Or how bout throw Shane Winters and Robb in "the box"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Big truck
- Thread starter craZyErica
- Start date
Or how bout throw Shane Winters and Robb in "the box"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are wrong with your "Tailgating" analogy. If the person slams on their brakes and gets hit from behind the person "Tailgating" is at fault! The charge is following too close or inattentive driving. I wrote many tickets for this in my 23 years in law enforcement.
The smarts of me and every other pool room in the country. Ask your local pool room that he streams if I'm the only one Mr. Smarty Pants
You can see the unique views and total views for streams. You could be running 500-1000 viewers on at the same time for a decent stream. People are coming and going with the total of unique viewers over the course of say 3 days streaming 10-14 hours each day totaling 20-50,000 unique views. Those numbers I have had from a good event with top players but for smaller events it might be anywhere from 5,000-10,000 unique views.
The good thing is that its a targeted audience of viewers who like pool so its good for businesses in the industry. I will say that people who are buying PPV are proven to spend money so its not totally terrible for sponsors/advertisers of it even if the viewer numbers are smaller. I think for a sponsor/advertiser a FREE stream gives more bang for the buck because the numbers are much larger viewership wise for events that have pro players.
No problem, Me and Tracy will definitely put Robb in the box playing him.... Do you want to stake Shane?
Why do the same pool rooms keep inviting him back year after year then?
Not that's a good question
LOL.... You win!
You can bet your sweet ass you'll get charged ... in California, that is.
That isn't her argument. Her argument is that if a streamer is getting pay per view money, why can't the players get broken off a piece. She's not saying anything about the free streamers out there that do it because they love the sport and want to broadcast.
My ass is pretty sweet, you seen my videos? Go to peternorth.com
I believe ya.. Just isn't the way it works here. Your charged for following too close no matter what the situation 99% of the time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
lol.. Now we're on the same page.
Anyways,let's get some video posted and prove all the Erica haters wrong.. If not then she's the crazy one
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is good for both free and ppv. Two ways - the players are getting 0 cost exposure for their brand ( themselves ) , what they do with it will be on them. Secondly they get a shot at prize money in the tournament . Everyone knows when signing up for the tournament they release any rights to their use while in that tournament .
Maybe but her gripe was also against youtube not paying the players.
This is no different
Her gripe about the pool players not receiving compsentation that is a whole other issue. My problem is with a business personally interfering with another business and distruction of property.
Erica has made a gripe against PPV streaming as well.
Yes and YouTube makes advertising money. However, it wouldn't be up to YouTube to pay the players. It would be up to the owner of the YouTube channel (who gets paid by YouTube).
Lets look at it this way. We'll call free streamers "non profit". They may make a little money but most of it goes back into the business or living expenses. Most free streamers aren't gonna be rolling in the green (figuratively and literally). If paying the players undermines that ability to actually stream, then no. No compensation necessary. If you are making a living off of the players then some sort could be.
If PPV streaming is for profit then an argument could be made for PPV to put money back into the industry (its just good business). Ray doesn't make boats and hos money like some people think he does. There is also nothing wrong with someone being successful and profitable.
There is a fine line between giving back to the players and a sense of entitlement. Think back to 2010 when Johnny Archer got the gang together and ESPN said F*** OFF.
IMO players should be paid on streams that are action or challenge matches. Tournaments on the other hand should only have money added. Direct compensation is goofy for a tournament.
BTW free streaming ad rev. plus YouTube ad rev. is much better for pool to grow as a whole but PPV events have their place for sure.
I'm surprised that you really believe that, Lenny. Yes, some people will pay for better stream and commentary, but there are certainly going to be people who will watch a free stream rather than coughing up the money.
In my view, if Ray (or Accu-Stats or you or anyone else) has been given the right to stream the event (whether they paid for it or not), no one else should be permitted to stream it. The ability to do streams from phones is new, so if this is not something specified in the deals between the streamers and the promoters it is something that should be ironed out going forward.
Of course, a venue is also free to tell the streamer in the negotiation that their right to stream is not exclusive - and the streamer can make his or her decision about whether to participate. For example, it might be that Accu-Stats would not object to people cell-phone streaming a match that isn't on the TV table at the DCC - which would be cool for the fans - but if Accu-Stats had a problem with it I totally understand.
Last edited: