Sky deals

[jusme]

Yes it is my choice - i want to watch the sport so I pay to watch it legally, I’m not part of this want society where people want something but think because it’s not worth the cost look for a way to get it illegally for free. And sky charge what they do because the Premier League charge a lot to broadcast the games - so as Diablo says what else do you steal

I used the various illegal sites for several months. They are OK, but if you want reliability and quality then Sky are hard to beat...assuming a decent price. Their platform and software is second to none. I missed it when I left and on returning realised just how smooth and fuss free it is. I'm happy to pay for a little quality (not talking about programs available or lack of)

 

[Beezerk]

I used the various illegal sites for several months. They are OK, but if you want reliability and quality then Sky are hard to beat...assuming a decent price. Their platform and software is second to none. I missed it when I left and on returning realised just how smooth and fuss free it is. I'm happy to pay for a little quality (not talking about programs available or lack of)

Most Kodi addons won't do sports now unless you pay for a VPN which kind of defeats the object, then of course you need to spend 30 minutes finding a stream
Casting from a phone to a tv using Mobdro in an option but why have a half decent picture on my tv when I can get HD?

 

[Pin-seeker]

Do we really have to do this AGAIN??

Ok you’re against illegal streaming WE GET IT👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

You’re not part of the want for free society 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

 

[chrisd]

Be careful you don't compare apples to oranges. There are different levels of Sky Q. I have the full package and by full I mean full. Nothing excluded. Mines is their more expensive one (2TB box) and multiroom upstairs. I pay 53 a month and that's a decent price. I wouldn't pay more, however I only got that after leaving them for 6 months. Loyalty discounts are hit and miss. Some get, others don't. If they don't offer what I'm prepared to pay I leave and wait for a new customer deal and sign up in partners name etc

I just have the basic Q box And the full package and it us an 18 months deal, I watch little else on Sky but sport. I told BT to poke their sport when they wanted £9 per month up from the £4 it was

 

[Mrs Wiggles]

Most Kodi addons won't do sports now unless you pay for a VPN which kind of defeats the object, then of course you need to spend 30 minutes finding a stream
Casting from a phone to a tv using Mobdro in an option but why have a half decent picture on my tv when I can get HD?

I gave up on Kodi. I use a streaming app that can be downloaded on any android (not playstore) that is excellent. Just watched the entire Utd v Liverpool game and the stream didn't break down once. For several years I had SKY, until I realised what a rip off it was

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I gave up on Kodi. I use a streaming app that can be downloaded on any android (not playstore) that is excellent. Just watched the entire Utd v Liverpool game and the stream didn't break down once. For several years I had SKY, until I realised what a rip off it was

Which app?

 

[fundy]

pay 33 a month for the full tv package on sky Q and multiroom currently, going up to 41 a month in january (best i could do without the whole quitting rigmarole)

 

[Slime]

Which app?

Well ...................... which app and can you get the golf on it?

 

[Hacker Khan]

I also think the sports and film channels are too expensive. So I don't subscribe and don't watch them.

I don't feel I have a devine right to watch sport or films that are on subscription channels on sky or BT for free, but some people may feel more of a sense of entitlement.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

We dumped Sky Sports yesterday (we dumped Sky Movies ages ago) as we were paying £107.50 a month including Sky+ HD, Broadband and Sky Anytime Landline (£28/month - only person who uses it is my MiL so can't get rid of it )

Took the opportunity to upgrade broadband to Sky Broadband fibre - think that was about £8 a month extra, and think that'll be worth it as daughter uses NOW TV and Netflix.

Anyway - with ups and downs we reduced monthly payment by about £30 off.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Thanks all.
I’ve given notice to cancel so waiting for the phone call.

 

[Mrs Wiggles]

Well ...................... which app and can you get the golf on it?

yep. Try potato streams, and MOBDRO, both on Android (not playstore of course)

 

[Matty6]

£30 per month for full Sky package (Sports movies etc..) with Sky Q 2tb box, multiroom etc. 18 month deal. Special offer that is for customers who had Sky previously.

 

[Slab]

Do you steal your weekly shop from the supermarket too?

Off topic but just for curiosity sake, is Mrs Wiggles stealing anything?

Isn't it the folk who run the website and broadcast the signal who are the ones doing the stealing and putting it globally online and he hasn't in fact stolen anything?

At worst is Mrs Wiggles guilty of simply receiving a stolen service, but then its an electronic signal available through the entire internet & provided to everyone connected to that same internet

Its quite likely that Mrs Wiggles knows full well that the stream isn't from a legally authorised source but as a defense a user of such a stream might just ask; who here checks out the copyright and broadcast rights of each and every audio/video clip they see online prior to watching it (even just that funny vid your mate sent you on whasapp or faceslap)
I suggest zero people do these checks (why would we) and I'd also say then that its more than likely that everyone using the internet has at some point either watched or listened to a file somewhere online where the correct broadcast permissions/copyright was not in place for in order to allow it to be viewed/shared, and since ignorance is no excuse in law are we all then guilty of the exact same offense as Mrs Wiggles?

As I say, just curious...

 

[Dibby]

Off topic but just for curiosity sake, is Mrs Wiggles stealing anything?

Isn't it the folk who run the website and broadcast the signal who are the ones doing the stealing and putting it globally online and he hasn't in fact stolen anything?

At worst is Mrs Wiggles guilty of simply receiving a stolen service, but then its an electronic signal available through the entire internet & provided to everyone connected to that same internet

Its quite likely that Mrs Wiggles knows full well that the stream isn't from a legally authorised source but as a defense a user of such a stream might just ask; who here checks out the copyright and broadcast rights of each and every audio/video clip they see online prior to watching it (even just that funny vid your mate sent you on whasapp or faceslap)
I suggest zero people do these checks (why would we) and I'd also say then that its more than likely that everyone using the internet has at some point either watched or listened to a file somewhere online where the correct broadcast permissions/copyright was not in place for in order to allow it to be viewed/shared, and since ignorance is no excuse in law are we all then guilty of the exact same offense as Mrs Wiggles?

As I say, just curious...

As we are wandering off topic, it's fascinating that nearly all posters on the thread about something not being scanned at a checkout would not keep the item and would make every effort to pay, otherwise, it is theft, but then on here seem to be not bothered that people are actively avoiding paying for Sky. What's the difference?

 

[Slab]

As we are wandering off topic, it's fascinating that nearly all posters on the thread about something not being scanned at a checkout would not keep the item and would make every effort to pay, otherwise, it is theft, but then on here seem to be not bothered that people are actively avoiding paying for Sky. What's the difference?

Good point, so using that example, a board game I think it was
You sit down to play trivial pursuit on Christmas night (which you know the shop failed to scan for you) with granny and a couple of kids, they 'use' it and receive enjoyment from it, are they thieves and did they steal it? Most would so no of course they're not theives

However if while playing you tell them about the error at the shop and that you didn't return to pay for it and they continue to play the game does their innocence/guilt of theft then change?

(granny is Mrs Wiggles)


Even worse what if you give the game as a Christmas gift to granny

 

[Pin-seeker]

Good point, so using that example, a board game I think it was
You sit down to play trivial pursuit on Christmas night (which you know the shop failed to scan for you) with granny and a couple of kids, they 'use' it and receive enjoyment from it, are they thieves and did they steal it? Most would so no of course they're not theives

However if while playing you tell them about the error at the shop and that you didn't return to pay for it and they continue to play the game does their innocence/guilt of theft then change?

(granny is Mrs Wiggles)


Even worse what if you give the game as a Christmas gift to granny

I’m reporting granny for handling stolen goods.

 

[Slab]

I’m reporting granny for handling stolen goods.

Mel Smith: "Christmas is a time for giving & receiving"

Griff Rhys Jones: "Yeah receiving yeah, there’s a helluva lot of stolen goods around this time of year!"

Credit to Alas Smith & Jones Head to Head conversation IIRC

 

[Dibby]

Good point, so using that example, a board game I think it was
You sit down to play trivial pursuit on Christmas night (which you know the shop failed to scan for you) with granny and a couple of kids, they 'use' it and receive enjoyment from it, are they thieves and did they steal it? Most would so no of course they're not theives

However if while playing you tell them about the error at the shop and that you didn't return to pay for it and they continue to play the game does their innocence/guilt of theft then change?

(granny is Mrs Wiggles)


Even worse what if you give the game as a Christmas gift to granny

It's not about usage, it's about knowing you have deprived someone. I think one has to apply the test of a reasonable person here.

No reasonable person would believe Sky have granted their rights to a dodgy website with loads of pop up adds and a changing URL, to an app that you cannot obtain through the normal app store channels, or to a streaming service where you have to use non-sky provided software. Therefore illegally streaming Sky would be knowingly depriving them of revenue.
A reasonable person wouldn't be expected to question that a board game in someone's ownership is stolen.

However the above is all academic because in the board game thread people were quoting the law and saying it's illegal, same as the sky stream. If you said you would keep the board game, then I can understand saying you would illegally stream sky. It's the inconsistency of those who have an issue with not paying for the board game, but have no issue with not paying for Sky that I don't get.

 

[Slab]

It's not about usage, it's about knowing you have deprived someone. I think one has to apply the test of a reasonable person here.

No reasonable person would believe Sky have granted their rights to a dodgy website with loads of pop up adds and a changing URL, to an app that you cannot obtain through the normal app store channels, or to a streaming service where you have to use non-sky provided software. Therefore illegally streaming Sky would be knowingly depriving them of revenue.
A reasonable person wouldn't be expected to question that a board game in someone's ownership is stolen.

However the above is all academic because in the board game thread people were quoting the law and saying it's illegal, same as the sky stream. If you said you would keep the board game, then I can understand saying you would illegally stream sky. It's the inconsistency of those who have an issue with not paying for the board game, but have no issue with not paying for Sky that I don't get.

Whether you know or don't know isn't it true to say the person or company has still been deprived, that fact doesn't change
So whether you know or don't know the origin & authenticity of every audio/video file you're using online, your guilt or innocence doesn't change either (just how you feel about it)

And if they took a moment it consider it then surely no reasonable person will believe all the content they use online is fully legal and compliant to copyright and broadcast rights