BoxRec

When there is a pay per view stream available, and coverage on radio- yet people start threads looking for freebie stream?

Not cool. :(

The pay per view is £15 over the Internet. Not cool at all. Rip off, imo.

Depends... ordinarily i'd agree - but a) £15 is a blatant rip off, and b) the Primetime service for the last fight was absolutely terrible.

Well, if you don't like the price- listen to the radio.

I did.

But watching an illegal stream in "protest" at the cost.. thats just nicking.

whicker wrote:When there is a pay per view stream available, and coverage on radio- yet people start threads looking for freebie stream?

Not cool. :(

up your ass...get a life

whicker wrote:Well, if you don't like the price- listen to the radio.

I did.

But watching an illegal stream in "protest" at the cost.. thats just nicking.

Whoever said anything about "protest"?

rhino222 wrote:

whicker wrote:When there is a pay per view stream available, and coverage on radio- yet people start threads looking for freebie stream?

Not cool. :(

up your ass...get a life

If your a fan of the sport, support it.

£15 for a stream was a bit strong, to be honest.

jeej wrote:£15 for a stream was a bit strong, to be honest.

Well, OK, but it was on the radio too.

Watching an illegally streamed broadcast doesn't help.

whicker wrote:

rhino222 wrote:

whicker wrote:When there is a pay per view stream available, and coverage on radio- yet people start threads looking for freebie stream?

Not cool. :(

up your ass...get a life

If your a fan of the sport, support it.

i do, but i dont pay for substandard product, if it was on box office i would have subscribed without a second thought......team froch and sky are losing millions !!!

rhino222 wrote:

whicker wrote:

rhino222 wrote: up your ass...get a life

If your a fan of the sport, support it.

i do, but i dont pay for substandard product, if it was on box office i would have subscribed without a second thought......team froch and sky are losing millions !!!

Yes, but then don't watch it illegally, for free, either.

whicker wrote:

jeej wrote:£15 for a stream was a bit strong, to be honest.

Well, OK, but it was on the radio too.

Watching an illegally streamed broadcast doesn't help.

What difference does it make to boxing or Primetime if you watch a free stream instead of listening on the radio? None that I can think of.

whicker wrote:Well, if you don't like the price- listen to the radio.

I did.

But watching an illegal stream in "protest" at the cost.. thats just nicking.

do you buy beans in a bent tin? a car with a scratch on it? a drink in a pub with a floater? would you subscribe to a radio station with a crackly sound... of course not !!

Consumers get ripped off every day in life and boxing is one of the worst culprits when it comes to sport. If there is a freebie then i'm not paying.

whicker wrote:

rhino222 wrote:

whicker wrote: If your a fan of the sport, support it.

i do, but i dont pay for substandard product, if it was on box office i would have subscribed without a second thought......team froch and sky are losing millions !!!

Yes, but then don't watch it illegally, for free, either.

its not free, i pay for my internet connection !!

Asterix wrote:

whicker wrote:

jeej wrote:£15 for a stream was a bit strong, to be honest.

Well, OK, but it was on the radio too.

Watching an illegally streamed broadcast doesn't help.

What difference does it make to boxing or Primetime if you listen to the Radio or watch a free stream? None that I can think of.

If people support the radio broadcast, then they are more likely to broadcast more boxing on the radio- or even BBC itself- in the future.

The difference to Primetime is they are out of pocket by £15 for everyone who watches without paying.

whicker wrote:

Asterix wrote:

whicker wrote: Well, OK, but it was on the radio too.

Watching an illegally streamed broadcast doesn't help.

What difference does it make to boxing or Primetime if you listen to the Radio or watch a free stream? None that I can think of.

If people support the radio broadcast, then they are more likely to broadcast more boxing on the radio- or even BBC itself- in the future.

The difference to Primetime is they are out of pocket by £15 for everyone who watches without paying.

How about if we turn the radio on then in another room and then watch an illegal stream. would that work

whicker wrote:

Asterix wrote:

whicker wrote: Well, OK, but it was on the radio too.

Watching an illegally streamed broadcast doesn't help.

What difference does it make to boxing or Primetime if you listen to the Radio or watch a free stream? None that I can think of.

If people support the radio broadcast, then they are more likely to broadcast more boxing on the radio- or even BBC itself- in the future.

The difference to Primetime is they are out of pocket by £15 for everyone who watches without paying.

No, because I would not pay even if there was no alternative. I think you have to understand that. I'm not going to let some company rip me off.

U.F.O wrote:

whicker wrote:

Asterix wrote: What difference does it make to boxing or Primetime if you listen to the Radio or watch a free stream? None that I can think of.

If people support the radio broadcast, then they are more likely to broadcast more boxing on the radio- or even BBC itself- in the future.

The difference to Primetime is they are out of pocket by £15 for everyone who watches without paying.

How about if we turn the radio on then in another room and then watch an illegal stream. would that work

Exactly.

Asterix wrote:

whicker wrote:

Asterix wrote: What difference does it make to boxing or Primetime if you listen to the Radio or watch a free stream? None that I can think of.

If people support the radio broadcast, then they are more likely to broadcast more boxing on the radio- or even BBC itself- in the future.

The difference to Primetime is they are out of pocket by £15 for everyone who watches without paying.

No, because I would not pay even if there was no alternative. I think you have to understand that. I'm not going to let some company rip me off.

Would you have paid if it was £4.99?

whicker wrote:

Asterix wrote:No, because I would not pay even if there was no alternative. I think you have to understand that. I'm not going to let some company rip me off.

Would you have paid if it was £4.99?

Yes, and I did do that for a previous Primetime stream.

Asterix wrote:

whicker wrote:

Asterix wrote:No, because I would not pay even if there was no alternative. I think you have to understand that. I'm not going to let some company rip me off.

Would you have paid if it was £4.99?

Yes, and I did do that for a previous Primetime stream.

Ok, fair enough. I'm not saying you are (morally) right, but that does at least address the original question.

A fiver would have been far more reasonable and appropriate.

Whicker is right.

Watching an illegal free stream is theft because the copyright holder paid a lot of money in order to secure exclusive national rights to the fight. It's as simple as that. We merely ask you not to even mention illegal streams on this forum because we do not condone them. Thanks.

Whether the price was reasonable or not is irrelevant. Theft is theft. It's like saying a car worth £1000 was being sold for £5000 so I decided to drive it for free without the owner's permission because he was taking the mick with the price .......