Post history

History for Tegal

Getting rid of Sky Sport 101

Back to topic

Current version

Posted August 07, 2015 07:00 · last edited August 07, 2015 07:01

I will pay for content if possible. 

But have no qualms about using a dodgy stream if there is no reasonable option for me to do so. Such as a boxing fight where you have to first be signed up to a $1200 a year sky subscription before you can even pay a further $60 to access the fight. 

I'm even willing to use VPN to pay for the content before I look to a free website to stream it. But then I'm told that's wrong too. They want to have their cake and eat it too, so I have no sympathy for them that people use these streams. It's simply a cost of their distribution model. 

Previous versions

2 versions
Tegal edited August 07, 2015 07:01

I will pay for content if possible. 

But have no qualms about using a dodgy stream if there is no reasonable option for me to do so. Such as a boxing fight where you have to first be signed up to a $1200 a year sky subscription before you can even pay a further $60 to access the fight. 

I'm even willing to use VPN to pay for the content before I look to stream it. But then I'm told that's wrong too. They want to have their cake and eat it too, so I have no sympathy for them that people use these streams. It's simply a cost of their distribution model. 

Tegal edited August 07, 2015 07:01

I will pay for content of possible. 

But have no qualms about using a dodgy stream if there is no reasonable option for me to do so. Such as a boxing fight where you have to first be signed up to a $1200 a year sky subscription before you can even pay a further $60 to access the fight. 

I'm even willing to use VPN to pay for the content before I look to stream it. But then I'm told that's wrong too. They want to have their cake and eat it too, so I have no sympathy for them that people use these streams. It's simply a cost of their distribution model.