back to article Pub landlady's footie sat-TV battle moves law's goal posts

The pub landlady who was fined for screening FA Premier League (FAPL) football matches using a foreign satellite decoder has had her criminal conviction overturned by the High Court. The court said that Karen Murphy had been wrongly found guilty of violating UK copyright laws. This is because Murphy had paid for a service …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. JetSetJim
    Alert

    Easy protection mechanism

    Cue FAPL inserting graphics all over the place to prevent easy removal. Perhaps some overlaid adverts in the centre circle and goalkeeper boxes.

    1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects
      Black Helicopters

      Re: Easy protection mechanism FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP NT

      NT

    2. Peter Simpson 1
      Pirate

      Everything?

      The foreign decoder manufacturer had presumably paid for the right to decode the broadcast, no? Complete with logos, anthems, extras and commentary? Granted, they bought the rights to the broadcast for showing in Greece (or wherever she got the decoder from), but they did buy the rights to the *entire* broadcast, not just the action on the field.

      1. Mark 65

        Re: Everything?

        Exactly. To me these judgements are at odds. From one aspect they cannot restrain the broadcaster's right to sell their services throughout the EU and they have sold them the rights to use their logos etc in supplying them the live feed and using them within it. So you cannot have exclusive locks on the content but you can on a logo used in the content. Sorry, but that's just 'king stupid.

        1. Paul_Murphy

          Re: Everything?

          Not that I agree with any of this stupidity* but:

          If you have two cameras, one operated by the (say) BBC and the other by (say) SKY, both capturing the same 'action' on the field you can see where this legal distinction is coming from.

          The BBC feed, free of logos and other branding can be sent out to all and sundry and no-one has to pay to be a fan.

          The Sky camera puts loads of logos, advertising, commentary and other value added (!) services to the event.

          The Sky feed is 'theirs' so they can say who sees it and how much to charge. The BBC feed is harder to brand since there are no logos or other identifying stuff to get in the way.

          ttfn

          *if the broadcasters were interested in pleasing fans then they should make viewing the sport easier, not harder and more expensive

      2. Chris Parsons
        Headmaster

        Re: Everything?

        Does anyone, in spoken English, actually terminate a question with 'no', or is this just some new silly fad?

    3. big_D Silver badge
      Pint

      Shirley...

      If FAPL are putting in logos etc. that they are then giving to foreign companies to air, they are implicitly giving the right to show those logos... If it is illegal for those foreign companies to show those logos, the FAPL must be required to remove them, before they are sent to those foreign companies.

      If the FAPL are being paid for the rights to show the match inside the EU, then they are getting their money anyway, so they should quit complaining.

      Beer: because it fits to the story. Cheers my dears!

  2. The BigYin

    Blurring stickers

    Most logos appear on the same place. So simply place some (screen safe) blurring plastic/stickers at strategic points, and change screen to another channel at strategic points.

    That all said, the artificial barriers to free-trade put in place by the media companies are ludicrous and should be stamped out. DVD region encoding all need to go (keep the language sets though, that's sensible).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Blurring stickers

      What the person above said about free trade. Be interesting to see how far that latest (and rather ludicrous IMO) corporation-friendly interpretation of the law by UK courts will get in the ECJ.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Its all about money, Innit?

    All they are trying to protect is Ripoff Britain prices to UK subscribers!

    Bastards all!

  4. frank ly

    Protection?

    The purpose of copyright on the logos and 'anthem' is to prevent me (and anyone else) using it in my own production. To have the logos seen and the anthem heard by a group of people in a pub is not damaging to the holders of the copyright since it is a 'genuine' production.

    The purpose of the logo and anthem is to identify the source or owner of the content to the audience, which it accurately does; so what is the (legal) problem?

    1. g e

      Re: Protection?

      Especially if you paid for the service like the landlady did.

      1. Ragarath
        Facepalm

        Re: Protection?

        This is basically what I was coming on here to say. The production has the copyrights, the service has paid for the rights to show said production, the landlady/lord is paying for the service.

        There is no copyright infringment going on and I fail to see where it is. Perhaps someone can explain it better?

        1. Rich 2 Silver badge

          Quite

          I don't really get the copyright argument either. Does this mean that ANYONE watching the match at home is in breach of copyright? It doesn't make sense. As has been stated, the idea of logos is to prevent copying and re-selling of the material for profit. But one would think that paying the broadcaster (whoever that may be) for the right to receive and decode the material would, by definition, also buy you the right to actually watch the program as well, including the right to view any associated bits of it which may happen to have some copyright attached.

          It's a bit like buying a car and then being told that you can't drive round displaying the manufacturers name that's been stuck on the back; it makes no sense.

          1. John G Imrie

            Re: Quite

            If this madness really is as it seams then I'm apparently breaching copyright every time I watch an advert on ITV.

          2. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
            Mushroom

            Re: Quite

            I don't really get the copyright argument either.

            But one would think that paying the broadcaster for the right to receive and decode the material would also buy you the right to actually watch the program as well

            You are right, you would think that paying for a product of the copyright mafiaa would entitle you to watch/listen to that product.

            Karen Murphy didn’t do any thing wrong, she legally bought a product from a Greek service provider. However as this would break Sky’s monopoly in the UK the copyright mafiaa have to resort to other slights of hand to maintain their monopoly position.

            EU law prohibits the setting up of these monopolistic regimes as we are supposed to a open common market. The copyright mafiaa are abusing the copyright laws to maintain the monopolistic empires

            I think what is happening here is that Nova is broadcasting a legally acquired piece of music that is copyrighted for broadcast in Greece, Sky may be broadcasting exactly the same piece of music except that they acquired that piece of music in the UK and it therefore has a UK copyright notice attached to it.

            However this situation is similar to the issue of grey imports to the EU, when CDNOW were buying CD on the far east market, . The copyright mafiaa manufacture a product where the labour costs are lowest, but by attaching different copyright notices to the product they are able to charge more for it in Europe than they can in the far east.

            It’s an abuse of copyright law, it’s price gouging and anti-consumer, but as long as there are twats in government that are prepared to accept the benefits of the copyright mafiaa’s “lobbying” we are going to continue to have these artificially restrictive laws that drive up the price of a product for the consumer. It’s no wonder that people have no reservations about downloading copyright material from the internet

            Icon, the flames of hell where these copyright mafiaa bastards deserve to burn for all eternity.

          3. Vic

            Re: Quite

            > Does this mean that ANYONE watching the match at home is in breach of copyright?

            If you are doing so without a licence to those copyrighted materials, then yes, you are.

            If you have bought a subscription from your friendly local satellite operator[1], then you have that licence.

            But each operator only has the capability to sublicence within their own territory; thus if you buy a Nova subscription, you are only licenced within Greece.

            It's all a bit silly, really, but the alternative - a copyright licence that cannot attach any conditions - is very much worse. I think we're stuck with this unless someone puts in some specific legislation. That won't happen.

            Vic.

            [1] Ha!

    2. KitD

      Re: Protection?

      The logos and anthem are part of the branding of the service which is considered (rightly or wrongly) an asset that adds value (credibility, gravitas, etc) to the service.

      A provider who illegally applies branding to a service which isn't their own may be in breach of copyright because they use the legal owner's branding to add that value to their alternative service.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Protection?

      I wouldn't try that argument in court mate.

      If someone hasn't paid for the rights to the transmission, you don't have a right to see it. Fair simply to understand that.

  5. g e
    FAIL

    "provided from a place in the United Kingdom"

    They're provided from space, the word 'Satellite' is the clue here. Or are they saying they're provided from the football ground, perhaps.

    Seriously though, how many subscriptions' value were burnt in that ridiculous court case just to try and get a few hundred quid out of a pub?

    Nose, Face, Spite.

    GreedFail

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Does it mean......

    That as an individual, I can buy/subscribe the cheapest decoder with card in the EU and see all the action at home?

    Since Im not using it commercially??

    1. g e
      Go

      Re: Does it mean......

      Good call!

    2. Oliver 7

      IANAL but I believe so

      There is a distinction in that you would not be using the service for commercial purposes. I also don't believe it could be considered a 'public performance' even if you had some pals round. It's not clear if the licence that Karen Murphy was a commercial one (or if it had to be) but I would guess so. Many people (particularly international diaspora) have been using these services in their own homes for years so I don't think there is anything amiss. However the savings are probably not significant (if there are any) for a private home and it also depends whether you want to watch football with a foreign commentary?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: IANAL but I believe so

        It is considered a "public performance" if anyone is present who is not normally resident in your home. The same actually applies to Freeview TV, radio or even playing CDs.

        Obviously nobody is going to do anything about you playing free-to-air stuff/CDs to guests in your home.

        I wouldn't be so sure about pay TV though - hard to see how you'd get "caught" but I'm pretty certain that if you did then you'd get a solicitors letter demanding a few hundred quid.

        The UK has bizarre copyright laws, still I suppose the parasites (solicitors) have to eat too.

        1. Eddie Edwards

          Re: IANAL but I believe so

          "It is considered a "public performance" if anyone is present who is not normally resident in your home"

          Citation required.

          1. Oliver 7

            Re: IANAL but I believe so

            Think he may be right!

            "The permission that comes with every music CD only gives the purchaser the right to play that recording in a domestic environment, in other words the immediate family. Performance to any other grouping is regarded as "public performance" and this applies even where the group meets in a private house."

            http://www.thefrms.co.uk/copyright.htm

            This article may apply to CDs but I think the principle derives from the CDPA generically. Of course, from memory, the Champions League vignettes and various adverts show groups of friends gathering round television sets to watch games but I'm sure that the home-owner has dutifully applied and paid for a PPL!

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: IANAL but I believe so

              Does the above quotation come by any chance from the website of "The Federation of Recorded Music Societies" (whoever the fuck they might be)? Are you implying that the above website is in any way authoritative in matters of law? (or in matters of website design while we're at it. It says "founded 1936", and clearly that's when their web was last updated, but I digress)

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: IANAL but I believe so

                As the other A/C said, are you really citing the "Federation of Recorded Music Societies" FAQ section... a society which just happens to benefit from increased membership?

                It'd be like the government taking advice on a whole range of issues from people who have a vested interest in that issue... thankfully that doesn't happen or we'd be in real trouble! :)

                1. Oliver 7

                  Re: IANAL but I believe so

                  "are you really citing the "Federation of Recorded Music Societies" FAQ section"

                  Sure, I Googled for a while but couldn't find many citations covering these points. As has been mentioned here, the UK has some fucked up IP law. It's still illegal to copy CDs to your PC for example! The PRS pursue workplace canteens to buy licences for their radios! Copyright extends much further than most people think and I wouldn't be at all surprised if you weren't strictly entitled to watch television or listen to CDs in your own home if you are in the presence of visitors. If you think this is bullshit then cite something to prove otherwise!

                  I'm no paytard, far from it, just interested in the implications here.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Does it mean......

      You don't even need to buy anything... F1 is on RTL channel just key in the channel Number.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

    4. Geoff Webber
      Childcatcher

      Re: Does it mean......

      Apparently so

      Sky have forced a similar issue onto F1 fans who have been buying up RTL and German sat boxes so that they can still see the live races. Commentary provided by the BBC via 5 Live

      1. xyz Silver badge

        Re: Does it mean......

        ...and you don't even need a "German" decoder.....just point your sat dish at Astra 19.2E or go to thr RTL website to get it streamed live

  7. Will 20
    FAIL

    Simple laws

    I lost the will to live halfway though the article. These laws need to be simplified so the ordinary man in the street who might run a pub can know what is legal, and what isn't.

  8. jason 7
    Meh

    Football isnt needed in a pub.

    I know a lot of people, myself included that actually look for pubs that DON'T show football.

    1. Audrey S. Thackeray

      Re: Football isnt needed in a pub.

      Me too.

      Except when there's a match I want to watch that I can't attend in person, on which occasions I am glad there's a choice.

      If only there was a way of avoiding the moaning bastards who grumble away about every little thing a landlord might to to try and earn enough money to stay afloat.

      1. jason 7

        Re: Football isnt needed in a pub.

        Whilst I can sympathise with that. I often wonder with how much it actually costs a pub to show Sky Football whether it does actually help them stay in business.

        Daylight robbery springs to mind.

        1. Audrey S. Thackeray

          Re: Football isnt needed in a pub.

          That's another matter, of course and very relevant to the case being discussed.

          Sky have clearly pushed prices to the point where potentially illegal action is considered worth the risk and in a sane world this ought to make them reconsider. They have clearly decided that legal enforcement of the current pricing is the profitable way to go however.

          I'm not a fan of that company.

    2. The Axe
      Holmes

      Re: Football isnt needed in a pub.

      Well you do have a choice. You can look for pubs that don't show footy whilst others can find pubs that do show it. Unlike some other aspect of pubs where no one has a choice - that of smoking. Why can't some pub allow smoking and others ban it. It's up to them to decide which kind of customer they want to maximise their profits.

      Sherlock, because you don't need to be him to realise that, and he's smoking.

      1. PsychicMonkey
        FAIL

        Re: Football isnt needed in a pub.

        maybe, just maybe...

        Me watching football while you stand next to me cannot be a direct cause of you getting a fatal disease

        You smoking next to me can be a direct cause of me getting a fatal disease.

        cue the argument, don't go to that pub then....

        What about bar staff that need the job but don't want to die of lung cancer?

        Seriously a lot of smokers really are selfish bastards.

        How about this argument, I like punching people, it's my choice to do it, if you don't like getting punched don't stand near me?

  9. hugo tyson
    Thumb Down

    Seems that as always they sued the wrong person

    Sky paid the FA for "exclusive" UK rights to FA generated content, yes?

    Seems to me that Sky should have sued the FA for allowing the FA-generated content to be available by means other than Sky, rather than the little guy who made use - legally - of those other means. Ie. it's the FA that leaked the data by selling it to other broadcasters too. If those *broadcasters* didn't make their forwarding of the content limited in scope, then it's the FA's problem - but of course they don't care - so it's up to Sky to make them care by suing.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Seems that as always they sued the wrong person

      But the FA can afford a bunch of lawyers. Little people can't and are generally easier targets.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Seems that as always they sued the wrong person

        In fact, this landlord/lady seems to have put up a rather impressive fight for a private person. I don't watch football or frequent pubs, but I think I would go and buy a drink or two on this one if anyone cared to post its details.

        1. JetSetJim
          Pint

          Re: Seems that as always they sued the wrong person

          The "Red, White & Blue" pub

          150 Fawcett Road, Southsea, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO4 0DW

          http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/29/2945/Red_White_and_Blue/Southsea

    2. Jonathon Green
      Thumb Up

      Re: Seems that as always they sued the wrong person

      I think the real problem is that the FA (or the Premier League, I'm not familiar with the franchising agreements) sold Sky something that didn't actually exist.

      As I understand it the ECJ has ruled (quite sensibly) that you can't prevent goods and services legitimately offered in one country with the area covered by the Single Market being bought, consumed, and used in other countries within the Single Market (I'm thinking that there's probably a clue in the name here...) and as such there are no exclusive UK rights to sell...

      I'm sure a workaround will be found somehow. Which is a shame, as there are few things I'd find more amusing and satisfying than watching Murdochvision and the Premer League thrashing frantically around for someone, anyone to drag into court before eventually and inevitably turning on each other against a background of insolvent premier league football clubs burning to the ground across the country. :-)

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    if media companies could turn back time...

    They would be prosecuting people for LISTENING to pirate radio - in effect this is what they tried to do here. Totally absurd.

    Glad to see the prosecution quashed.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "prosecuting people for LISTENING to pirate radio"

      The law already exists in the UK:

      Marine Offences (Broadcasting) Act, 1967.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: if media companies could turn back time...

      They'd also try to charge you extra for listening to music on black loudspeakers as well as wood-grained ones, or indeed for listening in the kitchen as well as the lounge.

  11. Peter 26
    Devil

    Spirit of the law not being followed

    Since the reason for quashing this conviction was that it was against European Competition Laws, shouldn't the laws now be changed so that broadcasters cannot use logos etc. to get around these competition laws.

    It seems to me the spirit of the law is not being followed, therefore the laws needs to be tweaked to provide greater competition.

    1. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
      Holmes

      Re: Spirit of the law not being followed

      I'm sure Mandy or one of his successors will think about changing the laws to encourage greater competition when they are on holidays in Corfu.

      /sarcastic

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Does this apply to F1 as well?

    I don't have Sky but I do have a dish and a cheap digital sat receiver. I've moved the dish to point at ASTRA 1 to pick up RTL Germany as they are broadcasting FTA F1 races.

    Am I breaking the law?

    1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

      Re: Does this apply to F1 as well?

      > Am I breaking the law?

      No. European law ("Television without borders" directive) is quite clear on that one. If you can receive a broadcast, for your personal use, without there being any question of attempting to avoid payment (i.e. using a pirate decoder) then not only are you entitled to do so, but it would be illegal for a government to prevent you.

      There's no obligation to make FTA services available EU-wide, but there is an obligation not to block those which can be received, for example by jamming, or banning dishes pointed at a certain satellite.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Does this apply to F1 as well?

        Super splendid!

  13. Matt 21

    Does that mean

    that Google street view is illegal if it shows a logo on a building? If so, I'm happy to put a logo on my house!

  14. MJI Silver badge

    I hate the way pay TV

    is grabbing everything, not a football fan but good on the win.

    I now do not bother getting into US imports, as they either go silly and finish oddly (Heroes), get sliced requiring downloads to see properly (ITV & Pushing Daisies), or pay TV snatches off FTA (Lost). Now (just about the only sport I follow) F1 has gone.

    Looks like I only have 3 days to get my satellite dish modded to accept Astra 1.

    Oh and I avoid football pubs too!

  15. Oliver 7

    The FA can't have their cake and eat it too

    EU competition rules forbid anti-competitive practices within the European market. IANAL but, prima facie, the FA should either harmonise pricing across the broadcast markets within the EU or limit broadcasts to countries where it can maintain a consistent price (AFAIK they are under no obligation to provide the service EU-wide).

    I know that they (FA/Sky?) sell clean feeds (no logos, highlights) to foreign broadcasters as many online streamers show the games with alternative logos (e.g. Dutch TV station branding). At half time the cameras often pan back to the ground and various commentaries are available (e.g. English or Dutch).

    Sky has been beasting pub landlords for years, gorging themselves by raising prices year on year, sometimes by 20%-30%. It's not a flat rate, it's based on the size/value of the premises and can easily top £1000 per month. Landlords often feel that it's the only way to get enough punters in the doors but they have to count on making enough back through drinks sales. If Sky are to be the only broadcaster how can this be called a 'market'? Shouldn't we call it a 'monopoly'? Selling exclusive rights in sport is anti-competitive, we need a shake-up.

  16. Parax
    Pirate

    Robber Barons

    is an underused term for Big Business.. please feel free to use it more.

  17. zb
    Meh

    When the boot is on the other foot ...

    ... Sky do not care.

    For years every tourist pub in Spain has had Sky TV, also most British residents there. They are domestic licences for UK use only. This is totally against the terms of the contract and is prejudicial to the owners of Spanish broadcast rights.

    Sky do nothing about this because they are receiving a substantial revenue from selling something they do not own. If you call Sky ask for support and say you are in Spain they will cut you off. They operate a "don't tell and we won't ask" policy.

    I had Sky in my house in Spain for many years so I cannot claim any moral high ground here but Sky make me want to vomit when they get all self-righteous and object so someone else doing something they themselves do and make millions out of it.

    In the works of Corporal Jones "They don't like bayonets up them"

    1. Vic

      Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

      > They are domestic licences for UK use only.

      Remember the clause about having to have your decoder hooked up to the phone line or face extra charges? This is why...

      > They operate a "don't tell and we won't ask" policy.

      At the start, they had little option - they couldn't physically prevent people from taking UK decoders abroad, and the satellite footprint was wide enough to reach Spain. But BSkyB had no broadcast licence in Spain, so it would have been unlawful for them to have made any attempt to facilitate such use.

      The rules have changed now, though...

      Vic.

      1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge
        Stop

        Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

        > Remember the clause about having to have your decoder hooked up to the phone line or face extra charges? This is why...

        No, actually, it's not.

        The early boxes were subsidised by a company called British Interactive Broadcasting, who hoped to make money by persuading people to use interactive premium-rate services. They paid Sky the subsidy, in return for which Sky insisted that the boxes had to be plugged into a phone line.

        It wasn't a commercial success, and the boxes got cheaper, so you can now officially opt out by by paying Sky £25 at install time. Or you can just unplug the box as soon as the installer has left, they only check in one specific case: multiroom.

        Multiroom is a way to get additional boxes added to your subscription for much less than the cost of an extra full subscription for each one, it's £10.25/month, IIRC. Obviously Sky don't want a group of friends getting together to pay one subscription with several multiroom extras, and then taking the other boxes off to different houses, so they use the phone line to verify that all boxes on one subscription are in the same house.

        1. Vic

          Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

          > No, actually, it's not.

          Isn't it? OK, then.

          Was it you I used to drive up the A4 to meet, or one of your colleagues?

          Vic.

          1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

            Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

            > Was it you I used to drive up the A4 to meet, or one of your colleagues?

            If you mean the English A4, then no. I've never lived in England...

            1. Vic

              Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

              > I've never lived in England...

              Ah, right.

              Yet you speak authoritatively for Sky, telling me the exact opposite of what Sky employees told me when I used to drive there for progress meetings. How very psychic of you.

              Vic.

              1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

                Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

                > telling me the exact opposite of what Sky employees told me

                I can't speak for what Sky /employees/ might choose to say.

                I can speak to Sky's official position. Check: http://www.sky.com/shop/terms-conditions/tv/ and scan down to "Interactive Discount Contract"

                ---

                (a) We will pay the Interactive Discount provided that you keep to the Conditions of this Contract.

                (b) You agree that, at all times from installation to the end of the Minimum Term, your Box will be fully and effectively connected to a Minidish and to a fixed and operational telephone line in the Territory which is capable of making outgoing calls. If before the end of the Minimum Term, you disconnect your Box from your telephone line and fail to reconnect it after being notified by us that you need to do so, you must reimburse us for an amount equal to the Interactive Discount we paid for the free supply of your Digital Satellite System. This amount shall not exceed £25. If you become liable to pay this amount, we shall notify you in writing

                1. Vic

                  Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

                  > I can't speak for what Sky /employees/ might choose to say.

                  I can. I was there. I was part of the team that coded all this.

                  Perhaps you'd like to read a little beyond the superficial and see that the bit you've quote simply says that you pay extra money if it's not connected to a phone line - even if they do couch in terms of a "discount".

                  Vic.

                  1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

                    Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

                    I don't really see what the necessary connection is between coding the firmware, and the business requirements for it. Outside of multiroom, the phone line has never been used to determine where the box is, even if that is obviously possible, otherwise all the people using these boxes all over Europe wouldn't have been able to do it.. Sky's message to subscribers has always been that the phone line was required to qualify for the BiB discount, even if BiB went titsup around 2001.

                    This dead horse is probably well flogged now!

                    1. Vic

                      Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

                      > I don't really see what the necessary connection is

                      The connection - which I was hoping to imply rather than state explicitly - is that I was part of this group and you were not. Simply repeating your belief does not make it fact.

                      > even if BiB went titsup around 2001.

                      Look at who owned BIB from launch. Look at who still owns it.

                      Vic.

    2. Tom 38
      Holmes

      Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

      wrt using Sky abroad, they do do stuff to restrict it though.

      For instance, at my parents place in France, we have a satellite dish tuned to the right bird, and a stock (ancient) Sky box, with no subscription. This works for all the FTA channels, no problem.

      When I went out in January for a few weeks, I took the Sky card from my Sky HD box, and put it into the Sky box out there. This worked for most encrypted channels, so my mum was delighted and insisted on watching non stop One Foot In The Grave every evening. However, it didn't work for _any_ premium channels, so no sky sports, no sky movies - which was the only reason I brought it out with me.

      So, Sky clearly do care - but probably what they are most concerned about is card cloning, using the same subs on multiple sky boxes, and not the territorial aspect.

      Back to the article…

      I'm going to get massively downvoted for this, but does no-one think this landlady is unfairly exploiting a loophole?

      The FA has different markets for rights, the rights market in the UK is worth a lot more, as more people want to watch UK matches in the UK than want to watch UK matches in Greece. It makes sense to sell in to both markets, and the price in each market is determined by what that market will bear.

      Because the landlady in this case is buying from a different market that she 'should', she gets an unfair competitive advantage over the other pubs in the area.

      Now, the argument is that there is only one market across the entire EU, but this is clearly not true. Test cricket is expensive to watch on TV in the UK, you need Sky, but on the continent there is no market, so you can stream it live from a variety of broadcasters. There are very many other examples.

      Now, what comes out of this? Will people in the UK be allowed to watch matches via Nova, and not pay Sky? For now, yes. When Nova's contract is up, will they get a new one? Probably not, but if they did, it would have restrictive elements, like "all users must be resident in …". At that point, any UK Nova subscribers would no longer have a valid license to use the decoder, and the PL would have them bang to rights.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Viewing card is tied to Sky box

        That's why none of the premium channels work. The entertainment channels will (mainly) work if you move the card but additional subscriptions (such as HD channels) won't - Entertainment is the compulsory basic package.

        You can of course get around that - as with most things - but such discussion is probably not what El Reg would want here.

        Personally I reckon the Premier League are taking the piss. They operate in the EU are hence are bound by EU competition law - using "copyrighted" images to circumvent that needs a big fine slapped on them.

        Nobody watches football to see the Premier League images or "anthem" - fucks sakes everyone on the planet must be sick of the "UEFA Champions League anthem" by now. So arguing you can't show the football beacuse of totally superfluous images/music is ludicrous.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Viewing card is tied to Sky box

          But isnt that in itself anti competitive? (ie my inability to use my own box instead of SKy supplied one?

      2. Jonathon Green
        Thumb Down

        Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

        Tom 38: "Now, the argument is that there is only one market across the entire EU, but this is clearly not true. Test cricket is expensive to watch on TV in the UK, you need Sky, but on the continent there is no market, so you can stream it live from a variety of broadcasters. There are very many other examples."

        I think the ECJ judgement establishes that it's the other way round and that while Sky (and the premier league, and whoever licenses cricket, and doubtless many others) would very much like there to be more than one market, and have been pretending that there is more than one market it turns out that under EU law there isn't, and that there is nothing to prevent a consumer sourcing a dishwasher from Belgium, a car from Germany, and satellite TV services in Spain all for use in the UK.

        "I'm going to get massively downvoted for this, but does no-one think this landlady is unfairly exploiting a loophole?"

        It's not a loophole. It's the law and it's how the Single Market is *meant* to work for the benefit of consumers. You might recall similiar issues around the supply of UK spec cars for personal import from many years ago...

        1. Tom 38

          Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

          @Jonathon: I agree with most of what you are saying. What the law says, and what the right owners think are clearly two different things.

          If I can pull one thing out of your post:

          "the Single Market is *meant* to work for the benefit of consumers"

          What I'm arguing is that this ruling doesn't actually work for the benefit of consumers. At first, consumers will be able to use Nova to undercut the market price - what people are prepared to pay. This is a plus for the UK users.

          Later, when the contracts are re-negotiated, Nova are told they have to restrict subscribers to specific countries, or alternately, they have to pay as much per subscriber as Sky do. Now UK users have no option to use Nova, and have to use Sky, or alternately, using Nova, which now costs the same as Sky. This is the current status quo.

          How would that affect consumers in Greece? They would have to pay much much more to watch English football, which is bad for them.

          1. Jonathon Green

            Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

            Tom 38: "Later, when the contracts are re-negotiated, Nova are told they have to restrict subscribers to specific countries..."

            Except I think we've already established they can't do that, which leads us to...

            ", or alternately, they have to pay as much per subscriber as Sky do. Now UK users have no option to use Nova, and have to use Sky, or alternately, using Nova, which now costs the same as Sky. "

            Well, according to the Free Market capitalist types what *ought* to happen is that Sky set prices to optimise their income over the new, much larger (this won't just apply to Nova and the Greeks, it'll have to be applied to all the non-UK markets otherwise some enterprising individual will just start a similiar operation sourcing their signal and decoders through local satellite operators in Estonia, or Lithuania, or some such place). Theoretically the result should be that non-UK customers will pay a bit more and UK customers pay (possibly substantially) less than they are at the moment. Who knows, it might even happen...

            1. Tom 38

              Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

              @Jonathon

              Why do you assume you cannot apply geographical restrictions within the EU? This ruling establishes that Sky/EPL cannot restrict Nova from selling into the UK, but it is entirely different to say that Nova must sell into the UK, or that an agreement between EPL/Nova to not sell in the UK would be illegal.

              Yet another alternate way to look at the price normalization, is that the EPL decide that the small percentage of revenue they make from selling rights to non UK broadcasters is so small that they simply do not sell those rights, and charge more to UK residents to make up the shortfall.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

          And when Tesco was baaned from selling Levis' jeans cheaply !

      3. Rob Daglish

        Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

        >I'm going to get massively downvoted for this, but does no-one think this landlady is unfairly >exploiting a loophole?

        Only in the same way that if I were in France i'd fill my car tank up before coming back to Blightly! And in this day and age, I'd take any competitive advantage I could as a business, quite frankly. Costs of everything are going up, if you can get football cheaper, then why not?

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

        @Tom 38

        What you are missing is that the EU has turned Europe into a single market. You are now legally prevented from distinguishing one region from another. This isn't different to the fact that Manchester City matches are potentially worth more in Manchester than elsewhere in the UK (Man Utd matches are of course worth more in the rest of the UK than in Manchester - tee hee). Should Sky change more for matches in Manchester than say Cardiff that doesn't have a Premiership team? According to your argument that is ok. But within the free market of the UK that won't work.

        In the EU, we have a legally enforced free market. So you can try charging different amounts in different regions, but you can't complain when someone buys their products from the other region. This is no different to the people that buy new cars (in right hand drive) from the continent at a reduced cost to buying in the UK. Totally legal, if you want to go through the hassle of travelling to the continent to buy.

      5. Oliver 7
        Trollface

        Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

        "The FA has different markets for rights, the rights market in the UK is worth a lot more, as more people want to watch UK matches in the UK than want to watch UK matches in Greece. It makes sense to sell in to both markets, and the price in each market is determined by what that market will bear."

        You have essentially reiterated my point above but from a different PoV. The EU says it is a common market. If the FA licences EPL games to providers within Europe (including Sky) those providers are entitled to sell that product within the EU. The FA can't make money from non-UK providers and then say that they can't sell to UK residents, where Sky charge a huge mark-up. That's not a market, it's a monopoly! It's having their cake and eating it.

      6. bep

        Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

        You may as well say there is no single market within Britain, football broadcasts of Newcastle games are probably more popular in Newcastle than broadcasts of, say, Arsenal games. It's either a 'Common Market' or it's not, national borders are not supposed to matter.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: When the boot is on the other foot ...

      Now you have to connect your sky box (or each sky box for multi-room) to a telephone every year to show where it is

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I would have thought that the Copyright issue is Bogus.

    The Pub Landlady had a contract which enabled her to receive and display the pictures, irrespective of the content.

  19. James Micallef Silver badge
    WTF?

    Copyright???

    "if they showed logos, graphics and other ancillary copyright works contained in the broadcasts."

    Surely if these logos, graphics etc are broadcast as part of the standard transmission by the Greek (or other EU) provider, then they should also be licensed as part of transmission, since otherwise a Greek taverna using the Greek provider to screen the game would also be infringing copyright.

    But in any case, surely this opens the door for a 3rd-party provider to supply pubs with a combination of Greek decoder / card + a tiny bit of jiggery-pokery that obscures and logos and graphics

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Copyright???

      I just upvoted you. Only because of the highly literary use of "and" in the correlative conjunction in your last sentence: "[...] jiggery-pokery that obscures and logos and graphics".

      So either you are French or you must have been the one paying attention in Latin class.

      1. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart
        Joke

        Re: Copyright???

        Well spotted sir,

        Now write it down a hundred times, If it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Copyright???

      If you have pals round to watch, you dont commercially gain from them.

      Selling beer as a commercial premises to people whilst they watch the footie IS a different matter and therefore the copyrights and laws apply differently.

      Did she pass on the savings for her subscription by lowering the cost of a pint during matches? hardly think so.

      It's no better than tax avoidance.

  20. Alex Brett

    It's like with DVDs...

    The thing is I suspect a lot of people don't want the logos / anthems / graphics etc anyway - it's like with a DVD / Blu-ray how when you put it in you have to watch (as they make them unskippable) a load of anti-copyright messages (and in some cases trailers), followed by a useless menu all to actually start playing the film. This is vs a pirated film where as they tend to only pull the movie you stick it in and it plays - why does the pirate get a better user experience than someone who has paid for the film?

    I was pleasantly surprised by the Blu-ray of Die Hard 4, as although from memory it did have the copyright notices, after that it actually did just start the movie, with the menus etc all available as overlays. I wish more films were like that...

    1. stanimir

      Re: It's like with DVDs...

      watch DVD on your computer (connected to the big telly) and you can skip anything you please.

  21. Martin Budden Silver badge

    And you wonder why lawyers have a bad name.

    Actually, you probably don't.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    My local was one of the pubs names in this court case and had to stop showing live games a few months ago while this stage of the case was progressing. The landlord had looked at getting a subscription from Sky to show matches and they wanted £1000. A month. As pubs are generally struggling, live footie really is one of the things that draws in the punters.

    In response, the landlord at my local has taken the solution of applying gaffer tape to the screen where the logos appear - not ideal, but at least it means he can continue to show games.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Price fixing

    Then Sky should be taken to task for price fixing. It is against the law to have a monopoly! Saying that we can't buy from another European Country because we have to pay more to buy it here is anti-competition.

This topic is closed for new posts.