What does this mean tv in general? BBC iPlayer doesn't allow me to watch certain programmes due to territorial rights, surely that means that I should be able to watch them now? Same goes for things like The Daily Show or Colbert Report.
Quote from: Ger Regan on October 04, 2011, 10:23:37 AMWhat does this mean tv in general? BBC iPlayer doesn't allow me to watch certain programmes due to territorial rights, surely that means that I should be able to watch them now? Same goes for things like The Daily Show or Colbert Report.I think that's an artistic rights issue. It's the same for me here (obviously!). The judge in this case said that a football match didn't count as intellectual property. I'd love to see everything available worldwide (for a fee, of course). It's moving that way! Hooray!
Quote from: German James on October 04, 2011, 11:40:44 AMQuote from: Ger Regan on October 04, 2011, 10:23:37 AMWhat does this mean tv in general? BBC iPlayer doesn't allow me to watch certain programmes due to territorial rights, surely that means that I should be able to watch them now? Same goes for things like The Daily Show or Colbert Report.I think that's an artistic rights issue. It's the same for me here (obviously!). The judge in this case said that a football match didn't count as intellectual property. I'd love to see everything available worldwide (for a fee, of course). It's moving that way! Hooray!Correct - basically the judge said Sky can't 'copyright' a football match and claim the same protection as the creators of, for example, The Daily Show. He did however say that they could copyright the video intros, music etc. So if the Sky intro was part of the foreign programme, then they wouldn't be allowed to show THAT in the UK.
Quote from: itbrvilla on October 04, 2011, 10:34:39 AMQuote from: PeterWithe on October 04, 2011, 10:32:15 AMQuote from: Nev on October 04, 2011, 07:22:36 AMReducing the power of Sky can only have a long term positive effect on football in this country.True, although I'm not sure that allowing 3.00 games to be shown on TV the way forward, I'm sure that the amount of pubs showing Villa games live is having a big impact on the gates.Perhaps they should reduce the price?I agree, although unless all clubs do it we're just going to fall further behind.
Quote from: PeterWithe on October 04, 2011, 10:32:15 AMQuote from: Nev on October 04, 2011, 07:22:36 AMReducing the power of Sky can only have a long term positive effect on football in this country.True, although I'm not sure that allowing 3.00 games to be shown on TV the way forward, I'm sure that the amount of pubs showing Villa games live is having a big impact on the gates.Perhaps they should reduce the price?
Quote from: Nev on October 04, 2011, 07:22:36 AMReducing the power of Sky can only have a long term positive effect on football in this country.True, although I'm not sure that allowing 3.00 games to be shown on TV the way forward, I'm sure that the amount of pubs showing Villa games live is having a big impact on the gates.
Reducing the power of Sky can only have a long term positive effect on football in this country.
So, the basics are that Sky sell these rights overseas, but the EU freedom of trade laws mean that they can't prevent them being sold back into the UK?I simply can't see them not finding a way around that!!
My understanding is it's now fine for 'individuals' to buy cards from foreign TV stations but not pubs. The landlady effectively lost her right to broadcast in her pub using the Greek card.
Quote from: The Sound of Villadelphia on October 04, 2011, 12:21:17 PMMy understanding is it's now fine for 'individuals' to buy cards from foreign TV stations but not pubs. The landlady effectively lost her right to broadcast in her pub using the Greek card.She is waiting for the High Court to endorse the ruling before reinstating her decoder.
There was one other loser on Tuesday: Karen Murphy, the Portsmouth publican who started the case. Tired of the high prices Sky charges pubs and clubs, she went off and bought the original Greek satellite decoder card that caused all the trouble in the first place.Unfortunately, the court held that pubs – who are in effect trying to profit from getting cheaper foreign decoder cards – can't benefit. That's because she was breaching the copyright of the Premier League, not by showing live coverage of the football match itself, but by broadcasting the Premier League's logo or anthem without permission.The sanguine Premier League is already noting that it will be easy to stop publicans using its footage without permission by ensuring that its logo is on screen all the time, or its theme music played every time a replay is aired.
Quote from: paulcomben on October 04, 2011, 10:13:51 AMA very interesting ruling that completely screws up the business model for Sky & ESPN & FAPL.Not quite the Premier League as they are selling "the product" to the foreign TV companies that are being subscribed to in this/these case/s.
A very interesting ruling that completely screws up the business model for Sky & ESPN & FAPL.