Clampdown on TV 'Dodgy Boxes'

You know the arguement 'if you have had the ability to do something, so you did it' doesn't hold up in court right?

Am aware of the difference between civil and criminal liability. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt.

That arguement still doesn't fly even in civil court. Just because someone had the ability to do something does not mean they did it.

In that case all accused in civil court would be found guilty.

IPTV boxes have netflix, amazon, Youtube and a range of other apps. Its not just for illegal streaming. Even a revolut payment is not enough (sending money to a friend, one off expense and so on).

The bar is lower then reasonable doubt but its not so low that if there is a small chance it happened then the accused is found guilty.

Your nonsense of 'its up to you to prove you didn't' is exactly that, just nonsense. Do Sky want the invidual data packets over the course of the period as proof? That will hardly happen now.

it would be up to you prove you never watched a Sky channel

I seriously doubt that to be honest. Have you anything, other than a "hunch" that this is the case?

I can't see any lawyer worth their salt agreeing with any notion that the prosecution had, that would put the defendant in the unenviable position of having to prove a negative.

Not having it.

their business model has become even more aggressive over time, so a major backlash was always on the cards, so here it is!

So you go into court and sky say judge we have this known IPTV who offered our channels. We have proof that these people paid him from the IPTV person accounts.

We have proof they broke copyright law be having this device.

You all think the judge is going to say sorry Sky you didn't prove they watched your channels but we will let them away scot free with breaking copyright law.

Pub subs are eye wateringly expensive, so even a Greek pub sub would exceed a private sub cost, and it might not decrypt what you wanted, for example, RTE.

According to the BBC Karen Murphy was paying around £800 for the Greek sub compared to an estimated £7,000 for a UK one.

Thousands of pubs in the UK pay Sky subscriptions in the thousands of pounds every year because they think it's worth it.

£800 is a drop in the ocean compared to £7,000.

So why wasn't there a rush from pubs in the UK to get Greek subs in 2011 ?

The reason I have read, (and as I said I don't fully understand it) is that the EPL logo and the music they play before a game is copyright and only Sky/TNT can use that in the UK and in the case of Ireland Premier Sports also. I think it's something like that.

So how does this relate to illegal streaming in 2026 and potential court cases ?

Is it the same that the logo and music are copyright and the only way to access them in Ireland are via Sky/TNT/Premier Sports, so watching it on STAN or NBC or whatever doesn't matter, that logo is there, you are in Ireland, you are in breech of copyright, and you also bought sent money to an illegal dodgy box seller and ignored a cease and disest letter.

Can someone explain why there wasn't a rush to Greek boxes by pubs in the UK after the Murphy case?

I have a car that has the potential to go 180kph in a 30kph zone.

Unless I’m caught actually driving this fast in a 30kph zone I can’t be prosecuted. The means to do something is not proof you did it.

The crime would be stealing the sandwich from the shop. The courts wouldn't care in the slightest what you did with it afterwards, eat it, throw it in a bin, or feed it to a seagull.

This is getting silly now

Your analogy is literally arse backwards. The crime was stealing the sandwich, not eating it.

By paying for the service they haven't committed a crime, we know this because if it was a crime sky would be going after them criminally which they aren't. The crime in this case is committed when the provider hosts the streams which is easy to prove or the customer watches the service which cannot be proven they have done.

Its a civil court case.

Owning a copyright defeating device is a crime but Sky obviously feel the lower threshold of the civil court is the best way.

with a post like this it’s obvious you are posting in bad faith.

Could either or both of you define exactly what a copyright/protection defeating device looks like please?

software is included.