have they stopped prosecuting pubs

What it does bring to light is the fact that customers (or potential customers) are not happy with the current service that Sky provides. If you are going to produce a what if scenario then surely it opens up for debate the whole broadcast terms issue. Essentially virtually every viewer wants to watch their own team when they play, at current this service is not available. If Sky were (allowed) to show 3pm kick offs then they may have a case (in that the pubs would be avoiding applicable charges), but they're not.
With current technology all 96 league clubs could have their matches broadcast live, if each club could negotiate it's own broadcast contract then we wouldn't have the problems we have now, and all teams could benefit rather than the top heavy scenario we have at the moment.
The problems associated with football aren't just that some pubs are using suspect techniques, and in my view there should be a complete review. Just by looking at the amount of clubs with financial problems (often created by clubs gambling to achieve a higher status) it would appear that both the Football Association and the Football League are not helping matters.
Sorry to veer a bit off topic.
 
I don't think that the vast majority of Sky's customers are unhappy, just a vociferous minority, it is mostly licensees and hobbyists who have a problem with it and the most vociferous of the hobbyists probably wouldn't subscribe even if it was cheaper. As an example of this, DigitalB is a cheap as chips football package, but people still join card share rings to avoid paying for it.

I can see your point about sharing of the benefits, but in real terms, not many people are going to be interested in watching live 1st or second division football and the idea of having the 3pm embargo is to help these lower clubs in not taking away their stadium supporters.

Regarding the pubs showing 3PM matches, it isn't to do with Sky, it is the Premier league taking the action, as nobody has the rights to show the matches in England and hence anyone viewing them in England is doing so illegally.
 
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...

Wow !:-Nooo
 
well that is the question, they could lose their liceince, & get fined. it all depends on who they get done by media partners or fact 0r both.
 
Not quite flogging a dead horse .....

On whether the UK model ("sell football to Sly and let Sly hold the populace to subscription ransom") is all it is cracked up to be in terms of its supposed benefits, compare another approach:

Germany’s soccer Bundesliga will remain on free-to-air TV, Tom Bender, managing director of federal soccer league Deutsche Fußball-Liga (DFL) confirmed to newspaper portal DerWesten.de.

The mixture of free-to-air and pay-TV has been tried and tested over previous years, he said, and DFL doesn’t want to give that up. “DFL could have given the Bundesliga almost completely over to pay-TV in 2005, but decided against it and relinquished around €150 million. We do profit from our extensive TV presence and with almost €500 million income from sponsoring we are the number 1 in Europe,” said Bender.
Click to expand...

Source: _http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.php/200911155223/german-bundesliga-to-stay-free-to-air.html
 
pipino said:
the sad thing now days in UK even if you have a good dump in a bushes you get done :( ,i think we better be "MPs" so we safe
Click to expand...

sky are still going round,checking pubs they came in my pub,and said if you don't sign up we will take you to court,i signed up for the year,it could of been a bluff
 
I see they raided 12 pubs in hull earlier this week, media partners has the police and customs. dose anyone know when they decession in the in the murhpy case.
 
Hadn't heard about that, here's a snippet of the article from _http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/85792

Over £70,000 of cash plus computer equipment, documentation, tobacco and drugs were seized in the operation in Humberside yesterday morning.
Three men have been taken into custody. A man aged 43 has been arrested for drugs offences and obstructing police officers.
A man aged 53 and a man aged 20 were both arrested for money laundering and breach of copyright.
All three men have been released on police bail, pending further enquiries.
In addition, police in Oldham used a warrant to seize broadcasting equipment, which had allegedly been used for foreign satellite broadcasts into 12 pubs in and around the Hull area.
Over 70 officers were involved in the multi-agency operation. It included officers representing Media Protection Services, which investigates foreign satellite screenings, and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), which seized over 400 bottles of wine and a small amount of tobacco.
Click to expand...
 
rolfw said:
Hadn't heard about that, here's a snippet of the article from _http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/85792

Over 70 officers were involved in the multi-agency operation. It included officers representing Media Protection Services, which investigates foreign satellite screenings, and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), which seized over 400 bottles of wine and a small amount of tobacco.
Click to expand...

Holy moly, that's five bottles per rozzer. A decent brekky.
 
Here's another piece. _http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/85926

Twelve Humberside pubs have had their licences suspended for allegedly screening football via the internet.

The Morning Advertiser understands that the venues are suspected of using “slingbox” devices to use internet signals to show games on screens.
It marks a new twist in the crackdown on Premiership football screenings in pubs via systems that aren’t Sky or ESPN.
Dave Henderson, licensing manager for Hull City Council, said: "Following reports of the illegal streaming of football matches, we are conducting a summary review of the premises concerned.
“As an interim step whilst this review is undertaken, the licences for these premises have been suspended resulting in the temporary closure of the businesses. Until the review of each premise has concluded we cannot comment further."
The 12 venues were raided earlier this month. Several private addresses were also raided and three arrests were made as part of the investigations.
Click to expand...
 
No date set for the Murphy case as yet, see _http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/85445
 
It seems to me that stupidity is not just the province of our fools regarding FTA transmissions
 
This case is not about FTA transmissions, but watching 3PM and other copyright football with a non UK subscription in licensed premises.
 
Brisat said:
It seems to me that stupidity is not just the province of our fools regarding FTA transmissions
Click to expand...

FTA is not a problem here in Europe - perfectly legal fair game.

But I'd be interested to know more about what your Post hinted at - Are there issues over "non-native" FTA transmissions in Australia?
 
Are there any stipulations in the standard TV licence that state that any received broadcast must be legal?

If not, then by definition they have a licence to receive the signal.
 
Low Profile said:
Are there any stipulations in the standard TV licence that state that any received broadcast must be legal?

If not, then by definition they have a licence to receive the signal.
Click to expand...

One could 'unwittingly' come across an 'illegal' broadcast just by chance, so there is unlikely to be anything that makes legal viewing mandatory.
 
G'Day, we have problems here with overflow into the commercial areas with a lot of signals, but a couple of years back we had a problem similar to yours in that the hotels were getting access via sub card for outback
transmission and having the football on at the pub when the terrestrial didn't have it supposedly to increase
the gate at the football stadium. One of the arguments went that as it was a signal available then it could be used.
The station transmitting the signal is in the centre of Aust at Alice Springs and can only transmit into non commercial areas via the use of a smartcard. This card, known as an Optus Aurora card, is not a sub card as you only pay to buy the card, after that all is free, so to speak. There was also a large trade in Foxtel Irdeto 1 cards at $50 each which has prompted the move to Irdeto 2.
Probably not really FTA but closer to that than the other sub. type systems and it also was about football.
Regards
Jim Pettigrove
Brisbane Satellites
 
Channel Hopper said:
One could 'unwittingly' come across an 'illegal' broadcast just by chance, so there is unlikely to be anything that makes legal viewing mandatory.
Click to expand...

That would put a novel twist on it, being prosecuted for showing a signal that you have a license to receive!
 
Confined to Sly/FAPL strategies for dealing with pubs and suppliers (excluding the position of a wholly private user) in relation to foreign subscriptions, the situation got extremely interesting with the QC Leisure case. Prior to that case Sly/FAPL had been using criminal law i.e. prosecution of publicans in particular. These cases generally took place in Magistrates courts. Part of Sly/FAPL's choice of criminal law was to use the fear factor i.e. a publican who got convicted faced the possibility of losing his livelihood. However, even as they convicted some publicans and acquitted others the courts kept stating that they felt that criminal law did not seem proper for addressing Sly/FAPL's concerns. One reason was that some of the issues were extremely technical and needed a much higher court to look into it with sufficient resources. It was also doubted whether the criminal provisions of the Copyright Act 1988 was originally intended to deal with these type of cases ---- in other words, that Sly/FAPL were stretching the use of the criminal provisions beyond their original intention, granted this seemed possible on the wording of the provisions. One disadvantage that Sly/FAPL feared was that if they pursued civil law action (e.g. breach of copyright) their remedy might not be all that effective as it would simply be an award of damages (basically a fine) against the proven infringer ----- damages or a "fine" that might even be small. (EDIT an additional remedy would probably also be an injunction)

Ultimately, Sly/FAPL took the plunge for a civil law action with the QC Leisure case ----- and that threw up a lot of interesting questions. As with the Murphy case and indeed even more so some of these difficult questions on European law had to be referred to the European Court. So in truth we are awaiting the European Court's decision on two cases i.e. Karen Murphy on the one hand and Q C Leisure on the other hand. The likelihood is that the Court will give its rulings on the two cases the same day or even possibly together.

On purely English law (excluding EU law), the QC Leisure case threw up interesting questions as well: e.g. copyright infringement includes copying another person's work, without authorisation. So if a person's receiver receives the signal for an EPL match "without authorisation" (e.g. sourced not through Sly but say Nova) are the pictures/sounds etc copied (a) on/in the receiver and/or (b) on the television screen? This question is irrespective of other possible acts of infringement such as public screening etc.
 
Back
Top