have they stopped prosecuting pubs

hawaythelad said:
what would happen if the club had a cardshring sytem set up. would the fine be worse, as they not paying any tv company.
Click to expand...


No fine, go straight to jail.

"THE first person in the country to be prosecuted for using sophisticated technology to illegally access Sky channels has been jailed for four months.

Keith Cairns, 45, from Croxteth not only sold unauthorised decoder boxes but also charged his customers a monthly subscription fee - and if they did not pay they would be cut off.

Miles Bennett, prosecuting, told Liverpool crown court that Cairns had been selling the unauthorised decoder boxes which contained software enabling the user to access Sky channels without having a decoder card and by using the internet."

Read More
 
hawaythelad said:
bloody better tell them to take it out,they are paying someone£150 a month.
Click to expand...

Jeezus - thats nuts - you could get a couple of decent subs cards for that money - and they only get you a fine if caught!!
 
Not quite, I believe from the report, the commission was a fiver a month, (plus the equipment costs) with the remainder going up the pyramid.

Feel free to correct me.
 
And if a pub shows FTA football from abroad (like the Championship matches on Sportklub Poland today) then would that still be considered illegal? No cards required...
 
psykix said:
And if a pub shows FTA football from abroad (like the Championship matches on Sportklub Poland today) then would that still be considered illegal? No cards required...
Click to expand...



Well I guess that even if it is technically illegal (and I'm not sure whether it would be) it would be much harder to do anything about, being that, a). There is no form of encryption, b). It is not a high demand Premiership match for which the UK rights holder has paid lots of money and c). There is no Saturday 3PM infringement. :)
 
There is also one of the 13e FTA sports arab channels show scottish games at 3pm saturday as well.

Off topic of sport somewhat, but definatly on the same legal theme:-

In the UK there are various aspects which have to meet UK law, such as water shed timings, obscenity, nudity, swearing, violence, etc which are all watched over by 'OffCom'. I have always wondered where we stand when foreign based channels such as Al Jaz, Abu Dhabi TV , CCTV , Record Int, regularly show graphic images of death in their news bulletins. These channels being on the UK epg list
 
Not the same legal theme at all. Offcom if brought in will attempt to regulate the broadcaster over content breaches. It has no influence on the end user.

Minor copyright infringement to blatant content ripping (at least when it comes to football rights from satellite television) is the broadcaster (and whoever the programme content has been bought from) prosecuting the end user / user group.

You will note that F.A.C.T is now mentioned all manner of headline prosecutions dealing with media piracy, whereas last year its involvement was really only brought up when it came to computer downloads, filesharing and DVD copies.
 
If the broadcast (for example Digitalb) is legal, and the Pub Owner can legally show satellite broadcasts (as defined in the TV licence) then perhaps the issue being tested is whether the decryption method is legal.
 
Analoguesat said:
Jeezus - thats nuts - you could get a couple of decent subs cards for that money - and they only get you a fine if caught!!
Click to expand...

yes that's what i thought, i told them to get diema or highsports, with sky italia. but they went down the cardsharing system but they have a letter saying its legal, lol
 
Low Profile said:
If the broadcast (for example Digitalb) is legal, and the Pub Owner can legally show satellite broadcasts (as defined in the TV licence) then perhaps the issue being tested is whether the decryption method is legal.
Click to expand...

No, it's whether he can legally show the content without having purchased the rights from the UK rights holder, which of course, Digitalb is not.
 
rolfw said:
No, it's whether he can legally show the content without having purchased the rights from the UK rights holder, which of course, Digitalb is not.
Click to expand...

In that case surely it would be illegal for anyone to view any broadcast (FTA or encrypted) if they are not subscribed to the local (rights holding) provider.
So, for example if Canalsat hold the Champions League broadcast rights for France - then technically it would be illegal to watch ITV (showing the same content FTA) without subscribing to (in this case) Canalsat (which is a view I've held for some time).
If the provider doesn't have the broadcast rights to a particular area then surely the broadcasters themselves are effectively broadcasting pirate signals.
 
Yes you're probably right and if you were to show them to an audience in France as you would in a pub, club or restaurant, then you would probably have Canalsat down on your shoulders. Obviously though, if you are simply watching it at home, there is very little they can do about it, as they are very unlikely to know about it.
 
Low Profile said:
In that case surely it would be illegal for anyone to view any broadcast (FTA or encrypted) if they are not subscribed to the local (rights holding) provider.
So, for example if Canalsat hold the Champions League broadcast rights for France - then technically it would be illegal to watch ITV (showing the same content FTA) without subscribing to (in this case) Canalsat (which is a view I've held for some time).
If the provider doesn't have the broadcast rights to a particular area then surely the broadcasters themselves are effectively broadcasting pirate signals.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that the Rights Holders are aware of overspill issues and take that into account.


It's certainly the case for Astra 2D. Let's face it, all the Parties (Whether Broadcasters Football Associations etc., Regulators, Satellite Operators) know the likely coverage and as a simple matter of pragmatism will accept that transmissions can be received, to some extent, outside the intended area.



Edit: Sorry, misunderstood your Post first time around! Ignore reply!
 
Do you think it could bring into dispute the whole territorial broadcast rights issue (as in whether it's legal)?
It looks like some providers are intent on monopolising (by buying territorial broadcast rights) - when it seems clear that other providers could provide the same (or at least very similar) content at a much cheaper price.
 
Looking at it, it appears the law says:

‘[a person]…dishonestly receives a program included in a broadcasting…service provided from a place in the United Kingdom with intent to avoid payment of any charge applicable to the reception of the program.’

Now if only the pub had shown a 3pm kick off!
 
While it is necessary and desirable to protect certain intellectual property rights in certain contexts, the reality is that we have been conditioned to accept ridiculous rules which simply to put it 'nicely' are meant to 'screw' the ordinary folk for the sake of corporate profit.

Consider this scenario:

Mr L runs a pub in the UK; he has a dish pointed at Nilesat; he can receive say JSC Sports 1 & 2; both of these are totally FTA; JSC has just finished broadcasting a football match between two Egyptian clubs. Immediately following that game is a Tennis match from the ongoing US Open --- transmitted totally FTA.

A. Is it illegal for the pub to screen the Egyptian match - for its customers' viewing? (Most likely, no UK broadcaster will claim rights to the Egyptian match)

B. Is it illegal for the pub to show the Tennis match for its customers' viewing? (£ky and Eurosport have UK/European rights to the US Open)
 
It's certainly not clear on what would at first glance appear to be obvious.
How can you (or rather a pub) have intent to avoid payment of any charge applicable - when there is no charge applicable - as local broadcast rights haven't been issued?
 
While this thread is about pubs, a point relating to private users is relevant for the point that the rules are sometimes ridiculous. Following below is part of a post I made on another forum some time ago.

Subject to the awaited European Court ruling, using Digitalb (or any other provider whether or not EU based) to watch specifically Premiership football even privately in one's home is technically illegal currently.

This is one of the not so publicised effects of the position that the Court of Appeal took in the Karen Murphy case now before the European Court. The Court of Appeal basically said that watching Premiership football within the UK with any card (indeed anything) other than a £ky (or impliedly the defunct Setanta) subscription is illegal.

Now here is a thing: one has a full Digitalb subscription; one can watch a lot of things on it here in the UK perfectly legally; but once Premiership football comes up on it, you must switch it off or you are breaking the law.

See how ridiculous the whole thing is; Sly and the EPL really have the populace over a barrel!

Hopefully the European Court will sort out the mess.
Click to expand...

Addendum: it may be that the ruling does not go as far as rendering illegal a wholly FTA transmission (received privately/domestically).
 
Low Profile said:
Do you think it could bring into dispute the whole territorial broadcast rights issue (as in whether it's legal)?
It looks like some providers are intent on monopolising (by buying territorial broadcast rights) - when it seems clear that other providers could provide the same (or at least very similar) content at a much cheaper price.
Click to expand...

You are being somewhat naive, as if a free for all was declared, do you really think that Sky would continue to pay the amount they do for Premiership matches, whilst the overseas broadcasters paying a fraction of the cost operate in open competition?

Either the Premier league would no longer sell to overseas broadcasters within reach of the UK live matches, allowing them time shifted matches only .

Or, the overseas broadcasters would be forced to pay similar levels to those of Sky and the subscriptions would no longer be as cheap relatively as they currently are.

The fact is that domestic viewing of this out of zone content is probably not really a massive problem for the rights holders, but the commercial exploiters of these cards and systems have decided it is in their interest that the domestic side is dragged into the frame, I guess in an attempt to gain public sympathy as a problem shared.

The other factor which many ignore, is that the pubs and clubs using these out of area cards, are using domestic cards, thereby even ignoring the out of area issue, they are breaking the terms and conditions of the card issuer and if legitimised, they would again have to pay a lot more for commercial use.
 
Back
Top