UK police raid Blackburn pubs and seize satellite equipment

[gameboy]

Strangely enough, I don't think that they should be entitled to remove the satellite equipment, as it is only the card which constitutes a breach of the law, the receiver, unless patched with illegal keys, is perfectly legal.

They probably don't understand how it all works -

 

[rolfw]

Yes, that is almost certainly the truth.

 

[BarMoo]

Slightly different spin from the Publican website (in the the flesh as it were) ...

The FA Premier League (FAPL) refused to be specific on the type of equipment that was seized, but chief spokesman Dan Johnson confirmed it was “illegally imported decoder cards and boxes”.

Ray Hoskin, managing director of Media Protection Services - which has been prosecuting licensees on behalf of FAPL - warned that it would also be “turning the spotlight” on the suppliers.

A number of pubs have continued to show football via foreign satellite systems after prosecutions recently failed on the basis that licensees did not know they were acting dishonestly.

A spokesman for the FAPL said: "We are in a position to take action against the suppliers in the next month. The suppliers are all over the country."

Suppliers of foreign satellite equipment continue to claim the systems are legal.
Joe Ibrahim, managing director of Digital Sales, which supplies digital satellite receivers and decoders, said: “I have paperwork from the government saying that what we are doing is not illegal. But it should be decided by the High Court - there should be legislation on the matter.”

Anyone see the Secret Policemans Ball on Channel 4 the other day - with eddy Izzard doing a great gag on 'The fly that didn't know a window was a window' ??

They'll be getting the Womens Institute in on the act next.

.

.

 

[stuzeeuk]

I still think it comes down to archaic copyright laws, the FA not understanding the demand / suppply issues and the government failing the consumer (whether that be business consumer or home consumer).

The first point is that there is demand to watch 3pm kick offs and the only supplier able to meet the demand are the foreign suppliers. Therefore the market is acting dishonestly inorder to supply.

Im not saying its legal or not, as Im not a lawyer. What I am saying, is, if it is illegal ..... then I think it should not be!

The whole system of auctioning the premiership rights stinks !

If you auction the right of monopoly for a product then you effectively eliminate pricing competition. Thus allowing the monopoly supplier to dictate price.

Because S'ky can DICTATE the price, they have decided to overcharge for business and pub subscriptions.

Im afraid I have no sympathy for S'KY, as they overcharge at a rediculous rate. They would not do this to home consumers as there would be a public outcry.

At worst a separate competition should be run for commercial and pub subscriptions, however in reality, as I stated before, the whole system is wrong and needs overhauled ........

Why doesn't the competition commission look at the system and take into account such clear and distinct market failures

PUBLICAN LANDSLORDS in the main, are not criminals, and if there was a more affordable way to provide a service i think most of them would take it ........

The failure lies with S'ky, the FA, the bidding process and the outdated copyright laws .... (not to mention the complete failure of the competition commission)

 

[rolfw]

Of course the FA understand the demand and supply issues, but what is at issue regarding the 3pm proscribed period is the protection of the lower and amateur leagues as covered by UEFA guidelines.
View attachment 9176

What you fail to realise, is that if copyright laws were amended so that anyone could sell into any marketplace, then the prices the different bidders would be prepared and have to pay would change and so would the subscription prices to reflect what they had to pay. It would probably also affect the overall figures received by the Premiership in revenue adversly, as nobody would pay top prices for a free for all, you cannot sell the same rights for the same item twice.

ART for example will have paid a relatively small amount for their rights, as it is for selling into a far less affluent market place, where average incomes are probably less than a 10th of what they are in the UK. If they were to pay for full International rights, particularly with regard to the UK, then their local market would not be able to afford the subscription prices, they couldn't have differing country rates, as people would simply get around the system.

But again, this is not really the issue here, the issue is about businesses who are rebroadcasting/showing the matches to an audience, matches for which they haven't paid the appropriate commercial rights.

If they can't afford it, then like most of the rest of us, they don't have it, that is not a legal defence.

 

[Channel Hopper]

If the FA got talking with the publicans/breweries, giving them the rights to show the matches to the punters for free, and in return took the increase in pint price between 3pm and 5pm as payment, then it would knock the 'overseas card' issue out of the equation.

Anyone wanting to go to the pub on a Saturday afternoon (or anytime a popular match was on ) would know they were paying extra for the TV content, giving them the choice to support the local match from the terraces, or watch major league footie with a beer.

 

[Grahkov]

Record the live game on PVR and play it back with a 5 min delay and then you would not be showing LIVE football at 3pm but a recording.

 

[rolfw]

LOL, the rules do not specify "live", they say "any transmission of football".;)

But again I will say, this is to do with commercial showing of the matches and it doesn't matter whether they are live or recorded, you need to have paid for the rights so to do.

Think I'll close this until there are some results or further information on the court cases.

 

[rolfw]

New information at _http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news_detail.aspx?articleid=25359

The FA Premier League has launched legal proceedings against one of the largest suppliers of foreign satellite equipment to the licensed trade.

After years of prosecuting licensees for using the equipment the Morning Advertiser can this week reveal that the Premier League has issued a writ in the High Court against David Richardson of QC Leisure.

The FAPL’s lawyers claim breach of copyright and say that by encouraging people to buy the cards, and 'guaranteeing' that they are legal, QC Leisure is “authorising or procuring publicans to breach FAPL's copyright”.

The Premier League has said from day one that it is committed to prosecuting the suppliers of illegal satellite equipment
Premier League spokesman Dan Johnson.

Premier League spokesman Dan Johnson told the Morning Advertiser: “The Premier League has said from day one that it is committed to prosecuting the suppliers of illegal satellite equipment; this action demonstrates we are true to our word.

“It also sends the message to licensees that we are seeking to protect them from the misinformation and mis-selling the likes of QC Leisure are making significant amounts of money from ultimately at the expense of pubs and clubs.”

The FAPL has confirmed that it is also planning action against other suppliers.

A spokesman for QC Leisure responded: “We are surprised at these unfounded and spurious actions of the FAPL/Sky to attempt to prosecute us under a law that serves no remedy for our business practices.

“It is a blatant attempt to frighten us and other suppliers financially by using the threat of a high court action to do so.

“It is also an attempt to defame the business practices of QC Leisure in the hope of damaging business to a point where QCL back down for fear of financial ruin. Fortuitously QCL have a loyal client base that stands by us and are sure in the knowledge that they are by no way breaking the law by using their alternative satellite system.

So it looks like things are hotting up.

 

[Salty25]

******** stuff, perhaps Sky should buy the rights to this as well.

How can the PL actually make a case that will stand up in court against a company merely selling satellite equipment?

 

[Salty25]

rolfw, why oh why is 'c r a c k i n g' blocked ? Makes me laugh every time it happens (not that I type it that often it must be said)!

 

[leighpreece]

It all comes down to one word: GREED!

Glad I'm not a footy fan.

Leigh....

 

[Rupert]

Seems that police has too much spare time to raid pubs. Maybe they should concentrate to real criminals and terrorists, not people who watch tv.

 

[Analoguesat]

Seems that police has too much spare time to raid pubs. Maybe they should concentrate to real criminals and terrorists, not people who watch tv.

If the police can be persuaded a crime has been committed then they will investigate. You cant have the police not investigating some stuff just because it might impact on something you are interested in - that would lead to anarchy!

 

[wod]

yep the police have to investigate if there is a crime but i dont see what the problem is if a few pubs show some live matches so what

its just sky having a cry as they wont get the 12k a year or whatever they charge pubs

things like this isn't much a piority as getting drugs and keeping law and order on the streets is more a piority

 

[kleefarr]

but, the Irish Pub I want to rid of SKY still has it (here in Berlin). I have phoned a number of times to jolly 'ol Scotland without success.

BarMoo,

Was just wondering why you would want to do this? Is it a vendetta?

 

[rolfw]

rolfw, why oh why is 'c r a c k i n g' blocked ? Makes me laugh every time it happens (not that I type it that often it must be said)!

Would have thought that was obvious Salty.;)

 

[Channel Hopper]

yep the police have to investigate if there is a crime but i dont see what the problem is if a few pubs show some live matches so what

Lol, only because it would be more expensive to investigate a company that has vitually unlimited resources in broadcast power, utilises dubious tactics to suppress competition, owns the worlds largest search engine, actively promotes online gambling, drafts up the next generation of copyright restrictions to suit its own agenda, and yet having its majority shareholding interests registered offshore, pays the UK peanuts in tax.

The FA (read those of the Premier League) firmly believes it has the best contract in place, it is enlightening to compare the list of past and present members on the books, and where their business associates hang out.

you cannot sell the same rights for the same item twice

Isn't that exactly what has occurred with the carving up of territories where the broadcasts are beamed into them from outside, using the same medium ?
(the fiasco over German broadcast rights just before the last World Cup should have been a wake up call of what is on the horizon).

 

[BarMoo]

BarMoo,

Was just wondering why you would want to do this? Is it a vendetta?

No not really. But that situation kind of proved the point that SKY don't give a hoot about out of territory use.

.

 

[Kevjackson]

What nobody has mentioned is that the copyrite law actually states that if a broadcaster (sky) sells the licence/rights to another platform (art/digitalb etc)
then what ever the platform does with them is no concern to the original owner.
QC Leisure a north west company has recently been issued with a writ from MPS (employed by sky) for selling "illegal sat equipment".
Sky think they are a law above themselves - using bully boy tactics, and frightening the publicans with threats of large fines etc but if they sign up nothing will be said....