Inexcusable that it isn't on tonight. Presumably one of the glamour clubs is playing tonorrow so us dirty scumbags have to wait for permission to watch our historical highlights once they finish? Oh thank you, sir. I don't have Sky so can't watch their highlights. BBC, Sky, BT, The Premier League and every sponsor any of them has can suck my balls because they've forced me into a position where I have no option but to go to a pub showing it illegally. I'm fuming. You lot had better not grovel and hold your cupped hands out tomorrow when Gary Lineker finally deems you worthy of old highlights. He might as well **** on you, you absolute slags. It's all wrong.
Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal and Man U playing tonight so your thinking is wrong. Odd that it's not on though
Strictly speaking, none of them are to blame. It's not illegal to show the game, the offence is breach of copyright for showing the Premier League logo and theme music. If you could remove them, there's (arguably) no offence. It's the Premier League that have been and continue to chase pubs showing games.
Lineker only works Saturdays Same with FLS not being on last Saturday, there were only 4 Champ matches, but they actually had plenty of lower league fixtures they could have focussed on for longer.
I'd read about this the other day. if they keep the sound off, and stuck something on the screen where the PL logo was, would that suffice?
It probably would, but the Premier League make sure the logo is in different places during the game, and if you notice, at times it fills the screen. This is done largely to make sure they can take action for showing their logo and it can't just be taped over or blanked out.
Ah ok, I just assumed it was in the corner or something. Sneaky bastards! Im guessing it would be too difficult to write some software to remove it from a real time screening. No idea why they don't just PPV these things, the money could could back into football if they wanted it to, and the types of fans who want to go to see a game will still do that. I guess they don't because they think it will affect gates? I wonder if there's any actual proof of that? Why not just reduce ticket prices....offer streams at a similar cost...feed a share back into the clubs whose fans pay for a specific game? I bet income would increase.
I'm a Baseball fan and a subscriber to mlb.tv which I think is probably the best sports watching system available anywhere for anything. It's a £45ish one off annual fee, and you have access to every single game that's played, live, and they cut out all of the ads. The only downside is that you can't watch games in the local area because they're blacked out. For example, if this was how it worked for the premier league you could watch City's home games all over the UK except in East Yorkshire - because in theory those people can make it to the game. An hour or two after the game the highlights become available ANYWHERE in three formats - 5 minutes - 20 minutes, and the full game. A service like this would be a lot better than what currently exists. Edit: they also provide the local radio station to stream online anywhere in the country
You can already get a machine that recognises the Sky/BT/PL logos and pixelates them, but that's not enough, the replays are also copyrighted and as a consequence 100 pubs are being prosecuted by the Premier League for copyright infringement. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-25849670
I don't really understand the copyright law. I thought it was to protect/identify the ownership of a product, but that seems to imply the 'product' is the logo itself, rather than the images of the game? What have I got wrong?
I don't think you do have it wrong. Without the logo and their theme tune, there's no reason anyone can't view or stream the games. With the logo, which the PL own, you can't show it because the logo is theirs. I agree, it's mental.
The logo is to promote their image, and they don't object to it being shown elsewhere (do they?) Making a fuss like this seems counter productive to me. It's associating their image with petty beaurocracy...isn't it?
Copyright protects the branding as well as the product. If someone copies a Stone Island jacket, they'll probably get away with it, but if they put Stone Island branding on it, they'll get nicked. Same principal.
Sure, but they own the rights to how that logo is used, and in this context, they expect to be able to control how and where it is shown and to prosecute anyone bypassing that control.
I see what you're saying, but they're complaining about their product being viewed, not a copy. It's the same product they're selling to the oversea's customers. I'm not saying you're wrong, clearly as they are prosecuting, it's me that doesn't understand it.
