The following is my favorite quote:

"U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara warned sports fans in a release that piracy costs sports leagues and broadcasters millions of dollars, forcing increases in ticket prices and other costs to consumers."

This is an actual case of it costing them nothing at all. What they mean to say is, we can't sell our actual customers (the advertisers) as many of YOU (the viewers) when people do this.

Cry me a river.

Yeah, Sky do that to people here. I always thought it was a bit too much of having your cake and eating it, when you expect your viewers to pay for a service, then sell the viewers to advertisers. However, it works. It's amazing what people will accept if you tell them it's ok.

Er, what? I thought he was an actor now.

Wasn't it one of your valiant pub owners that went before the EU supreme court and got the ruling that you can show much cheaper greece football channels in british pubs?

They all screamed how they would lose millions and billions and advertisment bla bla bla

Oh that is epic, obviously few but Americans care about our brand of football, but that's a funny thing I'd never thought of. We have a lot of sports bars around here too...

Yeah, it was as though thousands of voices suddenly cried out "meh", and then were not bothered by Sky's suffering. It was an interesting case, I don't think it's totally done yet though is it? I thought it was just that some high up guy had made his recommendation as to the ruling. People around here would care, if we could sell it back to you on the cheap, and make a tidy buck doing it. Unfortunately EU trade laws probably won't work in such a case.

Playing the world's smallest violin towards the NFL.

So when I was watching illegal hockey streams of RDS (which BTW is part of my current cable package) at school, was I costing them money too somehow?

The "problem" is not that you aren't costing them money. The thing is that you are not giving them (more) money.

Is he good? I find that most former members of bands that use a lot of costumery and segmented/hydraulic stages tend to do alright in acting.

He was in a crappy comedy and in CSI. So... all signs point to "no".

I suppose you have to have some talent beyond acting like an idiot.

Oh god. What's the reasoning for streaming to be considered copyright infringement? I'm not being argumentative, I'm just curious. Would it be any different if I bought a UFC pay-per-view tomorrow and had twenty people over to watch it and they all pitched in to help pay for it? There is no transfer of ownership from streaming.

Sales should have nothing to do with a law, i mean if it's impartial and we're all equal before the law. Shouldn't someone be able to take down facebook or fox news if they share pictures that everyday Joe didn't give permission to use, you know since everything that is copyrightable is automatically protected? I've seen some pretty horrible professional pictures that a photog wanted to sell for high prices because of copyright.

But hey, maybe we can get college athletics to finally admit that they're being run like a business. There was a dual between two top ten collegiate wrestling teams tonight. The only way to watch it without attending would be to pay for a Big Ten digital subscription, when before the BTN, olympic sports were covered by pbs or web-streaming. If the Big Ten Network starts bitching about streaming, obviously they're wanting big business $$$ without wanting to pay any athletes.