Facebook and YouTube Are Full of Pirated Video Streams of Live NFL Games (cnbc.com)

Pirated video streams of televised National Football League games are widespread on Facebook and on Google's YouTube service, CNBC has found. From a report: Using technology from these internet giants, thousands of football fans were able to watch long segments of many contests free of charge during the league's Week 13 schedule of games last Thursday and Sunday. Dozens of these video streams, pirated from CBS and NBC broadcasts, featured ads from well-known national brands interspersed with game action. This online activity comes as the league struggles with declining ratings that have been blamed variously on player protests during the national anthem and revelations about former players suffering from a brain disease caused by concussions. Yet this illegal distribution of NFL content may also be crimping the league's viewer numbers.

Comments

No

[AlanBDee]

It's a video of me petting my cat. The fact that the game occupies 99% of the video and the audio is directly fed from the tv is totally not the point.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't give a dime to those commie bastard kneegros.

Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

illegal distribution is not what is affecting numbers. It's how hard it is to watch the games. Outdated policies on which games can be run by the local affiliates, MNF on ESPN, Thursday night football on who-knows-where... and an all access sunday ticket available only through DirectTV for $300. This is a symptom of a larger issue.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, my wife no longer watches sporting events. We'd have to have a $150 a month cable package AND pay $20 a month to watch. Back to no cable for us, and the odd netflix or youtube show plus OTA broadcasts.

Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

News at 11: companies want to make more money and there's lots of money to be leached from spectators.

The entire sports theater is a consumer jerk around. Furthermore, sports are meant to be played, not watched. Go play a sport with the time you invest in watching and it will likely cost a lot less (depending on the sport) and the added benefit is it can reduce your sedentary lifestyle that could help your overall health (again, depending on the sport) which ultimately would reduce long term medical expenses related to heart disease and obesity/diabetes, a huge and growing problem here in the US.

I'll never understand the fascination in watching sporting events where people are so far removed from the event and people actually involved. If you know the players in someway where you have direct regular contact then sure. Maybe if you're reviewing a spectacular event or a pro to improve your own approach, sure. Sitting around drinking beer and downing a load of carbs... kind of has nothing to do with sports.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. On top of that, a lot of these are "out of market" games where you cannot watch the team you want because you live (or are travelling in) a different part of the country. Some are cable cutters. They may have a couple of streaming services such as NetFlix and HBO. But they don't have anything that includes a sports package and those packages, when they are even available for streaming, are prohibitively expensive. This is like DVD region coding - they are making people who wouldn't mind reasonable fees into "pirates". The other people aren't going to pay no matter what so you can't ever count them as a lost viewer unless you give the product away for free.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[amicusNYCL]

This is exactly why I watch less football. I can't find an option that will let me stream whatever live games I want. There are all kinds of packages I *could* buy, but they don't want to sell me what I actually want. If you go to the NFL's site you can see hey, watch all 256 games! But they're not live. OK fine, here's some live games but the one you want to watch isn't available because it's "out of market", whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean to me. Or here, every game live, for only 4 times as much as you want to pay and part of an entire cable TV package. I don't know why they don't understand that the old model of licensing specific games to specific networks is now costing them money if they are giving out exclusive deals so the games can only be shown in that one place. So, in my house, if Kodi is up for the job then we find a stream, and it not then I don't watch or just listen to the radio. Once they figure out that it might be a good idea to sell me what I want to buy then I'm happy to spend the money. Otherwise if I really, really need to watch that game I'll just go out to somewhere showing it. Either way, the NFL is leaving my money on the table.

Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions

[tepples]

sports are meant to be played, not watched. Go play a sport with the time you invest in watching

Good luck with that if you have any of several disabilities, or if there isn't an amateur league for your sport near where you live.

Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions

[losfromla]

Bread and circuses, my friend, bread and circuses. It is one of the symptoms of a declining empire. The USA is exhibiting a phenomenal number of them.

Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't realize the vast majority of sports spectators had disabilities, especially those that don't result from poor lifestyle choices. For those, I say go ahead and watch until your heart is content.

For the rest of them, which I figure is about the same distribution as the normal population which is well over the vast majority, I say go be active and stop making B.S. excuses to be lazy. If your a league isn't available start blasting out information and establish a league yourself or simply play for... yes: fun.

I have a friend loves badminton but I live in a super small rural town so surprise: no bad minton here. I picked up a cheap racquet to play with him occasionally but we simply play tennis most the time as an alternative. Sometimes we play basketball or just pass a baseball around. You don't have to play competitively to play sports.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Or here, every game live, for only 4 times as much as you want to pay and part of an entire cable TV package....
Once they figure out that it might be a good idea to sell me what I want to buy then I'm happy to spend the money.

Apparently not

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Reasons people don't watch NFL football:

1) Don't care. There are billions of people who aren't fans. They might be fans of other sports. They might be fans of quilting. They just aren't fans of NFL football.
2) Don't pay. There are millions of people who don't or can't pay to watch. These fans are entirely dependent on local OTA broadcasts... or internet streaming. Either way, the NFL isn't making any money from these people.
3) Don't like the politics. There are hundreds of thousands of people who didn't like the fact that politics they didn't agree with got some controversial attention during NFL games. Waaaaaaah!
4) Don't like the violence. There are a lot of violent moments in NFL football, and a lot of injuries. Some people don't like gore. Then again, those people usually won't shut up about it to other people that don't give a damn, which leads to more violence until they shut up or pass out from the beatings.
5) Don't like the greed. Entire cities are feeling a bit cool toward the NFL these days. Can you blame St. Louis, San Diego, or Oakland for giving less than a shit about football when they have no team? This is the NFL's own doing, and it's biting them in the ass exactly as predicted.
.
.
.
9999999999999999998) The heat-death of the universe.
9999999999999999999) Arrrrrr! There are tens of people who, on principle, only watch on unauthorized internet streams because they're swashbuckling copyright violators.

Pirates are literally the least of the problems the NFL has.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[habig]

This is exactly why I watch less football. I can't find an option that will let me stream whatever live games I want. There are all kinds of packages I *could* buy, but they don't want to sell me what I actually want.

This! I used to be able to subscribe to audio of games on nfl.com for ~$25-$30 a season. Living "out of market", I can't listen on the radio while doing whatever else consumes a Sunday afternoon. I used to be able to hand over some $$ to the nfl and listen to my team's radio guys over the internet.

But, they stopped that service. Now, if you want the radio, you have to pay $100 or more for a package of recorded TV broadcasts. I have no interest in watching the game later, it's live sports. So, they don't get my $30 anymore because they more than tripled the price and added in something completely worthless to me in exchange.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Dutch Gun]

Yep, same with me. I don't care at all about any NFL games except for my local team. Currently, within my family, only my parents still subscribe to cable. So, every few weeks, we all gather there to watch the Sunday game and enjoy dinner afterwards. Otherwise, I just listen to the radio at home. I was able to watch ONE game this season because Amazon Prime Video streamed Thursday night games.

If the NFL sold per-season streaming for specific teams (or heaven forbid, even games on demand) for a reasonable cost, I'd certainly sign up. There is literally no simple way to stream just the NFL games I'd like to see on my big-screen TV.

My feeling is that the NFL is going to be about 5-10 years behind the ball on giving us decent streaming options. It will take a younger, more internet savvy generation to make those decisions. The current execs still think of internet streaming as a sideshow, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy since they currently offer crappy packages.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont watch stupid american "football" at all.
You need to man up and just switch to a better world football game, you call it soccer.

Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. The NFL is incredibly backwards with respect to showing games out of market. The only option in many cases is NFL Sunday Ticket, which is only available via DirecTV. The only alternative is, if you're absolutely unable to get DirecTV at your location, you can get it as a standalone service. This is incredibly backwards.

If I want to watch out of market MLB games, I can sign up for MLB.TV without subscribing to a particular satellite or cable service. The NHL has GameCenter. The NBA has League Pass. All of these are streaming services that aren't tied to specific providers.

If you're pirating MLB, NHL, or NBA games, it's because you're too cheap to pay for them. The only exceptions are with in-market games and national broadcasts, which generally can't be streamed. However, broadcasting rights agreements are being renegotiated to start allowing this.

If the NFL would simply catch up with the rest of the leagues, this wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that they don't want you watching out of market games unless you sign up to the exclusive deal they have with DirecTV. The other leagues have figured out how to make huge profits from streaming the games and letting anyone sign up. The NFL Is way behind the times on this issue.

Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Most other leagues are happy to sell me a streaming video package regardless of which cable, satellite, or internet provider I subscribe to. They also have packages that can be purchased through your cable or satellite provider to see the same games, and most providers carry these packages. Those leagues happy to take my money and give me the product I want. The NFL is different. Unless I subscribe to DirecTV, they're not interested in taking my money and delivering me NFL Sunday Ticket. The NFL would have less of a piracy problem if it was happy to sell their product to anyone regardless of their provider.

Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Soccer?

Yeah and I punched her in the face too.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[jellomizer]

Could it be, a general decline in the interest of watching sports in general?
Being that we now live in a world of multiple forms of entertainment, and a huge archive of recorded shows on our beck and call via streaming. Perhaps sports just isn't as interesting.
Back in the days where it was common to not have cable, Sports took up 1/5 or greater of the watchable TV when it was on.
But watching sports now one of thousand options you can pick to do.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

>Man up
>Divegrass

good one m8

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[techsoldaten]

Absolutely correct.

I am a Patriots fan living in DC. Every Sunday, I find the best feed on Reddit to watch the game.

By contrast, I watch Red Sox games on MLB.tv. Cost about $100 for the full season in HD and no commercials. Gladly paid it and watched maybe 75% of games last season.

In the NFL, all but 8 markets have sub-par teams. No one really wants to watch their team lose every Sunday, they want to see the games people will be talking about next week. Or at least be able to check in on them. Market exclusivity is hurting the NFL more than any other factor.

Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlikely. Attendance is as high as ever to watch games, whether professional or college. People generally feel some allegiance to teams, which is not something that occurs with other TV. In some cases, it's because those teams represent their college or city. The real problem is the NFL is far more aggressive than other leagues in restricting the distribution of their product. Basically, you usually have to be a DirecTV subscriber to get out of market games. It's not really any different than a musician only making their product available on one streaming service like Tidal or TV shows being exclusive to Amazon Prime or CBS All Access.

Other leagues like MLB experienced a significant growth in broadcasting revenue when they started streaming games out of market. Anyone can subscribe, and MLB's internet and mobile services had 3.5 million subscribers back in 2015. MLB was an early adopter of streaming their games online. Lots of comments criticize the movie and music industries for fighting technology rather than adapting their business model to keep up. MLB has done exactly what we say other businesses should do, so I'm glad they've been successful. The NFL is stuck in the past. There's plenty of interest, and I'd bet they could exceed the subscriber base of MLB given the overall popularity of the NFL. They could probably bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from such a service, but they're just not interested in offering it. One of the main reasons cited for piracy is that the content producer doesn't want to sell you the product. There's no shortage of potential subscribers, but the NFL doesn't want them as customers.

Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

sports are meant to be played, not watched

FUCK YEAH!

If you're "into sports" that means you play sports. It doesn't mean you watch TV.

Not that there's anything wrong with watching TV, but if you call that "sports" then something extremely fucked up is happening inside your brain.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Quirkz]

By contrast, I watch Red Sox games on MLB.tv. Cost about $100 for the full season in HD and no commercials. Gladly paid it and watched maybe 75% of games last season.

Which only works because you don't live where your team plays. I looked into the baseball package when I cut cable, and the answer was I could watch any game I wanted live, but not the local team, which was the only team I actually wanted to watch. I found that frustrating and just gave up on the sport rather than spend money on subpar options.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I live, only girls play soccer.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[ausekilis]

The NFL is hell-bent on their business model of regional lock-in to try to fill the stands. They have this crazy rationale of "if they can't see it at their local pub, they'll cough up the $$ for the tickets instead". They could fill 10,000 seats for $25 a ticket or sell 50,000 streams for $5, either way they are $250k richer. They'd lose concessions and memorabilia, but the latter could be bought online. They may even sell more since the fans saved some money by streaming.

You can't tell me that the NFL only makes money through ticket sales either, not when they charge $80+ on a jersey or $45 on a football.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[schnell]

They could fill 10,000 seats for $25 a ticket or sell 50,000 streams for $5, either way they are $250k richer.

You are missing an important economic element here, unfortunately, because the NFL is not a single entity and the "they" in your statement above is different in the two cases you suggest. The money that the NFL makes from TV or streaming rights is split equally among all teams. (Hello, Buffalo Bills business model!) The money made from ticket sales is kept by the home team (split with the visiting team) and not distributed among the league's teams equally.

So if you have a popular/successful team that spends the money to put a winner on the field and create a good fan experience to fill up the stadium, you damn well want to keep that money and not see it shared equally with the loser franchises who put out a mediocre product and live off the TV/streaming rights. So there is a definite economic interest for some big market/successful teams to drive fans into their Enorm-o-dome and to not make streaming easy to subsidize the other teams who are in effect riding their revenue coattails.

Now, if teams were paid based off TV revenue based on how much particular games were watched, you'd have a more equitable model. But you'd also have no LA Chargers, Jacksonville Jaguars, Cincinnati Bengals or Indianapolis Colts. Then again, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[edtice1559]

I think you can get every game audio on SiriusXM? http://www.siriusxm.com/nflsch...

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

illegal distribution is not what is affecting numbers. It's how hard it is to watch the games. Outdated policies on which games can be run by the local affiliates, MNF on ESPN, Thursday night football on who-knows-where... and an all access sunday ticket available only through DirectTV for $300. This is a symptom of a larger issue.

Perhaps the NFL should just take a knee and sit this one out?

No... wait... they have been there and done that and look what it got them.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[amicusNYCL]

When I want a burger, and I'm willing to pay $10 for it, I'm not going to go out and see a burger that's included if you buy 10 pounds of anchovies for $50 and act like that's what I want.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[amicusNYCL]

Yeah I probably can, but I can just listen to the local sports station for free if all I want is audio.

Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions

[ChrisMaple]

Watching sports is the easiest and most available way to observe human excellence. Playing is fun, but it's not the same as watching people who are (in a narrow field) the best that humanity has to offer.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[ChrisMaple]

Soccer is too disorganized, it's like watching a net full of fish after they've been dumped onto a ship's deck.

Man up? A soccer player on the line of an American football team would fare as well as a pedestrian in a car accident.

Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it not depend on *why* you are watching the activity? Some watch it for the high level of competition. Others because they have some kind of attachment to the town/city/state/country or to participant(s).

Yes, the NFL is the highest level, but also the most boring and one I can find the least connection with. Everything is so 'unpersonalized' and 'corporate'.
Though I have *many* issues with the College system, it is the one I find most appealing. Though I do believe it should become a 'minors league' like baseball has.

I'd honestly rather watch a 2OT game between unranked teams then a boring 'stay safe' NFL game.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

I fully agree and am reminded of ye olde torrent days. We said we wanted better and quicker access to films and shows and while the opposition fought tooth and nail against it, we won and they started providing it how we wanted and we consumed again.

Now it is time for the NFL & others to do the same. They finally have to realize *we* are the consumers and *we* decide how we want to consume. If they are unable to fulfill that, they will feel the consequences, not us.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Rugby then, your dirty braindamaged EASY-WAY-OUT illiterate college boys need 20lbs of padding to survive. You don't see that #safespace bullshit in rugby.

College football scholarships are EASY WAY OUT, they leave COLLEGE while being COMPLETELY ILLITERATE.

Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions

[toadlife]

If you're pirating MLB, NHL, or NBA games, it's because you're too cheap to pay for them.

MLB does the same thing though. I'm a Dodger fan and a cord cutter. I can't stream Dodger games because I am in their media market.

My only choice is to pay ~$60-$100 a month for some Cable/Satellite/Streaming TV service. Since I don't watch TV (Canceled my DirecTV service eight years ago), this is a non-starter.

Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Watching sports is the easiest and most available way to observe human excellence. Playing is fun, but it's not the same as watching people who are (in a narrow field) the best that humanity has to offer.

Plenty of journals and magazines with fantastic articles that are the easy to read and freely available (those not paywalled). In the old days you had to go to a library, today you don't even have to do that.

Seeing human excellence and the best humanity has to offer isn't a monopoly of sports. And reading is easy - or should be - for anybody with a high school education. No need to pay for high cable fees either.

Not only do you get to see the best humanity has to offer, you become a better person by reading - more knowledgeable about the world you live in and able to make better decisions, and the more you do it, the better you become - and that's something hard to say about watching professional sports.

In short, watching professional sports is a poor choice, one not particularly in the interests of society. Get your human excellence fix somewhere else, and become a better human being along the way.

Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions

[LostMyBeaver]

I would like to agree with your impassioned argument. And I suppose I could on some level. These people are really impressive in the capabilities and I suppose it's nice to watch people strive to be the best at something or part of the best team.

I of course, don't agree with sports as sports are yet another means of glorifying competition as a good thing. Cooperation is good, so watching a player be part of a team that can work together to accomplish something greater... that is truly a great thing.

Competition is a bad thing. Nothing in history has ever been accomplished with competition as its motivation that could not have been done far better with cooperation at its core. Consider the space race as an example.

We chose to go to the moon. Yep... we went to the moon and we got bored and we stopped. The Americans went to the moon. The Russians just gave up because why bother going to the moon if the Americans already got there. Its was just a waste of time and money. Yet, when Russia and America worked together and everyone else became involved as well, we got the International Space Station which we have been learning from for a long time. We work together towards something much greater in that case.

We're going to Mars... yesterday Boeing said "we're going to get to Mars before SpaceX" which is stupid. Who cares who gets there first as long as once we start going there, we don't just stop like we did with the moon. How about a better headline "SpaceX, Boeing and other space companies and agencies agree to work together to raise funding and make travelling to Mars a reality"

Organized sports advocate almost all that is wrong with humanity though, they do give a little back in the sense you do get to observe greatness. I doubt I'll ever reach greatness, but I work 10-18 hours a day every day and with the exception of a few short breaks due to becoming a father or burning out, I've done so for 25 years. If I'm not working, I learning. If I'm working I'm learning. I would never waste my life with reality TV or sports and watch other people live their lives. I instead embrace my hopes that I could make myself and the people around me a little better each day.

To be fair though, I imagine you and many others want to watch the best at their peaks. If I were to use my life for something like that, I would simply say that watching people at their peak or near it is boring. It's far more exciting to watch a person rise. Then you can see clear progress in their self-improvement every single day.

And of course, I have been blessed to see human excellence in most everything. You can see human excellence at the park while out on a walk where children learn to walk and climb and run. You can see excellence in a book where an author like Eion Colfer can write an entire novel like Airman which is a display of sheer perfection in his employment of the right work every single time. As though the words were born for no other reason than to narrate his story. The story itself was entertaining, but the words he chose were a display of human excellence. You can visit your local town hall and admire the architecture and think "how did someone managed to design a tool or machine to create columns like that". You can of course watch sports while out as well. You can visit a bar with a pianist who may be lude, crude and barely able to hammer the keys, but watch whether he/she has a gift to entertain.

There are so many different forms of human excellence. But watching two teams blatantly display their ambitions to cause the other team to lose. And in many cases through means of violent domination. I consider this to be a display of the worst of humanity. Excellence can only be achieved through cooperation and never through competition unless the competition is focused entirely against yourself at which point in time, it's just measuring your own progress.

Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions

[techsoldaten]

Yes, definitely, local team restrictions are a bit of a pain. It impacts people following non-local teams too, you can't see your team when they play each other.

Of course, there are ways around that. You could watch it on a TV, but I just connect to a VPN. Does not impact the quality.

sounds boring

[Anonymous Coward]

Who wants to see that ?

Free TV

[Matheus]

If I can watch it via an antennae (w/ Ads of course.. $$ has to come from somewhere) for free then I should be able to stream it on the internet for the same low price. (Consideration given of course for whatever whomever charges to recoup the cost of said streaming) The model of: "Select your cable subscription to stream for free" is BS. I shouldn't need a cable provider at home to have device freedom for my football.

Fix that problem and I'll stop searching for pirate streams on YouTube (and people will be less inclined to want to put them up there)

Re:Free TV

[ddtmm]

But the fact remains, "Any reproduction of this broadcast in whole or in part without the expressed written consent of the NFL is strictly prohibited". So no, you shouldn't be able to stream it in that way.

Re:Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

No. When you steam it, people in the home city may watch your stream rather than pay money to attend the game. You're taking money directly away from the team you're trying to watch.

You people who go off half-cocked thinking that you are smarter than eveyrone else when you don't understand the entire picture piss me off. Please understand that the rules exist for a reason, and if you don't have the mental capacity or knowledge to comprehend why they are there, at least do us the service of not cluelessly explaining why they don't apply to you.

Re:Free TV

[sexconker]

But the fact remains, "Any reproduction of this broadcast in whole or in part without the expressed written consent of the NFL is strictly prohibited". So no, you shouldn't be able to stream it in that way.

If it's an actual broadcast, they lose all expectation to stop distribution once they put it out there. It's the equivalent of shouting from a mountain top (and in many cases it is literally that) and expecting all those who hear you to not repeat what you said. Even if copyright law is on their side, common sense says "fuck you".

Re:Free TV

[scottrocket]

If I can watch it via an antennae (w/ Ads of course.. $$ has to come from somewhere) for free then I should be able to stream it on the internet for the same low price. (Consideration given of course for whatever whomever charges to recoup the cost of said streaming) The model of: "Select your cable subscription to stream for free" is BS. I shouldn't need a cable provider at home to have device freedom for my football.

Fix that problem and I'll stop searching for pirate streams on YouTube (and people will be less inclined to want to put them up there)

Yeah OTA I typically get a 1080 image, great sound - it seems to me that the main fan complaint may be from blackout areas, or unavailable (cable). I agree, fix the availability problem & pricing, and piracy becomes irrelevant: Why worry about something that doesn't affect your bottom line?

Re:Free TV

[Fly Swatter]

There are still blackouts in the NFL? Haven't heard or seen of one in years. Oh, maybe you should read up on the current black out rules before blabbering like a fool - they are suspended.

Perhaps you are thinking of one of those lesser, boring sports where 2/3 of the stadium is empty daily.

Re: Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you should.

Consumers should be able to demand whatever they want and the market should adjust the price to an optimal cost, assuming no monopolies *cough*NFL*cough*. If consumers simply joined together and stopped watching for awhile until their profit margins tanked, you'd see a lot more reasonable options open up.

Re:Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

There are those of us that don't want to go to a stadium to watch. I don't want to deal with the long drive, traffic, parking, high ticket prices, online scalpers, crowds, concessions, and filthy bathrooms. I could see the desire back in the day when TVs were smaller and less clear. Now I will stay at home, eat good food, hang with family and good friends, drink beer and not drive, and watch on the 55 inch HDTV with great replays on a comfortable couch.

I won't watch pirate streams. Highlights will have to do when I don't have an easy option to watch a game. I don't have a DVR, so I can't fast forward through commercials. If they want my advertising dollars, make the games available to watch without me having to subscribe to various services.

Re:Free TV

[amicusNYCL]

Why shouldn't I be allowed to watch the way I want, because they say so? OK, fine, if you've read this far you owe me money. Because I say so.

Re:Free TV

[Wycliffe]

No. When you steam it, people in the home city may watch your stream rather than pay money to attend the game. You're taking money directly away from the team you're trying to watch.

But again, this is why piracy exists. You are trying to dictate how people buy your product. Just sell the product and let the people decide. People go to the game because they enjoy the experience. People stay home and watch the game because they enjoy that experience. There is some overlap of people who might stay home because it is cheaper but, again, that should be their choice. Some people enjoy going to the game, some people enjoy watching it at home, and some people enjoy a mix. I live in a college town where everyone can go to the local game and everyone can watch every game on TV for free. Most games are still sold out. The blackout that the NFL does is stupid. Plenty of people will still want to go to the games even if they can watch it for free at home and the only thing the blackout does is piss off their most important fans which are the local ones nearby.

Re:Free TV

[IMightB]

Not for the NHL, I recently spent 100 to get the NHL unlimited season pass and guess what, even trying to follow their rules, being a good little coporate citizen, results in at least 1/3 of the games I want to watch being blacked out. So why should I follow the rules?

Re: Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, those people can also just go to a sports bar and buy a beer at a fraction of the cost to watch the game. Your argument that you're stealing money away from purchases that were never going to be made by arguing the potential of a purchase existed isn't valid.

This is the same argument the RIAA used to make about digital music, that consumers were stealing all this IP under the flawed assumption (false dichotomy) that consumers only other option is to purchase the IP. Another obvious option is to make no purchase or attend no event, which accounts for the sizable majority.

When I was a young kid/early teenager, I used to pirate really expensive commercial 3D rendering software to play around with for fun and render artwork. My parents were fairly poor (took me a long time of savings to buy a computer) so I can assure you, neither I or my parents would ever have purchased the software. I would have instead drawn or did something else with my time if the piracy option didn't exist. The companies lost no money, and if anything, they gained money because ultimately I've done a good deal of professional 3D development more recently that leverages modern versions of such tools (fully licensed and expanded for multiple users due to my recommendation) from the same company due to my familiarity and industry demand.

Re: Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the first year I've watched football in probably over 20 years. I mainly started watching because some family members did. It turns out the Steelers are having a good year, so I've stuck with it. However, I'm all for joining a large boycott to affect change. I would like this idea for many things to help bring prices and ethics back to a reasonable level from several huge corporations.

Re:Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

But the fact remains, "Any reproduction of this broadcast in whole or in part without the expressed written consent of the NFL is strictly prohibited". So no, you shouldn't be able to stream it in that way.

If it's an actual broadcast, they lose all expectation to stop distribution once they put it out there. It's the equivalent of shouting from a mountain top (and in many cases it is literally that) and expecting all those who hear you to not repeat what you said. Even if copyright law is on their side, common sense says "fuck you".

No it doesn't.
Obligatory Car Analogy: If you park your car in public, should I be able to take it? It's just sitting there in public. You chose to leave it there.

Re:Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

No. When you steam it, people in the home city may watch your stream rather than pay money to attend the game. You're taking money directly away from the team you're trying to watch.

Read the parents post again. The argument was centered around a free OTA broadcast being provided in the home city, which you conveniently overlooked. If you can watch it via a free OTA broadcast, then you should be able to stream it in that same broadcast area (including ads) for the same free cost. The most you should have to validate is the fact that you're within the OTA broadcast range (home address validation, etc.).

And all the streams in the world aren't taking money away from the teams. Those that choose to blow hundreds or thousands of dollars to attend a game in person still do so regardless of alternatives that will always be cheaper.

You people who go off half-cocked thinking that you are smarter than eveyrone else when you don't understand the entire picture piss me off. Please understand that the rules exist for a reason, and if you don't have the mental capacity or knowledge to comprehend why they are there, at least do us the service of not cluelessly explaining why they don't apply to you.

The rules exist because of fucking greed. That IS the "big picture". It's obvious the NFL is not hurting due to the obscene salaries still being earned. Spare us your clueless explanations. Common sense dictates none are necessary.

Re:Free TV

[potscott]

If I can watch it via an antennae (w/ Ads of course.. $$ has to come from somewhere) for free then I should be able to stream it on the internet for the same low price. (Consideration given of course for whatever whomever charges to recoup the cost of said streaming) The model of: "Select your cable subscription to stream for free" is BS. I shouldn't need a cable provider at home to have device freedom for my football.

Fix that problem and I'll stop searching for pirate streams on YouTube (and people will be less inclined to want to put them up there)

A Plex subscription (~$99 for a lifetime), HDHomerun + antenna and you can stream it to yourself (phone, tablet, whatever) for free!

Re:Free TV

[jedidiah]

Great. Another moron that thinks a car is the same as creative work. You get extra moron bonus points because this is something that was HANDED OUT FOR FREE to begin with.

If I GIVE AWAY my car to the public, then I will not be shocked if people actually use it.

This is like you getting butt hurt after you give your car to charity.

Re:Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought we learnt in the 90s that car analogies don't apply to bits.

Re:Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard to do that when the broadcast channel's source is beyond the range that I can receive the signal, even with a rooftop antenna. Living in a rural area has many positives that far outweigh this minor inconvenience. If the NFL would let me stream it for free, they would have another set of eyeballs watching their adds.

Re:Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

You people who go off half-cocked thinking that you are smarter than eveyrone else when you don't understand the entire picture piss me off.

Oh, the sweet, sweet irony.

Re:Free TV

[interkin3tic]

When you steam it, people in the home city may watch your stream rather than pay money to attend the game

That's like saying "We should stop pornography because then people will stop bothering to have sex and the human race will die out."

If you're into it and it's feasible and, you actually do the thing. If it's not feasible, you watch a video of it.

THERE IS VERY LITTLE COMPETITION BETWEEN THE TWO THINGS.

The people who make those arguments are idiots who have way too much political power, but I guess it's good they waste it on trivialities like fighting a losing battle to prevent people from seeing action on screens.

Re:Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

that's unenforceable for anything that is aired on over-the-air broadcast television --- or even just television in general.. perhaps even illegally-restrictive: of course you can record (reproduce) the broadcast for yourself... sony v universal, aka the betamax case, says so.

Re:Free TV

[edris90]

But the fact remains, "Any reproduction of this broadcast in whole or in part without the expressed written consent of the NFL is strictly prohibited". So no, you shouldn't be able to stream it in that way.

If it's an actual broadcast, they lose all expectation to stop distribution once they put it out there. It's the equivalent of shouting from a mountain top (and in many cases it is literally that) and expecting all those who hear you to not repeat what you said. Even if copyright law is on their side, common sense says "fuck you".

No it doesn't. Obligatory Car Analogy: If you park your car in public, should I be able to take it? It's just sitting there in public. You chose to leave it there.

nope, because your car never left the parking lot, you still have your car, what i would be doing is observing your vehickle and making my own that looks and works just like it, al without ever touching anything you own. money isnt real until its in your hand. its not yours until tyou have it. future earnings don't exist they are purely thoretical. and as such do not equate to real value. and thus nothing would be owed you. for you have been deprived of nothing that you actually possesed this may not be supported by law. but is enforced by reality. reality trumps legality

Re:Free TV

[dstyle5]

Yeah the NHL's blackout policy is ridiculous. Yes, they are a gate revenue driven league, I get that, but for them to blackout games in Edmonton while I'm here in Calgary on a weeknight is silly. Of course I'm going to take a day off work to go to Edmonton to watch a game on a weeknight, then drive or fly back to make it to work the next day. Nope, not going to happen so why black it out down here? I found that once Rogers started blacking out more local games I've lost interest in local teams.

As poor as the blackout situation is here in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the territories have it by far the worst. The NHL considers the Flames, Oilers and Jets local teams to these areas. The amount of games people in these areas get to watch from these teams is ridiculously low. 22 Jets, 36 Flames and 37 Oilers games. Why bother to support these teams when they won't let you watch them?

https://nhllive.rogers.com/en/support-game-availability-sknwtnt

Re:Free TV

[Falos]

Yes, I will absolutely take the appearance of that car and photograph or draw it. This includes the LPN, which is a concept that makes me uncomfortable, but the fact is that I publicly broadcast that number when I go out, and I fucking stand by the facts of reality, I don't try to warp laws around them.

Publicly broadcasted imaginary property
Privately possessed deprivable property

Don't fucking conflate the two.

Re:Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

future earnings don't exist they are purely thoretical. and as such do not equate to real value.

And yet people on this board (not necessarily you) seem to get very excited when immigrants obtain jobs in the US via programs such as H-1B, claiming that it *potentially* displaces US workers. So, "potential" economic damage is a valid concern when the discussion is about jobs, but not when it's about business revenues?

Re:Free TV

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

If it's an actual broadcast, they lose all expectation to stop distribution once they put it out there. It's the equivalent of shouting from a mountain top (and in many cases it is literally that) and expecting all those who hear you to not repeat what you said. Even if copyright law is on their side, common sense says "fuck you".

Nice try, but it's not legally like that at all. 3 years ago a company named Aereo tried a similar tactic to argue that their TV service, which didn't involve them paying licensing fees for the channels they offered, was basically what you are claiming and the Supreme Court had a very different idea. When the law says "It's illegal to do that" and you think "common sense" says otherwise, the law can still come after you and you will lose your argument.

Re:Free TV

[sexconker]

"Legally", no. Factually, yes. You can't broadcast something and expect to control it.

Re:Free TV

[Matheus]

As a practical matter: The NFL blackout for *broadcast only was on when the stadium was not sold out.

My local team hasn't missed a sell out since like 1986.. SO broadcast is never blacked out locally BUT streaming is. Heck I'm a season ticket holder which, for the first time, they gifted us NFL Red Zone and NFL Network memberships **EXCEPT: I can't watch my own team play because it is always blacked out even when they are away... that's just plain stupid.. and the NFL can't claim I'm doing this for free as between my SBL and each season cost they are getting a LOT of my money.

SO my TV-free household is *forced to pirate the games because even with their #%$%^& subscription service I can't stream the games.

Bushleague.

Re:Free TV

[Z00L00K]

Reality has now come to the point when that statement is surpassed and NFL has to accept reality and find other paths to ensure their income.

Re:Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

No. We learned that car analogies apply to everything on Slashdot, but incorrectly.

Re:Free TV

[R3d M3rcury]

Cool. So it's okay if I listen in on your cellphone calls. You're broadcasting, after all. You can't expect to control it.

Re:Free TV

[Shotgun]

Taking it is not the right analogy.

Proper Obligatory Car Analogy: If you park your car in public, should I be able to take a picture through the window and then share it on social media?

Re:Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you've never encountered "incels".

Re:Free TV

[Shotgun]

Yes. Which is a big reason for the switch from GSM, which broadcast voice in the clear and could be picked up by any mediocre ham radio operator, to encrypted channels.

Re:Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. They started doing the same for NFL radio broadcasts that were once readily available on a bunch of different streaming apps and made them either turn off the stream or stream other content. If I am in the state of that team there is no reason to make it difficult to listen to a game on my phone. Not a lot of people doing proxy on their phones so it's not like you have to worry to much about out of state people stealing streams.

Re:Free TV

[Obfuscant]

Yes. Which is a big reason for the switch from GSM,

GSM is digital, encrypted. You mean AMPS.

Being received in the clear was not a big reason for digital, it was that you can pack more users into the same space with digital than analog. The first digital systems in the US were not GSM, they were CDMA. GSM was the world standard, and eventually migrated here.

The idiotic change to the Communications Act that made it illegal to sell or manufacture certain radios with certain cellphone frequency bands was driven by the use of AMPS and "in the clear" cell transmissions, and the idiotic idea that there was some expectation of privacy when someone transmitted their voice in the clear over the public airwaves.

Re:Free TV

[R3d M3rcury]

Well, it depends. I like the concept of Aero. But you're right in that the argument is distribution.

My attitude--which is not necessarily the attitude of the law--is that once I get the signal, I can do whatever I want with it, for my own personal use. That last part is the rub. If I want to set up a streaming server so that I can watch the Rams' game on my phone, it's not a problem. It becomes a problem when I tell everyone else that they can watch the Rams' game because it's no longer for my own personal use.

And, yes, you can draw the analogy of me inviting my buddy over to watch the game and how I should be able to share the address/password with my friend and that might be legit.

Re:Free TV

[interkin3tic]

They would fall under "If it's not feasible."

Re: Free TV

[Obfuscant]

Consumers should be able to demand whatever they want and the market should adjust the price to an optimal cost, assuming no monopolies *cough*NFL*cough*.

The source being a monopoly or not makes no difference. If a provider does not want to sell you his product in the form you demand it in, he cannot be forced to do so. The fact that there are two providers who decide not to sell you their product in the form you demand doesn't change anything. It's their product, they get do decide how it is sold.

There was some comment upthread comparing being able to stream a game based on a cable subscription and streaming based on ability to receive the broadcast OTA. The reason for the difference is pretty simple. It is trivial to prove that you have a cable service that would carry it (I have a username and password for Comcast, e.g.) It is VERY hard to test whether someone asking for a streaming feed is able to receive the service OTA. The IP address is meaningless as a location, and ability to receive an OTA program depends on having the equipment -- something that a streaming source cannot possibly identify.

If consumers simply joined together and stopped watching for awhile until their profit margins tanked, you'd see a lot more reasonable options open up.

That's probably true, as far as what formats the existing product were available in. It is unlikely that a product that is no longer profitable would draw another provider into the market. I.e., if the NFL was no longer a cash cow, don't bet on an "AFL" or "USFL" professional football league popping up to add to the product mix. "Unprofitable service" may result in lower cost delivery options, but will not create the option of another provider of the same kind of thing.

An example that might be close is the NHL. They had a strike that really tanked their profits from television, and, if other people are like me, they lost a lot of viewers permanently. I lost interest in NHL when there was none, so I'm guessing a lot of others did, too. That's ok, there's soccer to fill the void. But you will note that there is no alternate hockey league to fill the gap from the NHL losses.

Re:Free TV

[Obfuscant]

Why shouldn't I be allowed to watch the way I want, because they say so?

Yes, they don't authorize streaming feeds, for example, so you don't get to watch a streaming feed just because you say so.

OK, fine, if you've read this far you owe me money. Because I say so.

Sorry, your analogy fails. I am reading this in the same medium that you posted it, so you have granted rights to read without cost. That is why the NFL cannot say that you must pay to watch the OTA broadcast as a private user. They've already authorized that.

Now, if someone were to think of gathering all the /. posts into a book, your analogy might hold. There is, in fact, precedent for this consideration, from the time when people were using USENET posts as source for published books or commercially produced content. I don't know if that was ever tested in court, but I know it was a consideration. Considerate publishers asked before using USENET FAQs.

Re:Free TV

[ChrisMaple]

Wrong. He's narrowcasting.

Re: Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Competition is your equivalent gradient descent optimization function in capitalism so yes, having a monopoly does matter.

It means you end up bound to a local minima of sorts because no other searches are being performed anymore since it's not useful for the monopoly to bother with. You need multiple instances of gradient descent (or some search) to help find more optimal minima that meet consumer demands and find new or niche markets. If you're a monopoly, you have no other search space solutions to compete against so you can say whatever you like. If you're not a monopoly, then you have competitors that will explore these other options and find more optimal market solutions that forced you to compete.

Re:Free TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he is saying that he should be able to receive an incoming stream from the NFL that is equivalent to OTA broadcasts.

I also read it as he should be able to produce an outgoing stream first, but that is the joy of English I suppose.

Re:Free TV

[amicusNYCL]

I think that way of thinking is on the way out. There is going to come a time, and that time is relatively soon, when the way that content gets consumed is irrelevant, where content is not going to be directly tied to a specific distribution medium. The NFL is stuck in an old business model, and it shows. They can either fight it tooth and nail and try to sell ESPN the rights for one game a week at ridiculous prices, but if that's a game I really want to watch I'm not going to purchase some giant TV package that includes ESPN just so I can watch that game. I'm going to find another way to watch it. If the NFL wants my money then they'll figure out how to distribute their content in the way that I, and a lot of other people, want to watch it. It's just that simple. Of course they don't have to, but if they don't they just aren't going to get my money for it. And if there's one thing the NFL loves, it's money.

Natural result

[indros13]

Of the rapacious cable network no longer allowing me to watch a game broadcast free over the air without a subscription. First I had to watch in SD only, then I had to pay for the HD box, and always with a monthly subscription cost that kept rising. And then to get the stream, I have to login with my cable account (that I don't want, because it's expensive).

Re:Natural result

[Anonymous Coward]

Put some rabbit ears on your TV, bonus it will probably look better than the at least twice recompressed garbage coming over the coax. It is amazing how many people have forgotten that technology still exists. I also don't get the whole restreaming something that was broadcast OTA = piracy. The content was paid for by the ads in the content, unless the streamer is blocking out the ads when commercial breaks come up, then you are still eyeballs on the advertiser's ads. Now if they are streaming content from cable/premium networks like the NFL network then yes that would be an issue.

Yet as a taxpayer, I pay for the stadiums

[Anonymous Coward]

So fuck you NFL. A bunch of millionaires and billionaires taking my tax money for their party, and then charging me an arm and leg to watch them celebrate.

Re:Yet as a taxpayer, I pay for the stadiums

[originalGMC]

amen sister.

Re:Yet as a taxpayer, I pay for the stadiums

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just the stadiums. If the NFL insists on keeping its tax-exempt status, then all games should be broadcast for free.

Re:Yet as a taxpayer, I pay for the stadiums

[Anonymous Coward]

The NFL stopped being tax-exempt more than two years ago.

The fact that people keep bringing it up in argument is just evidence of how little anyone really cared.

Re: Yet as a taxpayer, I pay for the stadiums

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and as a result, the NFL no longer has to disclose the ridiculous salary they pay Roger Goodell. His salary is in rhe tens of millions each year, despite probably being the worst commissioner of any of th four major sports. I'm no fan of Gary Bettman, but even he is a huge improvement over Goodell. The players despise Goodell. Even some owners like Jerry Jones really hate him.

Re: Yet as a taxpayer, I pay for the stadiums

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and as a result, the NFL no longer has to disclose the ridiculous salary they pay Roger Goodell. His salary is in rhe tens of millions each year, despite probably being the worst commissioner of any of th four major sports.

Interesting you say that, when just today ESPN wrote an article on exactly that topic. His base salary is single digit millions per year, plus a boatload of bonuses that the owners must approve based on his performance.

Re: Yet as a taxpayer, I pay for the stadiums

[Anonymous Coward]

And the overall salary with bonuses will be up around $40 million. Although salary information for commissioners is somewhat sparse, this seems to be quite a bit more than any other commissioner in North America.

Goodell's tenure as commissioner has been somewhat tumultuous. He's come under fire for his responses to issues of player safety and discipline. He's damaged relations with the NFLPA and had a lockout under his watch despite far more revenue to distribute than any other league. Though unsuccessful, Jerry Jones tried to prevent the extension that Goodell received.

For someone with the salary that Goodell receives, I'd expect him to handle those issues far better than he has.

Guilty Pleasures

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite being told that they should boycott the NFL, people still want to catch a game, because they grew up liking the sport whose players betrayed them. So, they sneak a peak here or there through illegal channels, because they don't want to feel like they're supporting the NFL or its commercial partners. Piracy provides them with that chance to feel like they're getting away with a guilty pleasure.

Re:Guilty Pleasures

[Anonymous Coward]

Piracy in general--Corporations have bought and paid for the government. Piracy is one of the few ways the common man can get one over on them. It isn't even a guilty pleasure any more. It's justice.

TV shows, Movies, and you name it are on YouTube..

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously... I can find shows cut up by people on their channels with advertising attached to it so they can make some coin. Cartoons, TV shows, you name it are on there.

slow blink...

[originalGMC]

I say this in response to the article with all due respect to the athletes ..... SO THE FUCK WHAT .... wanton commercialism has made this "sport" boring as fuck. Pirate it. Athletes should be glad someone is watching them. Why should they care if a group of old white neo-fascists is profiting from their toils? Ticket sales / stadium beer prices alone, in large part, are enough to pay player salaries. Cable companies and the NFL can go fuck themselves.

Re:slow blink...

[Anonymous Coward]

Glad they're getting what they deserve for their blatant disrespect of the country, anthem, flag. Considering how many of their fans are bud light drinking, bleeding the colors of the flag, shotgun in their truck window types.

Practice your free speech on your own time, not on your employers dime. I guarantee if any joe blow tried to exercise their freedom of speech while on the company clock in a way that disturbs the business they would soon find themselves collecting unemployment checks

Re: slow blink...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Disturbs the business." Lul.

If a couple people taking a knee disturbs your business, then you have bigger issues.

Do you know why the NFL even has the national anthem? Because the US military complex pays them to play it before every game.

So fuck outta of here. Free speech and the right to protest. They didn't bother anyone. It's just a bunch of white people getting salty. Most of them are probably draft dodgers.

Fuck the flag, fuck the anthem. It's meaningless bullshit.

Re: slow blink...

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that blind nationalism is pretty terrible, the ideals and principles originally set forth in this country are worth respecting.

With that said, our flag and anthem are symbolic of the *current* state of affairs in this country and not the original state so, I'm with you: screw the flag and the anthem.

Our flag, anthem, etc. are being used nationalistically as thin veils over those merely seeking greed and power by exploiting ignorance, not for the ideals this country were originally founded upon.

Re: slow blink...

[Anonymous Coward]

While I have to agree, a big portion of the NFL audience obviously does not. If the NFL isn't going to reprimand their employees for harming their business then they get what they deserve. If you don't agree with your employer's policies go find another fucking job. Unfortunately for them their career choice means that about all they are qualified for besides that is to flip burgers at mickyd's

Re:slow blink...

[losfromla]

Fuck you, you russian troll.

Re: slow blink...

[Anonymous Coward]

So protest on their own time. Freedom of speech only protects you from Govt prosecution, not your employer reprimanding you or worse.

Go walk up to a govt official and tell them fuck you to their face, not much they're going to be able to do as long as you weren't breaking any other laws. Now go walk into your company owner's office and tell them the same thing to their face and tell me how that works out for you? Did they show you the door with a pink slip? Freedom of speech/expression does not protect you from that.

If freedom of speech protected you from private entities, then there would be no such thing as censorship on forums, facebook, etc. Go upload a nude photo of yourself to facebook and tell me how that works out for you?

Re: slow blink...

[Anonymous Coward]

How about fuck these ungrateful players who are stealing time from their employer to protest.

I swear you can take them out of the hood but they're still fucking naggers to the goddamn bone.

Re: slow blink...

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at it entirely from a business perspective, I think quite a few of those athletes could happily retire right now if they wanted to. They would likely have to alter some of their lifestyle choices but they probably have more wealth than most Americans do at retirement.

I make this point because if the NFL or at least the team ownership for independent teams did start removing players through contractual breaches, cutting their income might not be enough alone to have them play along nicely (but who knows). The problem I see with this is, if as a business maange, you set an example and it doesn't alter behavior of your employees, it could very well backfire and you'll lose a lot of your employees (players).

As you point out, professional athletes are extremely specialized and they're not to my understanding, easily replaceable as an asset (which is why they often has such lucrative and locked down contracts). If you start to lose a lot if pros, they could very well establish a competing league under other leadership and now you have competition where before you had free reign.

You then check the cost to benefit ratio of both options to see which situation gives you the greatest profit. I suspect the NFL, like any huge business, has done a lot of surveying and psychological testing in their consumer base to assess what sort do decline to expect from their audience and they've chosen that this is still the most profitable route.

Re: slow blink...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would be the same thing in an HOA vs living in the city.

Scrawl out the words fuck you in 4 foot high letters across the front of your house in the city and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Do the same thing in a community under an HOA and you'll be slapped with fines.

The difference between your home being under a govt authority (the city) vs a private authority (the HOA)

Re: slow blink...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would be interesting to see the verbage of the existing contracts. Would seem like it is quite possible that there is already a clause in there that they would not start/join another competing league. I'd find it hard to believe that an entity like the NFL wouldn't have those contracts locked down to protect their business from every possible angle. The players would have no other choice but to agree with it, since the NFL is their only choice to get into the pros.

Re: slow blink...

[sexconker]

Start league in California or another state that has (correctly) ruled that non compete agreements are illegal.

Re: slow blink...

[Anonymous Coward]

So protest on their own time. Freedom of speech only protects you from Govt prosecution, not your employer reprimanding you or worse.

But what if your employer doesn't reprimand you? That's even better freedom of speech. And to an employer, if you want to be seen as "American" then it's crucial to go that way.

Sure, the NFL can fire those players, but if they do, then everyone will see them as deeply un-American. Firing the kneeling players would be a type of meta pissing-on-the-flag. It would be the entire NFL symbolically kneeling instead of just a few players. It would be pussing out. It would be seen as conspicuous weakness. See their problem?

Go upload a nude photo of yourself to facebook and tell me how that works out for you?

Of course Facebook is going to delete it. But you should do it anyway, and make them delete it. Because when that happens, it's a reminder that Facebook isn't the real world, and that they're weak and threatened by nudity. And so you win, by making your adversary look like a fool -- by making them admit they're fools. See the delicious joy here? Of course they can do it! It's a question of whether or not they puss out by actually doing it.

And Facebook will, because they aren't trying to maintain any particular "macho" or "American" image. But the NFL? That's all they've got!

Re: slow blink...

[ChrisMaple]

If you write the words outside of a HOA's control, don't be surprised if it takes a really, really long time for electricity to be restored the next time there's an outage. Or that heating oil delivery doesn't happen. Or you can't find anyone who'll take your money to plow your driveway after it snows. Or that you have fewer and fewer friends, and that those people who will speak to you are rude.

Assholes tend to live unhappy lives, and they don't even realize that the reason bad things happen to them is because they're assholes.

Re: slow blink...

[ChrisMaple]

Facebook has a business model, and that business model wisely involves not disgusting the majority of potential customers. The majority of potential customers don't want to see unexpected nudity, and don't want their children to see unexpected nudity. Wisdom and decency are not weaknesses.

Re: slow blink...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure i never said there weren't other consequences to your actions, but you dont run afoul of civil ordinances, regulations, etc by doing it.

Good riddance

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe this will end the pathology which televised sports are.

Wait, what?

[AlanBDee]

"This online activity comes as the league struggles with declining ratings that have been blamed variously on player protests during the national anthem and revelations about former players suffering from a brain disease caused by concussions. Yet this illegal distribution of NFL content may also be crimping the league's viewer numbers."

This just shows how out of touch they are. With nothing but common sense to support my claim I suspect their declining viewer numbers have way more to do with people cutting the cord, doing other activities, losing interest, or maybe, just maybe they are so tired of the stupid commercials that occupy more time then the actual game and they've decided they have better things to do. Lets see what happens when ESPN releases their streaming service next year. It will provide a very real estimate on how much people are willing to pay to watch sports and provide almost exact viewing numbers.

I love football. I applaud the players for standing up for what they believe. The refs have been cracking down hard on helmet on helmet contact and I expect we'll see better protective gear and/or a change in rules of the game to reduce injures. No-one wants to see the players get hurt but I don't think people are "not watching" in protest because of that.

Re: Wait, what?

[mrmaster]

Not really. ESPN doesnâ(TM)t have that many live sporting events. You canâ(TM)t purchase a package in the United States for streaming all NFL games. In 2017. Nuff said.

Re: Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, this right here. They literally DON'T SELL the ability to stream these games in the US. The NFL is just ridiculously out of touch with the market and the change in the way people are viewing content.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

No-one wants to see the players get hurt

I think its more no-body wants to see their favorite players hurt, but everybody elses, the more crunch the better.

I knew a lot of people back in school who really liked seeing people knocked out going, thats how you hit someone.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever there is a decline on something, movies, newspapers, TV shows, sporting events, what ever it is, piracy is always to blame.

Nathan

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot stand up and protest in your office. Why do you think football entertainers -- uh, players -- should be able to do so?

I go to a movie and the actors decide in their first scene to stand up and protest. Do you think the movie producers will stand for that? Do you think the audience should sit for that?

What is the difference???????

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking for myself, I don't want to see anyone get hurt. I want to see great runs, long receptions, quarterbacks running the ball, and sure a sack from time to time adds excitement, but I don't want to see anyone injured or crippled.

Re: Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you were stuck in Europe, you'd quickly discover that their new and improved Game Pass Europe package is major step backwards. Unwatchable on game day, chromecast support sucks big time, and the developers were caught submitting hundreds of 5-star reviews to the Google Play store (instead of actually fixing the broken app).

Re:Wait, what?

[jbmartin6]

I am not watching in part because of the permanent brain damage to the players. I don't to be associated with paying guys to screw up their brains for my entertainment. And the rest is because of the ads.

Re:Wait, what?

[losfromla]

You abso-fucking-lutely can stand up and protest in your office. Unless your office is the front register at McDonalds or Burger King.
Get out of here with your stupid unamerican propaganda you russian troll. We still have freedom of speech.

The movie analogy is just beyond stupid, seems like the product of faulty AI.

The difference is you clearly have no brains.

Re:Wait, what?

[chispito]

You cannot stand up and protest in your office. Why do you think football entertainers -- uh, players -- should be able to do so?

I go to a movie and the actors decide in their first scene to stand up and protest. Do you think the movie producers will stand for that? Do you think the audience should sit for that?

What is the difference???????

Actors do all sorts of stupid things while the camera is not rolling, much like athletes do all sorts of stupid things when the clock is not running. It's a good analogy that works against your point.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

"This online activity comes as the league struggles with declining ratings that have been blamed variously on player protests during the national anthem and revelations about former players suffering from a brain disease caused by concussions. Yet this illegal distribution of NFL content may also be crimping the league's viewer numbers."

This just shows how out of touch they are. With nothing but common sense to support my claim I suspect their declining viewer numbers have way more to do with people cutting the cord, doing other activities, losing interest, or maybe, just maybe they are so tired of the stupid commercials that occupy more time then the actual game and they've decided they have better things to do. Lets see what happens when ESPN releases their streaming service next year. It will provide a very real estimate on how much people are willing to pay to watch sports and provide almost exact viewing numbers.

I love football. I applaud the players for standing up for what they believe. The refs have been cracking down hard on helmet on helmet contact and I expect we'll see better protective gear and/or a change in rules of the game to reduce injures. No-one wants to see the players get hurt but I don't think people are "not watching" in protest because of that.

Standing up for what they believe in? hahaha. +5 Funny.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

But many of the streamed content includes the Ads. Which paid to stream the content. Sounds to me the problem isn't the people streaming, but the NFL isn't getting enough money from the Advertisers for all this ancillary distribution for their Ads and extra eye-balls they are getting.

Re:Wait, what?

[Cajun Hell]

With nothing but common sense to support my claim I suspect their declining viewer numbers have way more to do with people cutting the cord, doing other activities, losing interest, or maybe, just maybe they are so tired of the stupid commercials that occupy more time then the actual game and they've decided they have better things to do.

Nice. It used to be that people would say cord-cutting didn't work with sports entertainment. But now, maybe it's that sports entertainment doesn't work with cord-cutting.

People who watch this stuff, are watching other stuff too. They're getting constantly exposed to TV-done-better, and going back to an NFL game might be enjoyable as far as the "content" goes, but they rest of it, what used to be normal is now finally perceived as a freakish nightmare. THE ADS!

The ads were always there, of course, but people could ignore it because the ads were everywhere. But now they're just a sports thing.

The kneeling issue actually ties into this. The only reason the NFL might actually show their weakness by firing the kneelers, is because some advertiser doesn't like it. They can't do a thing about the kneelers without their image becoming even more associated with ads-instead-of-sports.

Re:Wait, what?

[edtice1559]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is competition from soccer. That might be a part of the problem as well.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. I watched football for 3 decades. For a while I was merely annoyed by the sloppy play that results in the hunt for showboat-y hits. But knowing what we've all learned about brain damage, the whole game just seems depraved. I'd say reform is the way to go, but too many meathead fans just want to see people get hurt. The game should be banned.

If I ever tune into a broadcast again, it will just be to see the police brutality protests before I turn the TV off.

Re:Wait, what?

[ChrisMaple]

The amount that you can interrupt other people in your office with loud political blather depends on factors such as how valuable you are to the company and how much other people complain. Generally, you'll be asked subtly to STFU. If you don't, sooner or later you'll be fired.

Re:Wait, what?

[ChrisMaple]

Unlike boxing, the goal of football is not to damage people. It's incidental, and they are trying to minimize it without damaging the excitement that's inherent to the game. They could, for example, make everyone wear 100 pound hobbles on each foot, or make everyone wear Michelin-Man uniforms, but that would tend to make the game less interesting. Eventually, some sort of optimization will be developed with improved equipment and rules, where players recognize and are paid for the risk, are compensated for the damage they receive and penalized for the damage they cause, etc. etc.

Your attitude - "The game should be banned." - is no better than any bully or dictator.

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno what sport you are watching, but even just casually watching football and you will see it is *NOT* incidental. Problem is, the helmet and pads that were meant to protect have allowed players to do things they would not do without. Many players do not even try to tackle anymore but go for the K/O hit, so they can be in every replay glorifying exactly such. If the opponent get's injured it is a bonus to your team. So there is a benefit.
If the goal of football is not to damage people, then why is such allowed?

You do know that way back they did not have pads or helmets, right? People love to harp about football 'losing it's way' but the football of today is not the football it used to be.
Also Rugby players do not have helmets or pads and still they somehow manage to play differently then football players.

Who said anything about banning? The only dictator I see here is you trying to bully and put words in other peoples mouths.
Or should I say you are Trump'ing?

Re:Wait, what?

[jbmartin6]

Incidentally, I read an interesting book called "Why Things Bite Back" which in part talked about how football injuries have gotten worse as they add more safety equipment. The idea was that armor induces players to take risks they would not with simple leather pads.

Re:Wait, what?

[jbmartin6]

The parent said "the game should be banned"

This is very cool

[WillAffleckUW]

Seriously, NFL games are so slow it's like watching icons dry in the microwave.

Re:This is very cool

[jedidiah]

> Seriously, NFL games are so slow it's like watching icons dry in the microwave.

This is why it's useful to have a local copy. You can skip through much of the tedious nonsense.

Digital pre-recording is about the best thing you can do with a "live" sporting event.

Re:This is very cool

[Anonymous Coward]

I can understand the sentiment and partially support it, football is not like other sports. I rather compare it to live action chess. The game is slow and that is ok.
Though I think it has been slowed down even further with such things as TV-breaks and (annoyingly repetitive) commentary and how the game is played today.
The days of 'get the play and execute' have given way to 'get the play, line up, look to the sidelines for changes, shift, check, recheck, execute'.

Especially the 'check the sidelines' is a major annoyance for me as it takes away certain aspects from the QB. It used to be the QB had to read everything and adapt, but now the QB gets support from the sidelines.
This is in line with why helmet mics had been limited and is just a variant their-of.

Wait...

[roc97007]

People still watch NFL games?

Re:Wait...

[Guyle]

I understand that either you have an extreme lack of interest in the NFL, or this was an attempt at humor, or maybe you're butthurt over the protests (either for or against them), but at least attempt to be somewhat correct. Tens of millions of people. Hardly insignificant, especially considering companies are actually spending MORE money on advertising this year.

Re:Wait...

[roc97007]

Wishful thinking on my part. No personal interest in sports whatsoever, and I have a wife who, when there's any game on that features a prolate sphereoid, will only leave the couch if there's a sports bar where she can watch the game over my shoulder.

No interest plus or minus in the protests, except for an admittedly unbalanced hope that it destroys the industry. But that's just me.

Re:Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

roc was right. Look at those numbers again. The highest rated game barely hit even 7% of the total US Population, with most games rating around the 3% range. The vast majority of the people in this Country don't give a shit about the NFL or about Football.
Now look at those Advertising numbers; the only reason that they are rising is because the people left watching Football are Morons, and Morons will watch anything, even more Commercials; they are so damn gullible.
This Guyle is rubbish at guile; they can't even do simple math.

Re:Wait...

[kenai_alpenglow]

Maybe "10's of millions", but a declining "10's of millions"--never a good thing when you're trying to make money. When the talk is all about protests and not "who's winning/losing", you hurt your product. Personally, I'd rather them just play football--when watching a game I'd rather not mix politics in it. The whole point is to escape from the non-stop protests about just about everything. You can wait and protest/not protest after the game. This goes for things I may support. Since they won't, I've got better things to do.

Condensed or normal?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

I own season tickets to (team) so I get NFL Game Pass, which offers a commercial-free 25-30 "condensed" version of all games. I actually watch 1-2 of these a week and they seem like the only thing I'd pirate if I couldn't get it "for free." Anyone know if anyone is really pirating full recorded games?

Re: Condensed or normal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. I use European sports streaming sites to watch some games. Goto google and type that in, any sport you want, if it's live they got it.

Re: Condensed or normal?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Well, OK, I do use those sites sometimes to watch college games since I cut cable. But that's a LIVE stream, not a full recording of the game.

Re:Senator Franken needs to resign.

[Dan667]

if you mean constantly embarrassing himself and golfing then yes.

Wrong

[slshdtisctrldbysjws]

People are tired of blatant politicizing of everything and everything. They are tired of the hoops they have to jump through for low quality programming.

In general they are just tired of being so exploited.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Football is entertainment. Just like a movie.

Do you think that actors should be able to, during the opening credits, stand up and protest? Do you think the movie producers will allow that? Do you think I should have to sit for that?

OF COURSE NOT! If they do, I'll vote with my feet and leave...not buying tickets.

Anyone remember the days when it was free legally?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember as a kid you could watch any NFL game in the country via big dish, with multiple feeds and camera angles. Those were the days.

Then, the NFL monetized the shit out of the sport and want to cry about pirating?? GO FUCK YOURSELVES!!!

Re:Senator Franken needs to resign.

[Anonymous Coward]

He's still going to be there 7 years from now, long after Franken faded back into obscurity.

Enjoy.

The effect of cord cutting

[Anonymous Coward]

When a particular sport isn't being force-fed in to your TV every monday, thursday, sunday night via national syndication, people are going to pick other things to invest their time in. In other countries, people grow up with soccer (or football if you're not american) being streamed in to their household every night and that is popular. Nowadays people are streaming things over their private connection like Twitch game streams and youtube lets play people in to their home instead. Of course people are going to identify more closely with video games. If you don't grow up on a steady diet of football, play football in high school, go to football games in high school/college, then you're going to have little interest in the sport when you decide to spend what little free time you have on the couch.
 
The older I get, the more I realize "sports" obsessed coworkers are no different than other coworkers obsessed about some other form of entertainment.

They should be happy

[Arzaboa]

The fact that anyone watches a game drag on for four hours or longer is amazing. The NFL should be looking into this as one more way to get this out there if it actually is drawing more people, which I highly doubt. My guess is that people watching on Youtube either enjoy watching it on their computer, or they don't have any other way of viewing it due to their location on the planet.

I don't buy the excuse that people aren't showing up or watching, due to protests at the very beginning of the game anyhow. If people cared about football, they watch it. What happened was the minute the ritual was broken of going to games and watching them, there was never any real interest in going back.

--
Sometimes, that's life.

Re:They should be happy

[Baron_Yam]

>The fact that anyone watches a game drag on for four hours or longer is amazing.

I went to a football game once, and ever since I have understood why pre-game tailgate parties are so popular.

How anyone other than the players could maintain interest for the whole game while sober is a mystery to me.

Re:They should be happy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's like test match cricket - nice sunny day, some good company and a case or two of beer etc...

Some decent cricket is just a bonus.

Re:They should be happy

[Hognoxious]

Come on, cricket games don't last for hours, they last for days[1]. The players have at least one lunch break. When I was a kid they used to take a day off in the middle.

[1] Except the one-day variety, obviously, which traditionalists sniff at.

Re:They should be happy

[Arzaboa]

I hear ya.

Re:They should be happy

[Anonymous Coward]

One better: NASCAR events allow for unlimited re-entry during events because they know every yahoo who comes to the races carries one cooler in at the start, then heads back to their car for the backup halfway through, and they know trying to restrict such access would more or less kill ticket sales.

Re:They should be happy

[Anonymous Coward]

I went to a football game once that was being broadcast live. What left me scratching my head was why after only a few minutes of game play the players would just stand around doing absolutely nothing for about three minutes. It didn't occur to me until late in the first half that the reason they were just standing around doing nothing was because it was a TV timeout. They stopped the fracking game for the entirety of a commercial break so the TV audience wouldn't miss any game play while we, the spectators in the stadium, watched nothing happening.

Ads?

[countach]

"featured ads from well-known national brands interspersed with game action"

So what is the problem? The deal is, they provide the football and in exchange we watch the ads. If we watch the ads on youtube, what's the problem exactly?

Re:Ads?

[PPH]

Because everyone in the traditional distribution chain loses their piece of the action. Back in the old days, a couple of big guys in cheap suits with iron pipes would stop by to explain to you from whom you would be buying your services and what you would pay.

These guys know where the advertisers and team owners live. So no matter what the economics of alternate distribution might be, nobody wants a visit where the consequences of backing out of da' deal will be 'splained to them.

Re:Ads?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just the next target of old media attacking Youtube.

First it was ads on terrorist content, then it was "offensive" content, then it was children's shows, now it's pirated stuff.

Youtube doomed itself when it rolled over the first time. The old media outrage factories won't stop until everything is demonetized or banned.

Re:Ads?

[jbmartin6]

Because they can't officially establish audience numbers and this charge higher rates for the ads.

Re:Ads?

[Ian A. Shill]

https://www.truthdig.com/artic...

Re:Ads?

[ChrisMaple]

It ought to be easier to establish streaming audience numbers, particularly if they had an easily accessed free official website. OTA, by comparison, is almost impossible to track. This would appear to be a case of team owners not understanding their own best interest.

So the advertisers care?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure that the advertisers have no objections to their ads reaching more viewers than they have paid for.

Here's why

[Opportunist]

You could either get a cable subscription, then a sports package on top of this, then hope and pray that they sell enough tickets of your favorite team so they will actually broadcast the game, then put up with 1 minute ads interrupting every 30-45 seconds of the game...

Or you could find out that many nations all over the globe also have networks that buy the NFL rights, usually HEAPS cheaper than in the US because football just isn't so popular in those countries, offer the game on a live stream, and you get a VPN from the country just in case it's limited to national IP addresses...

yikes almighty

[Anonymous Coward]

looking like LA is going away? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKJ5WeBc7Us

Re:Senator Franken needs to resign.

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump 2020!

Re: Senator Franken needs to resign.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are we talking about again? I'm confused.

First World Problems

[UnknownSoldier]

Maybe, just maybe, the problem ISN'T the fact that there are so many "pirate" videos, but maybe a LOGISTICS problem.

People pirate due to THREE _main_ reasons:

* Accessibility -- if you can't even "buy" the product going without is not an option for some people
* Convenience -- no bullshit ads
* Price -- Free means money can be spent on other things -- such as internet access.

Treating the symptom, piracy, is never going to solve the initial problem of shitty supply and demand logistics.

When are they going to learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people are going to pirate some things. Just get over it already. It ends up costing more trying to chase people down who are doing it than the imaginary money you're 'losing' from them doing it. Just stop already. Especially something that was on TV.

Viewer numbers will be higher!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet this illegal distribution of NFL content may also be crimping the league's viewer numbers.

It's like saying the book will be read by fewer people if more copies of this book are made and there are fewer barriers to getting the book.

Re:Senator Franken needs to resign.

[PopeRatzo]

More victims are coming forward.

I think you meant, "Moore victims are coming forward."

Oh, crap...

[campuscodi]

They found out why I didn't renew my NFL Game Pass.... oh well, it was fun while it lasted :(

Re: Senator Franken needs to resign.

[Anonymous Coward]

John F Kennedy.

Re: No surprise...

[Anonymous Coward]

Creimer affiliate spam, mod down. Not even on topic. Lul.

Be realistic

[Anonymous Coward]

I despise the copyright situation as it currently exists.
I have no interest in sports, and detest the behavior of the sports franchises.

Both need some sense knocked into them.

If the sports franchises ceased to exist I would not be disappointed.

In the meantime however, I don't believe that this makes it right to just "stream whatever you want because fuck you."

Re:Senator Franken needs to resign.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the input, Lilli Von Shtupp.

I dunno!

[Anonymous Coward]

I been hit in the head so many time, I dunno what ta thimk

Re: Senator Franken needs to resign.

[Archangel Michael]

Who would be called a racist misogynist Republican in todays politics. Especially in light of his tax plan ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The football fans I know

[rsilvergun]

watch their games live. The excitement's gone if you know the outcome. Now if these are live streams they've got a point. Getting to see football on TV can be crazy expensive. Packages start at $120/mo in my area and go up from there.

Re:Senator Franken needs to resign.

[desdinova 216]

why do you think they're bots?

Re:Senator Franken needs to resign.

[Anonymous Coward]

your sort cannot even see how similar you and joe mccarthy really are. two peas in a pod. russia russia russia. anybody who disagrees with you must either be filled with hate or controlled somehow by russia. or both.

as if any millenial wanna watch sportsball

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck off boomers

Quick..

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick, treat them the same as Mega.com / Kim Dotcom.

Seize all their assets, go in with swat teams.

Oh wait, these are US companies...let forget it

Re:Senator Franken needs to resign.

[losfromla]

You're right. I guess they could be real live russians.

reality trumps legality

[edris90]

if if didn't we would have litigated physics until they were to our liking and antigrav , ftl travel would have been written into existence. we wuld just make it illegal to for death to occur, we would all live forever. running out of room? we'll just litigate tardis rooms that are bigger in then out into exhistence.. no no my friends. i'm afraid reality will always the higher authority to legality. laws are wishes made en masse. nothing more

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re: Senator Franken needs to resign.

[mandark1967]

OMG the JFK that's my favorite sexual position. Splatter all over her while she screams and tries to get out of the car.

Oscar

[raymorris]

Yeah it's not like you're going to win a world championship in the 400 meter relay and run track in the 2012 Summer Olympics if you don't even have any legs.

I feel sorry for the millions of NFL and MLB fans, who are all so severely disabled they can't go throw a catch a ball themselves.

B... O... O...

[adosch]

H... O... O, NFL.

There is a reason the NFL is an 11-figure overly saturated empire. Don't give me potential low ratings rant; that's just propaganda for the gazillion of networks you already partner with to fake-whine about how you aren't getting viewership. How the F do any of us know just how that is reallycalculated anyway? Not to mention, just like there is so much to 'feed our eyes' with lately, has the NFL not done that, as well? It's not just Sunday and Monday. It's Sunday, Monday, Thursday, Saturday, double-header here and there not-just-on-thanksgiving, NFL network 24x7. I like American football and NFL and it's so over saturated and there-every-second, anyone is going to get sick or go numb to it over time with brand pollution.

This falls in line with the same shit MPAA and RIAA do for the movie and music industry --- now we're to blame social media giants for all this revenue-we-never-had-but-could-have-had shit. That would be like all of us whining to our mom, dad or caretaker 40 years later in life about that lost revenue in sympathetic loose change for the one lemonade stand they wouldn't let you stand up on the street corner when you were younger --- just so you can have a reason to blame someone for the potentially lost earnings in your nothing saving account you have today, plus all the potential interest. Give me a break.

Funny how NBC entity sourced and authored the article, considering NBC exclusively broadcasts Sunday Night Football (and sometimes co-airs TNF) religiously.

The NFL's problem isn't videos on the Internet

[rnturn]

It's the freaking saturation of football on TV:

• Saturday is college football. All. Day. Long.
• Sunday is 3-4 hours of pre-game shows followed by football games from noon until bedtime.
• Monday night is football night.
• Thursday night is football night.

And that's for us folks who don't have cable TV subscriptions and access to N channels of ESPN football shows.

I'm guessing that their problem is that the public is getting pretty darned sick and tired of football on TV.

NHL Center Ice policy seems better in USA

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

I have a good friend who is a Center Ice subscriber because his team's TV partner isn't carried by his cable provider. He's told me that some small number of his team's home games are theoretically blacked out on Center Ice but in every case he can switch to the visiting team's feed of the exact same game and watch it without restrictions. Seems like these very restrictive rules may just be for Canada. I know that you guys have your own TV deals that don't have anything at all to do with what we have in the USA.

At the moment that's your opinion

[rsilvergun]

our Supreme Court already rules on this. There was a company streaming live OTA tv, one antennae per user. Even offered to limit the service to local residence. They got shut down when they lost their case. If you'd like that right you're gonna need a new law.

Now, as for the odds of getting said law, good luck. I've said this several times: a lot of people in America are hurting. They're worried about food and shelter. They're scared. They're also easily manipulated as folks full of fear tend to be. If you want nice things like free OTA broadcasts online and net neutrality you have to take care of them. Otherwise they're gonna go to the polls and put folks in office that give your issues a pass.

Re:At the moment that's your opinion

[fafalone]

Supreme Court makes obviously awful ruling to protect the interests of the powerful, news at 11.

Footboring more like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta love a game where it takes 4 hours to play a 1 hour game--Yawn!

Like The Global Warming Pause

[Anonymous Coward]

There was no Pause!

We found the warming here, under this rock!

There is no Ratings decline!

We found the viewers on Facebook!

I will continue....

[sizzlinkitty]

Last year I signed up with sling (internet tv company) and payed the extra money to get the nfl network thinking I could watching all the games scheduled on that channel. When game day rolled around, tried to watch the game and was met with a black screen saying "This game is blacked out on nfl network from sling tv". What the hell am I paying for I thought? I cancelled my account because it was suddenly less useful. This year I signed up for Direct TV Now and then found out that NBC is blocked in my city when I tried to watch a game being broadcast on NBC. So I called to file a complaint and try to cancel, the customer support person I spoke with recommend I change my billing address to another city to avoid this black out and because I pre-paid, there's no refunds.

I'm done paying for the NFL, pirate tv here I come!

Oh I dunno....

[erp_consultant]

Maybe it's because:

1) Nobody knows what a catch is anymore. It seems like every single catch or non-catch is analyzed to death. Catching the football is a fundamental part of the game. Someone needs to figure out what constitutes a catch and be done with it.

2) Nobody seems to know what a fair tackle is. In the Steelers-Bengals game on Monday George Iloka gets a one game suspension for flattening Antonio Brown in the end zone. It was a hard hit but he was trying to prevent a touchdown. Rob Gronkowski goes all WWE on a guy with a flying elbow drop to the back of the head when the play was already over and the player was on the ground. Both of them get a one game suspension. In one case it's a football play, in the other case it's a bonehead intent to injure play. It seems to me that Gronk should have got a 2 game suspension and Iloka maybe a fine, it anything. Again, tackling is a fundamental part of the game. Somebody needs to figure out what is fair and what is not.

3) Will someone just go ahead and sign Colin Kapernick? You might not agree with his politics or the whole kneeling thing but he's probably as good as at least half the starting quarterbacks playing right now. The longer this blackballing of Kapernick drags out the worse it looks for the NFL. Sign him. If he can't play then cut him but enough of the blackballing.

Re:Oh I dunno....

[Obfuscant]

George Iloka gets a one game suspension for flattening Antonio Brown in the end zone. It was a hard hit but he was trying to prevent a touchdown.

If Brown was holding the ball in the endzone, it was already a touchdown. I'm watching the replays right now, and it was already a touchdown. Flattening him at that point was simply unsportsmanlike conduct. It's like flattening someone who is already out of bounds, or tackling the kicker after the ball is in the air.

Somebody needs to figure out what is fair and what is not.

They did, and Iloka paid the price for his act.

Re:Oh I dunno....

[dfenstrate]

3) Will someone just go ahead and sign Colin Kapernick? You might not agree with his politics or the whole kneeling thing but he's probably as good as at least half the starting quarterbacks playing right now. The longer this blackballing of Kapernick drags out the worse it looks for the NFL. Sign him. If he can't play then cut him but enough of the blackballing.

Well, one train of thought goes that Kapernick isn't that good of a QB, knew it, was at risk of getting cut, so he started this whole political charade as a self-promotion gambit. Rumor has it he was also on the verge of getting picked up when his girlfriend shot off her mouth with some race-baiting bullshit and his pending offer was shelved. Overall, it looks like teams have decided Kapernick just isn't a good enough player to justify all the drama he comes with. You could call that 'blackballing', I suppose, or you could consider maybe no one really wants to deal with his B.S.

Re:Oh I dunno....

[Anonymous Coward]

@3 Did not see the play but what really annoys me and one reason why I stopped watching is because they hardly every try to tackle
Most CBs and Safeties are only looking for the K/O hit. Many players, even if the play is basically over, will still try to crash into the opponent. Using your shoulder to crash into the head of the opponent instead of the hip/torso is not trying to tackle but a clear 'intent to injure'.
This is less football and more destruction derby.

Rugby does not have these problems. I started watching it more and more a few years ago and, while I love the play style of football more, Rugby at it's core is better.

Football needs to focus again on the core game and not the brutality. Rules similar to those in Rugby should be added and strictly enforced.

Re:Oh I dunno....

[Obfuscant]

3) Will someone just go ahead and sign Colin Kapernick?

Hot news on the radio news this morning: Kaepernick has an offer -- from that powerhouse of sports called "arena football". I can attest to the fact that he's probably as good as half the arena football qbs.

Also rumored that another on-the-outs football player has the same kind of offer, but his name meant nothing to me so I've already forgotten it.

Will Colin think the bully pulpit of arena football will be sufficient?

Re:Oh I dunno....

[erp_consultant]

No kidding? Well I guess we're about to see if he can play. Maybe he will surprise everyone and go all Kurt Warner on us and end up back in the NFL via the arena league. That's about as likely as ME getting an NFL contract but you never know.

He's probably so rusty now that his first throw goes into row 10 in the stands but hey, at least he gets to play. Considering that arena gets about zero TV coverage I doubt that soapbox will suffice. But the networks that support his cause will probably show a few clips to keep his name in the news. Fun times.

The entire NFL and the Broadcast rules

[oldgraybeard]

Suck, I don't live in the home market for my team. And if the home market gets to watch their team at home. The punishment is that if the first and second games are on the same network. Game 2 is blacked out!!!!

What the FRAK!!!

I used to care, even had NFL ticket on direct TV for a few years. But they blacked out games also.

Frak!! the bunch of American hating million and billionaires. They dislike their customers, I have moved on.

Re: Senator Franken needs to resign.

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that was the EMK position.

Adds

[Big Bipper]

If the adds are included in the streams, is it really piracy, or just increasing the advertisers reach at no charge to them ?

Re:Senator Franken needs to resign.

[edtice1559]

If the only things he had done were constantly embarrassing himself and golfing, you wouldn't have gotten a -1 mod. It's the damage that he's doing to our country that upsets people.

Re:Senator Franken needs to resign.

[edtice1559]

I think this should have gotten a +5 Funny!

Not so full

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the claim that they're "full" of, well anything really, is a bit of an overstatement. The only thing that full is the the person making the claim - full of shit.

Excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

Just came to say, FU NFL!

Wait, What? People still watch NFL?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was strictly for rednecks that don't have internet anyways.

Why is it all this free and pirated videos

[k6mfw]

are all subjects I have zero interest in watching?

Your common sense isn't right

[DeplorableCodeMonkey]

Here are some stats. That decline is too sharp to be caused by people cutting the chord out of a general desire rather than a specific desire to stop supporting the NFL.

A large part of the problem is that the NFL has punished players for doing something as simple as wearing non-regulation additions to their uniforms to honor the lives of the police that were gunned down defending the BLM protesters in Texas. Chew on that one for a minute; if this is about freedom of speech, why would the NFL fine the heck out of players who wanted to honor officers who gave their lives to protect freedom of speech?

And that is why so many people see it as purely a left wing and racist issue aimed at spitting on the flag. The NFL has kicked players' asses over speech that was family friendly and community-affirming, but chooses to take a stand here?

Solution to NFL pirating

[twotonfist]

College football

Pffff

[nehumanuscrede]

A non issue since fewer and fewer could give a shit about anything NFL.

Between stupid business models designed to maximize profits at the expense of the fans and the whole turning it into a political statement for some, the NFL could die tomorrow and I doubt anyone would even shed a tear.

I had no idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

...because I find American Football to be very dull and boring. sorry

Like music

[Anonymous Coward]

Google "fixed" the music copyright problem on Youtube by paying the royalities themselves. Still, I switch off any videos that use background music.

The videos from big-pay content like NFL games is another matter. I doubt if Google will pay on behalf of anybody. But, the video rips are easy to spot: you know that Grego's Rock'in Superbowl uploads are not NFL legit.

shameful and illegal activity

[AccedeConsultancy]

internet can be very useful tools but too many people using it in a wrong way http://accedebigdataacademy.co...