MoneySaving Poll: Would you watch something for free on streaming services illegally?

Options
Former_MSE_Sam_M
Former_MSE_Sam_M Posts: 346 Forumite
edited 19 May 2015 at 3:33PM in MoneySaving polls
Poll started 19 May 2015

Would you watch free sports/films online if you knew it was illegal

Some people are using apps like Twitter’s Periscope to film a TV showing pay-per-view and then stream it for others to watch. 10,000s were said to have watched the recent Mayweather vs Pacquiao fight this way.

So we want to know if you’d watch a free stream of an event you’re supposed to pay for if you knew it was breaking the law?



Vote in this week's poll

Did you vote? Are you surprised at the results so far? Have your say below. To see the results from last time, click here.

If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

Thanks! :)


[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]

Comments

  • robertoegg
    robertoegg Posts: 76 Forumite
    Options
    What a depressing result so far. Too many people in this world have double standards, choosing to rant about certain groups who they perceive to be costing society or avoiding paying their fair share towards society, yet, the overwhelming majority of people who have voted so far see nothing wrong with stealing media for their own consumption.
  • fatfish59
    fatfish59 Posts: 7 Forumite
    Options
    I already pay for Sky Sports & get BT Sport free as part of my BT Broadband deal. I have absolutely no qualms in watching my team on an illegal stream when they are not being shown on one of the channels that I pay for.
  • lincoln_dj
    lincoln_dj Posts: 47 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    exactly my thinking. I pay for sky sports, but can't watch any 3 o'clock games. yet people in other countries can!
    That, plus my team is available on streams a lot more often than on the TV.
    How is that "stealing" when I'm already contributing to the massive payouts Sky give the top clubs already??

    Another reason people stream is the ridiculous controls media companies put on releasing stuff in different countries at different times. Isn't the main use of VPNs in Australia to enable them to watch US shows as they become available in the US but not Australia?
  • Thunderballs_2
    Thunderballs_2 Posts: 24 Forumite
    Options
    To some extent pirating is driving the industry forward.

    Companies need to employ people with brains then follow their advice, not the sheep that allow situations like the Apple iTunes development that took a technology company to get music industry giants to wake up and smell the coffee.
  • DKLS
    DKLS Posts: 13,459 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    Thunderballs wrote: »
    To some extent pirating is driving the industry forward.

    This, disruptive technology and the changes in user behaviour has resulted in some sectors business models changing whether the company likes it or not.

    I did a project where we interviewed a bunch of students in front of a load of TV, Music and Publishing execs.

    Pretty much universally the teens responses to the question of How much would you pay for x was :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: This was a generation that had never paid for music and only would pay for a live gig. Music films, books and games were all available for free.

    The music execs faces were a picture I understood the majority of them were redundant a year later.
  • MaffyD
    MaffyD Posts: 18 Forumite
    Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    edited 1 June 2015 at 12:06PM
    Options
    I think the Mayweather vs Pacquiao fight is an excellent example of why people do this. Apparently, Pacquiao had an injury prior to the fight, but didn't tell anyone about it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/boxing/mayweather-vs-pacquiao/11582962/Manny-Pacquiao-could-be-prosecuted-for-perjury-after-failing-to-disclose-shoulder-injury.html
    But despite knowing that this would harm any chance he had for defeating his opponent, he carried on.
    Why did he do this? And why hide it?
    A cynic might suggest that either 1. the fight would be called off, or 2. people would not pay for a fight billed as the 'fight of the century' with one of them being injured. And that would cost the organisers a large amount of money.
    Let's face it, if you were interested in boxing, and had to pay to watch a single fight, and you knew one of them was injured - would you still pay and watch it?
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards