SKY AND BT SPORTS NEXT SEASON.

Pretty sure in the eyes of the law streaming/viewing etc are all classed as downloading as you have downloaded the data from the website. I still don't see how that makes it illegal though, even if it is illegal it would still only be a civil matter so no big deal.

 

It's illegal as it infringes the owners copyright and it's a criminal act not civil as it infringes the 1988 copyright, designs and patents act.

However that fact is currently moot, as the owners have not chased anyone for it as far as I know.

They've chased and prosecuted those who stream it though, albeit no-one has gone down for it yet, one guy got 6 months suspended though.

The more widespread it becomes the more the broadcasters will want to squeeze harder. They may choose to do what the film industry has done and seek to strike fear into those using the streams by picking some victims to prosecute for usage as opposed to broadcasting. As whilst there's no real deterrent then it'll simply expand as the speeds and software improves.

 

I don't know the legal technicalities, so I'll take your word for it, I had a gander and found this. It seems it is illegal though it's just not feasible to enforce it, it would cost a LOT of money to hunt down what must be over a billion people.

What you said Terrifictroatre, streaming even a piece is considered a copy, ****ing joke, a few kb of data is a copy to them, nuts! But it is what it is.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/are-streaming-sites-legal-2014-4?r=US

 

Gerrard as a pundit? Enthralling...

 

Yes



Another word.

 

"emm" on repeat for 30 mins

 

Could be wrong but I dont think the case of one guy sitting in his underpants at his computer crying over how bad we are playing watching a stream from the US, (sky logos,music etc all removed) has ever been tested to see if it is a breach of copyright. Even if it was decided that it does infringe their rights, it is not automatically a criminal act.

So I should be OK then.

 

It doesn't need 'testing' it's a straightforward fact.

This piece spells out their actions against publicans who weren't transmitting merely receiving the streams, and they're patently backed by both civil and criminal law

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/...-story-behind-football-screening-prosecutions

 

Very different scenario IMO.Lets see what this website says, BTW its UK government not a sky and premier league puff piece in the "morning advertiser"!

https://www.gov.uk/intellectual-property-crime-and-infringement
Couple of quotes
"The infringement of an IP right is a civil matter in the case of patents, trade marks, designs and copyright. In the case of trade marks and copyright the act MAY also constitute a criminal IP offence."
"Deliberate infringement of copyright on a commercial scale MAY be a criminal offence."

As I said there might well be some case law precedents that have clarified this but I have not seen any.

 

Stick your hand up as a pant wearing potential law breaker mate and we can find out

 

Not that I was talking about me, but I am fairly safe in the knowledge that if they did get me the first thing they would do is send a cease and desist letter and if I complied there is zero percent chance of any prosecution public or private.

PS not that I was talking about me though, no no NO!

 

These prosecutions were brought about for screening the material (as in distributing or displaying for others), nobody has been charged for watching even the patrons of the pubs involved.

 

If you're screening it in your own home what's the difference?

 

Not broadcasting/displaying to others.

 

Says who?

Broadcasting it in your living room could be broadcasting to others in that context

The publican at the Dog and Duck could have claimed it was only watched by old Ted and his farting Labrador. The principle is exactly the same, they were receiving copyrighted streams not broadcasting them, that was the point.

 

If they could prove you had mates round to watch then you would be prosecuted for broadcasting/distributing, your mates would not be charged for watching. Same applies in a pub, if you were open and old Ted and his Lab attended the landlord gets done.

 

Did I say they could be?

The man who knowingly accesses the stream could be though, there's the point

You're welcome

 

Correct, if he broadcasts/shares it

 

He doesn't have to share it with anyone, even his goldfish to have infringed the copyright by broadcasting it in his own gaff. The access itself is illegal as it's a PPV service that he's knowingly accessed via an illegal stream, it's the same principle as downloading file share movies.

 

Broadcast to who? He has not illegally accessed a PPV site, he has accessed an open site?