Legality of Satellite Distributor Restrictions

georgekildare

Can someone tell me whether the copyright laws that the satellite television monopolists such as Sky use to restrict distribution of programs within Europe have ever been challenged at the level of the European Court.

Why am I unable to purchase a subscription to BSkyB programs legally here in the Netherlands, although I can purchase any copyrighted book I choose and bring it over European borders? If Microsoft has legal problems with its monopoly over operating systems, surely BSkyB is much worse?

Am I missing something?

George Kildare

Lennoxschips

Probably because RTL5 bought the rights show live English Premier League matches here in Holland, and they wouldn't be too happy if we started watching it on Sky Sports. Despite this, all of the pubs in Amsterdam openly advertise Sky matches, and one of the pubs is even called the "SKY SPORTS CAFE".

Although I don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to watch BBC on Sky Digital, seeing as BBC 1 & 2 are already cabled to 90% of Dutch homes.

I expect there will be very tight restrictions on Irish digiboxes from April, imagine the amount of money Setanta Sport would lose if everybody started watching GAA and Irish soccer matches on RTE!

georgekildare

Lennoxschips does not address the question of freedom of information. The question is whether it should be legally possible in the present day and age to purchase copyright that restricts the access to a particular country and whether a viable legal challenge to this is feasible.

jmcc

Originally posted by georgekildare
Lennoxschips does not address the question of freedom of information. The question is whether it should be legally possible in the present day and age to purchase copyright that restricts the access to a particular country and whether a viable legal challenge to this is feasible.

The copyright for each programme or event is licenced on a geographical basis. Thus Sky could theoretically only sell subscriptions in the UK and Ireland having only purchased the rights for those areas. It is not a question of freedom of information since the information in question is not actually free in the first place.

To get the rights for a particular programme (movie or event) you would have to bid against the other purchasers in that area. This is basically what happened with British Satellite Broadcasting and Sky Television. They entered a bidding war for movies for the .ie/.uk region and the price of movies rocketed.

Grey market subscriptions do exist and are generally ignored by the channels. That is where a subscription is take out in one area and then the card and decoder are moved to another. This is how the Dutch cafe is probably showing the UK soccer.

Copyrights and the transmission related rights issues are very complicated topics. Having spent years working with and writing about that kind of stuff, it really is not something you want to get into as it can be mindnumbingly boring except during the court cases and you see Sky getting defeated. [1]

Regards...jmcc
[1] Dublin High Court 1994. Copyright action (Application For Interlocutary Injuction) about pirate Sky cards that Sky lost because they were idiots and did not understand the argument.

Movement of digiboxes between Ireland and Britain is likely to increase bigtime when RTE go on and not the other way!!
mm
same principal as multi region dvd players really-you Cannot do down peoples desires to watch what they want in a free world, no matter what regulations you introduce

chernobyl

sky would be in breach or broadcasting regulations to "push" their subscrition service outside of ireland and england.
just like certain channels are not allowed to promote themselves or be broadcasted by a british broadcaster [in britain] because of the "real" content of the programming.

I think that even in the uk, you can not legally import a decoder box or viewing card for any of these services..pathetic!!

georgekildare

Many thanks for your interesting answer JCC. Excuse me if I pursue this matter further.

You write
“The copyright for each programme or event is licenced on a geographical basis. Thus Sky could theoretically only sell subscriptions in the UK and Ireland having only purchased the rights for those areas. It is not a question of freedom of information since the information in question is not actually free in the first place.
To get the rights for a particular programme (movie or event) you would have to bid against the other purchasers in that area. This is basically what happened with British Satellite Broadcasting and Sky Television. They entered a bidding war for movies for the .ie/.uk region and the price of movies rocketed.
Copyrights and the transmission related rights issues are very complicated topics. Having spent years working with and writing about that kind of stuff, it really is not something you want to get into as it can be mindnumbingly boring except during the court cases and you see Sky getting defeated.”


But my question concerns the (EU) legality of restricting copyright licences to geographical regions defined by countries, given the various treaties restricting monopolies within the European Union. For example, take RTE as soon as it is available by satellite. It is freely available within Ireland for those that pay a licence fee. I am willing to pay for the same article within another part of the EU, but I am prevented from purchasing it.

Why should a TV service be different from a newspaper? For example, if an Irish newspaper pays for the sole copyright of Madonna’s memoirs within Ireland, I can still purchase a subscription to that newspaper from the Netherlands and have it sent here, even though a Dutch newspaper may have purchased the sole copyright for the memoirs within the Netherlands. The same applies to copyrighted books.

I agree that it is a complicated matter and that it is probably very boring indeed. As a non-lawyer I raise it, with the knowledge that I am probably talking rubbish. However, I humbly submit that if it is so complex, it might be worth challenging the legal situation at European level. If such a challenge is definitely not worth while, then it must be worth while starting a pressure group to change the law to take account of 21st century technology. Even if “geographical copyright” is legal, it would be even easy for the distributors to turn off very expensive programs at given times for given markets.

Of course one can purchase gray-market subscriptions, but one should not have to feel as if one is doing something criminal. I feel that it is a basic right as an exptriate living in Europe to be able to watch the news from Ireland and this should be a basic right of all Europeans.

In any case I feel that BSkyB restrictive attitude towards the design of digiboxes and their restriction on manafacturers producing a satellite receiver that can receive BOTH Sky digital/BBC and normal movable dish receiver programmes is worthy of Microsoft’s worst monopolistic practisses and should be treated as such by the EU Commission.

Lennoxschips

You can't really blame Sky/RTE for not officially offering their services in Europe, because if they did so they'd be sued by RTL, Canal+, Setanta and others like them. I'm sure Sky would love to be able to officially offer their services across Europe, it would increase their subscriber base and profits, but it is European Copyright law that stops them from doing it.

It is also possible to pick up digital free to air signals from any other satellite in Europe using a Sky receiver, so you can't really say Sky are using restrictive design on their boxes...

So, don't blame Sky, blame the EU.

georgekildare

I am not blaming Sky for the copyright laws. The same situation applies to satellite services in other countries of Europe. I am questioning whether the copyright laws have been challenged at the level of Europe and if not whether it is worth trying to do this.

I am blaming Sky for monopolistic practises. They have a monopoly of satellite TV in Britain and use this monopoly to insist that the digibox have their specified design. If a Brit wants to watch BBC on a satellite channel, they are required to have a digibox. The digibox has several irritating properties, such as the inability to watch BBC and some of the other channel stations without a complicated series of keystrokes. The whole srtup of the digibox and the inability to choose the channel numbers at which stations occur is clearly geared to benefit Sky. This is similar to the behavior of Microsoft. Microsoft has been condemmed and held accountable for misusing their monopoly position in a similar manner both in the US and Europe. Why not Sky?

7Day Theory

I really do laugh at these sky haters, there almost as common as MS haters today.
Sky have a monopoly because they provide the best, most cost effective service.
if you know how to do a better job, i know a small little satellite retailers know as Gilat who would only be happy to provide you with a couple of birds for a small fee, you will need about 6 sats, and then you can go to pace, panasonic, sony and arrange for the production and distribution of your sky box, but remember to make them sign "shut your mouth" deals as those boxes hold the "keys" to your kingdom, and if their secrets were released then all, would have your tv for free and you get no money.

so when can i expect your tv service as im itching to move from my oh so crap sky digital service...not!

Lennoxschips

I do agree with Georgekildare about not being able to decide in which order you can set your channels. This enables Sky to 'bombard' us with channels that we might not want, much in the way that Microsoft integrated IE into Windows 98.

chernobyl

Originally posted by Lennoxschips
I do agree with Georgekildare about not being able to decide in which order you can set your channels. This enables Sky to 'bombard' us with channels that we might not want, much in the way that Microsoft integrated IE into Windows 98.

If you dont like IE6, then use Opera, and if you dont like particular channels then just simply add your favourite channels to you "favourite" list and flick through the channels with the blue button.
And if you want more contorl over your viewing then get a decoder with a single CAM slot, get a videoguard CAM and away you go.
complete control over the EPG.
getting a videoguard cam may be a tough one, but i have heard of ppl converting Conax CAMS to videoguard as they think VG will be cracked first.(possible BS, but VG has been emulated of the PC already)

Lennoxschips

I've never really understood that. If Sky sold legal videoguard cams it would go a long way to increasing their number of subscribers. Then we could all choose our own hardware, and send off to Sky to get our cards! Wouldn't that be so much easier...

I would agree with the general flow of this thread.
You cannot give out about a monopoly-it's a waste of energy.
If like me you subscribe to the service ( and think it's very good ),you unfortunately have to put up with the issues/pricing untill theres an alternative.

Regarding film rights:

It's not a unique situation within the EU-There are many other regionally based EU accepted monopolies-Fishing quota's and milk quota's to name just two.
The farmers are subsidised by Europe, so we can all eat.
Murdock is subsidised to an extent by stb manufacturers and the likes of Eircom.
Effecient farmers and fishermen make profits,even without subsidies as does Murdock.
The latter makes so much money at the moment,it's only a matter of time before somebody else enters the market-simple economics.
mm

Blade

I've never really understood that. If Sky sold legal videoguard cams it would go a long way to increasing their number of subscribers.

One word .... 'Security'

CAM/Card communication is encrypted, plus the lack of CAM's available around Europe would force pirates to hack both CAM and Card if they were to sell a full Sky pirate solution. It wouldn't affect switch on of original cards however.

jmcc

Originally posted by georgekildare
But my question concerns the (EU) legality of restricting copyright licences to geographical regions defined by countries, given the various treaties restricting monopolies within the European Union. For example, take RTE as soon as it is available by satellite. It is freely available within Ireland for those that pay a licence fee. I am willing to pay for the same article within another part of the EU, but I am prevented from purchasing it.

The monopoly issue is a bit iffy on this one as the rights for individual movies have to be negotiated with various movie companies. It is possible for other companies operating in a geographical market to bid for the same programming.

RTE would not be allowed to transmit its entire schedule (actually one of the reasons that RTE is not so eager to go on satellite could due to the fact that most of its programming is UK or US in origin) unless it was to subscribers based in Ireland. The BBC does not transmit its full service outside of the UK.

Why should a TV service be different from a newspaper?

With a newspaper, you have to go to the shop to purchase it. With the TV service, it is broadcast and so theoretcially any one who can receive it can access it (hence the need for conditional access systems).

However, I humbly submit that if it is so complex, it might be worth challenging the legal situation at European level.

The legislation affecting broadcast copyright is fairly complex and then there is the conditional access legislation that was introduced to reduce piracy. I really don't know if it would be worth it.

In any case I feel that BSkyB restrictive attitude towards the design of digiboxes and their restriction on manafacturers producing a satellite receiver that can receive BOTH Sky digital/BBC and normal movable dish receiver programmes is worthy of Microsoft’s worst monopolistic practisses and should be treated as such by the EU Commission.

Given that the cost of a Sky Digibox is heavily underwritten by Sky, it is not insane to have some restrictions. A parallel example would be Eircell Ready To Go phones. Eircell will not unlock the phones for use on other services until the subsidy has been largely repaid. As for the other channels, most of the English language channels aimed at the UK/Ireland are clustered on the Astra satellites. The market has moved on considerably and satellite receivers are now a common consumer product.

Sky/Murdoch has effectively become the gatekeeper for the English language market. If you want to launch a channel, then using the Sky service is about the only option. Microsoft has a lot to learn from Sky/Murdoch.

Regards...jmcc

georgekildare

Thanks JCC for your interesting comments.

The monopoly issue is a bit iffy on this one as the rights for individual movies have to be negotiated with various movie companies. It is possible for other companies operating in a geographical market to bid for the same programming.

RTE would not be allowed to transmit its entire schedule (actually one of the reasons that RTE is not so eager to go on satellite could due to the fact that most of its programming is UK or US in origin) unless it was to subscribers based in Ireland. The BBC does not transmit its full service outside of the UK.

But independent of the trans-European legal issues, surely it is possible to just turn off copyrighted material to some geographical areas when the situation arises (i.e. when the same programme is being broadcast by a copyright holder in the relevant geographical region? Programmes such as news and current affairs could easily be transmitted widely without infringing copyright.

With a newspaper, you have to go to the shop to purchase it. With the TV service, it is broadcast and so theoretcially any one who can receive it can access it (hence the need for conditional access systems).

I believe that this comment "hits the nail on the head. The TV programs are NOT freely available, they must be paid for (via Sky). I am willing to pay for them, just as with a newspaper, but Sky refuses to take my money. A newspaper has exactly the same problem of copyright stories as the TV programs, but I can buy it across national boundaries.

There really seems to be an inconsistency here that would be worth challenging in the European courts. I should have the same right to purchase an article in the Netherlands as in Ireland or the UK. To me this right should transend geographical copyright
laws.
However, until the police come to arrest me, I shall continue my criminal practises and preserve my anonymity!!

I believe that this comment "hits the nail on the head. The TV programs are NOT freely available, they must be paid for (via Sky). I am willing to pay for them, just as with a newspaper, but Sky refuses to take my money. A newspaper has exactly the same problem of copyright stories as the TV programs, but I can buy it across national boundaries.

Mean old Sky want you watching on their channels, not on somebody elses-they are a monopoly in all but name and I suppose it understandable, that they behave like they do.
On another thread in this section: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=331088#post331088

you can read that Sky ones audience share in the UK last year was 1.7%!!! so they've a long way to go! No wonder they are not in a hurry to add channels that will do more than that miserable result-Especially when we are willing to pay for them-as the more money going that route , the less there is for Sky's premium channels.

The only answer to the Evil of Monopoly is Competition.
mm

There really seems to be an inconsistency here that would be worth challenging in the European courts. I should have the same right to purchase an article in the Netherlands as in Ireland or the UK. To me this right should transend geographical copyright

Agreed-But you will probably discover, the owner of that copyright,has the law protecting that inconsistency-no harm in finding out though.
I find the whole system as it applies to programme rights very unfair.
It is of course designed to maximise revenue for the copyright owner-That is Capitalism-I'm afraid:(
However personally,thats where my quarrel with the copyright laws end.
If I patented a new idea/invention,I would be glad of the present set up to make the most money I could.

The important difference imho here regarding programme rights, is that,they should be made available universally, in some way to those willing to pay for them on a pan European basis.
But the owners of those rights believe they get more by auctioning them.
But why should that restrict them to a geographical area???
more money of course.
mm