I'm not a big sports fan but I know several people who are. I don't think there's another industry on earth whose customers are so willing and eager to spend money as fans watching their teams. And there's probably no industry on earth that tries as hard to prevent people from buying their services.
The link between piracy and hypothetical profits has never been hard science, but when it comes to televized/streaming sports, a lot of this pirating seems to happen because people aren't allowed to watch it legally in their area.
Huge swaths of Los Angeles are completely unable to watch Dodgers games on TV because of the way the cable companies have packaged and delivered the content. You know, one of the most valuable sports franchises in the world, makes total sense.
I think it is a problem when markets become profit driven rather than product driven.
By this, I don't mean businesses shouldn't put substantial weight on their profits, but rather that when push comes to shove you have to ask which matters more: profit or product? You will constantly be faced with some choice of sacrificing the quality of the product in favor of higher profits or sacrificing profits in favor of the product.
Certainty we want to maximize both, but this isn't always possible.
I think part of this has come through our runaway problem with shareholders and hyper fixation on the short term. Many shareholders are happy to trade product for profit because they believe they can exit during the market lag. It is statistical arbitrage. They have no interest in the long term value of a company or product, only until the time of exit.
It's worth noting that being too focused on the short term will damage the long term sustainability. Many times you have to put off profits today for profits tomorrow. That's the same problem. But there will be significant pressure against this if people driving don't care about tomorrow.
It never fails to astonish how poorly the larger sports leagues cater to their biggest fans. Local blackouts are treating your most loyal fanbase to the worst service. I shouldn't have to VPN for anything. Sports has a global audience.
Every league should offer something akin to a season ticket "firehose" (all games streamed live with hosted replays) like MLS does on Apple TV or Gallagher rugby on the Rugby Network.
This, I've given up so many times wanting to watch a soccer game and found no way to do it. It is incredibly frustrating. I don't understand how the current system works as it is impossible to figure out how to watch games.
The link between privacy and hypothetical profits has been studied by the European commission (or parliament don't remember rn). The study was hidden and revealed only later when pirate mep Felix read digged in about it
Exactly. I'm in Norway, and here, to watch the English Premier League legally, the price this latest season was over $70 per month. Keeping in mind the fact that most people will maybe watch one game(their team's game) a week, the prices are just getting absurd. There's no way to buy single games, subscribing to games for a single team, etc. To watch the 38 games your team will play last season, the only available option was to buy access to all 760 games. The company holding these rights is struggling financially, layoffs and all. Because their subscription numbers have plummeted
They've already crossed the threshold where this is no longer profitable. The next licencing deal will likely be so expensive, no Norwegian or Scandinavian company could possibly be able to turn a profit from it.
Of course, the CEO of the company has been in the media talking about how IPTV funds criminal networks and such nonsense*, calling for bans, yadda yadda. They're not listening to the market at all. Just using illegal streaming as a scapegoat. And I've decided, as long as this is how it's gonna be, they're not seeing a single dime of my money.
* I find the concept absurd. No matter where we spend our money, some of it ends up with criminals and various other despicable people, who will use it for evil. No one has the ability to prevent this. There's no reasonable expectation in current societal and economic structures for the consumer to somehow keep track of all their money once it leaves their wallet. This is no more the case for IPTV than it is when I buy a burger from some hole in the wall, which unbeknownst to me is a money laundering front. Or when I buy some chocolate and most of the money ends up with some white rich guy and not the children in Africa who harvested the cocoa. The whole argument is so intellectually dishonest and morally pathetic it pisses me off. And I don't even pay for IPTV.
Really great that European courts have created all the legal tools for authoritarian control of the internet in the future, to prevent the scourge of watching sports streaming without paying.
Before this, it was much easier for ISPs / DNS providers / VPN providers to push back against governments wanting to censor the internet because the companies wouldn't have the tools installed to do this kind of blocking. The companies can then argue it is a burden to be forced to implement the tools. That is no longer the case in Europe, and the use of these tools is likely to expand outside the sports domain.
Copyright law has always been the most powerful force on the Internet. Which is why its collision with AI companies who pirate the whole Internet is very interesting.
Is it just Europe though? Have you tried uploading something on YouTube including a remote semblance of a melody from a song? Or accessing porn in some parts of the US? And then there are the App Stores and walled gardens regulating apps, content and really every aspect of one’s digital life.
How about making access to the games fairly priced and easily accessible?
Streaming services have dramatically reduced piracy by making it way easier and way cheaper than ever before to consume content.
I don't live in Europe, but if it is like US sports, you need to jump through hoops, pay through the nose, and have 14 different accounts to watch all the sports you want.
Yes, NHL blackouts are a great example. You want to watch your home team? Great, you have to subscribe to what they refer to as your “RSN” (regional sports network, usually a regular tv channel).
But the RSN doesn’t show all the games across the league, nor will it show playoff hockey. So you need to also subscribe to a big streaming service like Sportsnet.
It gets worse: your RSN may not offer a streaming service. So you need an old-fashioned cable package to get it. The cost becomes ridiculous, just to watch hockey.
Also just more accessibility in terms of being able to pay for it. As a viewer in Canada, there was no service whatsoever that was showing the Real Madrid vs Barcelona Spanish cup final a few months ago (Copa del Rey). I had to signup on a Spanish state tv website and use a VPN to access it for free.
I would have gladly paid, but there was no opportunity.
Content fragmentation and some sports rights not being bought and resold by anyone is also a big problem.
> you need to jump through hoops, pay through the nose, and have 14 different accounts to watch all the sports you want.
It’s not even that. Just to watch the games for one sport and one team requires this. “Remember, next week’s game is available exclusively on ShitStreamTV.” Of course, ShitStreamTV is a Brand New Streaming Network that you’ve never heard of and need yet another subscription for. Then they can’t actually handle the traffic and crash halfway through the game. Trying to get your $24.99 back? Impossible. “Terms of Service mumble mumble blah blah.”
Not defending them or what they are doing, but if you can’t afford to watch football you always have the option of not watching it. I don’t know why this is always framed as “make it cheap or it’s right to pirate it”
Interesting isn't it, everyone heres favourite vpn doesn't make the list. The one vpn that seems to tick every box that you could want, suspiciously absent.
VPNs are cool but governments are always stronger.
There's no good outcome if people don't fight for their internet freedom. In Russia the providers block OpenVPN and wireguard already. In China it's probably so much worse
I don't like watching sports on TV but it's hilarious that the courts said that you are forbidden to go to aliezstream.pro, and that Mullvad is not on the forbidden list. You MUST NOT combine both because it's very naugthy!
Meanwhile Facebook stole all the books on the planet and it's not forbidden at all. It's very hard for me to take them seriously.
Does double VPN get around these kind of blocks? My understanding is the VPNs are expected to block the websites for french users, but it sounds like people could use VPN #1 to appear as a non-french user to VPN #2. VPN #2 can then allow the user to access the blocked websites, because the law only applies to french users.
Is there some reason they wouldn't just use a VPN that isn't in France and therefore isn't subject to laws in France? There have to be VPNs in some other jurisdiction.
Just use a VPN that's not on the list. It is also will be useful to learn other ways to get around internet censorship which people use in the countries like China and Russia
La Liga has such pull in Spain, they literally cripple the internet when games are going on so people can't pirate. This is because the VPN companies refused to comply.
VPN customers should think twice before subscribing that kind of services.
VPN providers are bound to their homeland laws and can be ordered at anytime by law enforcement agencies or by judge rulings to provide whatever is needed, eavesdropping included.
Abroad VPN providers can be blocked with the same means.
So, unless you need VPN for lawful activities, you are just trying to fool around the law.
When these VPN providers comply with these court orders, do they only implement blocking at the DNS level? Couldn't you still use these VPNs, but use a DNS provider that isn't censored?
Most likely they will be forced to implement IP level firewall rules. IE: Traffic from French users is not allowed to go to <list of destination IPs>. This is one of the things the local ISPs already have to do.
Now worries, the US will try again to force Switzerland to change its copyright laws so we can no longer legally download movies. /s
All this to protect some industry that is falling appart because they can't produce decent films or music anymore. Everything is calculated for profit and creativity is out the door. Meanwhile the small actual talented creators aren't protected and ripped off by the same industry that wants all the protections.
One is, you want to install Linux on your PS5. A PS5 is basically just a PC, so what are you getting out of that when you could much more easily just install Linux on a normal PC? The incentive to find a way to do it is low. Meanwhile the PS5 is manufactured by a company that doesn't want you to do it, so they make it take effort to do it.
The other is, people want to watch sports. Huge incentive. And they can use any device or service they want, not just one made by an adversarial company. Preventing this is basically having an effective censorship apparatus. The internet is an effective anti-censorship apparatus, because it connects everybody to everybody, and any single path through the network is enough to defeat censorship.
"We'll just block this path they're using over here" is like installing a single fence post in the middle of the ocean. Or worse than that, because that single fence post causes collateral damage to random innocent people (e.g. blocking Cloudflare IPs) which then gives those innocent third parties the incentive to start developing better anti-censorship tech.
MentatOnMelange|8 months ago
The link between piracy and hypothetical profits has never been hard science, but when it comes to televized/streaming sports, a lot of this pirating seems to happen because people aren't allowed to watch it legally in their area.
This is a self-inflicted problem.
JohnMakin|8 months ago
godelski|8 months ago
By this, I don't mean businesses shouldn't put substantial weight on their profits, but rather that when push comes to shove you have to ask which matters more: profit or product? You will constantly be faced with some choice of sacrificing the quality of the product in favor of higher profits or sacrificing profits in favor of the product.
Certainty we want to maximize both, but this isn't always possible.
I think part of this has come through our runaway problem with shareholders and hyper fixation on the short term. Many shareholders are happy to trade product for profit because they believe they can exit during the market lag. It is statistical arbitrage. They have no interest in the long term value of a company or product, only until the time of exit.
It's worth noting that being too focused on the short term will damage the long term sustainability. Many times you have to put off profits today for profits tomorrow. That's the same problem. But there will be significant pressure against this if people driving don't care about tomorrow.
calmbonsai|8 months ago
Every league should offer something akin to a season ticket "firehose" (all games streamed live with hosted replays) like MLS does on Apple TV or Gallagher rugby on the Rugby Network.
bwb|8 months ago
amarcheschi|8 months ago
danw1979|8 months ago
mtlmtlmtlmtl|8 months ago
They've already crossed the threshold where this is no longer profitable. The next licencing deal will likely be so expensive, no Norwegian or Scandinavian company could possibly be able to turn a profit from it.
Of course, the CEO of the company has been in the media talking about how IPTV funds criminal networks and such nonsense*, calling for bans, yadda yadda. They're not listening to the market at all. Just using illegal streaming as a scapegoat. And I've decided, as long as this is how it's gonna be, they're not seeing a single dime of my money.
* I find the concept absurd. No matter where we spend our money, some of it ends up with criminals and various other despicable people, who will use it for evil. No one has the ability to prevent this. There's no reasonable expectation in current societal and economic structures for the consumer to somehow keep track of all their money once it leaves their wallet. This is no more the case for IPTV than it is when I buy a burger from some hole in the wall, which unbeknownst to me is a money laundering front. Or when I buy some chocolate and most of the money ends up with some white rich guy and not the children in Africa who harvested the cocoa. The whole argument is so intellectually dishonest and morally pathetic it pisses me off. And I don't even pay for IPTV.
space_firmware|8 months ago
Before this, it was much easier for ISPs / DNS providers / VPN providers to push back against governments wanting to censor the internet because the companies wouldn't have the tools installed to do this kind of blocking. The companies can then argue it is a burden to be forced to implement the tools. That is no longer the case in Europe, and the use of these tools is likely to expand outside the sports domain.
pjc50|8 months ago
isodev|8 months ago
Workaccount2|8 months ago
Streaming services have dramatically reduced piracy by making it way easier and way cheaper than ever before to consume content.
I don't live in Europe, but if it is like US sports, you need to jump through hoops, pay through the nose, and have 14 different accounts to watch all the sports you want.
cgh|8 months ago
But the RSN doesn’t show all the games across the league, nor will it show playoff hockey. So you need to also subscribe to a big streaming service like Sportsnet.
It gets worse: your RSN may not offer a streaming service. So you need an old-fashioned cable package to get it. The cost becomes ridiculous, just to watch hockey.
yousif_123123|8 months ago
I would have gladly paid, but there was no opportunity.
Content fragmentation and some sports rights not being bought and resold by anyone is also a big problem.
rpdillon|8 months ago
teeray|8 months ago
It’s not even that. Just to watch the games for one sport and one team requires this. “Remember, next week’s game is available exclusively on ShitStreamTV.” Of course, ShitStreamTV is a Brand New Streaming Network that you’ve never heard of and need yet another subscription for. Then they can’t actually handle the traffic and crash halfway through the game. Trying to get your $24.99 back? Impossible. “Terms of Service mumble mumble blah blah.”
epanchin|8 months ago
As a consequence people have gone back to illegal streams where you can find all the sports on one menu.
jaoane|8 months ago
Beijinger|8 months ago
If you look for something cheap, AirVPN hast a sale going on: https://airvpn.org/ It works okay for me or my current needs.
https://expatcircle.com/cms/privacy/vpn-services/
aunty_helen|8 months ago
nullwarp|8 months ago
tim333|8 months ago
tryauuum|8 months ago
There's no good outcome if people don't fight for their internet freedom. In Russia the providers block OpenVPN and wireguard already. In China it's probably so much worse
Disposal8433|8 months ago
Meanwhile Facebook stole all the books on the planet and it's not forbidden at all. It's very hard for me to take them seriously.
mitkebes|8 months ago
Szpadel|8 months ago
so using vpn provider with some other DNS provider should be enough
there is also tor that is free and cannot be controlled in this way
AnthonyMouse|8 months ago
viktorcode|8 months ago
FirmwareBurner|8 months ago
kinow|8 months ago
https://www.broadbandtvnews.com/2025/02/19/cloudflare-takes-...
(Article from 2025, but last year it was already happening here)
theturtletalks|8 months ago
notorandit|8 months ago
VPN providers are bound to their homeland laws and can be ordered at anytime by law enforcement agencies or by judge rulings to provide whatever is needed, eavesdropping included.
Abroad VPN providers can be blocked with the same means.
So, unless you need VPN for lawful activities, you are just trying to fool around the law.
retrodaredevil|8 months ago
space_firmware|8 months ago
stuffoverflow|8 months ago
eloisant|8 months ago
sschueller|8 months ago
All this to protect some industry that is falling appart because they can't produce decent films or music anymore. Everything is calculated for profit and creativity is out the door. Meanwhile the small actual talented creators aren't protected and ripped off by the same industry that wants all the protections.
protonfckff|8 months ago
[deleted]
GHanku|8 months ago
[deleted]
unknown|8 months ago
[deleted]
fifteen1506|8 months ago
But in time, it will be as easy as installing Linux on a PS5.
I just hope unverified operating systems won't be blocked on similar grounds.
AnthonyMouse|8 months ago
One is, you want to install Linux on your PS5. A PS5 is basically just a PC, so what are you getting out of that when you could much more easily just install Linux on a normal PC? The incentive to find a way to do it is low. Meanwhile the PS5 is manufactured by a company that doesn't want you to do it, so they make it take effort to do it.
The other is, people want to watch sports. Huge incentive. And they can use any device or service they want, not just one made by an adversarial company. Preventing this is basically having an effective censorship apparatus. The internet is an effective anti-censorship apparatus, because it connects everybody to everybody, and any single path through the network is enough to defeat censorship.
"We'll just block this path they're using over here" is like installing a single fence post in the middle of the ocean. Or worse than that, because that single fence post causes collateral damage to random innocent people (e.g. blocking Cloudflare IPs) which then gives those innocent third parties the incentive to start developing better anti-censorship tech.
zosoworld|8 months ago
[deleted]