you do have alternatives, you have the BBC, ITV, all the FTA broadcasters, you have espn, you have premier sports, you have freeview. But the fact is none of those products are the product you want. You want sky sports but you dont want to pay for it. So you are stealing it.

When it comes to rugby league, Sky are actually providing that product, they are filming it, editing it, broadcasting it, they pay for all the people to do that, they pay the hundreds of thousands of pounds it costs to put on an Outside broadcast. You are stealing it.

You can try and justify it to yourself that its only lack of choice that means you steal from them, but i doubt you even believe it anymore than I do.

Shoplifting is taking something you have not right to because you haven't paid for it. So is what you're doing, however you try and justify it to yourself or others. And indirectly you're affecting the game you claim to support.

Yes I want to get a Warrington shirt but where's the choice there? They are only stocked in the club shop, its not like I could go and buy one from Marks & Sparks or Primark. I feel the club is exploiting its market power over me so I'm gonna go and nick one from the shop to address this market failure....

There is a subtle difference here.

If you steal a physical product (a shirt from the club shop), then the club have lost out. They have lost the £50 they would have got from the purchase of that product.
Even if you wouldn't have bought it, the physical shirt would have still been there for someone else to buy, until you stole it.

When you steal a service such a sky sports, Sky do not necessarily lose any money.
For example, the person using the streaming websites, might not pay for a sky subscription even if the streaming option wasn't available to him.
Also, when someone streams sky sports illegally, the service is still available for the customer who wants to pay for it.

I think this is why people who would never dream of stealing from a shop, think it is ok to stream sky sports, or download music and films etc.

A good point that has been made though, is that if streaming becomes better quality and more and more people do it, then that will eventually lead to people cancelling their Sky subscription and streaming instead.
If more and more people do this, then Sky will stop providing the service as they are not making any money from it.
Once this happens, it is impossible to stream a minority sport, as no one is at the venue with the cameras.

It is ok for premier league football, as this is shown live all over the world.
You can watch pretty much any premier league match whether it is on live on sky or not.
I'm a Tranmere Rovers fan though, and there is no online streaming available for that, because Tranmere games are not shown live on TV anywhere in the world. (except very rarely on sky)

It is the same with SL. Other than the live games on sky, SL isn't shown anywhere else on other networks, so unless Sky are filming it, it is impossible to stream.
You won't be able to stream this weekends Warrington game anywhere, as it is not being shown live anywhere.

The difference is so subtle that a court of law would say that both are illegal.

Of course, I could always try and put forward the moral argument that taking something to which you are not entitled is wrong.

I cancelled the lot recently.

Now pay only £4.99 month and get Sky Sports 1, 2, 3, News, and ESPN.

Granted I am restricted to watching it on the Ipad, but the quality is fine, better than an internet stream and consistent without interruptions.

"The difference is so subtle that a court of law would say that both are illegal."

Again though, there is a subtle difference.
You get caught stealing a physical product, and you are committing a criminal crime and would be taken before a criminal court.
You get caught stealing a service for your own use and without profit, and you are committing a civil crime and would be taken before a civil court.

I'm not defending it. I'm just pointing out why I believe such a high percentage of people in this country believe there is nothing wrong with streaming and downloading.

I actually agree with you and one or two other points above, and was being slightly facetious with my earlier musings. I won't download music illegally for example because I disagree with it. I download from iTunes even though I'm well aware a bit of searching would probably find me the same thing free elsewhere.

I despise Sky though.

I don't particularly like Sky either, but I'd rather pay them to get a good service than stream an illegal crap one, and obviously everyone can make their own decision. What I would like is more competition for watching RL, but nobody seems particularly interesting in my rantings about RL on tv

My missus suggested we cancel our Sky subscription. My 'sport' argument wasn't going far, my three year-old's insistence on Disney Junior won the day. Hurrah for multiroom

If you have an Apple TV can you watch it on the "big telly"?

"I actually agree with you and one or two other points above, and was being slightly facetious with my earlier musings. I won't download music illegally for example because I disagree with it. I download from iTunes even though I'm well aware a bit of searching would probably find me the same thing free elsewhere.

I despise Sky though."

It is an interesting point that has been raised though.
If I try to watch Rugby League or the NFL through a streaming site it never comes close to watching it via Sky in terms of quality etc, however with football, there are more and more ways to avoid Sky and maintain the quality.

You can subscribe to foreign sites that have the games live in high definition for a fraction of the price of Sky, and the illegal streaming sites are becoming better and better.

So if the football fans stop paying for Sky due to these alternatives, what happens to Sky?
Football is by far their biggest revenue, so surely their business model would no longer work as previously stated in this thread.

If that leads to cheaper subscriptions, it will ultimately lead to less money being given to sports, and I can guarantee that Rugby League will be hit before football.

Now I know lots of people would be happy once Sky are no longer involved in the sport, but no one else is going to put the kind of money into the sport than Sky do!

So you are ok with stealing TV coverage, merely because you 'despise' them? Hmm. You like Britney Spears though, so you will give her remuneration for her labour and creativity (I use the term lightly)?

You have tried to justify why you steal TV coverage twice, maybe, and those 'justifications' (some flawed argument about 'competition' and the fact you despise the owners) have been an interesting read.

Nope. It's an App made for the Iphone, but airplay is disabled.

Even though it's an iphone app, the Ipad can play it too, just in 'zoomed' mode. I find it fine personally. Actually means I can sit and watch whilst she watches crap on tv.

You should sign up for Sky, then when the rugby's on say you've got to watch it to justify the price you're paying. Then pass her the iPad...

Depends who wears the trousers I suppose