Court ruling deals Premier League blow in its fight against pirate websites

[themags 0]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/se...e-online-piracy

 

The Premier League was today dealt a blow in its global fight against online piracy after a court in Israel threw out an attempt to shut down a pirate website that was showing live matches free of charge.

 

The league failed in a bid to force Israeli ISP Netvision and web portal Nana to reveal the identity of the Israeli owner of LiveFooty.org, a website that used servers based in the country to stream live footage of Premier League matches for nothing.

 

In a judgment that could set a worrying precedent for the Premier League, the Tel Aviv District Court ruled that it was a case of "fair use" since no profit was made from the broadcasts and that, in Israeli law, breach of "broadcasting" copyright only referred to cable or wireless transmission and not streaming over the internet.

 

The judge, Michal Agmon-Gonen, furthermore ruled that the site had important social aims – "watching sports events is socially important and should remain in the realm of mass entertainment, and not just be for those who can afford it" – and argued that those who view online were not damaging the revenues of broadcasters. She said they were mainly "those of small means or who are not sufficiently interested in sport to pay".

 

The Premier League had earlier tried to move the case outside of Israel but the judge blocked the move because the site is based in the country. She also ruled that the identity of the owner would not be revealed and claimed the Premier League had failed to prove any infringement of its rights because online broadcasts were different from television ones. The judge ruled that without clear laws regarding the internet, the court has to choose between the rights of copyrights holders and the rights of the users.

 

The league's lawyer, Meir Klinger, said of the judgment: "From first impression it looks without a base and wrong. We will appeal to the high court".

 

Research commissioned last year by a coalition of global rights owners, led by the Premier League and including Major League Baseball, the NBA and NFL, found that up to 1.5m viewers regularly watched football via 177 online illicit feeds.

 

The true figure is almost certainly now higher, given the growth of high speed broadband lines and the increased popularity of watching television over the internet.

 

The growth of the Premier League has been underpinned by the revenues from pay TV broadcasters in the UK and globally – the current deal is worth £2.7bn over three years, a figure almost certain to be topped by the next contract from 2010 – and it has been lobbying the government to take action against websites that allow viewers to watch games for nothing and argued that without a strong domestic lead it has less leverage with legislators abroad, most of which are based overseas, many of them in China. Rather than following the example of the music industry, which made enemies of its customers by suing them directly, the Premier League has preferred to employ a specialist company to shut down feeds as they spring up and go after the sites that host them in the courts.

 

The league will later this year face a challenge in the European courts, when UK publicans will argue that decoders bought elsewhere in Europe and imported are legal under free trade laws. That would allow them to show foreign football feeds and blow a hole in the league's policy of driving up prices by selling its rights on a market by market basis.

[Ugly Mackems 133]

The league will later this year face a challenge in the European courts, when UK publicans will argue that decoders bought elsewhere in Europe and imported are legal under free trade laws. That would allow them to show foreign football feeds and blow a hole in the league's policy of driving up prices by selling its rights on a market by market basis.

If that is won in court I'd imagine SKY would be royally pissed off. Greedy fucking cunts that they are. Very true what the Israelis claim - it is a sport for the public not just those who can afford it. I'm amzed the Man U's, Barca's and Madrid's of the football world haven't sorted Internet coverage for games that TV don't select for coverage. They'd likelymake a good sum selling the right to watch even at £1 a go. Obviously a percentage to the opponents but I doubt it would be too difficult to set up.

[Park Life 70]

Forget about money enjoy the game.

[Guest alex]

But you do realise that without skys tv money, the prem wouldn't be the league it is today nor the whole business surrounding football such as stadia etc?

It's done a lot of good but the greed is ultimately ruining football imo.

[Happy Face 29]

For all their boasting about HD technology, Sky are still worried that people would prefer to watch a 5 inch screen of 2000 pixels that freezes for one minute in 3?

 

They wanna have a bit more faith in their product.

[TheMoog 0]

But you do realise that without skys tv money, the prem wouldn't be the league it is today nor the whole business surrounding football such as stadia etc?

It's done a lot of good but the greed is ultimately ruining football imo.

 

Lol, the Championship IS the new Prem

[trophyshy 6434]

If we win can we defend our title next year?

[NJS 3984]

As I've said before the way the clubs and sky have ignored the internet rights will come back to haunt them in the same way music and film companies have been screwed.

 

I hope these cases go to court more often as bullshit about harmed revenues will be exposed.

 

I'd also say that any supposed "benefit" of the Sky money on football is instantly dashed by reading of Ashley Cheat's new 120k pw contract.

[Guest alex]

If we win can we defend our title next year?

No, but we can go for it again a year after that.

[Guest alex]

As I've said before the way the clubs and sky have ignored the internet rights will come back to haunt them in the same way music and film companies have been screwed.

 

I hope these cases go to court more often as bullshit about harmed revenues will be exposed.

 

I'd also say that any supposed "benefit" of the Sky money on football is instantly dashed by reading of Ashley Cheat's new 120k pw contract.

That's the real tragedy for me, i.e. you have all that money pouring into football via SKY and about 90% of it must end up in the pockets of PL players. By the time you get to grassroots level virtually all of it has gone.

[Happy Face 29]

As I've said before the way the clubs and sky have ignored the internet rights will come back to haunt them in the same way music and film companies have been screwed.

 

I hope these cases go to court more often as bullshit about harmed revenues will be exposed.

 

I'd also say that any supposed "benefit" of the Sky money on football is instantly dashed by reading of Ashley Cheat's new 120k pw contract.

That's the real tragedy for me, i.e. you have all that money pouring into football via SKY and about 90% of it must end up in the pockets of PL players. By the time you get to grassroots level virtually all of it has gone.

 

I guess it could be worse though.

 

Imagine every club gets to stream their own games on their website live and charge their fans as they see fit. A lot less money would filter through to accrington Stanley wouldn't it?

 

EDIT: Man U and Chelsea would probably be a llot better off too.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Happy Face

[Fop 1]

 

The league will later this year face a challenge in the European courts, when UK publicans will argue that decoders bought elsewhere in Europe and imported are legal under free trade laws. That would allow them to show foreign football feeds and blow a hole in the league's policy of driving up prices by selling its rights on a market by market basis.

If that is won in court I'd imagine SKY would be royally pissed off. Greedy fucking cunts that they are. Very true what the Israelis claim - it is a sport for the public not just those who can afford it. I'm amzed the Man U's, Barca's and Madrid's of the football world haven't sorted Internet coverage for games that TV don't select for coverage. They'd likelymake a good sum selling the right to watch even at £1 a go. Obviously a percentage to the opponents but I doubt it would be too difficult to set up.

 

 

They'll win, they shouldn't (especially in an EU free-market sense), but they will.

 

Much like it's bizarre how it's illegal to buy perfectly legitimate CD's in Hong Kong for £3, import them for a £1 or so and sell them on for £5.... but it apparently is.

 

 

Just goes to show how all copyright laws have nothing to do with justice or morality or anything like that and everything to do with companies with enough money to get the laws they want.

[NJS 3984]

I guess it could be worse though.

 

Imagine every club gets to stream their own games on their website live and charge their fans as they see fit. A lot less money would filter through to accrington Stanley wouldn't it?

 

EDIT: Man U and Chelsea would probably be a llot better off too.

 

I might sound a bit Shepherd like here but I don't see why people who want to pay for Sky so they can watch the premier with or without their team should contribute to Accrington Stanley. I think football at every level should live or die on its own merits which is how I feel about any "entertainment".

 

I've always thought the argument about how if Man U games were shown on Sky or the Internet for that matter at 3pm on a Saturday it would stop people going to see non-league games to be shit anyway - if people would rather do that then they aren't fans of the team anyway.

[Happy Face 29]

I guess it could be worse though.

 

Imagine every club gets to stream their own games on their website live and charge their fans as they see fit. A lot less money would filter through to accrington Stanley wouldn't it?

 

EDIT: Man U and Chelsea would probably be a llot better off too.

 

I might sound a bit Shepherd like here but I don't see why people who want to pay for Sky so they can watch the premier with or without their team should contribute to Accrington Stanley. I think football at every level should live or die on its own merits which is how I feel about any "entertainment".

 

I've always thought the argument about how if Man U games were shown on Sky or the Internet for that matter at 3pm on a Saturday it would stop people going to see non-league games to be shit anyway - if people would rather do that then they aren't fans of the team anyway.

 

 

The problem is the widening gap. 20 teams will pull in hundreds of millions from around the world.

[Guest alex]

You've got the academies that hoover up a lot of the local talent at a certain age then spit it out at 16 or whatever if they aren't going to make the grade but it would be nice to see local boys clubs teams etc. seeing some more of the SKY money. The same applies to local clubs which often could play a bigger role in the community with a bit more funding etc. I think that filters all the way up to your Accrington Stanleys etc. and I think to go down the route of survival of the fittest and fuck the rest could eventually end up with what you have in US Sports where you have 20-30 professional teams then that's it. I don't think smaller teams should necessarily be 'propped up' if they're pissing away cash but I also hate to see all the money go to the supposedly elite players who are often very ordinary talents.

[NJS 3984]

You've got the academies that hoover up a lot of the local talent at a certain age then spit it out at 16 or whatever if they aren't going to make the grade but it would be nice to see local boys clubs teams etc. seeing some more of the SKY money. The same applies to local clubs which often could play a bigger role in the community with a bit more funding etc. I think that filters all the way up to your Accrington Stanleys etc. and I think to go down the route of survival of the fittest and fuck the rest could eventually end up with what you have in US Sports where you have 20-30 professional teams then that's it. I don't think smaller teams should necessarily be 'propped up' if they're pissing away cash but I also hate to see all the money go to the supposedly elite players who are often very ordinary talents.

 

A fair reply - I guess I can't have it both ways, moaning about wages while implying no money should leave the elite.

 

I do agree with the academy/boys club point - I just don't think its right that non-league clubs should get "free" money.

[Guest alex]

You've got the academies that hoover up a lot of the local talent at a certain age then spit it out at 16 or whatever if they aren't going to make the grade but it would be nice to see local boys clubs teams etc. seeing some more of the SKY money. The same applies to local clubs which often could play a bigger role in the community with a bit more funding etc. I think that filters all the way up to your Accrington Stanleys etc. and I think to go down the route of survival of the fittest and fuck the rest could eventually end up with what you have in US Sports where you have 20-30 professional teams then that's it. I don't think smaller teams should necessarily be 'propped up' if they're pissing away cash but I also hate to see all the money go to the supposedly elite players who are often very ordinary talents.

 

A fair reply - I guess I can't have it both ways, moaning about wages while implying no money should leave the elite.

 

I do agree with the academy/boys club point - I just don't think its right that non-league clubs should get "free" money.

I know what you're saying and I do agree to an extent.

[Fop 1]

You've got the academies that hoover up a lot of the local talent at a certain age then spit it out at 16 or whatever if they aren't going to make the grade but it would be nice to see local boys clubs teams etc. seeing some more of the SKY money. The same applies to local clubs which often could play a bigger role in the community with a bit more funding etc. I think that filters all the way up to your Accrington Stanleys etc. and I think to go down the route of survival of the fittest and fuck the rest could eventually end up with what you have in US Sports where you have 20-30 professional teams then that's it. I don't think smaller teams should necessarily be 'propped up' if they're pissing away cash but I also hate to see all the money go to the supposedly elite players who are often very ordinary talents.

 

It's escalating costs too.

 

It's not that many lower league or amateur clubs or whatever are pissing away cash, it's that they'd need a certain income just to survive (but that income may be far above where the make a significant contribution to the area).

 

 

Plus it's helping the big clubs in the longer term anyway, if all your potential stars are busy playing Wii and never kicking a ball because there's no where to do it, where do they come from?

[Guest alex]

You've got the academies that hoover up a lot of the local talent at a certain age then spit it out at 16 or whatever if they aren't going to make the grade but it would be nice to see local boys clubs teams etc. seeing some more of the SKY money. The same applies to local clubs which often could play a bigger role in the community with a bit more funding etc. I think that filters all the way up to your Accrington Stanleys etc. and I think to go down the route of survival of the fittest and fuck the rest could eventually end up with what you have in US Sports where you have 20-30 professional teams then that's it. I don't think smaller teams should necessarily be 'propped up' if they're pissing away cash but I also hate to see all the money go to the supposedly elite players who are often very ordinary talents.

 

It's escalating costs too.

 

It's not that many lower league or amateur clubs or whatever are pissing away cash, it's that they'd need a certain income just to survive (but that income may be far above where the make a significant contribution to the area).

 

 

Plus it's helping the big clubs in the longer term anyway, if all your potential stars are busy playing Wii and never kicking a ball because there's no where to do it, where do they come from?

I think if clubs want to go down the semi-pro route with a view to getting into the Conference and possibly the Football League eventually then they have to be largely self-sufficient which is where I broadly agreee with NJS. I don't really consider those clubs to be 'grassroots' or at least they aren't what I was on about. That's not to say they shouldn't be helped out at certain times though, especially if they're a big part of the local community (and that doesn't just have to be purely from the point of view of people going to watch them play).

Edited September 3, 2009 by alex

[Fop 1]

You've got the academies that hoover up a lot of the local talent at a certain age then spit it out at 16 or whatever if they aren't going to make the grade but it would be nice to see local boys clubs teams etc. seeing some more of the SKY money. The same applies to local clubs which often could play a bigger role in the community with a bit more funding etc. I think that filters all the way up to your Accrington Stanleys etc. and I think to go down the route of survival of the fittest and fuck the rest could eventually end up with what you have in US Sports where you have 20-30 professional teams then that's it. I don't think smaller teams should necessarily be 'propped up' if they're pissing away cash but I also hate to see all the money go to the supposedly elite players who are often very ordinary talents.

 

It's escalating costs too.

 

It's not that many lower league or amateur clubs or whatever are pissing away cash, it's that they'd need a certain income just to survive (but that income may be far above where the make a significant contribution to the area).

 

 

Plus it's helping the big clubs in the longer term anyway, if all your potential stars are busy playing Wii and never kicking a ball because there's no where to do it, where do they come from?

I think if clubs want to go down the semi-pro route with a view to getting into the Conference and possibly the Football League eventually then they have to be largely self-sufficient which is where I broadly agreee with NJS. I don't really consider those clubs to be 'grassroots' or at least they aren't what I was on about. That's not to say they shouldn't be helped out at certain times though, especially if they're a big part of the local community (and that doesn't just have to be purely from the point of view of people going to watch them play).

 

 

It's a income tax come NHS/TV licence type principle though, a very small amount taken from the Premiership (which would likely only go on even bigger wages anyway) goes a long, long way out side of it.

[Guest alex]

Not sure what you're on about tbh.

[AmericanMag 0]

You've got the academies that hoover up a lot of the local talent at a certain age then spit it out at 16 or whatever if they aren't going to make the grade but it would be nice to see local boys clubs teams etc. seeing some more of the SKY money. The same applies to local clubs which often could play a bigger role in the community with a bit more funding etc. I think that filters all the way up to your Accrington Stanleys etc. and I think to go down the route of survival of the fittest and fuck the rest could eventually end up with what you have in US Sports where you have 20-30 professional teams then that's it. I don't think smaller teams should necessarily be 'propped up' if they're pissing away cash but I also hate to see all the money go to the supposedly elite players who are often very ordinary talents.

 

 

Interesting this...

 

Very few of my students follow the English game as I do (more have been lately though) and don't quite grasp why I was an absolute miserable bastard at the end of the last school year. I had to explain to them the whole concept of relegation which isn't familiar to them. So what I have done has used Baseball.

 

Baseball is a sport that can be used as an example in this case. You have the Major League (Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs, etc.) and below them you have the Minor Leagues which are in different levels (AAA, AA, A). The differences are that no teams get relegated to the lower divisions and that the teams in the lower divisions are feeder clubs (most of the time, a minor league team is owned by a major league team) for the major leagues.

 

If worse came to worse... something similar to this could come into effect..

Edited September 3, 2009 by AmericanMag

[Howmanheyman 26928]

But you do realise that without skys tv money, the prem wouldn't be the league it is today nor the whole business surrounding football such as stadia etc?

Swap 'top 4' for Prem.

 

 

If the league was shit years ago, at least it wasn't as nailed on for the usual crew who have created a glass ceiling to separate themselves from 'the rest'. In fact 'the rest' showed how utterly spineless they are and how money is the be all and end all by agreeing to the top 5 clubs not having to play each other in the 39th game. SKY and the CL have pandered to certain clubs and they are now beyond catching. Thanks SKY!

 

 

(Oh! Lets not forget David Craig/SSN/The journo's show etc, all grade one wankers).