Legality of Using Foreign Satelites

Man007

Hi

I've been interested getting foreign Satelite Set up for awhile now but have only done limited research.

I have all Sky Sports/Espn/Setanta channels at the moment and to be honest its not so much the price that bothers me(although it does cost a fortune) but rather the lack of choice.

I have seen Al Jazeera set up in bars while abroad and would love to have the option to choose whichever 3pm game I want to watch rather than have it dictated by whatever Sky or whoever wants to show.

I basically want to know is it legal to set up foreign satelite and get subscription to Al Jazeera as I thought Sky had exclusive rights for UK and Irl again I'm not too concerned if it wasn't legal but I don't want to invest in something if there is a risk of service being cancelled such as the old dodgy box system( I know there's no comparison but you see my point)

Also how reliable is the service using these cards as the last thing I want is to have games freezing or not available at all as this would ruin the whole experience.

Also would subscription to AL Jazeera give me access to virtually all Prem Games

Apologies if this has been asked a million times any advice appreciated

snaps

Al Jazzera doesnt show EPL, but lots of other football and sports. Its not illegal to set it up at home, but if you were to set it up in a publc place like a pub, then it gets "Iffy".

The only thing your really doing by viewing these channels at home is breaking the providers terms and conditions.

watty

Of course for Free To Air you are not even doing that.

Headshot

Saw this about Al Jazzera
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2107652/Al-Jazeera-bid-Premier-League-TV-rights-realistic-prospect.html

STB

snaps wrote: »

Al Jazzera doesnt show EPL, but lots of other football and sports. Its not illegal to set it up at home, but if you were to set it up in a publc place like a pub, then it gets "Iffy".

The only thing your really doing by viewing these channels at home is breaking the providers terms and conditions.

It is not illegal. It took one lady to sort out Sky and the Premier League et al. Money grabbing feckers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/oct/04/premier-league-tv-coverage

simonckenyon

Man007 wrote: »

Hi
I basically want to know is it legal to set up foreign satelite and get subscription to Al Jazeera as I thought Sky had exclusive rights for UK and Irl again I'm not too concerned if it wasn't legal but I don't want to invest in something if there is a risk of service being cancelled such as the old dodgy box system( I know there's no comparison but you see my point)

it is your "right" under european law.

have a look at

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/cm/601/601591/601591en.pdf

--
simon

munchkin_utd

simonckenyon wrote: »

it is your "right" under european law.

have a look at

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/cm/601/601591/601591en.pdf

--
simon

if you read the article you'll see that it was found that they have NO right to errect the dish!

not to mention that the EU law affirms the principle of free movement of services across the EU common market which is what the recent case of the landlady in England with a Greek sky box was about.

Saudia Arabia/ Dubai are not in the EU!!
Greece is.

Wiggy

munchkin_utd wrote: »

Saudia Arabia/ Dubai are not in the EU!!
Greece is.

...for the moment.....

Reading about the case between sky and a publican. From what i gather its not illegal to have it in your home but it infringes on copyright if you have it in a bar and are showing it to an audience. Is this correct ? ?

excollier

Deleted User wrote: »

Reading about the case between sky and a publican. From what i gather its not illegal to have it in your home but it infringes on copyright if you have it in a bar and are showing it to an audience. Is this correct ? ?

Exactly correct.

simonckenyon

munchkin_utd wrote: »

if you read the article you'll see that it was found that they have NO right to errect the dish!

not to mention that the EU law affirms the principle of free movement of services across the EU common market which is what the recent case of the landlady in England with a Greek sky box was about.

Saudia Arabia/ Dubai are not in the EU!!
Greece is.

The OP asked if it was illegal. I was pointing out that the EU considers it your right. The point about the dish is not relevant.

I quote from the pdf that I pointed to.

The Commission would first point out that any private individual wishing to install a satellite dish should, as a rule, have the right to do so, and that the notion 'right to satellite reception' for individuals was explicitly set out in the Commission communication on satellite dishes of 27 June 2001 (COM(2001)351 final).

Minstrel27

Headshot wrote: »

Saw this about Al Jazzera
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2107652/Al-Jazeera-bid-Premier-League-TV-rights-realistic-prospect.html

Expect some expensive Al Jazeera Sport channels for the UK & Ireland to appear if that happens.

STB

simonckenyon wrote: »

The OP asked if it was illegal. I was pointing out that the EU considers it your right. The point about the dish is not relevant.

I quote from the pdf that I pointed to.

The Commission would first point out that any private individual wishing to install a satellite dish should, as a rule, have the right to do so, and that the notion 'right to satellite reception' for individuals was explicitly set out in the Commission communication on satellite dishes of 27 June 2001 (COM(2001)351 final).

Where does the OP ask about erecting a dish ?????

The question is about the legality of subscribing to foreign satellite packages.

oxo_

It's not illegal to subscribe to foreign TV for your home or for your commercial premises. However it may be considered breaking copyright (due to commercial agreements in place by the respective rights holders in this country for those programmes) to subsequently air those programmes to an audience.
Where once I would have suggested these are only civil matters, I'm not sure if that could still be considered the case any more due to our wonderful government signing into law the recent changes enacted by Minister Sherlock. They'd probably be considered criminal offences now and as such open your premises up to heavy handed Garda raids if deemed necessary.

In short though, if it's just for your own home use, you're doing nothing illegal at all.

...but, you might be breaking the terms of service set down by whatever provider you're subscribing too if they somehow ever discover you're viewing their service in a country not intended for their programmes to be viewed from - and I'm not sure how you'd stand up against that really, just cut your losses if they stop your service.

Be careful where you buy your subscriptions from regardless, read around and get reviews if you have to buy from a third party rather than direct.

snaps

Minstrel27 wrote: »

Expect some expensive Al Jazeera Sport channels for the UK & Ireland to appear if that happens.

As far as i know Al Jazeera are a minimal profit making broadcaster?

That would well and truely breakup Murdochs empire. I for one would welcome a change from BskyB's rule.

Ive been impressed with some of Al Jazeera's broadcasting hopes and gains.

Zardoz

snaps wrote: »

As far as i know Al Jazeera are a minimal profit making broadcaster?

As far as I am aware they have been running at a substantial loss since being founded.
The Emir of Qatar funds it.

marco2068

I love the way it is ok for sky to broadcast their F1 channel in ireland when setanta have the rights. gits. Do as i say not as i do.:mad:

But setanta can't do anything because they are on the sky epg

Minstrel27

Sky are allowed to broadcast Formula 1 into Ireland because they have the rights to do so. What point are you trying to make here?

snaps

Minstrel27 wrote: »

Sky are allowed to broadcast Formula 1 into Ireland because they have the rights to do so. What point are you trying to make here?

That Setanta paid for the Irish rights for Ireland too. ESPN only had Uefa cup rights for the UK, but they were blocked showing Uefa games here in Ireland.

I can understand whats being said here, If Setanta originally had the Irish rights, how can Sky have the rights also?

Setanta need all the exclusive rights they can get, to keep them attractive as a sports provider.

BBC had no rights really for ROI, Just the UK, but its the same as everything the BBC is available here due to spill over and are not really doing any harm to anyone. But if i had exclusive rights for something i had paid for and all of a sudden a bigger fish came along and provided the same product i was producing/showing, I would be pretty pee'd off.

Minstrel27

Did Setanta have exclusive rights? Evidently not so I don't see what the issue is

Premier

It's already being decided in the European courts of justice that showing a live game via foreign provider is NOT a criminal offence.

However they did also decide that the rights holders epl fapl logo and music are copyright protected, and thats a matter for them to police,thats copyright issues not criminal and up to them to enforce, Their going to have their work cut out for them if their going to run around the uk after subscribers to foreign systems let alone Ireland for breach of copyright law and lets face it they could hav:pac: being doing that for years now, but instead was waiting the outcome of the murphy case which their not at all happy about and now going the copyright infringment route.(turn off the sound and cover up the logo) extreme but you would be not in breach of copyright, which by the way is going to be very hard for them to prove.

Stay away from dreamboxes and the like if it's for a pub thats a NO go area, pleanty of unscrupulos dealers in ireland have being knocking these out to publicans and not explaining to them what there all about.

ouncer

Premier wrote: »

It's already being decided in the European courts of justice that showing a live game via foreign provider is NOT a criminal offence.

However they did also decide that the rights holders epl fapl logo and music are copyright protected, and thats a matter for them to police,thats copyright issues not criminal and up to them to enforce, Their going to have their work cut out for them if their going to run around the uk after subscribers to foreign systems let alone Ireland for breach of copyright law and lets face it they could hav:pac: being doing that for years now, but instead was waiting the outcome of the murphy case which their not at all happy about and now going the copyright infringment route.(turn off the sound and cover up the logo) extreme but you would be not in breach of copyright, which by the way is going to be very hard for them to prove.

Stay away from dreamboxes and the like if it's for a pub thats a NO go area, pleanty of unscrupulos dealers in ireland have being knocking these out to publicans and not explaining to them what there all about.

Out of interest does anyone have the latest on this saga. My brother bought a canal+ card for his pub (in ireland) to show 3pm games. He then received a nice letter from setanta to say that setanta have exclusive rights for broadcasting 3pm games in Ireland. I'm well aware of the Murphy case so could anyone advise on whether my brother is legally OK with what he has done or is setanta correct in saying that they have totally exclusive rights. Thanks

ouncer

Premier wrote: »

It's already being decided in the European courts of justice that showing a live game via foreign provider is NOT a criminal offence.

However they did also decide that the rights holders epl fapl logo and music are copyright protected, and thats a matter for them to police,thats copyright issues not criminal and up to them to enforce, Their going to have their work cut out for them if their going to run around the uk after subscribers to foreign systems let alone Ireland for breach of copyright law and lets face it they could hav:pac: being doing that for years now, but instead was waiting the outcome of the murphy case which their not at all happy about and now going the copyright infringment route.(turn off the sound and cover up the logo) extreme but you would be not in breach of copyright, which by the way is going to be very hard for them to prove.

Stay away from dreamboxes and the like if it's for a pub thats a NO go area, pleanty of unscrupulos dealers in ireland have being knocking these out to publicans and not explaining to them what there all about.

Out of interest does anyone have the latest on this saga. My brother bought a canal+ card for his pub (in ireland) to show 3pm games. He then received a nice letter from setanta to say that setanta have exclusive rights for broadcasting 3pm games in Ireland. I'm well aware of the Murphy case so could anyone advise on whether my brother is legally OK with what he has done or is setanta correct in saying that they have totally exclusive rights. Thanks

lertsnim

He would not be ok to show them in a pub. He would need a commercial subscription for his pub

loughside

lertsnim wrote: »

commercial subscription

canal+ pol. don`t have any jurisdiction in Ireland so the above wouldn`t be valid,

anyway, when was the last time you saw a canal+ rep in ireland ?

ps. not even sure C+ do a commercial sub - do they?
??

lertsnim

The point I made was domestic subscriptions are perfectly ok if used at home. This was ruled by the European courts.

As a pub is not a domestic location the ruling in the court does not make it ok to use a domestic subscription from another country in a pub

ouncer

lertsnim wrote: »

The point I made was domestic subscriptions are perfectly ok if used at home. This was ruled by the European courts.

As a pub is not a domestic location the ruling in the court does not make it ok to use a domestic subscription from another country in a pub

Same question. Do setanta have totally exclusive rights to 3pm games in Ireland? If this is not true (which I suspect) what are the legally valid options for a commercial premises to use?

Premier

ouncer wrote: »

Same question. Do setanta have totally exclusive rights to 3pm games in Ireland? If this is not true (which I suspect) what are the legally valid options for a commercial premises to use?

Answer to your question is yes they do.
Between setanta and BT have the rights to show 71 games, If your using a system on a commercial site to show one of the games that they have paid dearly for they can have you.

As for legal options for a commercial premises ?

Sky sports commercial sub x 1
Setanta sports commercial sub x1

After that well you can have whatever you like.
Maybe a few pole dancers would be a cheaper option to bring in the punters if they cant afford the subs,No pun intended

As for all this karen murphy talk and people quoting the law to sky sports (trying to be cheeky) it dont work.

Recently a bar owner in the south of the country (using a dream) quoted all this "murphy" talk to a sky rep and ended up in the courts with a €7.000 euro fine.(Fact)

That said, I do believe a commercial site should be able to afford the subs even the small pubs but it's going on the license band fee and putting it out of reach for the smaller premises.

As far as i know there maybe something in the pipeline for the smaller premises with the cost of subs for the new year.We wait in hope.

Hope this helps

azzeretti

Premier wrote: »

As for all this karen murphy talk and people quoting the law to sky sports (trying to be cheeky) it dont work.

Recently a bar owner in the south of the country (using a dream) quoted all this "murphy" talk to a sky rep and ended up in the courts with a €7.000 euro fine.(Fact)

Hope this helps

Well then the pub must have had a terrible solicitor. There can't be discrimination between entities. If there are rights holders for domestic games then similar law applies to corporate rights holders. There'd be sufficient argument anyway. How would Setanta stand up against an Irish pub with a commercial Canal+ package? Within the EU they'd have no case.

Premier

Are you missing something in my post ?

Pub in question was using a dream,

Plus
There is no commercial canal + package available outside of it's territory

azzeretti

Premier wrote: »

Are you missing something in my post ?
Pub in question was using a dream,

I did miss that actually. When you say "dream" I take it you mean a Dreambox using a share?

Plus
There is no commercial canal + package available outside of it's territory

Well, this is the whole issue that stems from the Murphy case - directly or otherwise. Territory within the EU is a grey area and actual law is still undetermined.

Mute case really, as I missed the whole sharing aspect of this thread! While I don't agree with down right theft, as in this case, I also don't agree with the limiting of legal viewing cards from other jurisdictions.

ouncer

Thanks for the answers. In the past I had bought a tring card for my brother which was outside EU (albania) but Tring have ceased transmission of 3pm games. So then I looked around for alternate options and purchased a Canal+ card on the tinternet. While using Tring there wasn't an issue but since the canal+ venture setanta have said that they have complete right to 3pm games in ireland.

I'm not totally certain of the Murphy case but I think she was given the ok as the provider was outside the EU. If such is the case then Abu Dhabi Sports also transmit 3pm games. Is that the way to go or is that illegal. I'm most fed up that the canal+ card provider supplied me with this card under the understanding that it was to be used in a commercial premises and he said that was fine

loughside

You`re being paranoid ouncer,

tell setanta you`re not interested in their product

ouncer

loughside, the point was that a setanta rep arrived into pub and said that they had exclusive rights to 3pm games as canal plus were displaying said 3pm game on screen. they were not selling a product, they were giving an official warning

Nelbert

ouncer wrote: »

loughside, the point was that a setanta rep arrived into pub and said that they had exclusive rights to 3pm games as canal plus were displaying said 3pm game on screen. they were not selling a product, they were giving an official warning

worst they can do is report the premises to Canal plus as a commercial premises, assuming it's a domestic sub that was purchased. Apart from that, they've purchased legitimate equipment etc. so Setanta can't do much.

Premier

Nelbert wrote: »

worst they can do is report the premises to Canal plus as a commercial premises, assuming it's a domestic sub that was purchased. Apart from that, they've purchased legitimate equipment etc. so Setanta can't do much.

Do you really think so ?
It's amazing

Premier

ouncer wrote: »

loughside, the point was that a setanta rep arrived into pub and said that they had exclusive rights to 3pm games as canal plus were displaying said 3pm game on screen. they were not selling a product, they were giving an official warning

Ouncer, if your showing one of the games that setanta / bt sports have exclusive rights to they can and will do something about it.

if your not showing a game that they have not rights to well thats a different story.

get in touch with me and i will show you and prove to you the situation and you can talk to other pubs to which i will give you that were in the same position as yourself.

Unfortunately i cant say anymore here.

STB

Premier wrote: »

Do you really think so ?
It's amazing

Premier wrote: »

Ouncer, if your showing one of the games that setanta / bt sports have exclusive rights to they can and will do something about it.

if your not showing a game that they have not rights to well thats a different story.

Hold on a second. My understanding is that it is not Setanta's job to police what other european subscription cards are being used and where (domestic or otherwise). It is also my understanding that neither do they have any job to police copyright infringement of the EPL logos. If Premier League logos are displayed (which they are) then the FAPL themselves would pursue a complaint through the CAI or courts, not somebody with territorial broadcasting rights! Surely Setanta complain to the FAPL, not threathen the publican ?

Public performance of a legitimate card bought in Europe will most likely be against the terms and conditions of the card, which if discovered could result in the card being cancelled by the provider (ie Canal+). This might be cost prohibitive for Canal+ to have a presence to make these checks in Ireland .

A broadcasting rights holder will primarily be visiting commercial premises to make sure somebody is not pirating their broadcasts through a illegal card sharing service AND/OR an illegal IPTV service OR even someone using one of their own home subscription services in a commercial environment (and therefore violating the terms of that domestic Setanta card).

Premier wrote: »

get in touch with me and i will show you and prove to you the situation and you can talk to other pubs to which i will give you that were in the same position as yourself.

Unfortunately i cant say anymore here.

Beware of the wholly illegal IPTV services being offered currently whereby a Sky subsciption card is being put through a Spanish server and then being redistributed as a TV stream received via a special IPTV box. I gather that these are being sold in Ireland on the basis that IPTV law is incomplete and therefore a method to bypass copyright and piracy laws. This is of course complete nonsense.

This is not a legal forum so a lot of stuff discussed here is just conjecture and/or opinion. I would be wary of people selling stuff saying its okay though! OP If in doubt please do consult a solicitor. The vintners federation have surely looked into this already. It seems to be a burning issue amongst publicans.

Premier

No matter what way it's dressed up or described using a canal plus or many of the other european broadcasters viewing cards in a public place is against the t's and c's of the provider.

We have had a sit down with both the heads of sky here in Ireland and have done the same with setanta /bt sports. I will gladly pass the info on to a administrator here on boards.ie so posters will know im not talking ****e.(if an admin would like to contact me regarding this matter).

Sky have secured a number of convictions last year on the subject.And will continue to do so
Setanta have also secured convictions as well.

The publicans involved were brought to court and heavily fined.

Sky and setanta want their slice of the pie and are willing to do whatever it takes.

We have gone and got legal advice on the subject and as it stands will not be installing systems on premises unless their is official commercial systems in place.

Im all for free television lads but this is the score

iba

Premier wrote: »

No matter what way it's dressed up or described using a canal plus or many of the other european broadcasters viewing cards in a public place is against the t's and c's of the provider.

We have had a sit down with both the heads of sky here in Ireland and have done the same with setanta /bt sports. I will gladly pass the info on to a administrator here on boards.ie so posters will know im not talking ****e.(if an admin would like to contact me regarding this matter).

Sky have secured a number of convictions last year on the subject.And will continue to do so
Setanta have also secured convictions as well.

The publicans involved were brought to court and heavily fined.

Sky and setanta want their slice of the pie and are willing to do whatever it takes.

We have gone and got legal advice on the subject and as it stands will not be installing systems on premises unless their is official commercial systems in place.

Im all for free television lads but this is the score

Hi Premier,

If I understand you correctly, the publicans were fined because they showed a game which Setanta/BT Sports/Sky had exclusive rights to broadcast in Ireland and not because they were using a foreign sub?

So if I understand you correctly, Setanta/BT Sports/Sky could also take a person to court for using a foreign sub in the privacy of their own residence if they had the rights to broadcast that game.

Can you list the names of some of these court cases so that I can have a google please?

Regards

Nelbert

Sky don't have a say in services they don't provide so to say they secured a convinction is wildly incorrect although the end result may be similar the legalities are very different to the way Premier presents it.

Sky have no say on what gets shown on what tv beyond their own service, if someone is pirating they're service they can seek appropriate action.
They are however, as much as anyone else would be if they felt inclined, able to report potential misuse of service to another provider, e.g. complain to Canal+ that one of their subs is being outside of their rights area and/or in a commercial premises (they could also do the same for a user in their home technically), Canal+ would at their discretion then seek appropriate action if they wished. Similarly Sky could complain to the FAPL about logo use etc. and the FAPL would likely be able to instruct Canal+ to cancel said subscription (contract terms between FAPL and Canal+ dependant).

Sky are not An Garda Siochana however (especially seen as they don't even pay VAT here! although that's a seperate rant!) and can only directly pursue people who circumvent Sky's Terms and Conditions. Sky will obviously, for their own revenue generating purposes, act as if they are the enforcers of such rules but the reality is not that black and white, they've a few hoops to jump through and would need cooperation potentially from both the FAPL and the foreign broadcaster to prevent a pub from showing Canal+ (just an example).
Just because Sky say they can do something doesn't mean they have the legal rights to back it up. If someone doesn't have any legal relationship with Sky (i.e. via a commercial subscription / contract) then they can't breach it. You can't breach a contract that doesn't exist.

iba

Nelbert wrote: »

Sky don't have a say in services they don't provide so to say they secured a convinction is wildly incorrect although the end result may be similar the legalities are very different to the way Premier presents it.

Sky have no say on what gets shown on what tv beyond their own service, if someone is pirating they're service they can seek appropriate action.
They are however, as much as anyone else would be if they felt inclined, able to report potential misuse of service to another provider, e.g. complain to Canal+ that one of their subs is being outside of their rights area and/or in a commercial premises (they could also do the same for a user in their home technically), Canal+ would at their discretion then seek appropriate action if they wished. Similarly Sky could complain to the FAPL about logo use etc. and the FAPL would likely be able to instruct Canal+ to cancel said subscription (contract terms between FAPL and Canal+ dependant).

Sky are not An Garda Siochana however (especially seen as they don't even pay VAT here! although that's a seperate rant!) and can only directly pursue people who circumvent Sky's Terms and Conditions. Sky will obviously, for their own revenue generating purposes, act as if they are the enforcers of such rules but the reality is not that black and white, they've a few hoops to jump through and would need cooperation potentially from both the FAPL and the foreign broadcaster to prevent a pub from showing Canal+ (just an example).
Just because Sky say they can do something doesn't mean they have the legal rights to back it up. If someone doesn't have any legal relationship with Sky (i.e. via a commercial subscription / contract) then they can't breach it. You can't breach a contract that doesn't exist.

Hi,

Yes I totally 100% agree with what you have written (and STB previously) and that is why I do not understand Premier's posts at all.

So if Premier could post some links (or name) the cases that went to court, then I (we) could actually read the cases.

Regards

azzeretti

Nelbert wrote: »

Sky don't have a say in services they don't provide so to say they secured a convinction is wildly incorrect although the end result may be similar the legalities are very different to the way Premier presents it.

Sky have no say on what gets shown on what tv beyond their own service, if someone is pirating they're service they can seek appropriate action.
They are however, as much as anyone else would be if they felt inclined, able to report potential misuse of service to another provider, e.g. complain to Canal+ that one of their subs is being outside of their rights area and/or in a commercial premises (they could also do the same for a user in their home technically), Canal+ would at their discretion then seek appropriate action if they wished. Similarly Sky could complain to the FAPL about logo use etc. and the FAPL would likely be able to instruct Canal+ to cancel said subscription (contract terms between FAPL and Canal+ dependant).

Sky are not An Garda Siochana however (especially seen as they don't even pay VAT here! although that's a seperate rant!) and can only directly pursue people who circumvent Sky's Terms and Conditions. Sky will obviously, for their own revenue generating purposes, act as if they are the enforcers of such rules but the reality is not that black and white, they've a few hoops to jump through and would need cooperation potentially from both the FAPL and the foreign broadcaster to prevent a pub from showing Canal+ (just an example).
Just because Sky say they can do something doesn't mean they have the legal rights to back it up. If someone doesn't have any legal relationship with Sky (i.e. via a commercial subscription / contract) then they can't breach it. You can't breach a contract that doesn't exist.

^^^This ^^^^^
I know we can't get into legal talk here but either Premier has been sold some pretty questionable legal advise or there is some other motive for the apparent scaremongering. I am guessing the former though.