Clampdown on TV 'Dodgy Boxes'

In reality what is happening the premier league are coming up with their own streaming service with reports that it will be close to to 10 euro a month and more for 4k. They know Sky can’t win.

Where are you getting the €10 a month from?

There is no way that if the EPL took it in house they could deliver the same amount of live games plus everything else for €10 a month and still generate the same revenue they currently do from the rights sales.

Is it enough though? I don't believe it has been legally tested at this point and definitely not made it's way up the appeals process.

It would be interesting to see what evidence would be required for a prosecution of an end user in this country. I doubt very much payment to a provider would cut it on its own. Sky and the likes may be implying that it would but as I said it would be interesting.

I do believe based on the law, for an end user to be found guilty proof of intent and proof of actual use of the service would be required.

One word: proof.

What would Sky do without its FUD buddies? Sky has always tried to get customer details in cases against resellers. This is just one more angle and it will encourage dodgybox users to pay in cash or crypto currencies. It will also make resellers more careful.

As for the rights issues, the model has been broken for decades and rights holders make more money from a fragmented market than they would do from a single market. And over that time, the way that people watch programming has changed.

Did you have legal permission to use that image in your post above?

Why wouldn't Revolut at least attempt to defend this action? It is in their interests to be seen to hold spurious requests for customers transaction to the highest legal requirement.

The rights holders make enough profit to leave the criminal enterprises in the shade. But at the same time you'd wonder how long they can continue to hand over billions to the premier league and other similar organisations, which themselves are owned/back by just as morally questionable organisations ....

In interesting hypothetical question. As @dxhound2005 says it is a civil matter.

Sky's rights are a contractural matter between themselves and the Premier League.

Assuming the Turkish channel has negotiated similar contractual rights with the Premier League within it's geographical area.

The streaming service has not negotiated broadcasting / distribution rights with anyone.

The end user's location may not even be known if they access a streaming service through a VPN.

Whose contractual rights are being infringed and by whom.

If the end user has watched redistributed Sky content (rather than redistributed Turkish channel conntent) within the area Sky has broadcast rights, and if (a big if) can be proven to have done so what damages would be reasonable.

I can currently get a 31 day rolling subscription to Sky (including sports+) for €43 - so if an end user, in the unlikely event Sky could prove they had consumed Sky content without paying Sky, offered €43 or more in settlement of civil damages in advance of legal action, would Sky even be likely to be awarded legal costs?

There is a tricky issue with rights. The rights holder in Turkey may not have the rights for Ireland while Sky may have the rights for Ireland. Officially, the Turkish rights holder may not be able to sell subscriptions outside its copyright region. The operator of the service in Turkey may be using an official subscription with Turkish subscription details though the subscription is being used in a manner that is not allowed by the subscription agreement. The Irish subscriber to a dodgybox service may have no contractual agreement with Sky.Sky is potentially losing subscriptions to dodgybox competitors. The cost of programming to Sky may increase if the rights holders consider that Sky cannot protect their intellectual property rights.

With Pay TV via satellite, there is always going to be a number of subscriptions from outside a broadcaster's copyright region. This is called Grey Market piracy. The dodgybox networks used the Internet and that compeletely changed the model for piracy on Pay TV. The problem for Sky and other broadcasters is that the legislation is aimed at the previous piracy model. Apart from the odd case against resellers, the best it can do is to use FUD to deter people from using dodgyboxes.

If the claim of 400K+ households in Ireland using dodgyboxes is to be believed — and there has been no actual data to support that claim or the "billions" of visits to pirate websites — then Sky has completely lost control over its market. If its FUD buddies are to be believed, the number of Sky subscriptions should be close to zero because of dodyboxes. Instead, there is wall to wall coverage of the customer details of 300 subscribers to one reseller being disclosed. That is 300 out of a claimed 400,000 The reality is that most Sky subscribers will continue to subscribe. There is a percentage of churn each year where subscribers stop subsubscribing or downgrade their subscriptions. There are two main drivers for that. The first is financial. People may not want to pay the annual price hike. The second is changes in viewing habits with kids growing up and moving out. The nuances of Pay TV and Conditional Access Systems are lost on journalists in the non-specialist media. It is easier for Sky or FACT to send them a press release which they will recycle without having the knowledge to ask any difficult questions.

I think the PL will bring in something similar to NFL Game Pass. This is the best way to tackle the illegal streamers.