Screw them, people use these sites because they do blackouts and regional deals and other nonsense then expect you to buy an expensive plus or ultra subscription or PPV.

And we can totally trust them to never abuse this power or falsely accuse a legal site of infringement over materials they don't even own, right? riiiiiiiiiiiiight

(Looking at you, RIAA and MPAA... Can you see my sarcasm from there?)

Just about every single digital service anymore that isn't involved in piracy has definitely forgotten the silver rule:

To stop piracy more effectively, you need to be more convenient than the pirates.

Is it more convenient to pay whatever the price is for the individual sports subscriptions/packages/whatever, or is it more convenient to go to a single site to stream the games you want for free?

It's why Netflix, in the early days of their streaming platform, helped curb piracy by a sizeable amount. You could watch what you wanted when you wanted all on a single application/website without worrying about potentially downloading an infected file or worrying about ads.

I must know what sites they are warning us about so that I know to avoid them!

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The leagues claimed the change "would be a relatively modest and non-controversial update to the DMCA that could be included in the broader reforms being considered by Congress or could be addressed separately."

Unlike many other jurisdictions around the world, the US lacks a "site-blocking" regime whereby copyright owners may obtain no-fault injunctions requiring domestic Internet service providers to block websites that are primarily geared at infringing activity.

A "site-blocking" regime, with appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse, would substantially facilitate all copyright owners' ability to address piracy, including UFC's.

Website-blocking is bound to be a controversial topic, although the Federal Communications Commission's now-repeated net neutrality rules only prohibited blocking of "lawful Internet traffic."

The Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) said the current notice-and-takedown legal framework provides "an efficient way to expeditiously remove allegedly infringing content from Internet services, while fostering cooperation between relevant stakeholders."

The imposition of proactive enforcement obligations would be less effective, would inevitably negatively impact free speech and legitimate trade, and would introduce untold unintended consequences—digital services would be disincentivized from innovating and would do only what the law required, benefiting no one.

The original article contains 731 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!