Log in
Register
Menu
Log in
Register
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Topics
Members Lounge
Football by Satellite and the Law
Couple score court victory in Sky row
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="bigtee" data-source="post: 760623" data-attributes="member: 238440"><p>I have tried to explain this before but again in brief as much as possible:</p><p></p><p>1. The <em>prosecutions</em> actually amount to stretching a law that was designed for a different purpose altogether to attack the pubs in <em>criminal</em> proceedings. This is why these issues of what amounts to <em>dishonesty</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>2. To explain point 1 further bear in mind: <strong>it is NOT illegal for the publican to subscribe to Orbit or any other foreign provider</strong>. On its Orbit card, the publican can very lawfully (subject to any copyright claim) screen many programmes to its customers <em>including blockbuster movies</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>3. The provision being used to prosecute the pubs was actually intended for out and out <em>pirates</em> (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.</p><p></p><p>4. Let me throw in something here: <em>it is now even more difficult</em>, unless and until the ECJ rules contrary to the Advocate-General, to prove "dishonesty" because all a publican <em>should</em> need to say is that in light of all recent legal shenanigans he has purchased a foreign subscription in the <em>honest</em> belief that it is likely to be legal after all.</p><p></p><p>5. The reason that the prosecutors have been following the <em>criminal</em> route, especially in magistrates courts, is precisely that <em>they wanted to avoid going down the route of pursuing copyright claims</em>! 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 <em>personal</em> injunction to prevent future infringement (really only a superinjunction and <em>in rem</em> against the whole world would be worthwhile). </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bigtee, post: 760623, member: 238440"] I have tried to explain this before but again in brief as much as possible: 1. The [i]prosecutions[/i] actually amount to stretching a law that was designed for a different purpose altogether to attack the pubs in [i]criminal[/i] proceedings. This is why these issues of what amounts to [i]dishonesty[/i] 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: [b]it is NOT illegal for the publican to subscribe to Orbit or any other foreign provider[/b]. On its Orbit card, the publican can very lawfully (subject to any copyright claim) screen many programmes to its customers [i]including blockbuster movies[/i] 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 [i]pirates[/i] (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: [i]it is now even more difficult[/i], unless and until the ECJ rules contrary to the Advocate-General, to prove "dishonesty" because all a publican [i]should[/i] need to say is that in light of all recent legal shenanigans he has purchased a foreign subscription in the [i]honest[/i] belief that it is likely to be legal after all. 5. The reason that the prosecutors have been following the [i]criminal[/i] route, especially in magistrates courts, is precisely that [i]they wanted to avoid going down the route of pursuing copyright claims[/i]! 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 [i]personal[/i] injunction to prevent future infringement (really only a superinjunction and [i]in rem[/i] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Topics
Members Lounge
Football by Satellite and the Law
Couple score court victory in Sky row
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top