FA set to clamp down on streaming

Xavi6

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/sport/58527/SNATCH-OF-THE-DAY.html

SNATCH OF THE DAY

FA chiefs declare war on website's illegal broadcasts

By LUKE NICOLI, 01/11/2008

FURIOUS FA and TV chiefs have declared war on an American website which is screening live top-flight English matches for FREE.

The Premier League are threatening legal action against San Francisco-based video- streaming portal Justin.tv

Thousands of fans are logging on to the site, co-founded by 24-year-old Yale graduate Justin Kan, to avoid paying subscriptions to British TV companies Sky and Setanta, which hold the exclusive UK rights to show live Premier League matches.

Last Wednesday, only Arsenal’s incredible 4-4 draw with Tottenham was broadcast live in England. Yet, by simply logging on to www.justin.tv fans could watch Manchester United’s 2-0 triumph over West Ham, Chelsea’s 3-0 win at Hull, Fulham’s 2-0 win over Wigan and the Emirates eight-goal thriller — all LIVE.

Not surprisingly, the United game was most viewed, with 167,138 hits, while the Arsenal-Spurs showdown boasted 148,063 viewers.

Premier League spokesman Dan Johnson insisted: “We are in contact with this site and their lawyers and are seeking to prevent any further abuse of our rights.

“The streaming of live Premier League matches without permission is not only illegal, but also unfair on fans who have paid to go to matches or subscribed to Sky and Setanta.

“Their support means clubs can buy and develop the best players possible and invest in bigger, better and safer grounds.”

England’s 4-1 World Cup qualifying win over Croatia in September was also shown live on Justin.tv — despite the match being broadcast exclusively by Setanta Sports.

Six separate streams were available, with commentary coming from Setanta’s Jon Champion.

The most popular feed saw a peak of 30,819 viewers.

The FA last night confirmed their lawyers will also be sending a legal letter to Justin.tv bosses. An FA spokesman said: “We are aware that websites around the world are seeking to exploit the popularity of English football.

“We take any infringements of our broadcasting rights very seriously and we will be looking at this particular website very carefully.

“We always take action to protect our rights and will do so again in this case.”

Justin.tv hit the world stage when Kan strapped a camera to his head and started streaming every moment of his life over the web.

The site, launched in March last year, quickly evolved and now boasts thousands of diverse lifestyle channels, from the breeding of boa constrictors to news from Pakistan.

But the live football streams are by far the most popular area of the site among UK users, especially on a Saturday afternoon when games are unavailable to viewers in this country.

And the concept couldn’t be simpler. Anyone with legal live access of a game can, via a webcam pointed at their TV screen, upload their feed to Justin.tv for the world to watch — illegally.

For instance, last Sunday’s Premier League clash between Chelsea and Liverpool was available live on no fewer than EIGHT different channels on Justin.tv.

And the best quality feed came through one called p2pstation.net, which had uploaded a feed from a user watching South African sports channel Super Sport. The English commentary came from ex-Spurs boss David Pleat and Sky’s Alan Parry.

The channel had no fewer than 574,000 hits with a peak of 19,081 viewers watching at any given time.

British TV companies signed a £2.6BILLION three-year deal with the Premier League in August 2006 to screen football (both live and highlight packages) until 2010.
Piracy

Sky splashed out £1.3bn and Setanta £392m to secure exclusive live UK rights, while the BBC coughed up £172m and Sky, together with BT, another £84m for British highlights.

And the Premier League also raked in a further £625m by selling overseas rights but Justin.tv did not buy these.

Setanta Sports marketing director Timothy Ryan said: “As rights holders we believe what Justin.tv is doing amounts to piracy. It contravenes the owners’ rights which has implications for us.

“We are working closely with the Premier League and other rights holders to clamp down on piracy such as that represented by Justin.tv.”

Since its launch, the website has added one million users and has racked up more than half a million hours of video — or 62 YEARS — on the site.

Justin.tv’s numbers are stunning: over the last year, over 90,000 channels have been created, more than 24,000 events broadcast and more than 61,000 video clips uploaded from Justin.tv to YouTube.

Justin.tv’s own promotional website wording reads: “Justin.tv is building a destination site for broadcasting and watching live video online while chatting with friends.

“The company’s mission is to enable viewers and broadcasters to interact and exchange ideas in real time through chat and live video.”

And their mission, in their own words, reads: “In the past, live broadcasting was only available to large media corporations who were willing to spend millions of dollars.

Today, Justin.tv has democratised live video by shrinking all of the functionality of an expensive TV satellite trunk into a laptop or desktop computer.”
Scandal

Justin.tv chief executive officer Michel Seibel refused to comment on the scandal, saying only: “I haven’t got the time to talk to you and you can’t talk to anyone else about this matter.”

It’s not the first time Justin.tv has been in trouble for flouting British law.

The Scottish FA successfully took action against the website after it showed archived Celtic games in breach of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Illegal broadcasts in pubs and clubs are already reported to cost Sky, Setanta and the football authorities at least £3m a year in lost revenue.

Manchester United and England star Wayne Rooney’s uncle John Morrey, 56, was fined £4,000 last October for showing Sky Sports matches illegally at his Liverpool pub, the Old Stanley Arms.

Bastards.

The top 4 pretty much have a monopoly on Sky Sports. Every one of their games is shown live on Sky (except United/Everton, and that nearly caused a meltdown here!). Fans of smaller clubs get dicked around constantly by the fixture generators.

For me, streams are the only way to watch City and these pricks better not take it away.

Boggles

Xavi6 wrote: »

For me, streams are the only way to watch City and these pricks better not take it away.

Would you be willing to pay to watch these streams?

Xavi6

Boggles wrote: »

Would you be willing to pay to watch these streams?

Yep and I have done at www.liveonlinefooty.com.

If there was a service with the same quality of Sky Sports/Foxtel/Setanta etc then I would pay a Sky Sports/Foxtel/Setanta etc rate.

Running Bing

but also unfair on fans who have paid to go to matches or subscribed to Sky and Setanta

Yes all I can think about as I sit at White Hart Lane surrounded by 30,000 fellow supporters or while I watch my team play on a 50 inch television is the fact that I could be watching a fuzzy one inch jittery stream with some Arab/Italian fella screaming manically on the commentary track for free.


Twat.


Seriously this is pathetic. I pay Sky, I pay Setanta, I pay to see my team live and I also pay for a streaming service where I can watch the 70% of my teams games not shown live.

Charlie

Cnuts.

Would imagine that its not case that most are using streams to avoid paying sky/Setanta. I pay for both, but as Xavi said, more often than not, my team ain't on the box (although we're getting a good run at the moment), and I use a stream to watch the Toon when the aren't on TV.

Make no mistake, i'll always prefer watching the game on a big-screen, clear, and jutter free, but i'll always use a stream when I need to, as watching juttery pixelated crud is preferable to not watching anything at all.

This could be avoided if they showed more games on a Sat/Sun via a red button service. It works in the states. I personally don't think it would affect attendances, but they have the technology available now of blocking out the signal in particular areas if they think such would happen.

Running Bing

charlie mchugh wrote: »

Cnuts.

Would imagine that its not case that most are using streams to avoid paying sky/Setanta. I pay for both, but as Xavi said, more often than not, my team ain't on the box (although we're getting a good run at the moment), and I use a stream to watch the Toon when the aren't on TV.

Make no mistake, i'll always prefer watching the game on a big-screen, clear, and jutter free, but i'll always use a stream when I need to, as watching juttery pixelated crud is preferable to not watching anything at all.

This could be avoided if they showed more games on a Sat/Sun via a red button service. It works in the states. I personally don't think it would affect attendances, but they have the technology available now of blocking out the signal in particular areas if they think such would happen.

Think thats the crux of the matter here....for him to say its unfair on fans who pay is patronising and a vain attempt to make it look like their acting in the interest of fans:rolleyes:

Like you say why not do a red button service like they do with the CL....failing that why dont they provide their own streams and charge for that?


their completely missing the point here...fans watch streams because its their only option not to rip off the PL.

Xavi6

Babybing wrote: »

why dont they provide their own streams and charge for that?

Problem solved tbh

zAbbo

Just some scaremongering

And the concept couldn’t be simpler. Anyone with legal live access of a game can, via a webcam pointed at their TV screen, upload their feed to Justin.tv for the world to watch — illegally.

Doing that would actually be legal, what is happening though is that people are streaming TV content via a TV/Sat card in their PC's

kev_s88

i was watching United -v- Hull on justin.tv yesterday.was so annoying cause it got shut down just as Hull got their penalty in the 83rd minute.missed the last 10 minutes of the game.

you would think the FA would have some respect and at least wait til the end of the game before they go shutting down the streams

Charlie

This reminds me so much of the music industries attitude around 2000, and how badly they misread the situation with downloading. Look how long it took to get iTunes up and running.

Thing is as well, they'll never be able to stop it. Many of the streams I use originate from China. Good luck on clamping down on those. And should they shut down Justin, something newer and better will pop up. FFS, the movie and music industry have failed in clamping down on this sort of stuff, so what makes the FA so confident they'll be in a position to do so.

roryc

zAbbo wrote: »

Just some scaremongering


Doing that would actually be legal, what is happening though is that people are streaming TV content via a TV/Sat card in their PC's

So its ok to set up a webcam of the tv but not to stream direct via TV/ Sat card? Interesting...

Also I agree that they won't be able to stop this, their best bet is getting in early and putting high quality streams of SELECTED games on their website for either a once off fee of maybe €2 per game, or a cheaper membership offer.

Chardee MacDennis

i'd happily pay a hundred euro a year (or ten a month) if i was guaranteed all of liverpools games in good quality, but they dont want that as that would mean that less people would buy setanta and sky. the problem isnt the hard done by fans its the loss of the money from sky et al:

"British TV companies signed a £2.6BILLION three-year deal with the Premier League in August 2006 to screen football (both live and highlight packages) until 2010."

and this:

"Thousands of fans are logging on to the site, co-founded by 24-year-old Yale graduate Justin Kan, to avoid paying subscriptions to British TV companies Sky and Setanta, which hold the exclusive UK rights to show live Premier League matches."

is just bull, i pay for the ntl i could do without and then have to pay extra to get setanta and sky and i still cant see every game, and i follow a top 4 club - i cant imagine how annoying it is for fans of other teams.

Daemonic

BastardPrince wrote: »

i'd happily pay a hundred euro a year (or ten a month) if i was guaranteed all of liverpools games in good quality

Same here. I already have a subscription to liverpoolfc.tv for a fiver'ish a month so I can at least listen to a game if the streams are unavailable or too rubbish to watch so would happily double that to be guarenteed every game streamed with decent quality.

Tom65

Just as a matter of interest - is there anyone here who doesn't pay for Sky or Setanta because they can get the matches streamed?

HalloweenJack

The links on justin.tv hardly ever work so it's no big loss, imo.

However...

If that start cracking down on the FSC or Goltv streams then I'll be pissed.

Bubs101

charlie mchugh wrote: »

Thing is as well, they'll never be able to stop it. Many of the streams I use originate from China. Good luck on clamping down on those. And should they shut down Justin, something newer and better will pop up. FFS, the movie and music industry have failed in clamping down on this sort of stuff, so what makes the FA so confident they'll be in a position to do so.

The music industry has clamped down on it though. In 2000, there was only Napster so if you downloaded music you were getting it for free, now, Itunes dominates over illegal downloading so I certainly think that the musicians were succesful

Charlie

Bubs101 wrote: »

The music industry has clamped down on it though. In 2000, there was only Napster so if you downloaded music you were getting it for free, now, Itunes dominates over illegal downloading so I certainly think that the musicians were succesful

What I mean though is that those that want to download illegally can still do so, with great ease.

The point I made earlier about iTunes was that it took the music industry years to figure out that downloading was here to stay, whether they liked it or not, and that the best solution is for them to embrace it asap. The same applies to the FA. Streaming is here to stay. The FA are making similar noises to those the music industry made circa 1999. Someone should tell them to cop the fcuk, and that they would be best served using their energies by setting up their own high quality, reliable, and official service.

eirebhoy

Afaik TV companies have an obligation to stream the Champions league matches they show. Anyone confirm this?

leninbenjamin

weird. i can understand the FA feeling the need to act due to their TV deals, but why only justin.tv? streaming is nothing new, if Justin.tv goes down there are plenty of other sites there to take up the mantle... it sounds like the FA really don't know what they are doing when it comes to this.

on the whole though, this type of thing is nothing new. the FA have made billions from the fact they can establish a monopoly over the rights. this is no different from any other entertainment industry.

however, the internet has changed the ball game. they no longer can maintain their monopoly in the strict sense of the word. Sky and Setanta still have the better product, but they are in danger of pricing themselves out of the equation when one considers their competition. I personally think if the entertainment industry wants to survive they need to change their business plan. they need make their products more affordable and try to reach a wider audience with them. if they dont change their business plan, they will surely face some bleak times ahead. Setanta in particular are treading a fine line, and i just can't see the value in their product. it will be interesting to follow the future developments in all this, i personally hope this will lead to an end of the monopoly in the long run (afterall, there's only so much resources the lies of the FA and SKY can give to fighting this legal battle, but they'll never be able to put an end to it fully).

leninbenjamin

Bubs101 wrote: »

The music industry has clamped down on it though. In 2000, there was only Napster so if you downloaded music you were getting it for free, now, Itunes dominates over illegal downloading so I certainly think that the musicians were succesful

heh, not a hope. all itunes has done is to 'slow' the growth of illegal downloads, it's been far from a victory. itunes has shown that people are willing to pay for music legally, but it's still vastly overpriced. their costs are much lower, and there's much fewer markups in the supply pipeline and it still costs over €10 for an album. the music industry is killing itself slowly.

~Rebel~

Its so stupid though, it would be so easy to set it up so that every game could be streamed officially while still protecting the attendances. Just set a stream for, say Liverpool V ManchesterU to be available to all IP's with the exception of those within Liverpool and Manchester. There are obviously ways around this but most people won't be arsed trying to figure out IP spoofing.

It has to be the way to go. Would be easy and cheap for a station the size of Sky to set this all up and charge up to a fiver a match. Id pay that for top quality over jittery stream that may or may not cut out just as a goal is scored.

tallaghtoutlaws

I watch these streams every week for games we can't watch on Setanta or Sky. Its funny reading the article they stress this that its people watching games not broadcast in the UK. So my point to them if you want people to stop doing it offer the fooking games yourself and give the fans the option to watch their own teams. I would gladly pay for some sort of season ticket to watch Liverpool every week as I do when im in the US with American Football games on directTV. IF the FA were smart enough they would let Sky or Setanta show all the games on a Saturday in a Pay Ver View. Its ridiculous to complain about it when there are solutions to allow fans watch the game on their own TV. FA are muppets plain and simple.

Bubs101

leninbenjamin wrote: »

heh, not a hope. all itunes has done is to 'slow' the growth of illegal downloads, it's been far from a victory. itunes has shown that people are willing to pay for music legally, but it's still vastly overpriced. their costs are much lower, and there's much fewer markups in the supply pipeline and it still costs over €10 for an album. the music industry is killing itself slowly.

Not a hope of what? All I said was that Itunes dominated illegal downloading which it does. You've got to remember that most of the people on Boards are probably far more likely to download illegally as most of them are men familiar with a PC. Itunes has made massive moves in other markets and it hasn't slowed down. Obviously you can't stop illegal downloading, but Itunes has done a great job of profiting during it

Mossy Monk

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

I watch these streams every week for games we can't watch on Setanta or Sky. Its funny reading the article they stress this that its people watching games not broadcast in the UK. So my point to them if you want people to stop doing it offer the fooking games yourself and give the fans the option to watch their own teams. I would gladly pay for some sort of season ticket to watch Liverpool every week as I do when im in the US with American Football games on directTV. IF the FA were smart enough they would let Sky or Setanta show all the games on a Saturday in a Pay Ver View. Its ridiculous to complain about it when there are solutions to allow fans watch the game on their own TV. FA are muppets plain and simple.

+1

If they offered an option to watch all games then there wouldn't be a problem. I think it is crazy that people in the middle east can watch every game live but in England they cant. Personally I have Sky Sports and Setanta Sports but cannot see all Arsenal games on them. That is where streaming is handy. The FA should offer an alternative before having a whinge about it.

leninbenjamin

Bubs101 wrote: »

Not a hope of what? All I said was that Itunes dominated illegal downloading which it does. You've got to remember that most of the people on Boards are probably far more likely to download illegally as most of them are men familiar with a PC. Itunes has made massive moves in other markets and it hasn't slowed down. Obviously you can't stop illegal downloading, but Itunes has done a great job of profiting during it

are you saying more people download from itunes than illegally? that's what i thought you said.

I've never seen figures that suggests itunes can come even close to the figures downloaded illegally, if you've got any sources to that effect i'd love to see them.

ntlbell

Bubs101 wrote: »

The music industry has clamped down on it though. In 2000, there was only Napster so if you downloaded music you were getting it for free, now, Itunes dominates over illegal downloading so I certainly think that the musicians were succesful

A vast majority of people who use itunes I would hazzard a guess are mostly people who would of bought legal music anyway.

Ilegal downloaders just moved to other means than napster and in 2000 and before there was plenty of places to download ilegal music bar napster..

I guess the main problem the FA will have is forcing laws in countries where the uk have no duristricton to do so

it's a losing battle from them really..

Chardee MacDennis

leninbenjamin wrote: »

are you saying more people download from itunes than illegally? that's what i thought you said.

I've never seen figures that suggests itunes can come even close to the figures downloaded illegally, if you've got any sources to that effect i'd love to see them.

i thought he meant that too, if so he is very very very wrong, there are estimated to be over a billion songs downloaded a month through illegal services and iTunes has sold about 6 billion songs since 2004...

I only watch streams when United arent on TV, this is quite the annoying.

Bubs101

BastardPrince wrote: »

i thought he meant that too, if so he is very very very wrong, there are estimated to be over a billion songs downloaded a month through illegal services and iTunes has sold about 6 billion songs since 2004...

I did, I guessed, my bad.

Chardee MacDennis

Deleted User wrote: »

I only watch streams when United arent on TV, this is quite the annoying.

same with myself (well for liverpool) watching it online is muck generally and can be very frustrating...

Mitch Connor

Agreed - rare to get a really good stream. Generally i'll have the game on streaming in the background and keep an eye on it, but i'd still sit down for football first later in the day to see it properly.

spockety

eirebhoy wrote: »

Afaik TV companies have an obligation to stream the Champions league matches they show. Anyone confirm this?

It's true.

UEFA are pretty progressive... from next season they also have to be streamed to mobile I believe.

iseegirls

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Just set a stream for, say Liverpool V ManchesterU to be available to all IP's with the exception of those within Liverpool and Manchester.

I think most, if not all of Manchester United supporters are outside of Manchester. This way would not work like that.

iseegirls

iseegirls wrote: »

I think most, if not all of Manchester United supporters are outside of Manchester. This way would not work like that.

:rolleyes:

Yea every fan of every club on these boards is from that city.

Savman

Oh big bad justin.tv me arse. Just give us a decent subscription service from the clubs and problem solved.

tetsujin1979

Savman wrote: »

Oh big bad justin.tv me arse. Just give us a decent subscription service from the clubs and problem solved.

Clubs in England can't do that, for the same reason they can't sell rights to their own games, it has to be done as a whole, i.e. Liverpool can't sell the TV rights to their own games, the whole Premier League is sold as a chunk.
If it was, then United would have a massive advantage with their huge worldwide fan base.
I believe clubs in Italy can do this though, which leagues to strike action every other year before the start of the Serie A season!

Savman

Clubs, PL, whoever. Right now they offer nothing, so people flock to streaming sites by default.

Benedict XVI

Tom65 wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest - is there anyone here who doesn't pay for Sky or Setanta because they can get the matches streamed?

I do.
I used to have Sky Sports and realized that last year I was only watching it for American football.

I got rid of it after the Superbowl and did not re-subscribe this season, deciding instead to try my luck with streams, which is fine cos now I can watch any game I like

Mossy Monk wrote: »

+1

If they offered an option to watch all games then there wouldn't be a problem. I think it is crazy that people in the middle east can watch every game live but in England they cant. Personally I have Sky Sports and Setanta Sports but cannot see all Arsenal games on them. That is where streaming is handy. The FA should offer an alternative before having a whinge about it.

I totally agree about the FA whinging, as most people have said here they watch streams to see their team live, Sky and Setanta only offer a small % of games live.

Games cannot be broadcast live in the UK at 3pm because of the effect it would have on lower league games, I am not sure how many would not bother going to Leyton Orient v Northampton if West ham v Chelsea was on TV.
Until they do something about that problem then you will always have people going alternative routes to view there teams games.

In the NFL in America a game will not be shown live in the home teams area (75 mile radius from stadium) if it is not sold out 72 hours before kick-off.

tallaghtoutlaws

Benedict XVI wrote: »

In the NFL in America a game will not be shown live in the home teams area (75 mile radius from stadium) if it is not sold out 72 hours before kick-off.

Who told you that? I lived in within 75 miles of a couple of NFL teams and have watched them live on TV with the stadium no where near being full. Local Broadcastors will still show the games even in the local area as in most cases the reason the stadium is empty is due to the team being sh1t.

Benedict XVI

tallaghtoutlaws wrote: »

Who told you that? I lived in within 75 miles of a couple of NFL teams and have watched them live on TV with the stadium no where near being full. Local Broadcastors will still show the games even in the local area as in most cases the reason the stadium is empty is due to the team being sh1t.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_on_television#Blackout_policies

tonc76

Benedict XVI wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_on_television#Blackout_policies

Wiki is not the bible I'll have you know:pac:

Chardee MacDennis

spockety wrote: »

It's true.

UEFA are pretty progressive... from next season they also have to be streamed to mobile I believe.

hahahahahaha progressive? uefa? lol! they charge e2 to watch old games! wtf? they are supposed to be promoting football, it should be free. I understand having to charge for live streaming due to the massive fees the broadcasters have to pay but for archive stuff its a joke....

Charlie

tonc76 wrote: »

Wiki is not the bible I'll have you know:pac:

True, but the NFL blackout policy isn't something someone made up on Wiki, it is well known.

tonc76

charlie mchugh wrote: »

True, but the NFL blackout policy isn't something someone made up on Wiki, it is well known.

So well known that tallaghoutlaw who has lived in the States close to a few franchises never heard of it?

Benedict XVI

tonc76 wrote: »

So well known that tallaghoutlaw who has lived in the States close to a few franchises never heard of it?

I have also lived in the US was was very aware of the 72 hour rule, and I also recall reading about it in a mag about 20 years ago. I am sure there are other sources out there describing it.

Anyway I do not know how it would work in the UK, unlike the US where the game is not available because of the effect on the attendance at that game, the rule in the UK is that the game is not available because of the effect of attendance on other games.

Boggles

For people in Europe who must see their team play. The best option is to Subscribe to Sky Italia. They show all the major leagues, frequently showing 8 or 9 out of the 10 prem league matches a week. You can get an annual subscription for about €800, it is a tad expensive, but it is a premium that has to be paid if you want the comfort of knowing you can watch all your teams matches. It's actually roughly the same if you are on the top sky package for the 12 months.

As for streaming, they may be able to close down a couple of the big boys, but they could never stop it completely, for a 100 euro you can get a device that sets your own network up as a streaming server.

I detest streams anyways, best thing to do is have a media blackout and pretend your watching it live on Football first.

spockety

Boggles wrote: »

For people in Europe who must see their team play. The best option is to Subscribe to Sky Italia. They show all the major leagues, frequently showing 8 or 9 out of the 10 prem league matches a week. You can get an annual subscription for about €800, it is a tad expensive, but it is a premium that has to be paid if you want the comfort of knowing you can watch all your teams matches. It's actually roughly the same if you are on the top sky package for the 12 months.

As for streaming, they may be able to close down a couple of the big boys, but they could never stop it completely, for a 100 euro you can get a device that sets your own network up as a streaming server.

I detest streams anyways, best thing to do is have a media blackout and pretend your watching it live on Football first.

Yeah I tried that last Saturday only to discover that Spurs V Liverpool was not one of the choices on Football First! >:(

How do you find out in advance which matches are going to be on it??

elshambo

HalloweenJack wrote: »

The links on justin.tv hardly ever work so it's no big loss, imo.

However...

If that start cracking down on the FSC or Goltv streams then I'll be pissed.

Shussshhhh!!!
Justin provides a valuable service, it keeps people away from the good streams

tallaghtoutlaws

Benedict XVI wrote: »

I have also lived in the US was was very aware of the 72 hour rule, and I also recall reading about it in a mag about 20 years ago. I am sure there are other sources out there describing it.

Anyway I do not know how it would work in the UK, unlike the US where the game is not available because of the effect on the attendance at that game, the rule in the UK is that the game is not available because of the effect of attendance on other games.

See the blackout rule only applies to loacal TV as in a branched off version of Fox or CBS etc etc. But with national air time on cable on CBS and FOX on their main stations that is games get shown within the 72 mile distance. I didn't say i never heard of it, It just doesn't happen the way it used to. CBS and Fox and ABC all vary from state to state and its very rare games do not get shown within the 72 mile radius. Im a huge American football fan and have lived in the vacinty of some of the NFL stadiums in different states not on purpose mind you But with mainstream cable now and the likes of Directtv that 72 mile rule only affects smalls station like WSTV 24 etc etc.

tallaghtoutlaws

elshambo wrote: »

Shussshhhh!!!
Justin provides a valuable service, it keeps people away from the good streams

Yeah I love it when people use Justin.tv means more quality streams elsewhere on the lesser known ones :D

x in the city

screw sky, their monolopy has ruined the game and is the sole reason players get 1 million euros a month nowadays.

and not everyone supports liverpool, man united, chelsea and arsenals.

so us little evertonians, bolton wanderers, aston villans, hammers and what else cant watch our teams.

so sky can take a hike.

and for the record, since these sky ba$tards ruined the english game, even money bags liverpool cant win a league title.... and everton, well we are waiting to hear from mr gadzillionaire before we manage to win another one..