Slashdot Mirror


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.

116 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. No by AlanBDee · · Score: 1

    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.

  2. Facts with long-leap conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 Outdated policies on which games can be run by the local affiliates, MNF on ESPN, Thursday night football on who-knows-where...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.

    1. Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions by tepples · · Score: 1

      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.

    5. Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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

    6. Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions by habig · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    8. Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions by techsoldaten · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      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.

    13. Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions by schnell · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    14. Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

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

    15. Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    16. Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

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

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    17. Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    18. Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    19. Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions by toadlife · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    20. Re: Facts with long-leap conclusions by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      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.

    21. Re:Facts with long-leap conclusions by techsoldaten · · Score: 1

      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.

  3. Free TV by Matheus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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)

    1. Re:Free TV by ddtmm · · Score: 1, Troll

      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.

    2. Re:Free TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Free TV by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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".

    4. Re:Free TV by scottrocket · · Score: 2

      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?

    5. Re:Free TV by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re: Free TV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:Free TV by Wycliffe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Free TV by IMightB · · Score: 1

      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?

    9. Re:Free TV by potscott · · Score: 1

      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!

      --
      I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class, especially since I rule.
    10. Re:Free TV by jedidiah · · Score: 1, Funny

      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.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re:Free TV by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      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.

    12. Re:Free TV by edris90 · · Score: 1

      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

    13. Re:Free TV by dstyle5 · · Score: 1

      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

    14. Re:Free TV by Falos · · Score: 1

      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.

    15. Re:Free TV by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      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.

    16. Re:Free TV by sexconker · · Score: 1

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

    17. Re:Free TV by Matheus · · Score: 1

      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.

    18. Re:Free TV by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    19. Re:Free TV by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      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.

    20. Re:Free TV by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    21. Re:Free TV by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    22. Re:Free TV by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      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.

    23. Re:Free TV by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      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.

    24. Re:Free TV by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

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

    25. Re: Free TV by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      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.

    26. Re:Free TV by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      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.

    27. Re:Free TV by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Wrong. He's narrowcasting.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    28. Re:Free TV by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  4. Natural result by indros13 · · Score: 2

    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).

    --
    Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
  5. Yet as a taxpayer, I pay for the stadiums by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Yet as a taxpayer, I pay for the stadiums by originalGMC · · Score: 2

      amen sister.

  6. slow blink... by originalGMC · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re: slow blink... by sexconker · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re: slow blink... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re: slow blink... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  7. Wait, what? by AlanBDee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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.

    1. Re: Wait, what? by mrmaster · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Wait, what? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    3. Re:Wait, what? by chispito · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    4. Re:Wait, what? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    5. Re:Wait, what? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

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

    6. Re:Wait, what? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    7. Re:Wait, what? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    8. Re:Wait, what? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    9. Re:Wait, what? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      The parent said "the game should be banned"

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  8. This is very cool by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

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

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:This is very cool by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > 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.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  9. Condensed or normal? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    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?

    1. Re: Condensed or normal? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      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.

  10. Wrong by slshdtisctrldbysjws · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
  11. Anyone remember the days when it was free legally? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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!!!

  12. They should be happy by Arzaboa · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:They should be happy by Baron_Yam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >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.

    2. Re:They should be happy by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:They should be happy by Arzaboa · · Score: 1

      I hear ya.

  13. Ads? by countach · · Score: 1

    "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?

    1. Re:Ads? by PPH · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Ads? by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    3. Re:Ads? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  14. Here's why by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    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...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. Re:Wait... by Guyle · · Score: 2

    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.

  16. First World Problems by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    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.

  17. Re:Senator Franken needs to resign. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    More victims are coming forward.

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

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  18. Oh, crap... by campuscodi · · Score: 1

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

  19. Re:Wait... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  20. The football fans I know by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  21. Re:Senator Franken needs to resign. by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

    why do you think they're bots?

  22. reality trumps legality by edris90 · · Score: 1

    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

  23. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  24. Oscar by raymorris · · Score: 1

    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.

  25. B... O... O... by adosch · · Score: 1

    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.

  26. The NFL's problem isn't videos on the Internet by rnturn · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  27. NHL Center Ice policy seems better in USA by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

    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.

  28. At the moment that's your opinion by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:At the moment that's your opinion by fafalone · · Score: 1

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

  29. I will continue.... by sizzlinkitty · · Score: 2

    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!

  30. Oh I dunno.... by erp_consultant · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Oh I dunno.... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Oh I dunno.... by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    3. Re:Oh I dunno.... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      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?

    4. Re:Oh I dunno.... by erp_consultant · · Score: 1

      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.

  31. The entire NFL and the Broadcast rules by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    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.

  32. Adds by Big+Bipper · · Score: 1

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

    --
    You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
  33. Re:Senator Franken needs to resign. by edtice1559 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    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.

  34. Re:Senator Franken needs to resign. by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

    I think this should have gotten a +5 Funny!

  35. Re:Wait... by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 1

    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.

  36. Why is it all this free and pirated videos by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    are all subjects I have zero interest in watching?

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  37. Your common sense isn't right by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 1

    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?

  38. Solution to NFL pirating by twotonfist · · Score: 1

    College football

  39. Pffff by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

    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.

  40. shameful and illegal activity by AccedeConsultancy · · Score: 1

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