Premier League may take action against streaming live games

shelsfan

The FA Premier League is considering action against internet pirates who are streaming live games without paying.
The body has been sending out legal letters in a bid to curb the practice, prompting many sites to shut down.

However, it is now considering whether to sue an offender to "make an example of them by setting a precedent".

Web pirates pick up overseas broadcasts of live games and play the footage over the internet, which the league claims is putting TV rights deals in jeopardy.

We were seeing people infringing our rights with streaming - we're now considering taking one of those sites to court to make an example of them

Dan Johnson, Premier League spokesman

"It's something we became aware of six months ago," spokesman Dan Johnson said.

"I think its a relatively recent phenomenon and the technological access to broadband has enabled it (streaming) to be done.

"Basically we were seeing people infringing our rights with streaming. We're now considering taking one of those sites to court to make an example of them - and to set a precedent."

Big money

Currently the league is paid close to £1.5bn in various broadcasting rights deals.

Sky pays £1.02bn, the BBC £105m, and a further £320m deal covers rights in 195 foreign countries.

However, Mr Johnson said the action was not simply a matter of money.

"It's not a matter of the cost, it is a point of law and principle - we're duty bound to protect those rights," he told BBC News.

In the UK, broadcasters are barred from showing live matches on Saturday afternoons, instead they show games later or air the highlights.

When the deals were first brokered, clubs did not want matches shown live as they feared fans would prefer to stay at home rather than come to stadiums - a move that would eat into their gate receipts.

Blackout breached

But, some websites have now found a way around the blackout.

A person in a country showing the live match streams the content through a link to a server, which UK fans can then link to and watch the game, for a small fee.

At the moment, the FA Premier League does not have any internet live rights - although it does offer delayed streaming on the internet and on 3G mobile phones.

Currently the number of people watching streamed live matches is relatively small, according to The Times newspaper, at least 50,000 people log on to games on a Saturday.

But the league wants to take action to protect its copyright now before the practice becomes a widespread problem.

Film and music piracy which cost the entertainment industry hundreds of millions of pounds.

MrJoeSoap

shelsfan wrote:

"It's not a matter of the cost, it is a point of law and principle - we're duty bound to protect those rights," he told BBC News.

Belongs in the humour forum.

mr_angry

In a way, I'm impressed that the Premier League are so on-the-ball. (Sorry, terrible pun I know!) It took years for the music industry to notice Napster, and they're still busy sueing based on outdated applications such as Kazaa. For the PL to actually notice and challenge this burgeoning infringement is pretty nifty of them.

Of course, I'll be one of the ones to lose out, but I always suspected that this would happen sooner or later. Whatever about music and things, copyright legislation on football rights is pretty up-to-date and applicable in this situation.

jesus_thats_gre

I am slightly miffed by this. I pay for the Sky subscription at home purely for the football.. I also support Liverpool. Unfortunately all Liverpool matches are not available shown Live on Sky or normal TV, nor are any other clubs. This is not because of technical limitations. I would far prefer to watch the game on my Widescreen TV over Sky over a crap quality stream over the net on my laptop. I want to be able to watch every game that my club plays and should be able to.

They obviously have every right to do what they are doing but I wish to god they would ensure that fans can watch their team playing Live. I am sick of having to depend on very very very poor highlights. Sky's Football First is a push in the right direction but if it's not live, its not the same!!

Regarding the reasoning for not showing all games live. This is reasonable enough in the UK but we are unfortunately stuck with what the UK gets. Nearly everygame is available through foreign satelite providers in Europe, Asia, etc..

sleepwalker

tis only a matter of time before we get all the matches live

PHB

Thats why I'm actually a fan of individual club rights, cause it means I can buy the Man Utd subscription and then watch every Man Utd game, giving my money directly to Man Utd, i.e. support the club I support.
It only happened twice this year that I couldn't see the United game and boy did it suck, I cna't imagine what its like for other teams below the top 3

MrJoeSoap

Individual rights are a great idea, but a long way off imo. I can't imagine how long it'll be before every Southampton match will be live on tv! I'll be well gone from the country anyway. With the advances in internet connections I can see clubs selling the rights to their games on the net, whether it be on an individual or season-ticketesque basis.

Draupnir

I think Mr Glazer might disagree about how far away individual deals are!

Im sure its in his plans anyway and getting support from the top teams wont be hard. 14 might be tough, which is the majority needed but certainly not impossible

MrJoeSoap

Well United will definitely be the first to do it in England but it's a good while away before the whole Premiership has it.

Slash/ED

Showing every match live on TV would absolutley kill attendences and kill English football in general. There's already far too much English football on TV imo.

eirebhoy

I don't think televised matches are affected by attendances, in England anyway.

Slash/ED

I think slowly but surely they are, Liverpool seem to struggle selling out for all bit the biggest champions league games for example and they're all televised. If every match a team played was on TV more and more people would simply stay in the pubs.

KdjaCL

Thousands of people travel from other countries (shocking i know) to see PL matches well 4 teams or thereabouts every week, most actually taking tickets that local fans would use (if they could afford them ) so dont think Tv would have much of an effect on atts in PL anyway.


And that individual tv deal only a Man Utd fan would say its a good thing, put simply if the split went 80/20 ala other leagues the gap between teams would get even bigger (oh buts it going that way anyway) but then when the gap gets so big the league suffers as a whole as their is too many **** teams in the league.
The way it is now in PL means little clubs can get in decent top name players simply cos they can pay them, take that away and any possibility of an even game week in week out is gone.


kdjac

PHB

The gap is already there,
This season the top 3 lost a total of 11 games, Chelsea losing only 1, 1!!
Everton lost more than those three combined.
Gap between top and 4th last: 59!!
The gap already exists, infact our gap is way way worse than Spain or Italys gap


Spain:
Barca 4 losses
Real Madrid 8 losses
Villareal 9 losses

Gap between top and 4th last: 46

Italy:
Juve 4
Milan 5
Inter 2(wtf how did they draw so much)

Gap between top and 4th last: 43

Germany:
Bayern 5
Schalke 11
Stuggart 9

Gap between top and 4th last: 38

Only Italy have less losses, but our gap is huge.
The simple fact of the matter is that the gap is there, and in the countries where the money is spilt 'unevenly', I know Italy for sure not the others or if there are others, its the same situation.
IMO the reason why the gap is so big is because there is such a huge huge difference in money between WBA and Norwich next year, 20mill or so?
This is because of the TV rights deal.
If this was removed, the gap would be much much lessoned, and teams wouldn't be so ****ing scared of playing football against the top 3 teams.
That is what has happened this year, Irwin called it fear football one time, the crap teams know the difference between PL and CH and are afraid to attack whatsoever, resulting in ****e football and imo a bigger gap.

I want United out of debt, and the rest of the league is **** already, so explain to me whats in it for us.

KdjaCL

Err obviosuly you watch a diff league, to put it into Man Utd fan understanding terms.

Man City beat and drew with Chelsea
Norwich beat Utd
Birmingham beat arsenal

Utd lost 5 games and drew 11 to teams they "should" have beaten but the other team possibly deserved somfin from the game.
Arse similar results over the season losing or drawing to teams they "should" beat.

The reason people like the PL is because of the above, the lesser teams have money Birm have Pandiani, Norwich have Helveg, Bolton have Hierro and there are many many other decent players (the 3 i named have played in CL finals and semis more than once) if the money is taken away the GAP becomes huge and thus the quality of football decreases, the possibilty of a big team losing or drawing is impossible.


But hey once your team gets money eh.


kdjac

eirebhoy

PHB wrote:

The gap is already there,
This season the top 3 lost a total of 11 games, Chelsea losing only 1, 1!!
Everton lost more than those three combined.
Gap between top and 4th last: 59!!
The gap already exists, infact our gap is way way worse than Spain or Italys gap
...
Only Italy have less losses, but our gap is huge.

Are you going to let us in on your nationality or what?

PHB

All those players you meantioned were free transfers or loan deals. They didn't get them because of money. The TV deals are in now way whatsoever related to those players.

Show me how the gap will get worse? Or at least try to say why this isn't correct.
Also if what you were saying is true, why hasn't Italy become like that?

Juve lost to:
Reggina 11th
Inter 3rd
Palmero 4th
Sampdoria 6th

Milan lost to:
Messina 7th
Livorno 9th
Bolonga 12th
Siena 16th
Juve 1st

United lost to:
Chelsea 1st
Everton 4th
Portsmouth 16th
Norwich 19th

Arsenal lost to:
Man Utd 3rd
Liverpool 5th
Bolton 6th
Brum 12th

Chelsea lost to:
Man City 9th

Slash/ED

PHB wrote:

All those players you meantioned were free transfers or loan deals. They didn't get them because of money. The TV deals are in now way whatsoever related to those players.

They're hardly playing for the love of the game, no transfer fee does not mean no money spent, the wages is the big issue.

KdjaCL

Slash/ED wrote:

the wages is the big issue.

What he said.


Whats the biggest single money earning game in all of football?

kdjac