Illegal IPTV providers jailed.

Glad to see the real criminals are being caught and jailed.

This is the real reason...

The music model has shown ( Spotify, Apple Music, etc ) make your service at a reasonable cost that most can afford and pirating will be reduced greatly.

I was paying €140 a month for Sky+ HD with all sports last year when my offers went - madness when you can't even see all the games.

This is just an attempt to make a stand against a massive battle that authorities won't win in my eyes anyhow.

There is too much greed in football though. The presenters on sky, the players and the managers are all on mental money all back boned by the TV deals. I fully agree that the model has to change but it's hard to see how they sell it cheaper given the money being made.

If I want to watch Liverpool v ManUtd in the PL and want to purchase that game only the most I'd be willing to pay is 5 euro. They will never sell it that cheap though.

I'm happy enough to use alternative means to stream. Ironically I think it's morally more acceptable than what legitimate providers are charging. They are the ones who are morally bankrupt at this stage.

One thing doesn't make sense though.

The people who stream illegally aren't likely to pay for a subscription though a legitimate source anyway as they won't be able to afford it. I'd like to see what Sky and BT claim are the losses they are suffering in this regard.

I agree with most of what you said btw. I just don't care though. It would be different if Sky or BT were offering the service at a reasonable price.

You’re listening to Sky News too much.

A couple of things, there's been more headline stories of this nature the past few months (in my opinion) as well as some stories about "AI catching pirate providers" so there's definetly a drive by the rights holders to highlight the seriousness of this particular crime and the stamp down they are making. They are trying to project the fact that time is running out on these providers.

Hard to know - the reality is the providers that are based outside of the UK/Ireland/EU will be very difficult to shut down without some significant assistance from ISP's and local governments etc.

Nowadays the average Joe on the street is using IPTV (from what I have heard) and thats a significant loss to the rights holders and it is a loss - there are a large number of people who have ditched traditional TV for this particularily in the past couple of years so there is significant loss to rights holders.

Now, whether your moral compass is flexible enough to pay unknown people to steal content is neither here nor there - many people will just do it if it's significantly cheaper.

It's not just Sky, the PL losing out here, any legiitimate provide of video or live content is losing out.

The changes made a few years ago to the PL rights issueance to allow for more "Competition" have done the opposite to what they were intended to do. The ideas was to reduce costs on the individual but they have ended up significantly increasing costs.

The business model isn't sustainable - and neither is the spending in the PL. Something will go bang.

Nobody really knows if it's a victimless crime in fairness.

Your take on competition is wrong - the PL have made the most of the new rules by splitting up the rights so a number of platforms can bid for them - they are the ultimate winners. The media companies themselves, I believe, arent acting in a cartel like manner.

Think of a business with actual competition

does it look like the sports broadcasting business?

yes the PL are taking the piss too

if I want to watch a certain PL game, I have no options, just the one

wheres the competition

All those football managers are they losing their jobs because of steaming 🤣

oh the tears

they are burning this money, hilarious

totally victimless

how will they afford all big sams bungs now 😂

The competion angle was brought into ensure there wasn't a monopoly of one organisation that controled ALL of the rights (Sky).

This just ended up meaning that an individual could end up having to pay multiple subscriptions to multiple providers. That's the "Competition" that is at play.

So it's ended up costing a consumer who might only have one bill to pay for content, pay numerous bills monthly.

The PL were the winners and remain the winners with that money filtering down through the leagues etc.

In relation to "victimless" crime here - I appreciate that people don't really have much time for the faces of top level soccer when they take home hundreds of thousands a week etc but these IPTV services also pirate many other channels, many movies and series and the ACTUAL impact of their use on the various industries involved is difficult to measure.

I'd imagine this thread won't last long. Boards.ie seem to sh1te themselves when we start having a debate about IPTV, the cost of legitimate products and why we won't pay it.

So take carraghers salary of 1 million. That's 8333 subscriptions at €120 per month. FFS. That's not taking into account the pubs that pay way more than that.

We've been saying for years that this bubble in football couldn't possibly last so let's see. With more and more quality alternative providers now available it should suck away more over paying customers. People who I know that aren't tech savvy have even switched and think it's great. They would have been people before who would have struggled hooking up a new tv. Everyone has a price and I really think Sky/ BT and the PL are starting to hit the point where customers say no thanks.

It's almost impossible for them to block these services which is great. My guy operates out of the middle east so won't be out of business soon.

In all honestly if a man sitting at home can't afford €120 a month (although the Sky website tells it's €55pm for 12 months) then maybe it's just a service that's out of range for him. Nobody HAS to watch sport and there are free alternatives to watch regular TV. If he misses football he can watch highlights, CL football on free tv or go down the pub for a match if he really wanted to. If he can't afford a Tesla he might buy an MG. If he can't afford to drink in a pub he might drink at home.

Just because something is available doesn't make it okay to take it if you can't afford it.