UK football season sparks illegal IPTV crackdown by FACT

[HEXUS]

Currently concentrating on suppliers, but FACT hints that it will look at consumers soon.

Read more.

[DanceswithUnix]

The latest stats suggest that there were 337 million visits by UK residents to sport stream piracy websites between July 2020 and June 2021.

Isn't that 10 visits per UK household, given we only have something like 30M houses/flats???

... and I know I wasn't one of those visiting, so some people must be *really* interested, or possibly the authors of this release were being really sloppy with their web server logfile analysis to boost the numbers somewhat.

Edit: So FACT didn't mention those web site visits, that was in the Wired article.

[kalniel]

Isn't that 10 visits per UK household, given we only have something like 30M houses/flats???

... and I know I wasn't one of those visiting, so some people must be *really* interested, or possibly the authors of this release were being really sloppy with their web server logfile analysis to boost the numbers somewhat.

Edit: So FACT didn't mention those web site visits, that was in the Wired article.

I don't follow football, but it seems like there are quite a lot of matches, so I could imagine one user generates a large number of visits over a full year, maybe even several per match if they change session during half time or whatever.

[cheesemp]

Maybe if it was affordable to the average wage earner less people would pirate? I'm so glad I'm not into football as the prices are getting crazy (and even worse given the multiple providers you need). Personally I was a little bit into F1 but gave it up when it went Pay to view and I earn well as I couldn't justify the cost. It really does seem to be case of pricing out poorer fans.

[DanceswithUnix]

I don't follow football, but it seems like there are quite a lot of matches, so I could imagine one user generates a large number of visits over a full year, maybe even several per match if they change session during half time or whatever.

Yeah, it just seems a bit of a fluffy metric to me. It is site hits, with many per page view? Or is it page views, with fewer than site hits but with multiple per user? Or is it sessions where a single visitor can traverse the site and it counts as one hit until they leave and come back again?

If the site is used as a back end for a streaming box, then those visits could be boxes aggregating data with no actual users showing any interest in the results.

It just strikes me as a meaningless number, but presented to three significant figures.

[Gentle Viking]

When i was young i never got a new game before i had sampled a pirate copy of it, but this was of course back in the days before the internet, so there was no in game videos or demos to rely on.
I think i would still do something like that if i got the chance, not least with the poor standard of games today ( as in not the kind i like to play due to the design of the games / gameplay )

BUT ! i would never leech like it seem people do to get their "footy" fix, but very easy for me to say as that particular game / sport have always been on my black list.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The big problem is that for many sports,if you did a subscription to something like Sky Sports,between that and the free channels it was enough. However,now you not only have Sky Sports,but BT Sports,and other providers so if you want full coverage it will cost you a lot of money if you follow various sports and various teams for example. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if many who are pirating the sports streams,already actually pay for sports packages!

[Spud1]

Maybe if it was affordable to the average wage earner less people would pirate?

Whilst I understand the point (and I agree the prices & money involved are crazy high) its mostly irrelevant I would wager that the vast majority of the people who invest in this sort of setup would do so regardless of the cost of a sports subscription. You only have to look at movies to see that - netflex et al are relatively cheap (stupidly so for the content they offer) yet piracy is rife there even within a low cost subscription (the sheer number of people geo-swapping etc...yep thats all piracy too).

Good that they are finally taking some action tbh. Piracy is rife and only serves to push up prices for everyone else who pays for their content.

[mers]

I'm not suprised peeps watch illegal streaming sites , the disgusting price Sky charge for watching football is too much for most on top of everyday running costs , tax ,food , petrol etc. I've always said that If Sky just charged maybe £10 - £15 per month they'd get possibly an 80% or so uptake on subsciptions and rake even more money in. Don't forget they are broadcasting nomatter how many subscribers are there. Outside of installation fee's they would make a hell of a lot more money in numbers alone. I like to watch footie and use a couple of streams if they are up and have to endure the lagging sometimes , other than that rely on " Match of the Day " , I can't afford Skys costs for football or justify it. I'm not a dedicated fan , just like to watch the game. Something that really peeves me is when an England game is only on Sky , that is so wrong , our national side , that should always be on regular TV for the masses. Too much bloody money in sport these days , especially in football and Sky and BT don't help.

[LSG501]

Isn't that 10 visits per UK household, given we only have something like 30M houses/flats???

... and I know I wasn't one of those visiting, so some people must be *really* interested, or possibly the authors of this release were being really sloppy with their web server logfile analysis to boost the numbers somewhat.

Edit: So FACT didn't mention those web site visits, that was in the Wired article.

Shouldn't that really be UK IP addresses, rather than households.... I wouldn't be shocked to see some VPN's in that list imo. Also I'd love to know what they class as a visit, is it someone staying for 'hours', is it someone loading the page and leaving or is it the IP went to the webaddress via prefetch for example.

I wasn't one of them either (don't really like football) but to be fair each team in the the prem league would play 38 matches so 10 visits isn't that high imo all things considered... having said that if they didn't pay footballers such ludicrous wages (and transfer fees) they could afford to charge less to view said football matches and in turn reduce the illegal viewing....

Whilst I understand the point (and I agree the prices & money involved are crazy high) its mostly irrelevant I would wager that the vast majority of the people who invest in this sort of setup would do so regardless of the cost of a sports subscription. You only have to look at movies to see that - netflex et al are relatively cheap (stupidly so for the content they offer) yet piracy is rife there even within a low cost subscription (the sheer number of people geo-swapping etc...yep thats all piracy too).

Good that they are finally taking some action tbh. Piracy is rife and only serves to push up prices for everyone else who pays for their content.

Price isn't the only factor, availability is also an issue for some.... football like many other things is split over multiple services, some of which you can't get unless you use BT for your ISP, not that I like football but I wouldn't be able to get bt football even if I wanted to pay for it due to using another ISP. EDIT: seems they now stream to non BT users but in the past it was BT only.

[kalniel]

I've always said that If Sky just charged maybe £10 - £15 per month they'd get possibly an 80% or so uptake on subsciptions and rake even more money in. Don't forget they are broadcasting nomatter how many subscribers are there. Outside of installation fee's they would make a hell of a lot more money in numbers alone.

If it was that simple they'd already be doing it - it's not like Sky to miss an opportunity to make more money

There was a study several years back that looked into the reasons behind piracy - caveats a plenty, but affordability was actually only a minor factor globally, simple things like availability and ease of consumption were far bigger factors, hence the effort that has gone into legit streaming services in recent years.

I am always a bit confused by how exclusive rights auctioning is actually in the consumer's interest - it would seem to be an anticompetitive measure, which so much of our free market regulation is dedicated to avoiding.

[Gentle Viking]

Well FC Barselona just publicized how a big hole they have in their wallet,,,,,,, and it is a massive one, player payments not at all matching club earnings.

And what people earn, well that ( MIchael Shumacher ) was one reason i stopped watching F1, i dont want to be part of funding overpaid people voluntarily, it is enough i as a Dane are forced to do that in other places.

[badass]

If it was that simple they'd already be doing it - it's not like Sky to miss an opportunity to make more money

There was a study several years back that looked into the reasons behind piracy - caveats a plenty, but affordability was actually only a minor factor globally, simple things like availability and ease of consumption were far bigger factors, hence the effort that has gone into legit streaming services in recent years.

And then Disney and similar pull their back catalogue from other streaming providers so they can sell their own streaming service. Undoing much of that effort. So whilst streaming media legally is "easy", you need to pay so many different subscriptions, the likes of which individually you will barely use.

There's no easy way of balancing corporate interests (and their contractors/employees indirectly) with those of their audiences.

[Iota]

Maybe if it was affordable to the average wage earner less people would pirate? I'm so glad I'm not into football as the prices are getting crazy (and even worse given the multiple providers you need). Personally I was a little bit into F1 but gave it up when it went Pay to view and I earn well as I couldn't justify the cost. It really does seem to be case of pricing out poorer fans.

Afaik, you can watch F1 on All4 catch up sometime after the races. I could be wrong though, I used to watch it a lot when it was free to do so, but stopped once it went pay to view.

I am always a bit confused by how exclusive rights auctioning is actually in the consumer's interest - it would seem to be an anticompetitive measure, which so much of our free market regulation is dedicated to avoiding.

I'm not sure it is, because then you get into a situation where Sky et al pay enormous sums of money and pass the cost onto the consumers. Hence the high prices and increase in piracy?

So whilst streaming media legally is "easy", you need to pay so many different subscriptions, the likes of which individually you will barely use.

I've gone into the dip in and out mode due to the number of services now.

[Saracen999]

And then Disney and similar pull their back catalogue from other streaming providers so they can sell their own streaming service. Undoing much of that effort. So whilst streaming media legally is "easy", you need to pay so many different subscriptions, the likes of which individually you will barely use.

There's no easy way of balancing corporate interests (and their contractors/employees indirectly) with those of their audiences.

I can't disagree with the thrust of that. It's part of why I've said on here, for about 15 years, that I simply prefer to own my own media, and not stream. Yeah, I know I don't own the song/film/TV Show/games per se, merely the media itself and the right to use it, in a private, domestic environment.

Whch might or might not have something to do with me setting up an Emby server, Shield Pros, and a few other bits, to be able to 'stream' music, films, TV shows and/or other media, relatively securely in the knowledge that it's all on my own network, withoutan outside connection, without subscription feels, etc, and without this service or that falling out with someone else and taking ther ball (songs, films, whatever) and stomping off in a huff to do their own thing.

So I ended up with a collection of music, films and TV boxed sets that, by a strange coincidence, happens to consist entirely of material I like enough to be willing to buy it because, y'know, I already did. Whether I play the disc or stream from Emby is sort of immaterial, and just about convenience.

It is, however, also the case that I'm not enough of a fan of any sport to pay to watch it. With football, I'd be more likely to pay to not have to watch it.

Also, I note, my method is not about music and films, etc. on the cheap. The NAS was about £1500, and all the media over about 50 years, works out at a sum I don't want to think about too closely. But then, I've had 50 years of pleasure from it, so ....

[Hoonigan]

I work as a BT engineer, in and out of homes every day, and find these "chipped" FireSticks multiple times per day around Glasgow. They're rife, and often the cause of the problem that I'm there to fix, because the "provider" has over-subscribed the service and it can't cope when it comes to matchday.

I agree with the above points though, many sports are becoming just too bloody expensive to watch, with boxing/UFC being one of the worst culprits at the moment; some of those fights are north of £30 and can be over in literal seconds sometimes.