Clampdown on TV 'Dodgy Boxes'

Probably a very costly exercise to go after end users. It's easier to go after some lad distributing.

I'd tell them just to use a web browser and adblocker, to be fair. Crooks get little to nothing that way. :pac:

And they could get their cheap TV of legitimate operators if their execs and shareholders were willing to maybe only have the one Rolls. But, no. It is of course the people on an ordinary wage who are the greedy bstards.

It doesn't matter. All sky have to do have is prove that you were watching illegal TV and that it is more likely than not you could have watched sky at some point. What's your defence going to be? I swear judge I only used it to watch other illegal things but not Sky. You more than likely not going to be represented, just have a finding against you granted.

In civil cases, the standard of proof required for a finding of liability (sometimes referred to in a non-criminal context as a "judgment against" or "finding against" a defendant) is the balance of probabilities. This means the plaintiff must prove it is more likely than not (more than 50% probability) that their claim is true.

In your opinion, what kind of damages would Sky be seeking from a dodgybox end-user on the basis that they may have watched Sky?

May have been roulette or some slot machine bets.

You can rack them up pretty quickly.

It could be euro 1, but it is scare tactic, if people think they may be in trouble legally it might stop people using illegal IPTV.

I well aware Sky visit pubs. Your missing my point so your wound up trying to prove I'm wrong.

I'll spell it out for you, firstly as it is more than likely be a civil case the DPP will not be involved, which is why I posted the standard of proof for a civil case.

If you say in court of law that you watch illegal TV and break the law but not Sky channels, it is hardly a good look in court. I didn't steal these particular items but I did steal other things.

But I'll agree with you that it's scaremongering but if they manage to scare even the non tech savvy people off, they will be winning. I am talking but the idiot reseller who was not very subtle and the even more daft members of the public who paid via revolut.

I don't think the average Joe Soap will be moving to pay via crypto.

I am done commenting for a while, lets see how this case plays out.

WTF.

Please get in touch by emailing answers@thejournal.ie and telling us about your experience for a future article.

Please include your name, age and county, but we’ll replace all names for anonymity.

I've had emails from Nigerian kings that gave me more confidence in submitting personal information.

It is funny. Back in the day, there was a campaign by cable companies that offered a free tee-shirt to those calling an on-screen number. Only those using hacked devices saw the message. This isn't quite on that level and seems to be a naive attempt to get sources and quotes for a future article.

Believe it or not, something like that happened in the 1990s in the Dublin High Court when Sky decided to take on a pirate over an injunction against pirate smartcards. A crucial claim made by Sky's legal team in court was simply incorrect. The injunction wasn't granted and Ireland became, for a while, a major player in pirate smartcards that worked on Sky.

Despite all the waffle from press release churnalism, there really are problems with going after end-users. The first is the cost. The second is the legislation. The third is the possibility of a f*ckup somewhere along the line. Targeting sellers and distributors is the most effective way of dealing with the problem because it can take out the service for multiple end-users rather than just one. FUD press releases will always be recycled by the media. Even with civil law cases, there are requirements for evidence and some proof. Though they can be different to criminal law cases, costs are a major issue because without "favourable" legislation, there is always an element of risk for the broadcasters.It is more effective to issue some FUD press releases knowing that they will will be recycled almost verbatim. The problem is that all this propaganda from Sky may be counter-productive and increase dodgybox use.

They concentrate on local sellers because they are within the jurisdiction.

https://www.thejournal.ie/dodgy-boxes-readers-stories-6998314-Mar2026/?utm_source=thejournal&utm_content=top-stories

The responses to the recent journal call-out is as expected. My 3 favourite ones

The skeptic

Brian simply responded: “Nice try Sky…”

The more-money-than-sense man

Conor in Killarney wrote: “No experience to tell, I use the real deal – monthly payments and a clear conscience.”

The sensible one

Chloe (30), from Dublin, explained that her household has used a dodgy box for the last few years…Her main justification for using the dodgy box was that she and her partner were saving to buy a house. 

*Some names have been changed.

At least the Journal tried to get both sides of the argument rather than unquestioningly recycling FUD like other publications. The responses are not surprising.

If the Indo's claim of 400K households using dodgyboxes is credible, then that is a large number of votes. If this goes political, it could result in the termination of a lot of political careers.