry chaps you shopkeepers will have to do something else for a living). Now they can make it, transfer it into a digital form and, literally, reproduce it an infinite* number of times for virtually nothing.

    What do they decide to do with this fantastic reduction in production costs? Do they decide to reduce the costs to the consumer? I'm not sure they did - maybe the market put downward pressures on prices but I don't believe it was done as costs had fallen, to help the consumer. However, a side effect of making this content so, so easy to reproduce was that the inevitable has happened. Those that can't afford £10 for an album or £15 for a movie, that pays royalties to a chap that already has £50m more than he will ever spend, decide to download it for free. Imagine that!

    *I know they don't but you get my point.
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    C_A_F_C said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    rina said:

    forget about looking at the tv part of any package. just go with whoever offers the best internet speed/price combo for your area and take the most basic tv with them if you want to watch and record live tv. then spend 20 pounds on a firestick, stick Kodi on it and have everything you could ever want to watch. I would have gone with now tv but their download speeds are poor in my area so virgin wins

    So to sum up, steal all content and hope enough other people pay for it so you can keep stealing it?
    Do you still work for sky? ;)
    Just about! I work for Sky Cinema. And if I didn't get it all as part of my salary, I wouldn't pay for Sky Cinema (unless I was on amazing money). I watch my movies through Store mostly. And Netflix can fill a back catalogue hole.

    But I don't feel as though I have a God given right to be able to watch movies and TV shows. I don't pretend that, because I can't afford it, the only alternative is to steal it, while blaming the rights holders for daring to make money.

    There are so many options (as Lucky Reds explains above) that I don't think it's necessary to go down the Kodi route.

    Kodi users tend to bemoan the astronomic, unfair prices. But I think that's an excuse to hide behind. I'll never be an Amazon Prime customer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pirate their content any more than I'm going to break into their warehouses to get an immediate delivery.
    You don't have to hide behind anything as it is not illegal. It is not just daring to make money though is is it, distributors use physical and geographical location as a way to exploit people when they are not constrained by such things in the age of digital distribution. While they continue to deny my access to other markets I will not use the system they impose on me. If I wanted to but a can of coke I could order it from this country or another, why are they allowed to block me from doing this just because of where I live? How many other companies control the distribution once they have sold it to their retailers?
    Illegal is debatable. But it is certianly unlawful. And unsustainable. Nobody has been prosecuted for receiving the end product, but that's not quite the same as it being legal. FACT are more interested in taking down those who are supplying the content, most definitely illegally. It's a profi-making venture for criminals involved in a variety of other, far more immoral endeavours.

    Also, exactly how are you/ we being exploited?


    While they continue to deny my access to other markets

    Deny your access? Are you serious? I deny you access to my home - are you going to bust in because you've decided you should have access?

    allowed to block me

    Honestly, to me, you sound like you have a huge sense of self-entitlement. It's their content. Can you give me a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to decide which territories receive the stuff they pay to make? Sky don't operate in the US, so of course you need local rights. Amazon or Netflix would have a monopoly on movies across the world, no?

    There are a couple of posters on here who are involved in film distribution, and watching their stuff on illegal streams has a HUGE effect on their success, and subsequent ability to produce more interesting, low-to-mid range budget films. Sure, using Kodi to watch Civil War won't dent Disney or their billion dollar receipts, but then again I'd rather see more mid-budget movies. But Kodi fucks those filmmakers over.
    in many cases those that 'steal' movies would never buy them so the people that own the rights are not losing out. If they couldn't watch the movies (or TV shows) for free they just wouldn't watch them.
    Would you seriously try and use that defence in a court of law? Would you apply it to anything else in life? Let's say your mate gave you the diamonds from a robbery, would you keep them on account of the fact that you wouldn't normally buy diamonds?

    I honestly don't think the argument does fall down, because those streaming content without paying for it are taking work from other people, without paying for it. Their intentions otherwise are irrelevant.

    I think the DVD question is an interesting one, but at least in that instance someone HAS paid for it, and a relatively small number of other people have benefited from it. If I pay for a DVD and then upload it, potentially hundreds, or thousands of people might then watch it. But if I buy a DVD and lend it about, what's that figure going to be, realistically? Probably no more than five people?
    rina said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    rina said:

    forget about looking at the tv part of any package. just go with whoever offers the best internet speed/price combo for your area and take the most basic tv with them if you want to watch and record live tv. then spend 20 pounds on a firestick, stick Kodi on it and have everything you could ever want to watch. I would have gone with now tv but their download speeds are poor in my area so virgin wins

    So to sum up, steal all content and hope enough other people pay for it so you can keep stealing it?
    I think this is the case law that says it's not stealing though I may well have linked to the wrong one

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=153302&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=399092

    you may not like it but it isn't stealing
    That's the standard defence that you guys trot out, that one link is like the holy grail of streaming defences. Personally, I think you're lying to yourself if you think it isn't stealing. As I said above, it's definitely unlawful, if not currently illegal to be the end user. FACT are aware that going after the million illegal streamers is unrealistic so they try to stop it at source instead. You can't possibly deny that the bona fide criminal gangs who run the websites you use are on the right side of the law here. I also don't think that ruling is going to be the last on the matter...
    Just to clarify, it is not, actually, illegal to download content one hasn't paid for? I thought people were being taken to court and/or having their broadband switched off?
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    C_A_F_C said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    rina said:

    forget about looking at the tv part of any package. just go with whoever offers the best internet speed/price combo for your area and take the most basic tv with them if you want to watch and record live tv. then spend 20 pounds on a firestick, stick Kodi on it and have everything you could ever want to watch. I would have gone with now tv but their download speeds are poor in my area so virgin wins

    So to sum up, steal all content and hope enough other people pay for it so you can keep stealing it?
    Do you still work for sky? ;)
    Just about! I work for Sky Cinema. And if I didn't get it all as part of my salary, I wouldn't pay for Sky Cinema (unless I was on amazing money). I watch my movies through Store mostly. And Netflix can fill a back catalogue hole.

    But I don't feel as though I have a God given right to be able to watch movies and TV shows. I don't pretend that, because I can't afford it, the only alternative is to steal it, while blaming the rights holders for daring to make money.

    There are so many options (as Lucky Reds explains above) that I don't think it's necessary to go down the Kodi route.

    Kodi users tend to bemoan the astronomic, unfair prices. But I think that's an excuse to hide behind. I'll never be an Amazon Prime customer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pirate their content any more than I'm going to break into their warehouses to get an immediate delivery.
    You don't have to hide behind anything as it is not illegal. It is not just daring to make money though is is it, distributors use physical and geographical location as a way to exploit people when they are not constrained by such things in the age of digital distribution. While they continue to deny my access to other markets I will not use the system they impose on me. If I wanted to but a can of coke I could order it from this country or another, why are they allowed to block me from doing this just because of where I live? How many other companies control the distribution once they have sold it to their retailers?
    Illegal is debatable. But it is certianly unlawful. And unsustainable. Nobody has been prosecuted for receiving the end product, but that's not quite the same as it being legal. FACT are more interested in taking down those who are supplying the content, most definitely illegally. It's a profi-making venture for criminals involved in a variety of other, far more immoral endeavours.

    Also, exactly how are you/ we being exploited?


    While they continue to deny my access to other markets

    Deny your access? Are you serious? I deny you access to my home - are you going to bust in because you've decided you should have access?

    allowed to block me

    Honestly, to me, you sound like you have a huge sense of self-entitlement. It's their content. Can you give me a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to decide which territories receive the stuff they pay to make? Sky don't operate in the US, so of course you need local rights. Amazon or Netflix would have a monopoly on movies across the world, no?

    There are a couple of posters on here who are involved in film distribution, and watching their stuff on illegal streams has a HUGE effect on their success, and subsequent ability to produce more interesting, low-to-mid range budget films. Sure, using Kodi to watch Civil War won't dent Disney or their billion dollar receipts, but then again I'd rather see more mid-budget movies. But Kodi fucks those filmmakers over.
    in many cases those that 'steal' movies would never buy them so the people that own the rights are not losing out. If they couldn't watch the movies (or TV shows) for free they just wouldn't watch them.
    Would you seriously try and use that defence in a court of law? Would you apply it to anything else in life? Let's say your mate gave you the diamonds from a robbery, would you keep them on account of the fact that you wouldn't normally buy diamonds?

    I honestly don't think the argument does fall down, because those streaming content without paying for it are taking work from other people, without paying for it. Their intentions otherwise are irrelevant.

    I think the DVD question is an interesting one, but at least in that instance someone HAS paid for it, and a relatively small number of other people have benefited from it. If I pay for a DVD and then upload it, potentially hundreds, or thousands of people might then watch it. But if I buy a DVD and lend it about, what's that figure going to be, realistically? Probably no more than five people?
    rina said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    rina said:

    forget about looking at the tv part of any package. just go with whoever offers the best internet speed/price combo for your area and take the most basic tv with them if you want to watch and record live tv. then spend 20 pounds on a firestick, stick Kodi on it and have everything you could ever want to watch. I would have gone with now tv but their download speeds are poor in my area so virgin wins

    So to sum up, steal all content and hope enough other people pay for it so you can keep stealing it?
    I think this is the case law that says it's not stealing though I may well have linked to the wrong one

    http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=153302&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=399092

    you may not like it but it isn't stealing
    That's the standard defence that you guys trot out, that one link is like the holy grail of streaming defences. Personally, I think you're lying to yourself if you think it isn't stealing. As I said above, it's definitely unlawful, if not currently illegal to be the end user. FACT are aware that going after the million illegal streamers is unrealistic so they try to stop it at source instead. You can't possibly deny that the bona fide criminal gangs who run the websites you use are on the right side of the law here. I also don't think that ruling is going to be the last on the matter...
    Just to clarify, it is not, actually, illegal to download content one hasn't paid for? I thought people were being taken to court and/or having their broadband switched off?
    downloading is illegal, streaming is not as no permanent copy is made. Jimmy's point is that he would consider it to be unlawful rather than illegal but that is getting into semantics
  • rina said:

    downloading is illegal, streaming is not as no permanent copy is made. Jimmy's point is that he would consider it to be unlawful rather than illegal but that is getting into semantics

    Maybe - this article is on the nose in that regard.

    There are a couple of cases of someone getting away with streaming, because, according to the judge, they didn't have a permanent copy, but the key here is that rights owners are not pursuing the end user at the moment. If they chose to, I think that ruling would soon be overwhelmed by very different verdicts.

    @kings hill addick I see what you mean about the stream not being a limited resource, but I don't think a court would care about that. I do think it's a justification streamers/ downloaders use, but again I think that would fold under a legal challenge. I guess it's about whether any revenue has been lost, and you're saying in many cases that no it hasn't, which is most probably true.

    But that doesn't change that they've received something they haven't paid for. Honestly, I am not even that bothered by that side of it - I think I am more bothered by the ridiculous justifications, such as the earlier one about "I want to watch it when I choose!" which is a terrible excuse! If someone just said "fuck it, I'm going to stream while I can to save myself some cash, sorry!" I'd probably not debate it!


    On a side note, it is easy to see how many feel no guilt at all when some of the beneficiaries of 'royalties' have so much money and are so crude with it.

    That I completely agree with. The music industry was bitching about losing money, while MTV Cribs was showing off Snoop's fourth basketball court in his fifth spare home. But we're getting into a capitalism thing there I guess.


    Also if someone that makes audio or visual arts is unable to earn as much as they would like there is nothing to stop them from getting another job. Technology has (and let's face it that's what we are talking about) caused the loss of many jobs and occupations over the years.

    True. Personally, selfishly, I want to see more low-to-mid budget movies, and piracy hurts them, which helps leave us with comic book behemoths instead. As per the point that digital entertainment cost people jobs - that it did, but it's going to happen to nearly all of us over the next 50 years! My job is almost certainly going to be automated in the next 6-12 months, but I welcome that right now.


    What do they decide to do with this fantastic reduction in production costs? Do they decide to reduce the costs to the consumer? I'm not sure they did - maybe the market put downward pressures on prices but I don't believe it was done as costs had fallen, to help the consumer.

    Music and movies are cheaper now than in 2000. It used to cost me £12 to own a CD and £14 to own a new movie, or £3.50 to rent a movie.

    Sky Cinema now give you 1200 movies for £15pcm (still too dear but you'd have rented eight back catalogue videos in Blockbuster for that) and Netflix gives another 5000 or whatever it is for £8pcm.

    New movies in the rental/ PPV window are way too expensive (Store rentals are still the same as Blockbuster, and I have kicked up a big fuss about that ever since they raised the prices two years ago), but music is cheaper - Spotify and Apple Music offer a huge range of music for relatively little, and even buying albums is almost half the price of 16 years ago.

    It's far from perfect (new/ small bands are screwed by Spotify) but it's not the end user that's suffering there!

  • Sponsored links:


  • edited August 2016
    JiMMy 85 said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    C_A_F_C said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    rina said:

    forget about looking at the tv part of any package. just go with whoever offers the best internet speed/price combo for your area and take the most basic tv with them if you want to watch and record live tv. then spend 20 pounds on a firestick, stick Kodi on it and have everything you could ever want to watch. I would have gone with now tv but their download speeds are poor in my area so virgin wins

    So to sum up, steal all content and hope enough other people pay for it so you can keep stealing it?
    Do you still work for sky? ;)
    Just about! I work for Sky Cinema. And if I didn't get it all as part of my salary, I wouldn't pay for Sky Cinema (unless I was on amazing money). I watch my movies through Store mostly. And Netflix can fill a back catalogue hole.

    But I don't feel as though I have a God given right to be able to watch movies and TV shows. I don't pretend that, because I can't afford it, the only alternative is to steal it, while blaming the rights holders for daring to make money.

    There are so many options (as Lucky Reds explains above) that I don't think it's necessary to go down the Kodi route.

    Kodi users tend to bemoan the astronomic, unfair prices. But I think that's an excuse to hide behind. I'll never be an Amazon Prime customer, but that doesn't mean I'm going to pirate their content any more than I'm going to break into their warehouses to get an immediate delivery.
    You don't have to hide behind anything as it is not illegal. It is not just daring to make money though is is it, distributors use physical and geographical location as a way to exploit people when they are not constrained by such things in the age of digital distribution. While they continue to deny my access to other markets I will not use the system they impose on me. If I wanted to but a can of coke I could order it from this country or another, why are they allowed to block me from doing this just because of where I live? How many other companies control the distribution once they have sold it to their retailers?
    Illegal is debatable. But it is certianly unlawful. And unsustainable. Nobody has been prosecuted for receiving the end product, but that's not quite the same as it being legal. FACT are more interested in taking down those who are supplying the content, most definitely illegally. It's a profi-making venture for criminals involved in a variety of other, far more immoral endeavours.

    Also, exactly how are you/ we being exploited?


    While they continue to deny my access to other markets

    Deny your access? Are you serious? I deny you access to my home - are you going to bust in because you've decided you should have access?

    allowed to block me

    Honestly, to me, you sound like you have a huge sense of self-entitlement. It's their content. Can you give me a reason why they shouldn't be allowed to decide which territories receive the stuff they pay to make? Sky don't operate in the US, so of course you need local rights. Amazon or Netflix would have a monopoly on movies across the world, no?

    There are a couple of posters on here who are involved in film distribution, and watching their stuff on illegal streams has a HUGE effect on their success, and subsequent ability to produce more interesting, low-to-mid range budget films. Sure, using Kodi to watch Civil War won't dent Disney or their billion dollar receipts, but then again I'd rather see more mid-budget movies. But Kodi fucks those filmmakers over.
    Firstly you have assumed I don't pay for any content, Kodi can be a pretty temporary thing. There are many films I never would have bought if I had not of seen them first, an that includes the merchandise that follows. It is a bit like the radio mate. Also there is no debate, there was an EU ruling last year that it is not illegal to watch stream as you are not infringing copy right as you never posses a copy as it is a temporary file. The same way it is not illegal to watch a pirate DVD but it is to own one. Have you never watched a dodgy DVD or recorded anything off the radio, because I'm sure plenty of people on this board have. Not sure why you see the potential global competition of Netflix or Amazon as a problem when Sky already have a monopoly on film distribution in this country if you work for them....


    It is not a sense of entitlement to recognize that we live in a globalized world and that these companies do everything, form production through to tax payments do everything to maximise Profits. Why as a consumer shouldn't I also have this option? Are you suggesting that I shouldn't have a choice a buy a T-shirt from the US or this country? I have that option on any other product, why not on digital content. These companies are exploiting the fact that I have to be physically in one country and controlling the point of distribution. That is not even mentioning that to people buying the same product from the same digital platform may be charged two completely different prices based on an IP( and which country it is based in), that is exploitation. It's not like a lock on the door or a burglar alarm when they deny me access. They are stopping me buying it from a different region, it is the same product. If my mate buys a can of coke and shares it with me, coke can't stop me from drinking it. Maybe we should start paying royalties for lending DVD's to our mates and paying to screen a movie to our family.

  • edited August 2016

    There are many films I never would have bought if I had not of seen them first, an that includes the merchandise that follows.

    You don't get to pick and choose what you do and don't pay for because you bought something else.

    there was an EU ruling last year that it is not illegal to watch stream as you are not infringing copy right as you never posses a copy as it is a temporary file.

    As I understand it, there was a ruling in an individual case. I don't believe there is an amendment to a law that states copyright infringement no longer applies to streaming. It's more that copyright owners haven't brought any cases because, as stated clearly above and as per FACT's statements, they are focusing on the suppliers, not the recipients.

    Not sure why you see the potential global competition of Netflix or Amazon as a problem when Sky already have a monopoly on film distribution in this country if you work for them....

    Working there gives me an insight, but I am more familiar with their flaws and have far more cutting things to say than most.

    The argument made earlier is that rights shouldn't be divided up in each territory. That would mean one company could and probably would end up with global rights. I am not an economics expert, but to me, that sounds like a recipe for a global monopoly for Netflix, given their foothold in the US. In fact, that Sky have managed to fend off Netflix is quite astonishing. It's not just down to money, it's about how they present the movies to the user (and help the studios with their theatrical promotions).

    Are you suggesting that I shouldn't have a choice a buy a T-shirt from the US or this country?

    Not at all. That's a terrible analogy. We're talking about intellectual property, not goods.

    These companies are exploiting the fact that I have to be physically in one country and controlling the point of distribution.

    Netflix in the UK have exclusive contracts with Lionsgate, E1 and Entertainment among others. So Sky clearly don't have a monopoly. Besides, this is all moot - you have access to ALL films one way or another. If you are willing to pay for them, they are waiting for you. You could get a cinema pass for £15, Sky Cinema/ NowTV for £15 and Netflix for £8. And maybe Amazon Prime for some really shit movies. That would give you pretty much everything. It just seems to me you are not willing to pay all that, but you still want to watch all the content.

    Maybe we should start paying royalties for lending DVD's to our mates and paying to screen a movie to our family.

    Lending a DVD to 1-5 people is hardly damaging to the industry. Streaming a movie to 100,000 people is a bit different.
  • I have to confess that I find it frustrating that there are so many providers of the content that you have to pay them all. The football is just as bad, if not worse. Sky used to have all the Premier League and the Champions League and that used to cost £30 a month (the full package). Now you need to pay Sky something like £70 a month and then another payment to BT Sport for the Champions League and the rest of the Premier League.

    What makes this so galling is that the Prem footballers used to earn a million pounds a year (more than enough I would say) and now many of them earn a million pounds a month.

    The service/cost ratio hasn't been at all kind to the paying consumers all the while those in football now have seen their income go through the roof!

    I don't subscribe to any of the TV/movie services, although my estranged wife has a Netflix account and she seems to have two access codes so I can use one of those - although I never have done.

    I do pay Sky for the football though and it is a small fortune and I only watch two or three games a season. Apparently they have 'box-sets' I can watch too. God knows how though!
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    rina said:

    downloading is illegal, streaming is not as no permanent copy is made. Jimmy's point is that he would consider it to be unlawful rather than illegal but that is getting into semantics

    Maybe - this article is on the nose in that regard.

    There are a couple of cases of someone getting away with streaming, because, according to the judge, they didn't have a permanent copy, but the key here is that rights owners are not pursuing the end user at the moment. If they chose to, I think that ruling would soon be overwhelmed by very different verdicts.

    @kings hill addick I see what you mean about the stream not being a limited resource, but I don't think a court would care about that. I do think it's a justification streamers/ downloaders use, but again I think that would fold under a legal challenge. I guess it's about whether any revenue has been lost, and you're saying in many cases that no it hasn't, which is most probably true.

    But that doesn't change that they've received something they haven't paid for. Honestly, I am not even that bothered by that side of it - I think I am more bothered by the ridiculous justifications, such as the earlier one about "I want to watch it when I choose!" which is a terrible excuse! If someone just said "fuck it, I'm going to stream while I can to save myself some cash, sorry!" I'd probably not debate it!


    On a side note, it is easy to see how many feel no guilt at all when some of the beneficiaries of 'royalties' have so much money and are so crude with it.

    That I completely agree with. The music industry was bitching about losing money, while MTV Cribs was showing off Snoop's fourth basketball court in his fifth spare home. But we're getting into a capitalism thing there I guess.


    Also if someone that makes audio or visual arts is unable to earn as much as they would like there is nothing to stop them from getting another job. Technology has (and let's face it that's what we are talking about) caused the loss of many jobs and occupations over the years.

    True. Personally, selfishly, I want to see more low-to-mid budget movies, and piracy hurts them, which helps leave us with comic book behemoths instead. As per the point that digital entertainment cost people jobs - that it did, but it's going to happen to nearly all of us over the next 50 years! My job is almost certainly going to be automated in the next 6-12 months, but I welcome that right now.


    What do they decide to do with this fantastic reduction in production costs? Do they decide to reduce the costs to the consumer? I'm not sure they did - maybe the market put downward pressures on prices but I don't believe it was done as costs had fallen, to help the consumer.

    Music and movies are cheaper now than in 2000. It used to cost me £12 to own a CD and £14 to own a new movie, or £3.50 to rent a movie.

    Sky Cinema now give you 1200 movies for £15pcm (still too dear but you'd have rented eight back catalogue videos in Blockbuster for that) and Netflix gives another 5000 or whatever it is for £8pcm.

    New movies in the rental/ PPV window are way too expensive (Store rentals are still the same as Blockbuster, and I have kicked up a big fuss about that ever since they raised the prices two years ago), but music is cheaper - Spotify and Apple Music offer a huge range of music for relatively little, and even buying albums is almost half the price of 16 years ago.

    It's far from perfect (new/ small bands are screwed by Spotify) but it's not the end user that's suffering there!

    But that point can easily be countered by the fact we the consumer have been ripped off for years. For example in the 90's you might go out and buy a film on video. Then 10 years later the video player packs up and your video is now worthless unless you go against the market and buy another video player just to play your video. So instead of which you buy yourself a DVD player and you end up paying for the same film again. Repeat the process 10 years on when you've given up with video and DVD players and instead buy the film digitally meaning you have paid for the same film 3 times over. You can multiply this or similar examples many times over and for how many households? Right or wrong and your choice or not you are still forced to buy the exact same content several times over because of technology.

    And your worried producers don't get there share of the pie because technology is now swinging the way of the consumer instead of the producer?
  • And on a seperate note let me share with you a recent experience with Sky, it's a game we play with each other every year.

    My contract came to an end and even though I didn't have any real intention to leave Sky because it's the only option in my flat (will come on to seperately) I still rung up and told Sky I was leaving. Of course I knew Sky would try and persuade me to stay on but the best they could muster up was a 20% discount on my whole package on the basis I sign a new 18 months contract. Naturally I declined this and told them I would be better off on Now TV paying around £35 a month. About a week or so later Sky rang me up and this time gave me an offer more like it that I could have a 50% discount off my package for 10 months and I wouldn't be tied to a contract either. I accepted because I actually felt it was a fair value price to pay for the sports channels.

    This 10 months offer came to an end recently so I went through the same process again with no intention to actually leave Sky just make them think I was going to. Same thing happened, offered a 20% discount on the basis I sign a new 18 months contract. I declined knowing full well they would be back with another offer before my 30 days notice was up. Low and behold...yet again Sky rang me back with the same 50% discount offer for 10 months and not tied to a contract.

    Now how did I know this would happen? Was it because I know Sky are greedy and can afford to offer the service for a lot cheaper than they offer it for? Maybe if they reduced there prices considerably less people would stop leaving for Kodi.

    I have a Kodi streaming box but I still have my Sky box as well because I will say Sky's picture quality is second to none and I will only stay with Sky while I get the 50% discount. Without that I would be happy to leave and rely on Kodi.

    Earlier I mentioned Sky is the only option in my flat well that's because I can't get Sky Sports 5 on BT and the picture is streamed on TalkTalk so if I want a good quality SS5 then I am stuck with Sky. Virgin is not an option because I live in a flat and isn't possible to get Virgin. However Sky didn't bother to install a TV aerial point in the bedrooms which has made multiroom impossible for me in the 5 years I have lived in my flat. You then wonder why people turn to options like Kodi when Sky can't even provide the service from a position of dominance?

    Again maybe if Sky upped there game by providing the service and reducing prices of which they can afford both then people wouldn't turn to Kodi. It's Sky's continuation of ripping off customers which creates there own problem and I can't wait for the day the Sky / Premier League money bubble bursts.
  • Sky bundles 50% off
  • I have to confess that I find it frustrating that there are so many providers of the content that you have to pay them all. The football is just as bad, if not worse. Sky used to have all the Premier League and the Champions League and that used to cost £30 a month (the full package). Now you need to pay Sky something like £70 a month and then another payment to BT Sport for the Champions League and the rest of the Premier League.

    It's pretty mad that the Competition Commission were all over Sky, insisting that more packages be sold to other providers, when all that's done is increase the cost to consumers quite dramatically. Same thing was happening with the movies when Netflix came along. A few days after they launched, Sky Movies got a letter saying "we no longer feel the need to investigate the competition issue" and just like the football, it costs more to have all available first-window subscription movies.

    @MartinCAFC - good for you for playing the game, but do you think Sky should offer massive discounts to everybody straight off the bat? Is that a realistic way to run the business? They have a finite amount of people they can sell to at the price you got. At some stage they won't make those offers, because that won't make a profit. The evil bastards want to make a profit!
  • edited August 2016
    JiMMy 85 said:

    I have to confess that I find it frustrating that there are so many providers of the content that you have to pay them all. The football is just as bad, if not worse. Sky used to have all the Premier League and the Champions League and that used to cost £30 a month (the full package). Now you need to pay Sky something like £70 a month and then another payment to BT Sport for the Champions League and the rest of the Premier League.

    It's pretty mad that the Competition Commission were all over Sky, insisting that more packages be sold to other providers, when all that's done is increase the cost to consumers quite dramatically. Same thing was happening with the movies when Netflix came along. A few days after they launched, Sky Movies got a letter saying "we no longer feel the need to investigate the competition issue" and just like the football, it costs more to have all available first-window subscription movies.

    @MartinCAFC - good for you for playing the game, but do you think Sky should offer massive discounts to everybody straight off the bat? Is that a realistic way to run the business? They have a finite amount of people they can sell to at the price you got. At some stage they won't make those offers, because that won't make a profit. The evil bastards want to make a profit!
    There's different ways of looking at it. People like me who can play the game will get the discounts but to be fair as I said in my last post it's enough of a discount that i'm actually satisified with the price which I think is fair that I haven't cancelled my subscription despiting having Kodi as well. After all I can get pretty much exactly what I want with Now TV's monthly sports package for just a few quid less so it's not as though i'm holding Sky to ransom so they should be happy that i've stayed on rather than lose my custom altogether.

    My view is Sky can afford to do this for all customers but I understand they won't just throw it at customers, they will make customers play the game and work for it which I guess I can understand from there point of view. For me Sky are still clinging to the days of extorting as much money as they can from customers but at some point more and more people will cancel because of price. Offer it half price to everybody who threatens to leave and maybe they'll keep more customers from leaving altogether.

    Look at iTunes they realise they can't sell singles for £4 each like you'd pay back in 2000 because people would turn to Napster etc but for £1 customers are happy to pay that fair price and download it legally. The same can be said for companies such as Google Play who charge think it's £7 a month but you can download as many songs as you like. It's all about finding the middle ground with the customer with what's fair in terms of price and content. For me the music industry is there but the TV industry is nowhere near it.

    I predict within 10 years Sky will completely revolutionise how we watch Sky TV, I can see them offering a firestick kind of product which allows customers to stream every single Sky TV channel possible via internet connection with the ability to add / remove channels available to it and at a lot cheaper price than subscriptions through the satellite dishes. I know Sky have Now TV but I just feel at some point rather than bury there heads in the sand in regards to Kodi they're going to have to do something to take it on.

    Out of curiosity where you say with a 50% discount they aren't going to make a profit can I ask how costs are incurred then? I live in a block of flats and it all goes through one communal dish so surely it's just a case of whether my box is activated or not and even with 50% off it must be pure profit for Sky?
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    There are many films I never would have bought if I had not of seen them first, an that includes the merchandise that follows.

    You don't get to pick and choose what you do and don't pay for because you bought something else.

    there was an EU ruling last year that it is not illegal to watch stream as you are not infringing copy right as you never posses a copy as it is a temporary file.

    As I understand it, there was a ruling in an individual case. I don't believe there is an amendment to a law that states copyright infringement no longer applies to streaming. It's more that copyright owners haven't brought any cases because, as stated clearly above and as per FACT's statements, they are focusing on the suppliers, not the recipients.

    Not sure why you see the potential global competition of Netflix or Amazon as a problem when Sky already have a monopoly on film distribution in this country if you work for them....

    Working there gives me an insight, but I am more familiar with their flaws and have far more cutting things to say than most.

    The argument made earlier is that rights shouldn't be divided up in each territory. That would mean one company could and probably would end up with global rights. I am not an economics expert, but to me, that sounds like a recipe for a global monopoly for Netflix, given their foothold in the US. In fact, that Sky have managed to fend off Netflix is quite astonishing. It's not just down to money, it's about how they present the movies to the user (and help the studios with their theatrical promotions).

    Are you suggesting that I shouldn't have a choice a buy a T-shirt from the US or this country?

    Not at all. That's a terrible analogy. We're talking about intellectual property, not goods.

    These companies are exploiting the fact that I have to be physically in one country and controlling the point of distribution.

    Netflix in the UK have exclusive contracts with Lionsgate, E1 and Entertainment among others. So Sky clearly don't have a monopoly. Besides, this is all moot - you have access to ALL films one way or another. If you are willing to pay for them, they are waiting for you. You could get a cinema pass for £15, Sky Cinema/ NowTV for £15 and Netflix for £8. And maybe Amazon Prime for some really shit movies. That would give you pretty much everything. It just seems to me you are not willing to pay all that, but you still want to watch all the content.

    Maybe we should start paying royalties for lending DVD's to our mates and paying to screen a movie to our family.

    Lending a DVD to 1-5 people is hardly damaging to the industry. Streaming a movie to 100,000 people is a bit different.

    You are missing the first point. I am saying I have subsequently gone out and bought films and merchandise after watching them first for free, much like songs on the radio.

    There are two types of law, written and court precedent. They will not challenge precedent unless there is a change in written law that invalidates the previous ruling.

    A t-shirt design would be covered as in intellectual property much like a DVD. Except the design on the t-shirt would not disappear because I was wearing it in the wrong region.

    An independent film company, tv rights holder and one of the smaller Hollywood studios isn't the greatest argument against all the deals locked behind Sky's pay wall. They have monopolised sport and movies and then hiked the price like any company with market dominance. I'm still not sure if you are arguing for or against a monopoly or that if it is ok as long as sky has it. I think sky has about an 80% control on movie distribution due to similar deals (economists would label that a practicle monopoly). Not sure that sky and the makers helping each other out is good for the consumer either. Not really a free market for the consumer if you are scratching each other's back. The companies selling it to Sky would probably add the marketing value rather than how you help present the movies to the viewer. How many installs at the time of the deal also would have been very influential, with only terrestrial and sky the only really big players in those terms. It will be interesting to see how the landscape changes over the next ten years, especially with BT making a big push.

    The argument is that a company can choose to split it by territory, but as a global consumer I should be able to access these markets. It's not as if I have to get someone from one of these countries to send me a DVD. After all, the companies take advantage of this why shouldn't I be allowed. It's not that I want all the content for free, as I go the cinema and have kept subscriptions, buy merchandise. I just want a fair playing field as a consumer in the digital age.
  • clb74 said:

    Sky bundles 50% off

    Just rejoined sky as I thought the offer was too good to turn down. Got 60% off and £50 credit on the original bundle which is all I need. Don't pay a full bill until March and then it's just 8 quid. The recording feature is the main reason I've gone back, very few freesat recorders around and one I did try went wrong after 2 weeks.
    Expect I'll leave and rejoin every year if this is the type of deal you get.
Sign In or Register to comment.