BoxRec

Is it more acceptable (or less immoral) to watch an illegal stream if it's the only way the fight is available in your location?

Topic for debate only.

Some fights leave you no choice but to watch a stream, sad but true. Other fights maybe just aren't worth the money. With the new NAG coding I think you'll find more people on streams now.

If there is a fight in Japan and flyweight that I want to watch and have no options availible in the UK to view it I'll watch a stream. If the fight it PPV and is ashite card I wont pay. If I get the Mag 7 again I'll pay £15 to view in HD no problem.

My personal opinion.

But just because something is not, in your opinion, good value does not give you any moral right to watch it for free illegally.

(point for deabte.)

people pay extra to have sky & then asked to stump up more money. the germans dont charge ppv to there viewer's.

i think it's immoral to charge viewers ppv. im not a fan of streaming as it is a sh1t quality & wont entertain it. i never watch pirate dvd's as they have poor quality which ruins it for me.

I use streams or torrents if there is no way to legally watch a fight. I don't see how this hurts anyone - if there is literally no other way to watch it, then I'm not harming anyone's financial bottom line.

But if I can legally watch a fight, that will remain my first choice, because the sport obviously runs on money. If we all started watching it via free/illegal means, then where would the money come from to pay for it to be staged?

There have been plenty of US fights for example that we do not get over here that I have wanted to watch but have no way of doing so, paying extra or not. I cannot see how anyone would think I am hurting the sport and/or TV companies by watching these on a stream.

Poor quality PPVs are a bugger of a choice, as I don't ever want to miss the fight but don't want to lend support to the promoter and/or SKY by purchasing a piss poor card. For quality PPVs, like the Mag 7, or massive events, like Hatton-Mayweather, I have no problem paying the money to watch on TV. That either leaves the choice of paying the money and possibly supporting further piss poor cards to become PPV or watching on a stream.....

I don't think it's morally wrong to watch a stream of a fight that is not available in this country but do think it is morally wrong streaming a fight that is available PPV or not (unless its on a free to air channel).

I'm not a fan of PPV but its here and here to stay. I don't take notice of what's free or cheaper in other countries as that's in other countries and not this one. If you want boxing free to air move to a country where it is free to air or get a satalite dish that can pick up these free to air channels. That way it will be better quality than a stream and you won't have the stress of moving to a country that has better sporting deals than the UK.

I think the way sky charges boxing fans twice is immoral (if not illegal) it certainly encourages fans to watch streams. I would never slag a boxing fan off for watching a stream.

ourkid1984 wrote:I don't think it's morally wrong to watch a stream of a fight that is not available in this country but do think it is morally wrong streaming a fight that is available PPV or not (unless its on a free to air channel).

I'm not a fan of PPV but its here and here to stay. I don't take notice of what's free or cheaper in other countries as that's in other countries and not this one. If you want boxing free to air move to a country where it is free to air or get a satalite dish that can pick up these free to air channels. That way it will be better quality than a stream and you won't have the stress of moving to a country that has better sporting deals than the UK.

What about in this credit crisis though. I mean my BOXING bill is going to be close to £100 this month. I don't see any difference between getting a stream than getting it in german really via the net.

In a credit crisis it's even more reason to show support for sports or anything that you like more as long as you can afford it because streaming it only gives tv companies more reason not to support boxing.

This is why I suggest getting a sattalite dish as it's the cheapest legal way of watching boxing that is on PPV in this country and it ensures a decent picture and no buffering. Don't get me wrong I've done the internet streaming thing with various amounts of success but this has been mainly on shows that are not available in this country and when I haven't been able to afford a PPV then like anything else I don't get it.

'morality'

on a boxing forum!!



it's immoral to hit someone so others can watch and get a kick out of it.

oliverfennell wrote:I use streams or torrents if there is no way to legally watch a fight. I don't see how this hurts anyone - if there is literally no other way to watch it, then I'm not harming anyone's financial bottom line.

But if I can legally watch a fight, that will remain my first choice, because the sport obviously runs on money. If we all started watching it via free/illegal means, then where would the money come from to pay for it to be staged?

exactly Oliver you cant get sky out here, setanta we used to have but thats gone a fro a swanny...what am I supposed to do..put my boxing fixation on hold for 5 years? More likely you are gonna lose intwerest if you have no access to the sport.

If i was in the uk i would not stream at all but Im afriad it is the only option open to me...they will earn back some of the money when i return to England's fair land.

ourkid1984 wrote:In a credit crisis it's even more reason to show support for sports or anything that you like more as long as you can afford it because streaming it only gives tv companies more reason not to support boxing.

This is why I suggest getting a sattalite dish as it's the cheapest legal way of watching boxing that is on PPV in this country and it ensures a decent picture and no buffering. Don't get me wrong I've done the internet streaming thing with various amounts of success but this has been mainly on shows that are not available in this country and when I haven't been able to afford a PPV then like anything else I don't get it.

My point was what if you cannot afford it - is nicking a free stream of a PPV morally acceptable then?

I agree about the Satalite in general, not just for PPV's but I would like watching all boxing - just I don't really know how to instal it.

Carlos-Wigan wrote:I think the way sky charges boxing fans twice is immoral (if not illegal) it certainly encourages fans to watch streams. I would never slag a boxing fan off for watching a stream.

i agree. if people wanna serve up gash like Harrison Haye and charge my dim-witted, UFC fan, sky sports news watching mate 15 quid and Sky are happy to get on board with that then why should I give a sh*t if I can get it for free.....?

If somebody else has already put the fight transmission onto the internet, then the choice facing the fan is whether or not to watch the transmission/stream. If you don't watch it, it will still be there online. Its a worse "wrong thing to do" to put the transmission onto the internet, than to just sit down and watch it as a fan. I don't think boxing fans should sit there and agonise over the moral implications - we are boxing fans, naturally we want to see boxing.

I think the onus, in the moral debate, should be balanced out a little bit more onto the promoters and TV companies who act as though us boxing fans are simply there to be fleeced at every opportunity. It was PPV to see Haye vs Harrison, its PPV to see Froch next week, and two weeks later it'll be another £15 to see the big show from Merseyside. I don't imagine the promoters will agonise over the morale implications of fleecing boxing fans. It is perfectly legal to put shows on as PPV events and I appreciate that watching streaming videos isn't legal, but human beings often taken into account a more balanced view of things (do we hand ourselves into the nearest police station if we catch ourselves doing 32 in a 30 zone ?), and I genuinely think boxing fans are treated badly, in terms of being fleeced at every opportunity.

I'm not sure of the moral implications of Audley Harrison's spineless performance, or of the rights and wrongs of the money he took from the BBC several years back, it was all legal of course but it wasn't for the good of anybody except Audley.

Our laws are set by members of parliament and we all know how they were caught fleecing the expenses system for all it was worth. They earned substantial amounts of salary, yet charged every possible expense to the taxpayer - and these are our taskmasters !!! They impose draconial rules on businesses in the area of employment, yet they themselves employed their own partners as parliamentary aides - we are talking about hundreds of jobs given to spouses, partners, friends or relatives; where was the attempt to "balance the workforce", where was the attempt not to discriminate during the recruitment process, which of course the entire world of business is told to do ?? For years, they were simply hiring whoever they wanted, into cushy jobs, at the taxypayers expense. They would then wander into parliament and dream up laws forcing businesses into ever more difficult employment scenarios. The bxxxxxds had no such difficulties in giving jobs to their wives and husbands though.

So anyway, our MPs tell us what to do, yet I prefer to be led by example, ie, follow what they do, rather than what they say, and I think its to be expected that most people will take a balanced view on something like this topic. I have no doubt that if our MPs were boxing fans, they would have watched streaming video rather than paid (from their own pocket) PPV charges. They were charging for every single expense, rather than pay for it themselves out of their own income. It was a unilateral approach to expenditure - charge the fooking lot to the public via the expenses system, all the time, year in, year out. They would still be doing it now unless there had been such a scandal.

So if boxing fans can't afford to buy a PPV show or a sports channel subscription, or if the show isn't available, then yep for me they are entitled to watch a streaming video. Long live the internet ! If we lived in a world where our MPs were whiter than white, and our boxing promoters were of such virtue that they made mother theresa look dodgy, then watching a streaming video might be frowned upon, but in this particular world we live in, I don't see a problem with it.

If the quality of the product was better more people would be willing to pay! Sky have undoubtedly pushed more paying customers to streaming with the haye harrison undercard etc.

No moral issue for me. Who is it that decides what should be considered value for 15 quid? Sky have got away with murder on a few ppv occasions, so as a buyer you cannot guarantee quality. Subsequently you look for other options with less or no risk.

They knew the haye fight would be pants. Instead of ensuring a bumper bill of boxing they just deceived most fringe fans into thinkin it could be a cracker. They have a bigger moral case to answer than man at home streaming (or woman streamer).

Basicly if you have a good fight with a good undercard , that i want to see NO WAY will i watch a stream and have it fail half way through , i will pay the money and enjoy the ocasion , however if its a shite fight, mismatch, with a shite undercard , that has drawn my attention through massive marketing and bullshit , ala Haye --Harrison

Well then alls i say is bring on the streams , hopefully they don't make money, and then if they want our hard earned money , they will have to put on good undercards and good fights that we want to see , Personaly i'm a firm believer of if it aint worth it don't buy it .

And if promotors , sky , or anyone else wants to con us well Fack em bring on the streams