Couple score court victory in Sky row

[I.LuV.ManUTd!]

TWO former pub managers are celebrating after a court cleared them of dishonestly screening Premier League football matches.

Gary and Karen Dixon had been charged after showing a match between Everton and Tottenham Hotspur at the Fox and Duck pub, in Birches Head, in 2009 without a BSkyB or ESPN subscription.

North Staffordshire Magistrates' Court heard the couple had a contract with Longton-based Platinum Satellite to deliver cut-price broadcasts using a de-coder card.

It meant they were showing Orbit Showtime programmes which are available in North Africa and the Middle East at a cost of £3,120-a-year. That compares with the £6,403.23 annual cost of a Sky subscription for the Chell Street pub.

And District Judge David Taylor cleared the Dixons after ruling the couple had not been dishonest.

Speaking after the case, Mrs Dixon, who is now unemployed and lives in Birches Head, said: "So many other publicans will be glad to see we're not guilty because these cases are being brought all over the place.

"We had nothing to hide, we honestly did what we thought was right. We were trying to keep up with the local competition."

The satellite system was installed at the pub in August 2009.

But three months later a Media Protection Services (MPS) official – which investigates for the Premier League – visited the pub and told the couple they were breaking the law by screening matches.

The court heard Mrs Dixon contacted Platinum Satellite and was reassured the system was legal.

The court heard the transmission originated from Hampshire with the addition of English commentary and a Showtime logo.

Clearing the Dixons, Mr Taylor said: "By the end of November 2009, Mrs Dixon knew she had ended up with a north African card and alarm bells should have been ringing, and indeed they were, and she contacted Platinum Satellite.

"It has not been proven that the defendants were dishonest." Lawyers acting on behalf of the Premier League have been targeting pubs which use cut-price foreign channels because UK pubs are banned from showing live football matches on Saturday afternoons.

One UK landlady has taken her fight to the European Court of Justice which is still to formally rule on the dispute.

_http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Couple-score-court-victory-Sky-row/story-13156500-detail/story.html

It's a non-EU provider too!

 

[Lazarus]

Interesting .............. but my first reaction is that this is the beginning, not the end. Whilst the District Judge has come to a popular conclusion, it doesn't mean his decision is the final one as it is clearly perverse in purely Legal terms.


Appeals ad infinitum. I'm afraid.

 

[Lazarus]

Hmm. Page no longer available ........ it's started already.

 

[Analoguesat]

Sky & FAPL could kill all this third party supplied football stone dead overnight by allowing 3pm matches to be show. They would then have a leg to stand on in jumping on anyone who continues to use other (no doubt cheaper) suppliers

 

[I.LuV.ManUTd!]

Hmm. Page no longer available ........ it's started already.

The page works fine?

 

[Analoguesat]

Yup its still there.

 

[Lazarus]

Nope. Page Unavailable!

Trying to remember how to Post up a Screen shot ............ I may be some time.


Not that it affects the essence of the issue.

 

[Topper]

Link OK here

But this is slightly different in that they were duped into receiving something that was purported to be one thing when sold and in reality turned out to be something else, but they were still paying over £3000 per annum, I think as they were not intentionally trying to steal from anyone they should be found not guilty. We have to remember here that salesmen dress things up and can bamboozle people, they saw it as a genuine saving to their business not an illegal act.

AS is correct SKY must allow 3.00pm matches in the UK to stop the problem, but they are greedy anf the FA would not allow that. It may be worth noting that in the middle of the recession their profits went up 24% to £790 million

 

[Lazarus]

Gorrit.....

 

[I.LuV.ManUTd!]

Gorrit.....

Not the full URL

_http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Couple-score-court-victory-Sky-row/story-13156500-detail/story.html

Your missing the "Sky-row/story-13156500-detail/story.html"

 

[Analoguesat]

Im a Staffordshire bloke - somewhat isolated these days oop north

 

[rolfw]

You haven't pasted the whole URL.

So the defence is that we weren't acting dishonestly, beacuse we asked the company who sold the package to us and they said it was legal.

 

[Lazarus]

Not the full URL

_http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/Couple-score-court-victory-Sky-row/story-13156500-detail/story.html

Your missing the "Sky-row/story-13156500-detail/story.html"

Yep.

Twigged it ................ my "Linkification" Extension for Firefox can't handle it.


Good old Copy & Paste does!

 

[Lazarus]

You haven't pasted the whole URL.

So the defence is that we weren't acting dishonestly, beacuse we asked the company who sold the package to us and they said it was legal.

I have now ............. I was relying upon supposedly less crude methods qv my previous Post.

Back to Luddite mode for me.


PS: I agree with your comment about the case - I mean, this is a pretty well known issue in the Pub trade and I doubt if they were truly unaware of the wooliness (to put it mildly) surrounding the matter.


In any event, it isn't about Theft (Criminal offence) but about complex Civil Law issue surrounding Contracts, Copyright and all that guff.

It would be useful if we could establish exactly what the charges were - the Article, like most Journalistic Reports , is characterised by it's abstractness and incompleteness.

 

[bigtee]

Given the few facts available from this report, I think the decision was a good decision. According to the applicable provisions, it is always for the prosecution to prove "dishonesty" and if they cannot do that the case must fail necessarily.

 

[Topper]

So the defence is that we weren't acting dishonestly, beacuse we asked the company who sold the package to us and they said it was legal.

Put like that it does seem a bit thin however I have come across this type of salesperson in my life and they can be very convincing hence the judge has ruled the way he has and has erred on the side of caution, I still maintain they were paying £3000 plus to watch 60 or so games of footie which is a lot IMHO, for heavens sake how much profit from beer can you make in 90 minutes enough to justify a £6000 price tag? I doubt it as (you probably know Rolf) these days margins are minute unless you are serving food. They could just be completely innocent

 

[rolfw]

I seriously doubt it Topper, but it is very difficult for the prosecution to prove otherwise.

I have always agreed that Sky's monthly subscriptions to pubs are at a silly level, but of course there is more than just the subscription cost in the equation, there's the showing of 3pm matches factor as well. I can't understand why they don't attack the problem from the breach of copyright angle on the 3pm games, as there is no copyright for anyone to show 3pm games in England and a pub is broadcasting to an audience.

 

[bigtee]

I have tried to explain this before but again in brief as much as possible:

1. The prosecutions actually amount to stretching a law that was designed for a different purpose altogether to attack the pubs in criminal proceedings. This is why these issues of what amounts to dishonesty will always occur; in fact, I daresay that the courts have sometimes been generous to the prosecutors in their determination of "dishonesty" when convicting some publicans.

2. To explain point 1 further bear in mind: it is NOT illegal for the publican to subscribe to Orbit or any other foreign provider. On its Orbit card, the publican can very lawfully (subject to any copyright claim) screen many programmes to its customers including blockbuster movies and plenty of football not "originating" in the UK. As things stand, the only thing the publican should avoid screening on its Orbit (or other) card is Premier League football (and similar football) "originating" in the UK.

3. The provision being used to prosecute the pubs was actually intended for out and out pirates (e.g. people who modify subscription cards or who hack into systems etc) not someone with a subscription (even a foreign subscription) but with issues arising as to what are the lawful entitlements.

4. Let me throw in something here: it is now even more difficult, unless and until the ECJ rules contrary to the Advocate-General, to prove "dishonesty" because all a publican should need to say is that in light of all recent legal shenanigans he has purchased a foreign subscription in the honest belief that it is likely to be legal after all.

5. The reason that the prosecutors have been following the criminal route, especially in magistrates courts, is precisely that they wanted to avoid going down the route of pursuing copyright claims! Apart from the possibility of failure, even if a copyright claim is successful it will often not be worth the while of the prosecutors and will in many instances amount to only a pyrrhic victory --- a fine for the publican and a personal injunction to prevent future infringement (really only a superinjunction and in rem against the whole world would be worthwhile).

6. So instead, the prosecutors pursue the criminal route with the hope of intimidating publicans with the fear of potential loss of livelihood if convicted.

7. In my view the prosecutions under the provisions that have been used (or that are normally used) amount to a travesty and it is quite surprising how indulgent the courts have been on occasion to the prosecutors.

 

[rolfw]

Thanks for that bigtee, I remember from your previous posts.

If the dishonesty criminal charge can't be made to stick, either on the user, or the card seller (not convinced as to your travesty comment), then the civil route on the 3PM games may ultimately be the only remaining option, particularly if the ECJ rule in favour of the publicans. What may of course happen, could be the elimination of all 3pm premiership football, or perhaps time shifted football for the foreign providers.

 

[Topper]

It is all very interesting and I agree that time shifting 3pm matches for foreign providers, even by 15 minutes may ultimately be the way forward