Slashdot Mirror


The Mayweather-McGregor Fight Shows It's Impossible to Stop Social Media Streaming of Big Events (vice.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Nearly 3 million viewers are estimated to have watched the fight this weekend via online streams, according to Irdeto, a digital security firm. Though many of these were slick, traditional streaming websites, there was also a new surge in social streams. Between Periscope, Instagram live, Facebook live, YouTube, Twitch, and smaller platforms like Kodi, Irdeto identified 239 streams of the fight over the weekend. And with the option to have private, share-with-just-your-friends streams (like private Facebook Live feeds), it's likely there are many more streams of the fight that were running than Irdeto wasn't able to track. Social media livestreaming has exploded in recent years, creating a whole new avenue for illegal sharing. In 2015, when Mayweather squared off against Manny Pacquiao in another much-anticipated fight, Periscope was only two months' old. Facebook and Instagram's live feed functions were still a year away. Now, they're as ubiquitous as the platforms that host them. Plus, with every smartphone now equipped with a high definition camera, most homes connected to high-speed internet, and the ease of streamable services on already-familiar social media sites, it's no wonder there was such a torrent of pirated feeds.

88 comments

  1. Underestimate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    239 streams has to be way, way low- I don't know that there's another way to explain that it took so little time to find a social stream of the fight. At a bar with some buddies, none of us took more than 5 seconds to find a stream, and it turned out all four of us were watching different streams.

  2. Watched on Twitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They took down a few streams but I had 6 queued up so no problem.

    Only an idiot would pay 100 bucks for a boxing match.

    1. Re:Watched on Twitch by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 1

      No one person pays $100 for a boxing match just like no one person watches a boxing match by himself. It's a party thing.

    2. Re:Watched on Twitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      only an idiot watches 2 men beat each other up for money

    3. Re: Watched on Twitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm an idiot.

    4. Re:Watched on Twitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watched mine, by meself, while wearing mah kilt, lad. Ye dunna know what yer talkin bout.

    5. Re: Watched on Twitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You let other people share your stream? We better hire more copyright police to stand in every house and make sure no guests come over to watch!

    6. Re:Watched on Twitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you understand the amount of work and training that goes into this; it's not a simple bar-room beatdown.

    7. Re:Watched on Twitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only an idiot watches 2 men beat each other up for money

      Ever see two men beat each other up for next to no money?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    8. Re: Watched on Twitch by KGIII · · Score: 1

      *cough*

      The only other viewer, at my house, was my dog. He was largely uninterested and the girlfriend was entirely uninterested. $100 isn't that much money. You should have seen my coke budget from a few years ago. Now that was a waste of money.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    9. Re: Watched on Twitch by GungaDan · · Score: 1

      Boxing fans - I guess we're the new deplorables.

      --
      Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
    10. Re: Watched on Twitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Betting, especialy in jail/prison

  3. a torrent of pirated feeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "a torrent of pirated feeds." - I see what you did there.

  4. 175 million to punch someone by blahbooboo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is something disappointing that punching someone earns 2 people $175 million dollars. Shame we dont have as much enthusiasm for Nobel laureates as we do for sports and the oscars.

    1. Re:175 million to punch someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holey shit, I know right?

      I mean did you see the Michael Sayman goes from Twirter to Amaazon Event? It was so awesome and literal.

      Like, Micahael Sayman was makeing these candy games at Tweetor and now he drives his nerdy fagwagen to Amaazon, can you belive it?? I cannot litterally believe that. Its too litterally epical.

    2. Re:175 million to punch someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank god for your shoes.

    3. Re:175 million to punch someone by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Two people punching each other has some entertainment value. I'm not sure what, but apparently plenty of people are willing to pay $100 to watch that. How much entertainment for these people is there to be had from science? Maybe a robot fight or a SpaceX launch. Nothing worth $100. Nothing to enthuse over by the water cooler the next day. It's not about what we value more, or about whom we should reward for a certain service, but about how much money the public will pay for watching you do your stuff. You do something, anything, that makes millions of people fork over $100 for a stream or god knows how much for a ringside seat, and you too can earn that kind of money. And I bet that even in an anti-idiocracy, people still wouldn't pay for live chess matches or quantum physics lecture battles.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    4. Re:175 million to punch someone by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Two people punching each other has some entertainment value. I'm not sure what, but apparently plenty of people are willing to pay $100 to watch that.

      It's a combination of things:
      - appealing your primitive emotions (watching members of the same species smashing each other is a strong enabler);
      - forbidding you from experiencing the same event personally, with the exceptions of some very specific places and people (aka "creating scarcity");
      - making this a rare enough event (aka "creating more scarcity")
      - making you believe you want to watch it (ads, commercials, more ads, more commercials)
      - peer pressure ("all my friends watch it, I should too, otherwise they'll think less of me").

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    5. Re:175 million to punch someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of people enjoy that, and they paid for it. Would you rather some company takes all that money and the fighters only get $1 million each? Fuck you.

    6. Re:175 million to punch someone by boudie2 · · Score: 1

      But some people do have more enthusiasm for Nobel Laureates. We call them nerds.

    7. Re:175 million to punch someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Combine the two - Nobel laureates MMA style, whoever wins receives the prize!

    8. Re:175 million to punch someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot that in a large enough event, lots of alcohol and drug girls will be available. I mean, seriously, why NOT be there unless you are married? You telling me you wouldn't want to enjoy a young drug lady bouncing on your knee while you enjoy a tasty beverage while watching two people pummel each other?

      Sounds like fun to me. I'm married though, so instead the wife and I find our own fun at home. It's a lot better.

    9. Re:175 million to punch someone by Yaztromo · · Score: 2

      There is something disappointing that punching someone earns 2 people $175 million dollars. Shame we dont have as much enthusiasm for Nobel laureates as we do for sports and the oscars.

      You get two Nobel laureates in the ring for a no-holds-barred punch-up, and I'm sure you'll find lots of people willing to pay to watch :D.

      Yaz

    10. Re:175 million to punch someone by burtosis · · Score: 1

      You have it backwards. It's the idea that this is interesting while other science or academic achievements are about as much fun to the normals as supergluing your junk to a cop car. beating the remaining brain cells from a half unconscious guy is totally awesome, and the reason we don't live in the 27th century technology already.

    11. Re:175 million to punch someone by war4peace · · Score: 2

      Before I was married I found my girls in metal clubs. I rarely drink and never did drugs.
      Now that I'm married and have kids, even metal clubs are a thing of the past.

      But married or not, I never was able to enjoy that kind of weird combination of things you mentioned. I think I'm just a hippie who had the misfortune of being born 3 decades too late.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    12. Re:175 million to punch someone by atticus9 · · Score: 1

      Nobel prizes aren't really set up for spectators. Like the 2016 physics award went to three people for "theoretical discoveries of topological phase transitions and topological phases of matter". Without context, it sounds impressive, but has little meaning. Furthermore the work was done decades ago, even if it was meaningful it's probably for something that I've taken for granted most of my life and that also makes it hard to get excited about. Like your parents telling you how great they are for giving you free food when you're a kid.

      TL;DR if the Nobel prizes made an effort to be engaging, like the Olympics or Oscars, they probably could get a decent following and cash flow going.

    13. Re:175 million to punch someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] Like the 2016 physics award went to three people [...] TL;DR if the Nobel prizes made an effort to be engaging, like the Olympics or Oscars, they probably could get a decent following and cash flow going.

      Why not solve both problems: Research Assistant Thunderdome.

      "Two grads enter, one grad leaves! Two grads enter, one grad leaves!"

    14. Re:175 million to punch someone by ayesnymous · · Score: 1

      Ewe our trighing two harhd too ahvoyd thee En Ess Ay.

    15. Re:175 million to punch someone by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Well, seeing as Nobel prizes are a joke. Obama got one, Henry Kissinger got one, and Yasser Arafat got one. All of them are murderers. The Nobel prizes didn't die, they committed suicide.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    16. Re:175 million to punch someone by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "It's not about what we value more... but about how much money the public will pay for watching you do your stuff."

      Uh huh.

    17. Re:175 million to punch someone by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Paying to watch something for entertainment is not the same as valueing it. I value science more than many other things, and if the IRS let me pick what to spend a portion of my taxes on, I'd pick science. I'd pay a researcher to do his research... but I wouldn't necessarily pay to watch him do it, or even be interested enough to watch it for free.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    18. Re:175 million to punch someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... as much enthusiasm for Nobel laureates as we do for sports and the Oscars.

      An Australian car advert notes this problem: http://www.bandt.com.au/advertising/wifi-inventor-john-osullivan-stars-new-skoda-campaign-via-ddb-sydney

      Sports events and movies have a predictable audience and thus a captive consumer base to take money from. No-one owns facts so scientists don't have a monopoly business model. That's why patents were invented but they're owned by the employer. Maybe we need scientists to be employed on a 'per gig' basis, like athletes and movies stars. That way scientists can demand a percentage of the profits created by those patents.

    19. Re:175 million to punch someone by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      It's more than that though, these are athletes at the peak of physical fitness and training challenging each other. I think there's something to be said for that.

    20. Re: 175 million to punch someone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd pay to watch Nobel prize winners beat the crap out of each other. Especially Nobel Peace Prize winners.

    21. Re:175 million to punch someone by Wootery · · Score: 1

      It's not so bad. It's a proper sporting event, even if it's a weird novelty match. Yes, it's a violent contact sport, but I have no issue with that.

      I'm not disheartened to see it receive so much attention. It's a good deal better than the vacuous garbage they normally print in the tabloids, or show on crapholes like msn.com.

  5. Kodi is not a streaming platform by hackel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why must reporters be so completely incompetent? Kodi is a media player. It is not a "social streaming service" by any stretch of the imagination. It is best compared to a *web browser*. Are people blaming Chrome and Firefox for online streaming? I don't think they are. Do some fucking research!

    1. Re: Kodi is not a streaming platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea that is nonsense. It has the same capabilities as Plex.

    2. Re: Kodi is not a streaming platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Butthurt or not, what you said was stupid. The typical Kodi user probably has never even used it to stream even once. There are plugins to allow that, but Kodi is pretty damn nice for just playing video files.

      You probably ought to try out more pirating. Once you do, you'll quickly start to think of streaming as a niche case. "Sports" might be the only thing where you'd ever be willing to forgo the nicer performance of playing local files.

    3. Re: Kodi is not a streaming platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So wrong. Kodi is used to play media and it can come from anywhere. iTunes can be used to play pirated music or legitimately purchased music, all at the discretion of the user.

    4. Re: Kodi is not a streaming platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, shill.

    5. Re: Kodi is not a streaming platform by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Kodi might be the 'browser' of choice for streaming video, true, but that doesn't make it a platform for piracy. The only streaming I've done with Kodi has been the YouTube add on.

    6. Re: Kodi is not a streaming platform by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Firefox and Chrome have many other common legitimate uses. Kodi is generally used for piracy and serves no purpose other than streaming. There's a big difference no matter how butthurt you trolls get about it.

      Butthurt or not, what you said was stupid. The typical Kodi user probably has never even used it to stream even once. There are plugins to allow that, but Kodi is pretty damn nice for just playing video files.

      1. YHBT.

      2. I'd like to see the numbers on that. I would not be surprised if the inadvertent Kodi users who simply purchased a magic black box on the internets or at a flea market now outnumber the intentional ones who want to play legimate format-shifted copies of media to which they have a license.

      You probably ought to try out more pirating. Once you do, you'll quickly start to think of streaming as a niche case. "Sports" might be the only thing where you'd ever be willing to forgo the nicer performance of playing local files.

      Most people are able to appreciate high-resolution video, but most people also seem to be willing to put up with low-resolution video. Even 480p carries a stunning amount of detail compared to the VHS crap that we had for years. Once you get up to 1080p, the benefits begin to diminish sharply for most people because of their viewing arrangement. And in plenty of cases, the poor bitrates of streaming media take little away from the content. Not everyone is watching science fiction epics (or anime, I guess) with loads of color and contrast. Lots of people are watching mundane stuff without a lot of fast motion which is mostly in natural tones and shades of grey, and they'll be fine streaming. Even more people don't want to pay for anything better, which is why they're trying not to pay for content.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re: Kodi is not a streaming platform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck? Kodi doesn't even do streaming, you can put in some addons that do it but the product itself is just a media player/manager.

    8. Re: Kodi is not a streaming platform by NitroWolf · · Score: 1

      Firefox and Chrome have many other common legitimate uses. Kodi is generally used for piracy and serves no purpose other than streaming. There's a big difference no matter how butthurt you trolls get about it.

      What the hell are you talking about? I've used XBMC (now Kodi) since it was on the Xbox. The original. I have numerous media players in the house (Kodi) and I've never once streamed a single thing with them. Kodi serves plenty of other purposes than streaming.

    9. Re: Kodi is not a streaming platform by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      In the UK streaming is better quality than broadcast TV. Broadcast HD streams are only 1440x1080 resolution, and the standard chosen only supports up to 30p as well. The compression is terrible too.

      In comparison YouTube has better resolution and average bitrate, and Netflix is in another league.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re: Kodi is not a streaming platform by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, I've never streamed a HD broadcast in the USA, but my understanding is that there's quite a bit of variation in bitrates, such that some stations are better than internet streaming, and some are worse.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re: Kodi is not a streaming platform by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Streaming is better quality on this side of the pond too, though not for the same reason:

      - Broadcast TV, which very few people use, is ATSC which is MPEG 2 based. While H.264 appeared in the standard in the late 200xes, it's unused, very few TVs support it. ATSC only supports 1920x1080i/30, 1280x720p/60, and some SD resolutions. To make matters worse, ATSC is very vulnerable to bad weather and other sources of interference, and this is 100% due to a "NIH/America is different" attitude by the FCC. When it works, it's moderately good quality, but still manages to be slightly inferior to a VUDU/Netflix/etc stream at 1/3 of the bitrate.
      - Cable and Satellite are worse, they usually are based off of the MPEG 2 streams broadcast by the TV stations, recompressed as H.264 (adding a whole new set of artifacts), and over compressed at that. Some networks (I believe Dish does this) also cut 1920x1080 to 1440x1080.
      - Many cable and satellite boxes then upconvert the signal, regardless of source, to 1080i/30 ot 720p/60, making it harder for the reverse pulldown logic built into most flat panels to remove interlacing artifacts without introducing artifacts of their own.

      Seriously tempted to play with Sling TV's service (essentially cable TV over the Internet), as I just find the current situation beyond ridiculous.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  6. $100 by Thundercat007 · · Score: 2

    Charge$100 for the PPV and this is what you get. Charge 10x for a business to do so and they won't pay. Instead of licensing it to a sports channel, allowing them to charge other channels around the world to view it. Take in the advertising dollars, nope PPV $100 for a lackluster fight with a pathetic ending.

    1. Re:$100 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's difficult to argue that the event wasn't a financial success. I may not like their business model, but I can't think how else they could have made more money.

    2. Re:$100 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This. I'm a huge boxing fan, and even used every penny of what I had saved to that point in my life to see Muhammad Ali's last fight in Nassau. I still refused to pay the large price to see this fight. I waited to see the highlights on the news. Boxing is killing itself by excluding casual fans. It's the casual fans that become hard-core fans. Everyone in the country talked about Ali and later Tyson. Their fights were national events that became a part of the American culture. Now, only the few hardcore fans see fights. Boxing isn't gaining enough new fans to survive.

    3. Re:$100 by antdude · · Score: 1

      Also, I thought it was already included if one subscribes to Showtime on cable TV too when I checked on CATurday evening/night. Lame!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  7. Re:Democrats need to condemn Islam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah...you're a crazy f*ck!

  8. was this 'pun intended' ? by zuki · · Score: 0

    > it's no wonder there was such a torrent of pirated feeds.

    'pun intended' ? mmm, couldn't resist.... how appropriate.

    1. Re:was this 'pun intended' ? by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      No, this is a "Motherboard" (Vice) reporter. They are humorless and very unfunny. The fact that you even suggest they made a pun is somehow sexist and insensitive. WTF is wrong with you? I hope you are proud of yourself.

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  9. Why would you want to? by H3lldr0p · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's what these events are. They are a place for the wealthy, the well to do, and the well connected to show off. This is conspicuous consumption writ large. If you are the person putting this boxing match together, you want people to show up and show that they're present because that's how you get people to go the next time.

    Used to be you'd have to have the camera swing over the stands and maybe send a few people with a mic down to interview a few choice people who agreed to ahead of time. Now? Now, they do it all for you. Maybe you have to send a few official invites out, maybe comp a few tickets but otherwise, social media doing all of this is the stuff of dreams for promoters.

    The only people who hate the steaming are those who haven't figured out a way to profit off of it yet.

  10. Sort of like novel writing by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 1

    There is something disappointing that punching someone earns 2 people $175 million dollars. Shame we dont have as much enthusiasm for Nobel laureates as we do for sports and the oscars.

    It would probably end up like novel writing.

  11. Technical problems do a good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Technical problems seem to d a great job of stopping live streaming events. In addition to on site problems, dropping a bad routing table could stop it all.

  12. good ol' uncle ScreenCam! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still a better stream than Showtime!

  13. Also that non muilt-cast streming sucks by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    Also that non multi-cast streaming sucks.

  14. The bigger the hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bigger the money grab

  15. Ahhh, Repblican logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't ask Drumpf to call out all of Christianity for actions of a few dumb hillbillys. Why should you expect all of Islam to be called out for the action of a few radical terrorists?

    Oh, that's right . . you guy's like fear-mongering based on hyped-up stereotypes.

    Carry on.

    1. Re: Ahhh, Repblican logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the dumb hillbillies took over an area the size of New England, excited homosexuals and took sex slaves, you would have a good analogy. Check your privilege and be thankful that you lead a sheltered life.

    2. Re: Ahhh, Repblican logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      White Lives Matter #WLM

  16. Well, people do pay money for classes by Koreantoast · · Score: 1

    Shame we dont have as much enthusiasm for Nobel laureates as we do for sports and the oscars.

    Well, people do pay large sums of money for the privilege of attending their classes, regurgitating what they said, and working with them. Yes, there's certification at the end of it, but the value of that degree comes in part from the reputation of said collection of intellectuals.

  17. ... and very few would have payed even without by millertym · · Score: 2

    Once again the topic of piracy and an article's implied reasoning that each illegal stream took directly away from revenue. It's been discussed for well over a decade now, and I'm still convinced that true fans and people who can pay for some form of entertainment do so, even considering illegal alternatives.

    Likewise, those with merely a passing interest in a form of entertainment and only participate in that form of entertainment if they can do so free, would not pay ever, even if there were no other way to participate. They would just go without because they don't care enough.

    Digital piracy is not a 1 to 1 loss. Not even close.

    1. Re:... and very few would have payed even without by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * Paid. "Payed" is not a word.

    2. Re:... and very few would have payed even without by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pay2
      pe/
      verb
      Nautical
      past tense: payed; past participle: payed

  18. The great white hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fight was just like the movie.

    1. Re:The great white hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except it was nothing like the movie if you watched it.
      It was about a mma fighter trying his hand in boxing.
      I really wanted Connor to win just to see Vegas bookies take a massive hit.
      odds started at 800-1.

    2. Re: The great white hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watched the fight. It was everything like the movie. The outcome was known from the get go. O'Connor punches hard for an mma guy but not for a boxer. The only big difference between the movie and the fight was it took 10 instead of 1 but it was all just entertainment. The bum never had a chance.

  19. Underground Faraday cage + concrete bunker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    problem solved.

    That's why I always earned the big bucks - by achieving the impossible. Fucktards

  20. illegal sharing my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How is that any different than having a few friends to sit in front of a screen?

    1. Re: illegal sharing my ass by burtosis · · Score: 1

      How is that any different than having a few friends to sit in front of a screen?

      I thought that too was illegal now...

    2. Re: illegal sharing my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that any different than having a few friends to sit in front of a screen?

      I thought that too was illegal now...

      Look on the bright side. At least the gathering itself is not forbidden. At least you don't need government permission to meet peers and talk with them in a room without government recording devices.

      I for one am enjoying fleeting freedoms while they last.

    3. Re: illegal sharing my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, Siri, tell the google home to change the channel.

  21. I think what it really shows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that it's impossible to stop McGreggor from hammering his opponent in the back of the head.

  22. Oh My Stars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So many people sharing something they like with their friends and family! I bet everyone involved in that fight lost money. Poor Mayweather and McGregor must be broke now from all their losses.

  23. more than i thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what kind of idiot pays $100 to watch a boxing match and stands there viewing it on their iPhone ?!?

    oh well, I put boxers and MMA into the same ring with most reality shows. Lots of money for people of little use.

    Maybe if we combined some of this it would be more fun. MMA and NFL where concussions is the goal, afterall we have boxing combined with some kind of ice sport.

    1. Re:more than i thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      afterall we have boxing combined with some kind of ice sport.

      I'm pretty sure that when hockey players flail around at each other that landing a punch is sheer luck in most cases.

      There were some notable exceptions in the past but most of those types of players aren't in the league anymore. These days if you can't skate and play the system you're out.

  24. Everybody can understand the value of punching by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    Nobel prizes? Much, much harder to understand.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  25. Nearly 3 Million watched the fight by n329619 · · Score: 1

    and at least 1 billion did not watched the fight and maybe 0.25 million knew about the fight only because it was streamed.

    Although it's not sourced, they should know the publicity of the fight is pretty limited to their region (USA). If not for the streaming network, a lot of people wouldn't even know they exist.

  26. panem et circenses by thesupraman · · Score: 1

    I am very surprised this wasn't free.

    Remember kids, Panem Et Circenses.
    Those who dont study history are doomed to repeat it (no, thats not the translation, for those who cannot be bothered thinking..)

  27. Ummm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I watched it by myself and I paid nothing for it since Azteca aired it for free. You might want to keep your day job, being a hot take pundit isn't going to work out.

  28. Re: Ahh, once again, Repblican logic, hard at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would never happen. They're too busy bombing abortion clinics, shooting up Jewish centers and running people over with cars.

    Therefore, my analogy is perfect.

  29. Re: Ahh, once again, Repblican logic, hard at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody died at Charlottesville. Nobody. There was no death cerficiate or ambulance at the scene.