Swansea away 5.2.21 NOT on Ifollow

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I'm on my kindle watching the football so I can't make the link live but can type it: 

www.inbrief.co.uk/football law

The very last paragraph sums it all up

[hogesar 9,618]

11 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

For goodness sake, another one.

The Norfolk one was for subscribers. So a fee was involved and a membership. That implies premeditation. Stumbling as it is known, although in reality is akin to splitting hairs, is logging onto the internet, typing in a name, such as the Streamable one which started this off today, and if it provides a link to a match, then you are not, at the moment, watching the match illegally.

And why is it nonsense?

FACT CEO Kieron Sharp commented: “The message is very clear: the only legal way of watching these fights is through the official provider. If you are watching these boxing matches by any other means; via a stream on social media or a pirate site this is illegal.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

For goodness sake, another one.

The Norfolk one was for subscribers. So a fee was involved and a membership. That implies premeditation. Stumbling as it is known, although in reality is akin to splitting hairs, is logging onto the internet, typing in a name, such as the Streamable one which started this off today, and if it provides a link to a match, then you are not, at the moment, watching the match illegally.

And why is it nonsense?

 

[TIL 1010 4,722]

2 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

 

 The Norfolk Constabulary shut down an outfit that was streaming. It could only prosecute those who had subscribed to the site

Let me try again........ a source or a link to that claim please.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

FACT CEO Kieron Sharp commented: “The message is very clear: the only legal way of watching these fights is through the official provider. If you are watching these boxing matches by any other means; via a stream on social media or a pirate site this is illegal.

Type in the link and read it clearly especially the last paragraph.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

Let me try again........ a source or a link to that claim please.

OK Clouseau. So you think I'm lying?

Type in

www.standard.co.uk/tech/illegal-streaming

So do your research before spouting off you two that it is illegal.

For the last feckin time, only if you subscribe is it illegal

The European Courts have deemed it so. Most legal opinion supports that.

The US is trying to bring in an act that makes it all illegal. When that happens, it is expected most ISP and platforms will conform.

In fact I have just read that Congress passed the act as part of an eclectic Covid act. It will make it a felony to provide but will decriminalise it for users.

But also type in

www.15nbs.com/i-wouldnt-steal-a-car-but-is-illegal-streaming-really-a-crime

By the way, do the boys at Bethel Street sell hooky booze and fags like they did in the 70s?

[ncfcstar 287]

On 05/02/2021 at 19:24, keelansgrandad said:

It’s because they are at home and their season ticket holders get all their home games free, just like we do.

That was posted on Tuesday before the Millwall game in response to a question of why it wasn't free to season ticket holders against the Lions.

Its why some posters haven't referred to it. Some, not all, are labelling us with disdain while watching it for free.

•  
•  
• Quote

 

 

No it's not true.

I'm getting them for 'free' because the club still have the money that was supposed to be used for a season ticket this season.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

10 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

OK Clouseau. So you think I'm lying?

Type in

www.standard.co.uk/tech/illegal-streaming

So do your research before spouting off you two that it is illegal.

For the last feckin time, only if you subscribe is it illegal

The European Courts have deemed it so. Most legal opinion supports that.

The US is trying to bring in an act that makes it all illegal. When that happens, it is expected most ISP and platforms will conform.

In fact I have just read that Congress passed the act as part of an eclectic Covid act. It will make it a felony to provide but will decriminalise it for users.

But also type in

www.15nbs.com/i-wouldnt-steal-a-car-but-is-illegal-streaming-really-a-crime

By the way, do the boys at Bethel Street sell hooky booze and fags like they did in the 70s?

A man was arrested but no mention there of prosecution or the site being shut down and a few e-mails banged around to subscribers. I also note that it was not specific to Norfolk Constabulary which was your claim nor does it say where this all took place.

By the way i was one of over 300 serving at Bethel Street back in the seventies so does that wild accusation include me because you are pushing the boundaries there ?

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by TIL 1010

[hogesar 9,618]

10 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Type in the link and read it clearly especially the last paragraph.

The link you sent is not an official source and is also contradicting itself. It cites an individual case in the European court of justice which isn't even the most relevant example.

It also, despite citing that case, only says it is unlikely for a case to be pursued against an individual watching illegal streams.

And despite that, rather than rely on a 3rd party website with generic legal advice why not take advantage of the fact I gave you a direct quote from the CEO of FACT, who are this countries leading intellectual property protection organisation, specialising in brand protection, anti-piracy and anti-counterfeiting services, working with the authorities in THIS country.

On top of that, the website you've used as a source explicitely says not to trust their own content as valid legal advice...

So yes, it is still illegal.

Again, some ACTUAL links for those who need clarification:

https://crimestoppers-uk.org/keeping-safe/online-safety/streaming-online-know-the-risks

Quote

• Streaming pirated films, TV programmes and sport is a crime

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/premier-league-illegal-streaming-free-streams-criminal-malware-a9572811.html#:~:text=Watch more&text=“Not only is it illegal,is doing to your device.

Quote

“Not only is it illegal to stream matches without paying for them, but it's also unreliable and risky. You never know what malware is in the stream you are using and what damage it is doing to your device.

https://crimestoppers-uk.org/keeping-safe/online-safety/streaming-online-know-the-risks#:~:text=In short%2C if you are,then you are streaming illegally.

Quote

In short, if you are streaming and watching - for free - films, TV shows or sport that should be paid for (or that are not legally available in the UK), then you are streaming illegally.

https://www.fact-uk.org.uk/fact-warning-ahead-of-the-return-of-pay-per-view-boxing/

Quote

FACT CEO Kieron Sharp commented: “The message is very clear: the only legal way of watching these fights is through the official provider. If you are watching these boxing matches by any other means; via a stream on social media or a pirate site this is illegal.

https://www.fact-uk.org.uk/pipcu-pulls-no-punches-when-warning-about-illegal-streaming/

Quote

Streaming or watching unauthorised content without the right permissions or subscriptions is no longer a ‘grey area’. It is illegal to watch a stream you know you should be paying for, whether that is through the internet or using a set top box.

Detective Chief Inspector Nick Court, head of the City of London Police’s Intellectual Property Crime Unit said:

“The Anthony Joshua v Andy Ruiz Jnr fight is a huge event in the sporting calendar, but don’t let your eagerness to tune in make you commit a crime.

“Not only is it illegal, but it’s also unreliable and risky. You never know when a site is likely to be shut down. It could be at a crucial point in the fight- in fact, enforcement agencies and companies will aim to do just that in an attempt to dissuade people from using illegal sites in the future.

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by hogesar
Added multitude of reliable sources and quotes.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

35 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

A man was arrested but no mention there of prosecution or the site being shut down and a few e-mails banged around to subscribers. I also note that it was not specific to Norfolk Constabulary which was your claim nor does it say where this all took place.

By the way i was one of over 300 serving at Bethel Street back in the seventies so does that wild accusation include me because you are pushing the boundaries there ?

 

Not at all. I didn't say you and I won't mention any names but I just thought I would use that point while the Spanish Inquisition is going on with points being made that aren't accurate and not where no theft is involved.

You can't become Cardinal Richeleu about streams when some of your colleagues, there to uphold the law, took advantage shall we say.

I think its quite explicit what happened with the N&S unit. They arrested a man for, yes, illegally supplying streams for subscribers who, yes, because they pre meditated payment which made it illegal.

Letters were sent to the subscribers warning them on this occasion.

In fact they were paying for an IPTV. I had one myself a few years back but got rid of it. And I know of many people down here in Cornwall who subscribe to one. They are taking a risk because it is illegal.

22 minutes ago, hogesar said:

The link you sent is not an official source and is also contradicting itself. It cites an individual case in the European court of justice which isn't even the most relevant example.

It also, despite citing that case, only says it is unlikely for a case to be pursued against an individual watching illegal streams.

And despite that, rather than rely on a 3rd party website with generic legal advice why not take advantage of the fact I gave you a direct quote from the CEO of FACT, who are this countries leading intellectual property protection organisation, specialising in brand protection, anti-piracy and anti-counterfeiting services, working with the authorities in THIS country.

So yes, it is still illegal.

You will never accept you are wrong so I give up. 

You are notorious for telling us who watch City play crap that we are pant wetters and cry babies and blame the pitch, ref, weather. You need to grow up.

Do you think the majority of us are stupid and can't pick out the obvious ones on this site? 

Edited February 8, 2021 by keelansgrandad

[nutty nigel 7,509]

10 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

 

By the way, do the boys at Bethel Street sell hooky booze and fags like they did in the 70s?

I can't recall that but I do remember back in the 70s when Bethel Street was having the facilities upgraded all the toilets went missing overnight. The next morning when asked if they were close to making an arrest the police spokesman said they had nothing to go on...

[hogesar 9,618]

20 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

 

You will never accept you are wrong so I give up. 

You are notorious for telling us who watch City play crap that we are pant wetters and cry babies and blame the pitch, ref, weather. You need to grow up.

Do you think the majority of us are stupid and can't pick out the obvious ones on this site? 

I'm not going to accept i'm wrong when i'm not strangely enough, and have far more reliable evidence and sources than you to back it up. You have a site which itself admits not to treat their own information as valid legal advice.

You've also ignored all my sources, conveniently.

As for trying to get personal, I like the attempt. It's a bit low and pathetic but then again you're the one trying to comment on a legal standpoint you have clearly zero knowledge on, and don't know where to back down. You done the same somewhere else recently where everyone pointed out you were wrong but you refused to accept it, and then have the ego to tell me I can't accept I'm wrong.

I think everyone can see on this thread who's genuinely trying to help people with actual, factual advice and who's trying to excuse the fact they're going out of the way to illegally stream and reduce the clubs income streams they claim to support.

[BTTE21 0]

Thats all well and good Hogesar but i do specifically remember you giving Morty a large helping hand on getting set up with streaming just a few years ago. Likewise there are posters on this thread like KingCanary who were most likely watching illegal streams less than one year ago on the Wolves match thread.

And by the way before anyone asks yes this is a second account to not have my main profile pursued by those keen to hold a grudge.

[hogesar 9,618]

10 minutes ago, BTTE21 said:

Thats all well and good Hogesar but i do specifically remember you giving Morty a large helping hand on getting set up with streaming just a few years ago. Likewise there are posters on this thread like KingCanary who were most likely watching illegal streams less than one year ago on the Wolves match thread.

And by the way before anyone asks yes this is a second account to not have my main profile pursued by those keen to hold a grudge.

Where have I denied that? I'm not arguing what I have and haven't done in the past.

My main gripe, as I've stated numerous times (which you'd like to think you'd have picked up on with your fantastic knowledge of posters history) on this thread alone is the fact that this is a difficult time for Football Clubs and we currently have a service provided which allows us to watch the matches whilst simulatenously financially helping the club. 

My second gripe is people mis-representing the law and causing problems potentially for other posters who might take KG's words as gospel when they're actually wrong.

Also, you didn't need to make a new account to say it TvB.

Edited February 8, 2021 by hogesar

[Midlands Yellow 3,939]

17 minutes ago, BTTE21 said:

Thats all well and good Hogesar but i do specifically remember you giving Morty a large helping hand on getting set up with streaming just a few years ago. Likewise there are posters on this thread like KingCanary who were most likely watching illegal streams less than one year ago on the Wolves match thread.

And by the way before anyone asks yes this is a second account to not have my main profile pursued by those keen to hold a grudge.

That’s interesting, could you find it? 

[Mello Yello 2,281]

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

36 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I'm not going to accept i'm wrong when i'm not strangely enough, and have far more reliable evidence and sources than you to back it up. You have a site which itself admits not to treat their own information as valid legal advice.

You've also ignored all my sources, conveniently.

As for trying to get personal, I like the attempt. It's a bit low and pathetic but then again you're the one trying to comment on a legal standpoint you have clearly zero knowledge on, and don't know where to back down. You done the same somewhere else recently where everyone pointed out you were wrong but you refused to accept it, and then have the ego to tell me I can't accept I'm wrong.

I think everyone can see on this thread who's genuinely trying to help people with actual, factual advice and who's trying to excuse the fact they're going out of the way to illegally stream and reduce the clubs income streams they claim to support.

I have done thorough research you fool. Every legal opinion has said that people who casually look at a football thread on a stream are doing nothing illegal. But obviously you know better than lawyers. You know what they call people like that. Incorrigible.

You ain't bullying me with your words. You are such a child and never been wrong. 

[hogesar 9,618]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I have done thorough research you fool. Every legal opinion has said that people who casually look at a football thread on a stream are doing nothing illegal. But obviously you know better than lawyers. You know what they call people like that. Incorrigible.

You ain't bullying me with your words. You are such a child and never been wrong. 

So what about all the links i've cited from reliable UK sources including organisations that deal with this on a day-to-day basis?

For someone dishing out the childish remarks you're doing an incredibly good job of looking like a spoilt baby who's just had his favourite lollipop taken away from him...

[Midlands Yellow 3,939]

And that’s lunch. Please reconvene at 12.40rs for the afternoon session of hypocrites anonymous. 

[Midlands Yellow 3,939]

The players are making their way back to the keyboards and this could be and should be a fascinating period of play. 

Who’s going to take the initiative in what’s been a keenly fought contest so far? This encounter has all the key ingredients to go the full five days. All results possible but the draw remains a hot favourite on the exchanges. 

The Prosecutors are ready to type with team team Stream itching to reply, play. 


 

 

[Greavsy 2,412]

Poised with interest in greavsy towers.....

Just wonder if this would have been better on pay per view.......

[TIL 1010 4,722]

The resident PinkUn authority on these matters has been conspicuous by his absence on 6 pages. 😜

[Midlands Yellow 3,939]

1 minute ago, TIL 1010 said:

The resident PinkUn authority on these matters has been conspicuous by his absence on 6 pages. 😜

Don’t underestimate Team Stream. They have supporters from all walks of life. 

[Greavsy 2,412]

3 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

The resident PinkUn authority on these matters has been conspicuous by his absence on 6 pages. 😜

Thats harsh Tilly, he has reacted to one post! 

[Bill 1,788]

25 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

The resident PinkUn authority on these matters has been conspicuous by his absence on 6 pages. 😜

I know how they feel

 

[TIL 1010 4,722]

49 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Thats harsh Tilly, he has reacted to one post! 

Looks like he has stepped up from being a lurker on this thread now Greavsy.

Edited February 8, 2021 by TIL 1010

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

So what about all the links i've cited from reliable UK sources including organisations that deal with this on a day-to-day basis?

For someone dishing out the childish remarks you're doing an incredibly good job of looking like a spoilt baby who's just had his favourite lollipop taken away from him...

Because your links deal with SUBSCRIBERS. Especially those to IPTVs.

When we click on a stream at 2.55pm on a Saturday, we are  known as Stumblers. In other words, the law accepts that there is a degree of unintentional or accidental browsing. We all know that of course we know what we are doing. Just like you, I have a degree of hypocrisy. But I am not considered to be doing anything illegal.

Are you committing a crime if you watch TV shows or films through ‘illegal’ streams or download copyrighted music or films from dodgy torrenting sites? You’ve probably seen the anti-piracy advert: “You wouldn’t steal a car… you wouldn’t steal a movie. Downloading pirated films is stealing. Stealing is against the law. Piracy. It’s a crime.” But is that, strictly speaking, true?

 

Is it theft?

Despite what that famous advert suggested: copyright ‘theft’ is not theft. Theft is when someone “dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it” – or put simply: takes (not borrows) something that belongs to another person, dishonestly.

A case from 1985 (R v Lloyd [1985] 3 WLR 30) ruled that even the most obvious copyright ‘theft’ was not, within the terms of the law of England and Wales, theft. The Defendants were a group of film ‘pirates’ and a cinema projectionist, would lend them the film reels they needed to copy.  The Court of Appeal found that as they were only borrowing the films for a short period of time, then returning them to the cinema, there was no ‘intention to permanently deprive’. Even if theoretically the ‘film’ itself (rather than just the reel) had been taken for others to use, and even though the film company’s ‘commercial interests were grossly and adversely affected’, as there was no permanent ‘taking’ there was no theft.

As for handling, if copyrighted films can’t be ‘stolen’ in the first place, then there is no prospect at all of you as the consumer end-user being convicted of handling stolen goods.

 

Is it fraud?

The most common form of fraud is defined as making a ‘false representation’ (telling a lie) with the intention of making a gain for yourself or another or causing another a loss. A ‘gain’ is not necessarily a monetary gain. As stated above, copyright has been specifically defined as a form of property. So access to a film is probably a ‘gain’. However, in my opinion a prosecution of the end user would fail because there is no ‘false representation’: it is possible to obtain streams by searching for them on the internet without ever claiming you have a legal right to watch them.

The alternative offence of obtaining services dishonestly (s11 Fraud Act) only applies where payment would have been required by the provider. In the examples above, ‘illegal’ streaming sites do not charge visitors to watch their films etc and so there is no deception by not paying.

 

So if copyright infringement a crime at all?

The latest law dealing with ‘piracy’ is from 1988 (Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988) but has been updated over time since then to reflect modern technology.  It sets out a wide definition of ‘copyright infringement’ which would surely include anything we might think of as ‘illegal’ streaming (although this is tempered by ‘fair-use’ exceptions). But although copyright infringement is a civil wrong, it is not necessarily a criminal one. This is an important difference because it means that simply infringing copyright would not lead to a prosecution, imprisonment or a criminal record, and would be punished by a financial penalty only.

However, the Act does create some specific criminal copyright infringement offences (in s107), which each have a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment! These deal with ‘commercial’ copyright infringement. If Mr Lloyd (the projectionist from the 1985 case above) was around today he would be guilty of an offence under this Act. ‘Commercial’ doesn’t just mean running a piracy business for money – for example, in a case in 2011 (R v Nimley [2010] EWCA Crim 2752), a young man who videoed films on his phone in the cinema was right to plead guilty to ‘distributing’ those video recordings onto the web, unpaid, for ‘kudos’ amongst his friends and received a community order on appeal. But it is right to say that none of these offences relate to using or downloading streams for personal use. 

So overall, it seems that the end user, downloader or recipient of a stream or a torrent is not committing a criminal offence (but could be sued in the civil courts)! Also note that some things that might seem similar, like using someone else’s Netflix account or streaming a live TV broadcast without paying are an entirely different matter and would may well be a criminal offence.

 

Oliver Kavanagh

 

 

[hogesar 9,618]

5 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Because your links deal with SUBSCRIBERS. Especially those to IPTVs.

 

No, they don't. Please re-visit them. There is no direct mention of subscribers at all, simply 'knowingly' watching an illegal stream is, shockingly, illegal. 

What is essentially the 'ignorance' plea of 'stumbling' would likely mean if the police did want to prosecute you would likely only get a warning, but if you were to be caught again - it is still against the law.

Equally, your ISP's data of your browsing history identifying multiple stream watching could be used as evidence that your ignorance plea is false.

[king canary 7,580]

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

Where have I denied that? I'm not arguing what I have and haven't done in the past.

My main gripe, as I've stated numerous times (which you'd like to think you'd have picked up on with your fantastic knowledge of posters history) on this thread alone is the fact that this is a difficult time for Football Clubs and we currently have a service provided which allows us to watch the matches whilst simulatenously financially helping the club. 

My second gripe is people mis-representing the law and causing problems potentially for other posters who might take KG's words as gospel when they're actually wrong.

Also, you didn't need to make a new account to say it TvB.

Yeah, basically this.

You'd struggle to go back and find me claiming I've never watched an illegal stream,  or me taking any issue with people doing so before this season.

The issue is choosing to continue to do it at a time when you've got perfectly legal options to watch games that actively benefit the club at a time where money is tighter for the club.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

To no one in particular.....

Let he who is without sin( and not just this season) cast the first stone.

Or go home and stop looking for someone to throw stones at.....maybe you are already at home for too long which is not conducive to empathy. 

If someone has no intention of paying then they won't.  No amount of moral high horse posturing will change that. 

Life is too short. 

Dont take anything other than Love and Health too seriously..... both can slip through your fingers if you dont look after them.

Peace.