bigtee said:
I'm afraid this is not correct. Copyright infringement is a civil matter. Today's case had every bearing!!! It was the whole point of today's case. Otherwise, why did Karen Murphy not "get a criminal record" today for copyright infringement?
Well the premier league say its a criminal matter too.....
Later the Premier League warned in a statement that Ms Murphy's legal victory would not prevent clubs and pubs being pursued in the courts if they persisted in showing live matches.
A league spokesman said a High Court decision in February in the case of QC Leisure made it clear the league was entitled to take legal action "to prevent the unauthorised use of our copyrights in pubs and clubs when they are communicated to the public without our authority".
The statement warned: "That unauthorised use gives rise to both civil and criminal penalties.
"Therefore should Mrs Murphy, or any other publican, use European Economic Area foreign satellite systems to show Premier League football on their premises without our authority and outside the scope of our authorisation, they make themselves liable for us to take action against them in both the civil and criminal courts."
PA
I will say it again today's case was a waste of time for everyone bar Karen murphy getting her conviction overturned. The main case was beginning of feb. why else have qc leisure, eurovision, and SR ltd ceased trading after that hearing, that says it all.
Karen murphy was one of 2 cases the european court ruled on, Hers was the one highlighted in the press as it made a good headline " pub lady takes on sky".
Theres only 2 winners Karen murphy and sky, but you will never see Karen murphy use a European sub in her pub again.