Karen Murphy case - judge to Rule on 03/02/11

[Lazarus]

Absolutely - so far there is one opinion (albeit an influential one).

Even if the Courts abide by the advice, that still doesn't address in any satisfactory way the differences between Individual Use and Pub/Club use.

You get these systems because they are cheaper than BSkyB .... but a Domestic BSkyB Sub is much cheaper than one licensed for Public consumption: So what happens if the "free" Market decides to react by pricing in a similar way to BSkyB (God forbid I should dream of using the word "Cartel")? Everyone is then a loser.

 

[davemurgtroyd]

Its completely legal. I run a pub in Swansea and bought a system.
Now that karen murphy has got it through Europe, there is compelling evidence that is is legal.

Admin note: Removed Youtube link as was irrelevant.

If you have not got a "commercial subscription" then not only are you committing fraud you are also breaking copyright and other laws by broadcasting it in a public place.

 

[bigtee]

If you have not got a "commercial subscription" then not only are you committing fraud you are also breaking copyright and other laws by broadcasting it in a public place.

This is just so not true in law or even according to common sense! At worst it is a breach of contract --- and a breach of contract does not ipso facto amount to fraud. In fact, "fraud' has a very stringent legal definition and, in many instances that are even more 'clear-cut', fraud is in the words of the very highest UK courts "notoriously difficult to establish".

 

[woborny]

...broadcasting it in a public place.

I suppose if they wanted to, and to spice things up even more, Nova could take her to court for using a domestic sub in a commercial premesis.

At least the pub trade will increase, as all Pay broadcasters wil have to have all those "mystery drinkers" goingto all the pubs to check out who is using what subscriptions!

 

[bigtee]

Strictly speaking, Nova can't even take her to court because she is not in contract with them considering she bought the card from a middleman and not from Nova or its own 'agent'. All Nova can do really is to switch off the card.

Addendum: assumin g even that Nova could take her to court, what would they get out of it? Peanut damages that would not make the costs of going to court worthwhile or realistic at all!

 

[davemurgtroyd]

This is just so not true in law or even according to common sense! At worst it is a breach of contract --- and a breach of contract does not ipso facto amount to fraud. In fact, "fraud' has a very stringent legal definition and, in many instances that are even more 'clear-cut', fraud is in the words of the very highest UK courts "notoriously difficult to establish".

I believe this is the definition of fraud

These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.

Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.

Either she or her agents (those supplying the card to her) knowingly and deliberately provided false details to get the card so she is at least complicit in fraud

Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.

Yes the right to receive the correct amount for a commercial sub

Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.

Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.

Nova have been deprived of the income for a commercial subscription

 

[Robbo]

I believe this is the definition of fraud
Either she or her agents (those supplying the card to her) knowingly and deliberately provided false details to get the card so she is at least complicit in fraud

The fact is that someone who buys (from a third party) a foreign subscription does not commit fraud, as no false statement needs to be made.

 

[bigtee]

It is not even enough to pluck an Internet definition of fraud. In this country, you will have to find a statutory or common law crime of fraud with attendant definition into which you fit the actions of the concerned person before you can establish fraud. If it was that easy the FAPL, MPS and others like Nova (though unlikely in the case of overseas providers) would have prosecuted people for fraud for using a domestic foreign card in a commercial premises. They have rather been pursuing their actions under the Copyright Designs & Patents Act.

Also, if we were following the suggested approach we would be saying that a person who buys and uses a card splitter (where technically possible) rather than taking out a multiroom subscription is also committing fraud. This is of course nonsense and we should be cautious about labelling people as criminals or committing fraud without an adequate understanding of the law. In fact there is a case to be made that such labelling amounts to libel/defamation.