Fezmid Posted February 3, 2011 Author Posted February 3, 2011 well i watch the same bloody commercials everyone else does when i watch the bills online. That's actually not always true. While you'll see the same national commercials, the local affiliates get to put their own commercials in as well. So if you watch the Buffalo broadcast, it will have different commercials at times compared to the Miami broadcast (for example).
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 My beef is not with the sites getting shut down, it's my tax dollars being spent to protect corporate interests. If it's unwed mothers on food stamps we call it welfare. But when it's a billion-dollar business it's what? Not to mention the diverting of time and effort from defending against real terrorism. PTR Doesn't the FBI investigate bank robbery's? Whats the difference?
BuffaloBillsSD Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I paid 300 for Sunday Ticket and Center Ice which is a great value. The NFL is selling a product, if you don't want to pay then stop crying.
Fingon Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) This doesn't really matter... ATDHE.net will become ATDHE.info, and when they seize that it will become ATDHE.tv, and on and on. This won't change the site's availability. Edited February 3, 2011 by Fingon
metzelaars_lives Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 So according to literally MOST of the people on this thread, anytime our pinko commie government invests any time doing anything that doesn't involve fighting for freedom and fighting against terror, then they are wasting our hard-earned money. So even though this is thievery and clearly wrong (I know your Jesus wouldn't be in favor of it), it's wrong of the government to pay any attention to it because it doesn't involve terrorists. Right. And I love how you act as if this has diverted all this time and energy and tax-payers money. They probably had some intern take care of it. I'm sure Obama himself has no idea what this stupid website is. You people listen to entirely too much apocalyptic scare tactic news programs.
shrader Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 That's actually not always true. While you'll see the same national commercials, the local affiliates get to put their own commercials in as well. So if you watch the Buffalo broadcast, it will have different commercials at times compared to the Miami broadcast (for example). Not to mention the fact that many of these sites wind up putting their own ads somewhere on the page while you're watching a game. So they're making money off of something that doesn't belong to them.
Acantha Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 First, Sunday ticket is $334 -- http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/sports/nfl If you don't have/want DirecTV, you can get it via broadband for $350 -- not much more than if you have DirecTV and still only $20/game. Isn't that only if you can prove you're not able to get a satellite signal? My beef is not with the sites getting shut down, it's my tax dollars being spent to protect corporate interests. If it's unwed mothers on food stamps we call it welfare. But when it's a billion-dollar business it's what? Not to mention the diverting of time and effort from defending against real terrorism. PTR One of the very few things our government is supposed to be spending time and money on is protecting property rights.
Cornerville Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 So according to literally MOST of the people on this thread, anytime our pinko commie government invests any time doing anything that doesn't involve fighting for freedom and fighting against terror, then they are wasting our hard-earned money. So even though this is thievery and clearly wrong (I know your Jesus wouldn't be in favor of it), it's wrong of the government to pay any attention to it because it doesn't involve terrorists. Right. And I love how you act as if this has diverted all this time and energy and tax-payers money. They probably had some intern take care of it. I'm sure Obama himself has no idea what this stupid website is. You people listen to entirely too much apocalyptic scare tactic news programs. Example #34243423423 of why I am not a lib like you or a Con.
Ramius Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 You're thinking two years ago -- last year there was no extra charge for HD, there was only an extra charge for streaming. And if you went to the bar every week, you spent far more than $250. Nope, didn't spend more than $250. I went to 11 games at the bar this year, and spent under $150. I go because its been cheaper than sunday ticket. The NFL could make a lot more money by offering more choices at a more reasonable price.
Acantha Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Nope, didn't spend more than $250. I went to 11 games at the bar this year, and spent under $150. I go because its been cheaper than sunday ticket. The NFL could make a lot more money by offering more choices at a more reasonable price. Actually the NFL made money off you anyway. Bars have to pay commercial prices to show Sunday Ticket to their customers. So in the end, the NFL did offer you another choice at a more reasonable price.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Actually the NFL made money off you anyway. Bars have to pay commercial prices to show Sunday Ticket to their customers. So in the end, the NFL did offer you another choice at a more reasonable price. Did the NFL offer include beer and broads like the bar?
CDogg20 Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 So what are the best sites for free sports now?
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 So what are the best sites for free sports now? same place
boyst Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 same place After that one goes we can move to .cc, then .org, then .me, etc.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 After that one goes we can move to .cc, then .org, then .me, etc. I am sure I will be criticized for posting the link. Like I can find it but the Feds can't. And I am getting sick of the whining on here about "if you want to see it, pay for it" I just can't get satellite T.V. at home. To many trees and mountains in the way. Online is the only way I can watch the Bills. And it has nothing to do with " cheapness" or "stealing".
boyst Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I am sure I will be criticized for posting the link. Like I can find it but the Feds can't. And I am getting sick of the whining on here about "if you want to see it, pay for it" I just can't get satellite T.V. at home. To many trees and mountains in the way. Online is the only way I can watch the Bills. And it has nothing to do with " cheapness" or "stealing". cost of you finding it: probably less then $5 worth of time. cost of the gov finding it: probably more then $5 worth of time.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 cost of you finding it: probably less then $5 worth of time. cost of the gov finding it: probably more then $5 worth of time. Well they have to search OTW to find my my link, so I suspect no cost savings.
bowery4 Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) Here is the thing if you are not in the US or some select other parts of the world you cannot watch your favorite football team every week. These people doing this illegal streaming are providing a service that I have donated to and would pay for (albeit the price the NFL asks for it is way too high) if it was available here in Thailand. What I really don't understand is how the rest of the world lets the US own the internet.I think that will change and we will see other ones in the future, the problem being it will be China that does it and not Greenland or some Scandinavian country. The Superbowl being a big market thing will be on TV here as are 5 or 6 games a week (the Bills 1 time in 2 years so far) not of my choosing. Oh and BTW it is a waste of government resources if the offending parties can just endlessly just change the URL 5 minutes later. I for one can not see the logic of it. Edited February 4, 2011 by bowery4
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 "Openly refuse to cooperate with intellectual property This is far more powerful than illicit copying. The methods of nonviolent action can be used here, including noncooperation, boycotts and setting up alternative institutions. By being open about the challenge, there is a much greater chance of focussing attention on the issues at stake and creating a dialogue. By being principled in opposition, and being willing to accept penalties for civil disobedience to laws on intellectual property, there is a much greater chance of winning over third parties. If harsh penalties are applied to those who challenge intellectual property, this could produce a backlash of sympathy. Once mass civil disobedience to intellectual property laws occurs, it will be impossible to stop. Something like that is already occurring. Because photocopying of copyrighted works is so common, there is seldom any attempt to enforce the law against small violators—to do so would alienate too many people. Copyright authorities therefore seek other means of collecting revenues from intellectual property, such as payments by institutions based on library copies. Already there is mass discontent in India over the impact of the world intellectual property regime and patenting of genetic materials, with rallies of hundreds of thousands of farmers.29 If this scale of protest could be combined with other actions that undermine the legitimacy of intellectual property, the entire system could be challenged. The magazine Third World Resurgence has regular reports on this issue. See for example Martin Khor, "A worldwide fight against biopiracy and patents on life," Third World Resurgence, No. 63, November 1995, pp. 9-11, and the special issues on patenting of life: No. 57, May 1995 and No. 84, August 1997." From: Against Intellectual Property
Acantha Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I am sure I will be criticized for posting the link. Like I can find it but the Feds can't. And I am getting sick of the whining on here about "if you want to see it, pay for it" I just can't get satellite T.V. at home. To many trees and mountains in the way. Online is the only way I can watch the Bills. And it has nothing to do with " cheapness" or "stealing". You can pay for it and get it online. Did the NFL offer include beer and broads like the bar? ? The NFL offer allowed the bar (beer, broads and all) to show the game. So yes.
Recommended Posts