Actually this is pretty much proof that piracy is a service problem. Tom Brady has enough money to wipe his ass with it, and yet he had to resort to piracy because it was more convenient.
I had this issue when I was trying to watch Battlestar Galactica Razor. As it turns out, the only place I could actually get it on demand was The Pirate Bay. My local video store didn't have it, it wasn't available on Netflix or Hulu+, and SciFi didn't have the option to let me watch it on their website, even at a cost. I don't even think it was available on iTunes at the time as a rental. You had to buy it in full (which I was not going to do).
So instead of getting $3 from me for a one-time rental from somewhere, SciFi forced me to get it from the Pirate Bay instead. I would have gladly paid the $3 if there was an option to rent it on demand from somewhere. But there wasn't.
So if you watch something on TV that normally you'd watch for free it is ok. However if you watch the same thing on the internet its considered piracy. Hmmm...
They just need to improve on how you can watch content more affordable, and people wouldn't have to do this. If ESPN opted to allow streaming of ESPN1 & 2 for like 10 bux a month, I would gladly pay that.
because they don't get the income from the advertisement that goes on tv. But you could counterattack saying that if you record it you can skip the ads...
neotechniFeb 6, 2012Buried
Remember, piracy is only ok if you're rich
agmlauncherFeb 6, 2012Buried
Actually this is pretty much proof that piracy is a service problem. Tom Brady has enough money to wipe his ass with it, and yet he had to resort to piracy because it was more convenient.
I had this issue when I was trying to watch Battlestar Galactica Razor. As it turns out, the only place I could actually get it on demand was The Pirate Bay. My local video store didn't have it, it wasn't available on Netflix or Hulu+, and SciFi didn't have the option to let me watch it on their website, even at a cost. I don't even think it was available on iTunes at the time as a rental. You had to buy it in full (which I was not going to do).
So instead of getting $3 from me for a one-time rental from somewhere, SciFi forced me to get it from the Pirate Bay instead. I would have gladly paid the $3 if there was an option to rent it on demand from somewhere. But there wasn't.
neondistractionFeb 6, 2012Buried
This is digg, not facebook or twitter.
TheWhiteGuatemalanFeb 6, 2012Buried
The Belichick Influence.
mogwuyFeb 6, 2012Buried
So if you watch something on TV that normally you'd watch for free it is ok. However if you watch the same thing on the internet its considered piracy. Hmmm...
notmanFeb 6, 2012Buried
Did you read the article? The point was to show that everyone, even Tom Brady, has to use illegal methods, if a legal method does not exist.
Again, this shows how content providers take the wrong actions to solve an existing problem, rather than understanding the problem.
donniehoward08Feb 6, 2012Buried
I wasn't aware that they didn't broadcast the big game across the world.. weird.
ninhFeb 6, 2012Buried
A kneecapping and a stern warning might do.
LongBFeb 6, 2012Buried
So what? So have millions of other people. They aren't after the people watching the content. They are after the people who are streaming the content.
LongBFeb 6, 2012Buried
They did actually, but it's only good to US residents.
Donuts4UFeb 6, 2012Buried
You are prohibited from discussing any aspects of the game in media or writing without prior consent, according to the NFL.
I say give them what they want.
reaper527Feb 6, 2012Buried
who would ask a question like that when the article explicitly answers why he did it?
mrzaikoFeb 6, 2012Buried
If the commercials were also streamed, where is the loss????
neondistractionFeb 7, 2012Buried
Oh how cute, another dirty f**king spammer. Go to hell.
forchristaloneFeb 6, 2012Buried
Well that is a crock.
dividebyoFeb 6, 2012Buried
What is a crock? The headline? ...because the article actually quotes Brady saying he did it.
forchristaloneFeb 6, 2012Buried
A crock that he did it, admitted it and nothing will happen to him.
LongBFeb 6, 2012Buried
They just need to improve on how you can watch content more affordable, and people wouldn't have to do this. If ESPN opted to allow streaming of ESPN1 & 2 for like 10 bux a month, I would gladly pay that.
thephantom1492Feb 7, 2012Buried
because they don't get the income from the advertisement that goes on tv. But you could counterattack saying that if you record it you can skip the ads...
barfomaticFeb 7, 2012Buried
This isn't a game thread. Go tell it to the Globe!