Karen Murphy - ECJ Judgement Due/Delivered

Analoguesat

Analoguesat

Administrator
Staff member
My Satellite Setup
TM 5402HD
Sky+ UK.
My Location
Scottish Borders
Tomorrow according to the BBC

-http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2011/10/pubs_v_premier_league.html

Very interesting reading - and whatever happens the days of cheap 3pm's are coming to an end, especially for the pubs.
 
Yep, this could potentially be a pyrrhic victory for the European consumer.
 
The pub landlady from the Red,White and Blue in Portsmouth has won a second ruling in her favour to show EPL on other EU channels.Don't know much about the appeal process but what a boot in the you know whats for sly.Should be very interesting.
 
Great news for pubs, sky get what they deserve for being so greedy!!!!
 
I'm afraid that might not be the eventual outcome. It may well be that all packages become very expensive.

As a distinguished member on another of the several Threads running on this matter said, the "victory" may prove to be pyrrhic.

Be careful for what you wish ................
 
If this artcile is correct it DOES NOT give pubs or other commercial premises the right to use other providers
_http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/04/premier-league-tv-coverage

However, the court ruled against the bid by Karen Murphy, the landlady of the Red, White and Blue pub in Portsmouth, to be allowed to use a Greek decoder card to show live Premier League matches to pub goers at much cheaper rates than BSkyB charges commercial premises in the UK on copyright grounds.

The ECJ said the transmission in a pub is a "communication to the public", which means that without the permission of the FA Premier League Murphy is in breach of the copyright directive. This directive would not stop individuals buying foreign decoder cards for domestic use.

However, the ECJ said live match coverage itself was not covered by copyright protection, although the Premier League could claim ownership of FAPL-branded opening video sequences, theme music, on-screen graphics and highlights of previous matches.

This means that as long as the FAPL and BSkyB ensure that match coverage includes enough copyright elements pubs will not be allowed to show foreign broadcasts.
Click to expand...
 
I hope to get a copy of the actual judgment soon and will then be able to comment in detail. In the meantime even if the above post is correct, well it still changes a considerable amount ------- how many copyrights actions do FAPL and their UK contracted providers want to bring?

From what I hear so far (subject to reading in detail), I think today is a very good day indeed. As for all the concerns that a few providers will dominate in a form of monopoly/oligopoly, well there are also legal rules for dealing with that. It may take time to establish them as with the Karen Murphy situation but the legal provisions do indeed exist.

A very happy sat enthusiast who can now buy a foreign subscription without being made to feel like a fraud or a criminal!

:)
 
Looking at the Guardian article, it does seem that Karen Muphy has gained a bigger victory for home sports viewers than pub landlords.

BSkyB might also lose out if viewers start buying foreign subscriptions to watch satellite film channels. CanalSatellite film channels are a lot cheaper for example, than UK offerings. However I suppose, the language barrier, unless films are broadcast with multiple languages, and the need to reposition satellite dishes is probably going to be a sufficient deterrent. Later on though, what will happen if the Hollywood studios have to sell European rights to one broadcaster?

A last thought, I wonder if this ruling makes it illegal for the BBC to block access to certain online services from non-UK ISP's, even if the services are free to UK viewers?
 
bigtee said:
I hope to get a copy of the actual judgment soon and will then be able to comment in detail. In the meantime even if the above post is correct, well it still changes a considerable amount ------- how many copyrights actions do FAPL and their UK contracted providers want to bring?

From what I hear so far (subject to reading in detail), I think today is a very good day indeed. As for all the concerns that a few providers will dominate in a form of monopoly/oligopoly, well there are also legal rules for dealing with that. It may take time to establish them as with the Karen Murphy situation but the legal provisions do indeed exist.

A very happy sat enthusiast who can now buy a foreign subscription without being made to feel like a fraud or a criminal!

:)
Click to expand...

The full text of the decision is here,

_http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=rechercher&numaff=C-403/08

And the press release here,

_http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/P_80113/

Finally, as regards the questions asked concerning the interpretation of the Copyright Directive1, the Court notes first of all that only the opening video sequence, the Premier League anthem, pre-recorded films showing highlights of recent Premier League matches and various graphics can be regarded as ‘works’ and are therefore protected by copyright. By contrast, the matches themselves are not works enjoying such protection.

That being so, the Court decides that transmission in a pub of the broadcasts containing those protected works, such as the opening video sequence or the Premier League anthem, constitutes a ‘communication to the public’ within the meaning of the copyright directive, for which the authorisation of the author of the works is necessary, because when a pub transmits those works to the customers present on the premises the works are transmitted to an additional public which was not considered by the authors when they authorised the broadcasting of their works.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks --- although it will take me a little while yet to get to reading and digesting the judgment; other pressing matters you see!
 
Well, time will tell whether the victory is "pyrrhic" but there are legal rules for addressing the fears/concerns of monopoly/oligopoly on which these suggestions of 'pyrrhic victory' are based - granted it may take a long time to establish them as with the Karen Murphy situation.
 
Addendum: spare a thought for the people (publicans etc) whose lives and/or livelihoods the FAPL and their UK contracted providers have already ruined with all those prosecutions on the back of some "false" law.

Ridiculous!
 
As (inevitably) we are getting cross-posting between the "due" and "delivered" Threads, I'm going to merge them and suitably amend the title.



Edit: Done. bigtee I've removed the now redundant duplicate of what is now Post #12 :)
 
I think this might make it better for us to get hold of foreign subscriptions for whatever we want, films, sport etc. Then again it could just stay the same.
 
Well yes, in a sense! First let us focus on the consumer and leave out the pubs.

1. Until today's ruling* an ordinary consumer who used a foreign subscription card to watch PL football - in addition to other things like films etc - was strictly speaking committing an offence (ergo a criminal) except they had not been caught and convicted.

2. Now, even if the PL football is taken away from such cards, it is now confirmed that the consumer is not breaking any law by using such cards to watch a variety of programmes on the card ---- including blockbuster movies.

3. Many providers sell different 'levels' of card e.g. basic (with various programmes) but excluding premium content like films, cards including premium content like films, cards including 'extra' premium content like PL football or even other top level foreign football.

Following these ruling (a) foreign cards that offer basic programming should now be much more readily available (both short and long term) and are wholly legal; (b) foreign cards that include premium content like films are now also wholly legal but it is possible that longer term premium rights holders may find ways to make them less attractive (this may be on language restriction e.g. dubbing with no English audio or subtitle options); (c) cards with PL football --- short term should be more readily available to the private consumer but as for long term I adopt a wait and see attitude; (d) cards with overseas football but no PL football --- short term I expect to be readily available, as for long term I still expect to be largely available but I will also adopt a cautious wait and see attitude in relation to football within UEFA's control in particular.

Jumping on to the pubs for a moment: technically, they will still be able to broadcast the football action/match itself lawfully as long as they find some way or other of avoiding screening the limited amount of material that the court said falls within 'protected works'. For example, all it takes to avoid breaching copyright in the FA Anthem is to press the "mute" button on the TV/Receiver!

* I still have not read the case and I am still going by news reports.
 
Erm. The news has said "she won".
But I thought she lost her case, as she cannot show programming from other countries, including football matches from another EU broadcaster IN HER PUB, as that would be in breach of copyright laws, if she showed graphocs and music and commentry owned by the Premier League...which most EU broadacsters have!

The part that was a "won" was that private individual homes can.
Also it may not make much difference for private people: Sky is advertising its sports package for £40 a month and movies for £46.25 a month; Nova is charging €52.20 (£44.71) a month for sports and €51.68 (£44.26) for movies. Is it worth it just to see a 3pm kick off???
 
She has won her case!

1. She had been convicted of a criminal offence; when the English court reviews the case, that conviction cannot stand.
2. She currently has "a criminal record"; that will now be removed
3. She was not tried per se on the copyright issue that today's ruling referred to.
4. Today's ruling on the copyright issue is more applicable for future screenings; moreover, it would probably first require the FAPL and their partners to make changes to the graphics of their broadcast
5. It is extremely unlikely that the FAPL will go against her on the "copyright" issue for the past screening that she has done; even if they were to do so, it is unlikely they would win.
6 Even if the FAPL pursues the copyright issue against anyone in future it would be a civil matter only leading to damages/injunction and not a criminal record against the defendant.


PS the report that I read in The Guardian could have been written with greater accuracy and/as it can be misleading in the form that I read.
 
Just seen a news report on this.

what does this mean for the average viewer?.

I have a dreambox and have run with a DigitAlb card in the past with no idea that it was illegal?.

Anyway just wondering does this now also mean that people like Digital+ can't refuse to sell their cards and boxes in UK?
 
zoro25 said:
Just seen a news report on this.

what does this mean for the average viewer?.

I have a dreambox and have run with a DigitAlb card in the past with no idea that it was illegal?.

Anyway just wondering does this now also mean that people like Digital+ can't refuse to sell their cards and boxes in UK?
Click to expand...

Your guess is as good as ours atm, but its a dead cert the days of cheap football for UK viewers via European cards are coming to an end - European prices are bound to rise.


However its also a good possibility that Sky can start to sell their services to anyone who wants them anywhere in Europe
 
zoro25 said:
Just seen a news report on this.

what does this mean for the average viewer?.

I have a dreambox and have run with a DigitAlb card in the past with no idea that it was illegal?.

Anyway just wondering does this now also mean that people like Digital+ can't refuse to sell their cards and boxes in UK?
Click to expand...


Almost certainly increased costs in the long term.

In two or three years time, many will be speaking of Murphy in unkindly terms.

I suspect that due to the renegotiation of agreements that will happen, the potential of apparent Competition will be severely constrained as there will be no room for Broadcasters to manoeuvre prices in the market place downwards.


Edit: Yeah, what he said!
 
Back
Top