3pm EPL Footie games and the law ?

[bigtee]

Again, I get your point. But note your own careful language i.e. "the law is effectively in stasis". Of course anytime an appeal is filed/pending, the particular matter is still 'live' and technically can go either way and thus the matter, maybe not even the law, is "effectively" in stasis; but in general the status prior to the filing/determination of the appeal remains. Today Karen Murphy is not just "effectively" but really a convict ---- unless and until her appeal is successful. It is not a situation of we don't know whether she is a convict until her appeal; she is presently a convict until the appeal is decided and unless decided in her favour.

Further, even if we agree that the law is unclear as you say, because the Court of Appeal is considering the matter, the last and extant decision is one declaring illegality of the actions in question.* Thus, I have also been careful to state that the actions are currently illegal subject to the Court of Appeal decision. The bottom line is that unless the Court of Appeal reverses the lower court, the actions concerned are illegal. I think that way of putting it is more true to the situation in that not only does it show that, as you say, the law is unclear, it does not leave things bare as it makes clear how the courts have seen the actions (as illegal) so far.

*EDIT . . . as the Court of Appeal has not ruled on the substantive issues other than wanting some guidance from the ECJ

 

[ciaran]

The issue really turns on whether one considers the current deference to the European Court as an actual ruling of sorts - that effectively supercedes the precedent of the lower court - and what is 'on the books'. I would tend to follow this position once the appeal has made a prelim.

The issue is not whether Karen Murphy remains convicted or not. The issue is whether at this stage the offence exists in law or not. They are two different things.

I'll try and dig the supporting opinions on the issue out of westlaw.

(I would note that this position is only applicable where points of EU law are at issue - in other cases the normal system of precedent which you have clearly outlined applies).

 

[menorcarob]

hi

i own a pub in the UK that shows sky italia, only reason that i took this step was that i only paid £750 for 14 months, and i was paying £600 A MONTH to slly UK, i am not a publican or solicitor, i am an electrician, but i think that once the transmission is sold to sky italia, they then broadcast it from there tranmitters in italy, i am guessing of course, but on that assumption being correct, the product is being sold and dispensed in italy, so if the game is in timbutoooooo the way i see it, is that sky do not have anyway of saying that it is there product as they sold it to sky italia, i live in spain and visit variouse parts of spain, and it is more than obviouse that sky uk is being shown both in bars hotels you name it, you even see bill boards the size of houses, both advertising the venues or indeed the service to purchase sky for your home or business, it quite odd that sky uk are not pestering these people, because as i understand it sky are not allowed to sell their service in spain, can't remember the exact reason perhaps someone knows the exact law that they be breaking.

 

[menorcarob]

hi

just found this on skys spain position, wont try to pretend that i understand it all though, perhaps some of you people who know might shed some light on the subject.

_http://www.spainexpat.com/spain/forum/viewthread/5942



thanks

[nolink]Admin[/nolink]

 

[Huevos]

i own a pub in the UK that shows sky italia, only reason that i took this step was that i only paid £750 for 14 months, and i was paying £600 A MONTH to slly UK

When you get caught you will pay the difference and a whole lot more.

i live in spain and visit variouse parts of spain, and it is more than obviouse that sky uk is being shown both in bars hotels you name it

Copyright law in Spain is completely different, and one of the most relaxed in the world. Nevertheless Digital+ own the rights in Spain to much of the same material Sky broadcast in the UK. Lately the are sending their scouts round to catch bar owners who infrindging their rights (showing La Liga matches from Al Jazeera, and BPL from Sky, etc), and the fines are massive.

 

[menorcarob]

hi

but surely the laws are that of the EU when it comes to two member states having conflict.

"When you get caught you will pay the difference and a whole lot more."

as a specialist contributor you've already made up the courts decision have you, for me Sky's attitude is to go in hard and we will win, truth is Sky is not the law, it is a company the same as the little plumber down the road, so they will not get any better treatment than they deserve, how long do you think it would take for them to privately procecute all of the people that are standing against getting ripped off, i think they would do better charging reasonable rates for the commercial side, do you remember when they first started "join us for the best sports films and a whole lot more" what they forgot tell you and me was that when they had lots of us signed up they would start changing the goal posts IE charging for films, sports events and the rest, so i am sorry that you think they are in the right, but i and a lot of people, some even work for Sky, dont agree with you.

 

[Huevos]

the laws are that of the EU when it comes to two member states having conflict.

The only rules that ever were in doubt were those relating to private use. Bars certainly are not private use.

BTW: Sky have 10 million customers and the average fee per customer is 450 GBP per annum. That's 4.5 billion GBP they raised from their subscriber base in the last year. Do you really believe a bar owner is capable of taking on a company like that and winning?

 

[menorcarob]

dont you have any faith in the legal systems? or do you feel that money can get you whAt you want, l have beaten banks in courts, and they have plenty, where did you lose your optomism , oh and by the way the world can get by with out slly

 

[Lazarus]

............ oh and by the way the world can get by with out slly

In which case, none of these debates need arise.

It's a massively complex issue as it bears not only upon eg BSkyB, but also upon the Carriage Contracts with Satellite Operators, the Rights Holders for Content etc.

And is further convoluted by different and occasionally contradictory law across the geographical areas involved.

Much programming originates from the US and they are perfectly entitled, when selling stuff to EU Broadcasters, to impose Contractual and Copyright constraints.

Platforms like Sky have to at least be seen to respect those Constraints and do so by imposing their own end-user Terms & Conditions, by taking into account the Technical limitations of the Satellites used etc.

And they do indeed have thousands upon thousands of customers who are not complying with the Terms & Conditions - to which end they from time to time have purges. But pursuing individuals is a hugely costly exercise, if done on a grand scale, so they go for the overt targets such as those using Bars etc and those who provide Cards/Systems on a commercial scale outside the UK.

It's a never ending game of cat and mouse where to some extent BSkyB are cutting off Revenue on the one hand while trying to satisfy their Commercial Partners on the other.

Ultimately, issues of what are chiefly breaches of Civil Law are always going to be immensely complicated to Prosecute, even if in these cases they were confined merely to EU National and Community wide legislation. Which they aren't.

But, to return to your comment, considering that the world can get by without Sky, a lot of effort seems to be put in by an awful lot of people to actually get access to it!

A conundrum indeed.

 

[Huevos]

dont you have any faith in the legal systems? or do you feel that money can get you whAt you want

It's not a case of money getting you what you want. Litigation costs a lot of money and when a titanic corporation buries an opponent in under an enormous stack of paperwork it normally doesn't take long for the opponent to give up or go bankrupt.

they go for the overt targets such as those using Bars

There's a big difference between bars and private individuals. If I have five mates round to watch football I don't charge them. A pub on the other hand is making money out of showing the game to third parties and must pay the rights holder of the territory in which it is being viewed for that privileged.

 

[Lazarus]

There's a big difference between bars and private individuals. If I have five mates round to watch football I don't charge them. A pub on the other hand is making money out of showing the game to third parties and must pay the rights holder of the territory in which it is being viewed for that privileged.

Exactly so.

 

[Low Profile]

Slightly off topic (Football by Satellite and the Law), but the standard TV license allows pubs to show Internet, Satellite and Terrestrial signals.
If a pub was to show a terrestrial signal originating from a remote (off the premises) video sender then it could open up a whole new can of worms for sl<y........

 

[rolfw]

Slightly off topic (Football by Satellite and the Law), but the standard TV license allows pubs to show Internet, Satellite and Terrestrial signals.
If a pub was to show a terrestrial signal originating from a remote (off the premises) video sender then it could open up a whole new can of worms for sl<y........

The TV licence allows you to use a piece of equipment capable of showing TV programmes, that is all. Just because a programme is being relayed from somewhere else, it does not change the laws of copyright.

 

[DARKMOTOR]

Of course EPL won't make an issue of Nova's T&Cs, it isn't anything to do with them and Nova won't sue them, but they can legitimately switch off the card.

The whole aspect of bringing the domestic user into the frame is the red herring, the real issue is the public screening of the EPL matches using anything other than a commercial subscription from the UK rights holders. If what the minister said was the definitive answer, then this case would not be ongoing.

Why don't we just wait for the judgement.

that not Correct..EPL Last Year done big Issu to NOVA and Digitalb Operator ....

Novas Administators did not come to Apontaments and Digitalb Digitalb director yes is been...

Nova Last last year the rights and digitalb lose 3PM and after all the Premireship...
they have been threten from EPL.. like mny other cases.

 

[parkinson]

It all seems about monopoly and money – Sly want all the revenue from publicans.
I do not understand why they or the FAPL who chose that 3PM matches should not be shown in the UK because they are allowed!!
Why chose to do this, they would probably say it was about gate / game attendants (although my club is full on a 12:30 kick off)
Presumably this goes back to the sixty’s, when most went to football games at 3.00 and when there were only a couple of terrestrial channels to watch.
Today it is not just the ball that is different perhaps they should allow the publicans to view 3.00 pm kick offs, this may give them a tiny bit more for there money.
It always seems we in this country get the short straw.
As well as a satellite subscription we pay for a T.V. license for the BBC’s excellent programs –
So in Europe you can watch 3:00 pm kick offs have a possibly choice of subscriptions and watch the BBC without paying a T.V. license (if the beam is to narrow in the future - well there is always BBC entertainment on a different satellite).
Just a minute aren’t we part of Europe or at least its free trade movement???

 

[Low Profile]

Money talks, especially in these hard economic times. Perhaps the FA / Broadcasters agreement should evolve so that 3pm matches can be received outside the immediate catchment area of any match. Such an agreement would also be of benefit to away supporters and would potentially reduce any crowd trouble / travel problems. Each match could be PPV and matched to the identity of the receivers card (similar to the regionalized cards we have today).

 

[woborny]

It is in court this week....The ECJ hearing begins on Tuesday. so about 5 years time when they make a decision then....

The European Court of Justice will this week hear a landmark case brought by a Portsmouth-based pub landlord, which could change the landscape of how sports broadcasting rights are sold across Europe.

Five years ago, Karen Murphy would try to draw punters to her Portsmouth pub, The Red, White and Blue, by showing Premier League football matches on the pub TV.

However, she found the monthly subscription to Sky Sports increasingly unaffordable - pubs can pay more than £1,000 a month.

Instead, she found a cheaper means of screening English football - a subscription to a Greek satellite broadcaster, NOVA. This imported satellite card was around one 10th of the cost Karen was paying to BSkyB

_http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11452434

 

[bigtee]

The issue really turns on whether one considers the current deference to the European Court as an actual ruling of sorts - that effectively supercedes the precedent of the lower court - and what is 'on the books'. I would tend to follow this position once the appeal has made a prelim.

The issue is not whether Karen Murphy remains convicted or not. The issue is whether at this stage the offence exists in law or not. They are two different things.

I'll try and dig the supporting opinions on the issue out of westlaw.

(I would note that this position is only applicable where points of EU law are at issue - in other cases the normal system of precedent which you have clearly outlined applies).

@ Ciaran

In case you read here still, I just wanted to point out that in the wake of the ECJ's final ruling today, I came across an opinion which agrees with my position on the matter we debated some time ago. Cheers.

From: _http://www.headoflegal.com/2011/10/04/eu-law-2-fa-premier-league-0/

Today the Grand Chamber of the ECJ gave its preliminary ruling in two joined cases, FA Premier League v QC Leisure and others and Murphy v Media Protection Services. The ruling isn’t on BAILII yet; but it is available on the ECJ’s own website. [Update: here's the BAILII version].

The case is rightly being reported as a victory for the pub landlady Karen Murphy, whose criminal conviction under section 297(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act for dishonestly receiving a broadcast with intent to avoid payment, although technically still good in law until her case returns to the High Court, will surely now be quashed, since the ECJ has ruled that it’s contrary to internal market law, specifically the freedom to provide services under article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). Rather than buying a Sky subscription for her pub, she’d obtained a decoder for a cheaper Greek satellite service from a firm called NOVA. It was this that Portsmouth Magistrates’ Court saw as dishonest, Ms. Murphy having been privately prosecuted by Media Protection Services, a company used by the Premier League, in the ECJ’s words to

to conduct a campaign of prosecutions against public house managers using foreign decoding devices . . . . . .

 

[menorcarob]

its about time sky were put in there place, monopoly of all sports is what they want, remember when they started "we will bring you all the sports action we can for one monthly payment" WALOB's first thing they done was call any thing more than a pub team sunday morning football match a "special" and made it pay per view, anybody who thinks that ******** murdoch and his cronies are going to be giving you value for money, should move to the moon. and why some of you continue to shout that sky are in there rights beggers belief, i slung sky out and i put up a sign that any of their employees are not welcome in my pub. 'O'-red

 

[Lazarus]

Whilst appreciating your opinion and strength of feeling, I have beeped a few of your choicer words. Readers can fill in the blanks!

I guessed at WALOB and checked it via Search Engine. Borderline ....................