A Pub Landlady in Southsea has been convicted of criminally stealing 
copyright see: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7155939.stm

"We hope that publicans and others will now heed the advice of the courts 
and accept that the use of foreign satellite systems to screen Premier 
League football in the UK is copyright theft, pure and simple," said league 
spokesman Dan Johnson.

What Mr. Johnson seems to over look is that the Premier League freely sold 
viewing rights to Premier League games to be marketed in Greece, which is 
part of the European Union, for far less than they sell them in the UK.

The landlady (or her servants) bought the goods and service card necessary 
to receive the service offered by a Greek company in Greece and brought them 
to England (also in the EU).

IIRC Margaret Thatcher signed the 'Single European Act' for the United 
Kingdom.  This allows for free trade in goods and services between countries 
in the EU.

So far from the poor landlady being a criminal, she has not even got a civil 
case to answer.

As far as Mr. Johnson is concerned if the Premier League don't want people 
to be able to go to Greece and buy viewing facilities for Premier League 
matches at a fraction of the UK price then either
1. Make the prices the same
or
2. Stop selling there altogether

Mercedes were inhibited from differential pricing in the UK, so why should 
the PL and $ky get away with it?

-- 

R. Mark Clayton

nospamclayton@btinternet.com
remove nospa for email

"R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
news:7dCdnaLLwrYobO3anZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
>A Pub Landlady in Southsea has been convicted of criminally stealing 
>copyright see: -
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7155939.stm
>
> "We hope that publicans and others will now heed the advice of the courts 
> and accept that the use of foreign satellite systems to screen Premier 
> League football in the UK is copyright theft, pure and simple," said 
> league spokesman Dan Johnson.
>
> What Mr. Johnson seems to over look is that the Premier League freely sold 
> viewing rights to Premier League games to be marketed in Greece, which is 
> part of the European Union, for far less than they sell them in the UK.
>
> The landlady (or her servants) bought the goods and service card necessary 
> to receive the service offered by a Greek company in Greece and brought 
> them to England (also in the EU).
>
> IIRC Margaret Thatcher signed the 'Single European Act' for the United 
> Kingdom.  This allows for free trade in goods and services between 
> countries in the EU.
>
> So far from the poor landlady being a criminal, she has not even got a 
> civil case to answer.

You may have a point. I wonder why the Single Market rules weren't argued. 
Will they be argued on another day?
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/3091.rtf

"Ms Murphy was charged under s.297(1) of the CDPA, which is as follows:
"A person who dishonestly receives a programme included in a broadcasting 
service provided from a place in the United Kingdom with intent to avoid 
payment of any charge applicable to the reception of the programme commits 
an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 
5 on the standard scale."
Section 297 was, at the time of Ms Murphy's conviction, found under the 
heading "Fraudulent reception of transmissions" and accompanied by a series 
of provisions creating offences relating to unauthorised decoders and 
providing also for search warrants and forfeiture in relation to 
unauthorised decoders - ss.297A - 297D. "

"We did not hear argument upon the impact of the Single Market Rules 
(Articles 28 - 30 and 49 EC) or upon the suggestion that there is here a 
competition law issue in that "the Respondent's case is effectively founded 
on an agreement or a network of agreements imposing restrictions unlawful 
and void under Art.81 EC". As we have construed the English provisions, they 
are consistent with the EC legislation to which we have referred, and, since 
the rights which we have discussed are essentially territorial in nature, it 
is unclear to us how there can be a relevant free movement case. So far as 
the competition law case is concerned, we do not at present follow how it is 
to be developed, and this appeal must therefore be restored for these points 
to be argued if that is what the Appellant wants.
Subject to the points of EC law to which we have referred in the preceding 
paragraph, we would dismiss this appeal. "

The Todal wrote:
> "R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message
> news:7dCdnaLLwrYobO3anZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
> >A Pub Landlady in Southsea has been convicted of criminally stealing
> >copyright see: -
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7155939.stm
> >
> > "We hope that publicans and others will now heed the advice of the courts
> > and accept that the use of foreign satellite systems to screen Premier
> > League football in the UK is copyright theft, pure and simple," said
> > league spokesman Dan Johnson.
> >
> > What Mr. Johnson seems to over look is that the Premier League freely sold
> > viewing rights to Premier League games to be marketed in Greece, which is
> > part of the European Union, for far less than they sell them in the UK.
> >
> > The landlady (or her servants) bought the goods and service card necessary
> > to receive the service offered by a Greek company in Greece and brought
> > them to England (also in the EU).
> >
> > IIRC Margaret Thatcher signed the 'Single European Act' for the United
> > Kingdom.  This allows for free trade in goods and services between
> > countries in the EU.
> >
> > So far from the poor landlady being a criminal, she has not even got a
> > civil case to answer.
>
> You may have a point. I wonder why the Single Market rules weren't argued.
> Will they be argued on another day?
> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/3091.rtf
>
> "Ms Murphy was charged under s.297(1) of the CDPA, which is as follows:
> "A person who dishonestly receives a programme included in a broadcasting
> service provided from a place in the United Kingdom with intent to avoid
> payment of any charge applicable to the reception of the programme commits
> an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level
> 5 on the standard scale."
> Section 297 was, at the time of Ms Murphy's conviction, found under the
> heading "Fraudulent reception of transmissions" and accompanied by a series
> of provisions creating offences relating to unauthorised decoders and
> providing also for search warrants and forfeiture in relation to
> unauthorised decoders - ss.297A - 297D. "
>
> "We did not hear argument upon the impact of the Single Market Rules
> (Articles 28 - 30 and 49 EC) or upon the suggestion that there is here a
> competition law issue in that "the Respondent's case is effectively founded
> on an agreement or a network of agreements imposing restrictions unlawful
> and void under Art.81 EC". As we have construed the English provisions, they
> are consistent with the EC legislation to which we have referred, and, since
> the rights which we have discussed are essentially territorial in nature, it
> is unclear to us how there can be a relevant free movement case. So far as
> the competition law case is concerned, we do not at present follow how it is
> to be developed, and this appeal must therefore be restored for these points
> to be argued if that is what the Appellant wants.
> Subject to the points of EC law to which we have referred in the preceding
> paragraph, we would dismiss this appeal. "

As with other trademark holders hopeful they will find something
brought in one EC country can be sold / used in another EC country.
Thought I suspect will go to the euorpean courts.

The Todal wrote:
> "R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message
> news:7dCdnaLLwrYobO3anZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
> >A Pub Landlady in Southsea has been convicted of criminally stealing
> >copyright see: -
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7155939.stm
> >
> > "We hope that publicans and others will now heed the advice of the courts
> > and accept that the use of foreign satellite systems to screen Premier
> > League football in the UK is copyright theft, pure and simple," said
> > league spokesman Dan Johnson.
> >
> > What Mr. Johnson seems to over look is that the Premier League freely sold
> > viewing rights to Premier League games to be marketed in Greece, which is
> > part of the European Union, for far less than they sell them in the UK.
> >
> > The landlady (or her servants) bought the goods and service card necessary
> > to receive the service offered by a Greek company in Greece and brought
> > them to England (also in the EU).
> >
> > IIRC Margaret Thatcher signed the 'Single European Act' for the United
> > Kingdom.  This allows for free trade in goods and services between
> > countries in the EU.
> >
> > So far from the poor landlady being a criminal, she has not even got a
> > civil case to answer.
>
> You may have a point. I wonder why the Single Market rules weren't argued.
> Will they be argued on another day?
> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/3091.rtf
>
> "Ms Murphy was charged under s.297(1) of the CDPA, which is as follows:
> "A person who dishonestly receives a programme included in a broadcasting
> service provided from a place in the United Kingdom with intent to avoid
> payment of any charge applicable to the reception of the programme commits
> an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level
> 5 on the standard scale."
> Section 297 was, at the time of Ms Murphy's conviction, found under the
> heading "Fraudulent reception of transmissions" and accompanied by a series
> of provisions creating offences relating to unauthorised decoders and
> providing also for search warrants and forfeiture in relation to
> unauthorised decoders - ss.297A - 297D. "
>
> "We did not hear argument upon the impact of the Single Market Rules
> (Articles 28 - 30 and 49 EC) or upon the suggestion that there is here a
> competition law issue in that "the Respondent's case is effectively founded
> on an agreement or a network of agreements imposing restrictions unlawful
> and void under Art.81 EC". As we have construed the English provisions, they
> are consistent with the EC legislation to which we have referred, and, since
> the rights which we have discussed are essentially territorial in nature, it
> is unclear to us how there can be a relevant free movement case. So far as
> the competition law case is concerned, we do not at present follow how it is
> to be developed, and this appeal must therefore be restored for these points
> to be argued if that is what the Appellant wants.
> Subject to the points of EC law to which we have referred in the preceding
> paragraph, we would dismiss this appeal. "

As with other trademark holders hopeful they will find something
brought in one EC country can be sold / used in another EC country.
Thought I suspect will go to the euorpean courts.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:28:16 -0000, "The Todal"  wrote:

>You may have a point. I wonder why the Single Market rules weren't argued. 
>Will they be argued on another day?
>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/3091.rtf

Yes, they will. You didn't read the whole story:

"The appeal may resume to consider aspects of European law in the case. 

Lord Justice Pumfrey, sitting with Mr Justice Stanley Burnton, dismissed the
appeal based on domestic law. 

He said that BSkyB had the exclusive right to screen or broadcast the matches in
question in the UK and it was "apparent" that Ms Murphy knew that was the case. 

But he added that the court had not heard arguments about whether European
competition and free movement legislation might affect the case."


I should bloody well hope they would affect the case - they're at the heart of
the case!!!

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

"zaax"  wrote in message 
news:d450d10b-8d11-4c1f-803d-e6dbe67126f2@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> The Todal wrote:
>> "R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message
>> news:7dCdnaLLwrYobO3anZ2dnUVZ8qKvnZ2d@bt.com...
>> >A Pub Landlady in Southsea has been convicted of criminally stealing
>> >copyright see: -
>> >
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7155939.stm
>> >
>> > "We hope that publicans and others will now heed the advice of the 
>> > courts
>> > and accept that the use of foreign satellite systems to screen Premier
>> > League football in the UK is copyright theft, pure and simple," said
>> > league spokesman Dan Johnson.
>> >
>> > What Mr. Johnson seems to over look is that the Premier League freely 
>> > sold
>> > viewing rights to Premier League games to be marketed in Greece, which 
>> > is
>> > part of the European Union, for far less than they sell them in the UK.
>> >
>> > The landlady (or her servants) bought the goods and service card 
>> > necessary
>> > to receive the service offered by a Greek company in Greece and brought
>> > them to England (also in the EU).
>> >
>> > IIRC Margaret Thatcher signed the 'Single European Act' for the United
>> > Kingdom.  This allows for free trade in goods and services between
>> > countries in the EU.
>> >
>> > So far from the poor landlady being a criminal, she has not even got a
>> > civil case to answer.
>>
>> You may have a point. I wonder why the Single Market rules weren't 
>> argued.
>> Will they be argued on another day?
>> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/3091.rtf

Quite likely, but the key point, that the PL seem to have missed is that the 
lady had paid them for copyright, albeit somewhere they sell it cheaper, so 
why should she pay again or less still be guilty of a criminal offence.

Much the same applies to IT companies who whine about counterfeit and "grey 
market" imports.  No argument with counterfeit - it is straight off forgery 
at the vendors expense, but 'grey market' - these are goods that the 
software company have sold on the open market at a price acceptable to them. 
If they think the purchaser should pay more money then they didn't have to 
sell the goods cheaply in the first place.

>
> As with other trademark holders hopeful they will find something
> brought in one EC country can be sold / used in another EC country.
> Thought I suspect will go to the euorpean courts.

Like with say the Sunday Times (same vendor!).  If I buy it in the UK it 
costs £2, but in France or Greece costs considerably more.  Do I have to pay 
more money if I take my copy bought at the airport with me?  No thought not.

From a layman, but isn't this principly (almost exactly?) along the
same lines of the Tesco/Levis case? Did Tesco not try to argue a
similar "one-EU market" point and lose?

Raj

"Mike Ross"  wrote in message 
news:6272n3lc6f0r7me8sf3qfuep7fa9ffikfk@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:28:16 -0000, "The Todal"  
> wrote:
>
>>You may have a point. I wonder why the Single Market rules weren't argued.
>>Will they be argued on another day?
>>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/3091.rtf
>
> Yes, they will. You didn't read the whole story:
>
> "The appeal may resume to consider aspects of European law in the case.
>
> Lord Justice Pumfrey, sitting with Mr Justice Stanley Burnton, dismissed 
> the
> appeal based on domestic law.
>
> He said that BSkyB had the exclusive right to screen or broadcast the 
> matches in
> question in the UK and it was "apparent" that Ms Murphy knew that was the 
> case.

She might well have known that PL only sold through $ky in the UK, but was 
obviously aware that one could legitimately buy the same product in another 
EU country for a much lower price.

How can you be guilty of theft of something you have paid the owner their 
asking price for?

>
> But he added that the court had not heard arguments about whether European
> competition and free movement legislation might affect the case."
>
>
> I should bloody well hope they would affect the case - they're at the 
> heart of
> the case!!!
>
> Mike
> --
> http://www.corestore.org
> 'As I walk along these shores
> I am the history within'

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:39:17 -0800 (PST), abd08 
wrote:

>From a layman, but isn't this principly (almost exactly?) along the
>same lines of the Tesco/Levis case? Did Tesco not try to argue a
>similar "one-EU market" point and lose?

No, the goods in that case were bought outside the EU and imported.

"Mike Ross"  wrote in message 
news:6272n3lc6f0r7me8sf3qfuep7fa9ffikfk@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:28:16 -0000, "The Todal"  
> wrote:
>
>>You may have a point. I wonder why the Single Market rules weren't argued.
>>Will they be argued on another day?
>>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/3091.rtf
>
> Yes, they will. You didn't read the whole story:
>
> "The appeal may resume to consider aspects of European law in the case.
>

It is up to the accused to decide whether to pour more money into the case 
and have another day in court - maybe she will give up, unless she has a lot 
of money behind her.

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

> 
> "Mike Ross"  wrote in message
> news:6272n3lc6f0r7me8sf3qfuep7fa9ffikfk@4ax.com...  >On Tue, 25 Dec
> 2007 12:28:16 -0000, "The Todal"   wrote:
> > 
> > > You may have a point. I wonder why the Single Market rules
> > > weren't argued.  Will they be argued on another day?
> > > http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/3091.rtf
> > 
> > Yes, they will. You didn't read the whole story:
> > 
> > "The appeal may resume to consider aspects of European law in the
> > case.
> > 
> > Lord Justice Pumfrey, sitting with Mr Justice Stanley Burnton,
> > dismissed  the appeal based on domestic law.
> > 
> > He said that BSkyB had the exclusive right to screen or broadcast
> > the  matches in question in the UK and it was "apparent" that Ms
> > Murphy knew that was the  case.
> 
> She might well have known that PL only sold through $ky in the UK,
> but was obviously aware that one could legitimately buy the same
> product in another EU country for a much lower price.
> 
> How can you be guilty of theft of something you have paid the owner
> their asking price for?
> 
> > 
> > But he added that the court had not heard arguments about whether
> > European competition and free movement legislation might affect the
> > case."
> > 
> > 
> > I should bloody well hope they would affect the case - they're at
> > the  heart of the case!!!
> > 
> > Mike
> > --
> > http://www.corestore.org
> > 'As I walk along these shores
> > I am the history within' 



--

"R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
news:HvmdncgsX6e-uOzanZ2dnUVZ8u2dnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Mike Ross"  wrote in message 
> news:6272n3lc6f0r7me8sf3qfuep7fa9ffikfk@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:28:16 -0000, "The Todal"  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>You may have a point. I wonder why the Single Market rules weren't 
>>>argued.
>>>Will they be argued on another day?
>>>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/3091.rtf
>>
>> Yes, they will. You didn't read the whole story:
>>
>> "The appeal may resume to consider aspects of European law in the case.
>>
>> Lord Justice Pumfrey, sitting with Mr Justice Stanley Burnton, dismissed 
>> the
>> appeal based on domestic law.
>>
>> He said that BSkyB had the exclusive right to screen or broadcast the 
>> matches in
>> question in the UK and it was "apparent" that Ms Murphy knew that was the 
>> case.
>
> She might well have known that PL only sold through $ky in the UK, but was 
> obviously aware that one could legitimately buy the same product in 
> another EU country for a much lower price.
>
> How can you be guilty of theft of something you have paid the owner their 
> asking price for?
>

The question is whether the purported 'vendor' had the have the rights to 
sell what they took money for.

The 'owner' of rights to Premier League football coverage is the Premier 
League itself, so you need to ask whether some (possibly dodgy) Greek 
operator really should presume to be able to sell the signal to UK viewers.

"OG"  writes:

> The question is whether the purported 'vendor' had the have the rights to 
> sell what they took money for.
>
> The 'owner' of rights to Premier League football coverage is the Premier 
> League itself, so you need to ask whether some (possibly dodgy) Greek 
> operator really should presume to be able to sell the signal to UK viewers.

Why not? Presumably the pub landlord bought a viewing card which allows
the decoding and viewing of all programmes broadcast by the Greek
station. The Greek TV station will have paid for the rights to show
Premier League soccer. If the Premier League imposed the condition that
the live matches were not to be shown to UK viewers then surely the PL
should be suing the Greek TV station for breach of contract rather than
the person in the UK who purchased a Greek viewing card.

"Graham Murray"  wrote in message 
news:87odceo4rl.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
> "OG"  writes:
>
>> The question is whether the purported 'vendor' had the have the rights to
>> sell what they took money for.
>>
>> The 'owner' of rights to Premier League football coverage is the Premier
>> League itself, so you need to ask whether some (possibly dodgy) Greek
>> operator really should presume to be able to sell the signal to UK 
>> viewers.
>
> Why not? Presumably the pub landlord bought a viewing card which allows
> the decoding and viewing of all programmes broadcast by the Greek
> station. The Greek TV station will have paid for the rights to show
> Premier League soccer.

No, the Greek TV station will have paid for _some_ rights to show PL soccer.

>If the Premier League imposed the condition that
> the live matches were not to be shown to UK viewers then surely the PL
> should be suing the Greek TV station for breach of contract rather than
> the person in the UK who purchased a Greek viewing card.

No, the suite is with the UK viewer because it is the UK viewer who is in 
breach of the rights assigned to and sold on by the PL to the Greek TV 
contract holder.

"OG"  wrote in message 
news:5tdccuF1ciq5hU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Graham Murray"  wrote in message 
> news:87odceo4rl.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
>> "OG"  writes:
>>
>>> The question is whether the purported 'vendor' had the have the rights 
>>> to
>>> sell what they took money for.
>>>
>>> The 'owner' of rights to Premier League football coverage is the Premier
>>> League itself, so you need to ask whether some (possibly dodgy) Greek
>>> operator really should presume to be able to sell the signal to UK 
>>> viewers.
>>
>> Why not? Presumably the pub landlord bought a viewing card which allows
>> the decoding and viewing of all programmes broadcast by the Greek
>> station. The Greek TV station will have paid for the rights to show
>> Premier League soccer.
>
> No, the Greek TV station will have paid for _some_ rights to show PL 
> soccer.
>
>>If the Premier League imposed the condition that
>> the live matches were not to be shown to UK viewers then surely the PL
>> should be suing the Greek TV station for breach of contract rather than
>> the person in the UK who purchased a Greek viewing card.
>
> No, the suite is with the UK viewer because it is the UK viewer who is in 
> breach of the rights assigned to and sold on by the PL to the Greek TV 
> contract holder.

Really? Ever heard of privity of contract?

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:5tcsrjF1d296sU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Mike Ross"  wrote in message 
> news:6272n3lc6f0r7me8sf3qfuep7fa9ffikfk@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:28:16 -0000, "The Todal"  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>You may have a point. I wonder why the Single Market rules weren't 
>>>argued.
>>>Will they be argued on another day?
>>>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/3091.rtf
>>
>> Yes, they will. You didn't read the whole story:
>>
>> "The appeal may resume to consider aspects of European law in the case.
>>
>
> It is up to the accused to decide whether to pour more money into the case 
> and have another day in court - maybe she will give up, unless she has a 
> lot of money behind her.
>

Indeed - I asked $ky's lawyers to clarify this several years ago on behalf 
of two publicans - they never replied.

Instead they bully someone who has done it.

"OG"  wrote in message 
news:5tdccuF1ciq5hU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Graham Murray"  wrote in message 
> news:87odceo4rl.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
>> "OG"  writes:
>>
>>> The question is whether the purported 'vendor' had the have the rights 
>>> to
>>> sell what they took money for.
>>>
>>> The 'owner' of rights to Premier League football coverage is the Premier
>>> League itself, so you need to ask whether some (possibly dodgy) Greek
>>> operator really should presume to be able to sell the signal to UK 
>>> viewers.
>>
>> Why not? Presumably the pub landlord bought a viewing card which allows
>> the decoding and viewing of all programmes broadcast by the Greek
>> station. The Greek TV station will have paid for the rights to show
>> Premier League soccer.
>
> No, the Greek TV station will have paid for _some_ rights to show PL 
> soccer.

But it is quite clear that the landlady has bought the equipment and service 
legitimately and PL have accepted their asking price for it.

If I buy a tankful of petrol in Greece and drive back to the UK, I don't get 
Shell knocking on my door demanding I make up the difference because it is 
much more expensive in the UK.

>
>>If the Premier League imposed the condition that
>> the live matches were not to be shown to UK viewers then surely the PL
>> should be suing the Greek TV station for breach of contract rather than
>> the person in the UK who purchased a Greek viewing card.
>
> No, the suite is with the UK viewer because it is the UK viewer who is in 
> breach of the rights assigned to and sold on by the PL to the Greek TV 
> contract holder.
>
>

Really?  It was bought in the EU by an EU viewer - ever heard of freedom of 
trade.

Substitute Utah and Georgia for UK and Greece - you wouldn't get this 
nonsense in the USA - it would be laughed out of court.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:22:50 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
 wrote:

>Really?  It was bought in the EU by an EU viewer - ever heard of freedom of 
>trade.
>
>Substitute Utah and Georgia for UK and Greece - you wouldn't get this 
>nonsense in the USA - it would be laughed out of court. 

You would be surprised. Absolutely you would get this nonsense in the USA, and
worse:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/106397/the_ins_and_outs_of_sports_blackouts.html

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

"Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in message 
news:k1fcj.54981$036.22617@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "OG"  wrote in message 
> news:5tdccuF1ciq5hU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Graham Murray"  wrote in message 
>> news:87odceo4rl.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
>>> "OG"  writes:
>>>
>>>> The question is whether the purported 'vendor' had the have the rights 
>>>> to
>>>> sell what they took money for.
>>>>
>>>> The 'owner' of rights to Premier League football coverage is the 
>>>> Premier
>>>> League itself, so you need to ask whether some (possibly dodgy) Greek
>>>> operator really should presume to be able to sell the signal to UK 
>>>> viewers.
>>>
>>> Why not? Presumably the pub landlord bought a viewing card which allows
>>> the decoding and viewing of all programmes broadcast by the Greek
>>> station. The Greek TV station will have paid for the rights to show
>>> Premier League soccer.
>>
>> No, the Greek TV station will have paid for _some_ rights to show PL 
>> soccer.
>>
>>>If the Premier League imposed the condition that
>>> the live matches were not to be shown to UK viewers then surely the PL
>>> should be suing the Greek TV station for breach of contract rather than
>>> the person in the UK who purchased a Greek viewing card.
>>
>> No, the suite is with the UK viewer because it is the UK viewer who is in 
>> breach of the rights assigned to and sold on by the PL to the Greek TV 
>> contract holder.
>
> Really? Ever heard of privity of contract?

I'm not a lawyer, but the point seems to be that the PL's case is made under 
copyright law rather than contract law.

It is asserted that the use of the pub's use of the Greek TV's service to 
allow 'public viewing' of  football matches in UK by the pub constitutes a 
breach of copyright, as it is outside the assignment of rights allowed by 
the contract between the PL and the Greek TV station.

"OG"  wrote in message 
news:5tdjncF1db171U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Janitor of Lunacy"  wrote in message 
> news:k1fcj.54981$036.22617@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>
>> "OG"  wrote in message 
>> news:5tdccuF1ciq5hU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> "Graham Murray"  wrote in message 
>>> news:87odceo4rl.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
>>>> "OG"  writes:
>>>>
>>>>> The question is whether the purported 'vendor' had the have the rights 
>>>>> to
>>>>> sell what they took money for.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'owner' of rights to Premier League football coverage is the 
>>>>> Premier
>>>>> League itself, so you need to ask whether some (possibly dodgy) Greek
>>>>> operator really should presume to be able to sell the signal to UK 
>>>>> viewers.
>>>>
>>>> Why not? Presumably the pub landlord bought a viewing card which allows
>>>> the decoding and viewing of all programmes broadcast by the Greek
>>>> station. The Greek TV station will have paid for the rights to show
>>>> Premier League soccer.
>>>
>>> No, the Greek TV station will have paid for _some_ rights to show PL 
>>> soccer.
>>>
>>>>If the Premier League imposed the condition that
>>>> the live matches were not to be shown to UK viewers then surely the PL
>>>> should be suing the Greek TV station for breach of contract rather than
>>>> the person in the UK who purchased a Greek viewing card.
>>>
>>> No, the suite is with the UK viewer because it is the UK viewer who is 
>>> in breach of the rights assigned to and sold on by the PL to the Greek 
>>> TV contract holder.
>>
>> Really? Ever heard of privity of contract?
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but the point seems to be that the PL's case is made 
> under copyright law rather than contract law.
>
> It is asserted that the use of the pub's use of the Greek TV's service to 
> allow 'public viewing' of  football matches in UK by the pub constitutes a 
> breach of copyright, as it is outside the assignment of rights allowed by 
> the contract between the PL and the Greek TV station.

My point exactly. The defendant was not a party to the contract between the 
PL & the Greek TV supplier, and there are no exceptions to the law of 
privity here that I can see which would render her liable in that regard.

The prosecution was for a breach of copyright IIRC. Without sight of the 
agreement (if there was one) between the defendant and the Greek supplier, 
it is difficult to know what Ts&Cs applied.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 22:22:50 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
 wrote:

> But it is quite clear that the landlady has bought the equipment and service 
> legitimately and PL have accepted their asking price for it.

That is not at all clear because we do not know what she paid for and what
was agreed.  A UK subscriber to Sky does not buy and own a viewing card
that they are then free to take and use abroad.

> If I buy a tankful of petrol in Greece and drive back to the UK, I don't get 
> Shell knocking on my door demanding I make up the difference because it is 
> much more expensive in the UK.

If she bought and owned equipment and there was no agreement made on where
the subscriber may use, it then you would have a point.  But that is IMO
very unlikely.

> Substitute Utah and Georgia for UK and Greece - you wouldn't get this 
> nonsense in the USA - it would be laughed out of court. 

Here is my subcriber agreement with Dish Network and that also has
restrictions on moving the receiving equipment.  See Section 9A.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/content/about_us/residential_customer_agreement/index.shtml

Tony

OG wrote:

> The question is whether the purported 'vendor' had the have the rights to
> sell what they took money for.
> 
> The 'owner' of rights to Premier League football coverage is the Premier
> League itself, so you need to ask whether some (possibly dodgy) Greek
> operator really should presume to be able to sell the signal to UK
> viewers.

Presumably there are people in Greece who want to watch English football, so
someone would have the right to sell the programs to the Greeks.

abd08 wrote:

> From a layman, but isn't this principly (almost exactly?) along the
> same lines of the Tesco/Levis case? Did Tesco not try to argue a
> similar "one-EU market" point and lose?

No, they bought theirs from outside the EU as far as I'm aware.

"R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
news:sqKdnUrB_LmlHOzanZ2dnUVZ8qeknZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "The Todal"  wrote in message 
> news:5tcsrjF1d296sU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Mike Ross"  wrote in message 
>> news:6272n3lc6f0r7me8sf3qfuep7fa9ffikfk@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:28:16 -0000, "The Todal"  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You may have a point. I wonder why the Single Market rules weren't 
>>>>argued.
>>>>Will they be argued on another day?
>>>>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/3091.rtf
>>>
>>> Yes, they will. You didn't read the whole story:
>>>
>>> "The appeal may resume to consider aspects of European law in the case.
>>>
>>
>> It is up to the accused to decide whether to pour more money into the 
>> case and have another day in court - maybe she will give up, unless she 
>> has a lot of money behind her.
>>
>
> Indeed - I asked $ky's lawyers to clarify this several years ago on behalf 
> of two publicans - they never replied.
>
> Instead they bully someone who has done it.

Surely this (both paras) is the normal action of a seller of IPR.  It is far 
from unique to Sky.

tim

"R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
news:iuednWTPxOI2H-zanZ2dnUVZ8tWvnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "OG"  wrote in message 
> news:5tdccuF1ciq5hU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Graham Murray"  wrote in message 
>> news:87odceo4rl.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
>>> "OG"  writes:
>>>
>>>> The question is whether the purported 'vendor' had the have the rights 
>>>> to
>>>> sell what they took money for.
>>>>
>>>> The 'owner' of rights to Premier League football coverage is the 
>>>> Premier
>>>> League itself, so you need to ask whether some (possibly dodgy) Greek
>>>> operator really should presume to be able to sell the signal to UK 
>>>> viewers.
>>>
>>> Why not? Presumably the pub landlord bought a viewing card which allows
>>> the decoding and viewing of all programmes broadcast by the Greek
>>> station. The Greek TV station will have paid for the rights to show
>>> Premier League soccer.
>>
>> No, the Greek TV station will have paid for _some_ rights to show PL 
>> soccer.
>
> But it is quite clear that the landlady has bought the equipment and 
> service legitimately and PL have accepted their asking price for it.

It might be clear that she bought it legitimately, it is not at all clear 
that she used it legitimately.

If it came with the condition that it was only to be used to broadcast in 
Greece then she has broken this condition.

ISTM that having (possibly) broken this condition, the copyright holder (the 
PL) are prerfectly entitled to enforce that condition in the court.  ISTM 
that the action of the court suggest that this condition did exist and that 
they consider she has broken it.

The point left at issue is whether (under Europen law) that condition is 
valid. The UK judge did not consider that and has left this point open.  But 
in all other respects, your suggestion that what the landlady has done is 
legitimate is demonstrably, completely wrong.

> If I buy a tankful of petrol in Greece and drive back to the UK, I don't 
> get Shell knocking on my door demanding I make up the difference because 
> it is much more expensive in the UK.

You don't enter into a commercial agreement when you buy fuel.  It is 
unreasonable for you to be expected to accept extra conditons when you do 
so.  The analogy is unsound.

tim

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "OG"  wrote in message 
> news:5tdccuF1ciq5hU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Graham Murray"  wrote in message 
>> news:87odceo4rl.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
> 
>>> If the Premier League imposed the condition that
>>> the live matches were not to be shown to UK viewers then surely the PL
>>> should be suing the Greek TV station for breach of contract rather than
>>> the person in the UK who purchased a Greek viewing card.
>> No, the suite is with the UK viewer because it is the UK viewer who is in 
>> breach of the rights assigned to and sold on by the PL to the Greek TV 
>> contract holder.
>>
>>
> 
> Really?  It was bought in the EU by an EU viewer - ever heard of freedom of 
> trade.
> 
> Substitute Utah and Georgia for UK and Greece - you wouldn't get this 
> nonsense in the USA - it would be laughed out of court. 

Fortunately we are not *yet* the United States of Europe.  :-)

-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

"tim....."  wrote in message 
news:5tepj7F1d509vU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
> news:iuednWTPxOI2H-zanZ2dnUVZ8tWvnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>>
>> But it is quite clear that the landlady has bought the equipment and 
>> service legitimately and PL have accepted their asking price for it.
>
> It might be clear that she bought it legitimately, it is not at all clear 
> that she used it legitimately.
>
> If it came with the condition that it was only to be used to broadcast in 
> Greece then she has broken this condition.

It was sold in the EU - there is free trade in goods and services in the EU. 
The condition is enunforcible and severable.

In the UK the maker can only impose resale price & conditions in very 
limited circumstances
see 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_Great_Britain_v._Boots_Cash_Chemists_%28Southern%29_Ltd. 
although this may be different in Greece.  OTOH the Greek law is not for the 
main part enforcible in Britain.

>
> ISTM that having (possibly) broken this condition, the copyright holder 
> (the PL) are prerfectly entitled to enforce that condition in the court. 
> ISTM that the action of the court suggest that this condition did exist 
> and that they consider she has broken it.
>
> The point left at issue is whether (under Europen law) that condition is 
> valid. The UK judge did not consider that and has left this point open. 
> But in all other respects, your suggestion that what the landlady has done 
> is legitimate is demonstrably, completely wrong.

What is wrong is that the PL and $ky can sell goods at one price in one 
place and for many times more in Rip Off Britain, but that anyone who tries 
to use the [same*] items purchased abroad in Britain is not only ruinously 
sued, but branded a criminal to boot.

>
>> If I buy a tankful of petrol in Greece and drive back to the UK, I don't 
>> get Shell knocking on my door demanding I make up the difference because 
>> it is much more expensive in the UK.
>
> You don't enter into a commercial agreement when you buy fuel.  It is 
> unreasonable for you to be expected to accept extra conditons when you do 
> so.  The analogy is unsound.

Alright a book, newpaper or magazine, all of which have entensive conditions 
printed in them (e.g. not to change the cover etc.).

>
> tim
>
>

* if they are not the same PL's suit fails anyway.

"Old Codger"  wrote in message 
news:4772647c$0$21092$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> "OG"  wrote in message 
>> news:5tdccuF1ciq5hU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> "Graham Murray"  wrote in message 
>>> news:87odceo4rl.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
>>
>>>> If the Premier League imposed the condition that
>>>> the live matches were not to be shown to UK viewers then surely the PL
>>>> should be suing the Greek TV station for breach of contract rather than
>>>> the person in the UK who purchased a Greek viewing card.
>>> No, the suite is with the UK viewer because it is the UK viewer who is 
>>> in breach of the rights assigned to and sold on by the PL to the Greek 
>>> TV contract holder.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Really?  It was bought in the EU by an EU viewer - ever heard of freedom 
>> of trade.
>>
>> Substitute Utah and Georgia for UK and Greece - you wouldn't get this 
>> nonsense in the USA - it would be laughed out of court.
>
> Fortunately we are not *yet* the United States of Europe.  :-)
>
So are you going to do her time and pay the bill for her?

"R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
news:pI6dnWjEzeBi-e_anZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "tim....."  wrote in message 
> news:5tepj7F1d509vU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
>> news:iuednWTPxOI2H-zanZ2dnUVZ8tWvnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> But it is quite clear that the landlady has bought the equipment and 
>>> service legitimately and PL have accepted their asking price for it.
>>
>> It might be clear that she bought it legitimately, it is not at all clear 
>> that she used it legitimately.
>>
>> If it came with the condition that it was only to be used to broadcast in 
>> Greece then she has broken this condition.
>
> It was sold in the EU - there is free trade in goods and services in the 
> EU. The condition is enunforcible and severable.
>
> In the UK the maker can only impose resale price & conditions in very 
> limited circumstances
> see 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmaceutical_Society_of_Great_Britain_v._Boots_Cash_Chemists_%28Southern%29_Ltd. 
> although this may be different in Greece.  OTOH the Greek law is not for 
> the main part enforcible in Britain.
>
>>
>> ISTM that having (possibly) broken this condition, the copyright holder 
>> (the PL) are prerfectly entitled to enforce that condition in the court. 
>> ISTM that the action of the court suggest that this condition did exist 
>> and that they consider she has broken it.
>>
>> The point left at issue is whether (under Europen law) that condition is 
>> valid. The UK judge did not consider that and has left this point open. 
>> But in all other respects, your suggestion that what the landlady has 
>> done is legitimate is demonstrably, completely wrong.
>
> What is wrong is that the PL and $ky can sell goods at one price in one 
> place and for many times more in Rip Off Britain,

Well of course they can.

And the same is true of every national football league, it is worth more to 
the home country than to others.

Complaining about that fact is utterly ridiculous.

And it any case what they are selling is not goods.

> but that anyone who tries to use the [same*] items purchased abroad in 
> Britain is not only ruinously sued, but branded a criminal to boot.

I think the ruinous part was self inflicted.

Personally I don't know why you are so concerned about this.

Sky wouldn't be able to charge so much for this if people weren't so stupid 
as to pay it.  And I suspect that any expectation of a 'win' for the 
landlady will not result in cheaper prices in the UK, but no UK live 
football exported to other countries.

tim

"tim....."  wrote in message 
news:5tfa3dF1d88c8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
> news:pI6dnWjEzeBi-e_anZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
SNIP
>>
>> What is wrong is that the PL and $ky can sell goods at one price in one 
>> place and for many times more in Rip Off Britain,
>
> Well of course they can.
>
> And the same is true of every national football league, it is worth more 
> to the home country than to others.
>
> Complaining about that fact is utterly ridiculous.
>
> And it any case what they are selling is not goods.

but services - exactly the point of the single European Act.

>
>> but that anyone who tries to use the [same*] items purchased abroad in 
>> Britain is not only ruinously sued, but branded a criminal to boot.
>
> I think the ruinous part was self inflicted.
>
> Personally I don't know why you are so concerned about this.
>
> Sky wouldn't be able to charge so much for this if people weren't so 
> stupid as to pay it.

$ky are able to price at the point of dimishing returns - competition is 
improving, but is still very limited with competitors having feeds cut off 
and importers dragged to the Crown Court for 'theft'.

> And I suspect that any expectation of a 'win' for the landlady will not 
> result in cheaper prices in the UK, but no UK live football exported to 
> other countries.

And perhaps the Premier League might not enter into such an anti-competitive 
arrangement with $ky.

>
> tim
>
>

"R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
news:pcednRE4drmW6O_anZ2dnUVZ8qugnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "tim....."  wrote in message 
> news:5tfa3dF1d88c8U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
>> news:pI6dnWjEzeBi-e_anZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
> SNIP
>>>
>>> What is wrong is that the PL and $ky can sell goods at one price in one 
>>> place and for many times more in Rip Off Britain,
>>
>> Well of course they can.
>>
>> And the same is true of every national football league, it is worth more 
>> to the home country than to others.
>>
>> Complaining about that fact is utterly ridiculous.
>>
>> And it any case what they are selling is not goods.
>
> but services - exactly the point of the single European Act.
>
>>
>>> but that anyone who tries to use the [same*] items purchased abroad in 
>>> Britain is not only ruinously sued, but branded a criminal to boot.
>>
>> I think the ruinous part was self inflicted.
>>
>> Personally I don't know why you are so concerned about this.
>>
>> Sky wouldn't be able to charge so much for this if people weren't so 
>> stupid as to pay it.
>
> $ky are able to price at the point of dimishing returns - competition is 
> improving, but is still very limited with competitors having feeds cut off 
> and importers dragged to the Crown Court for 'theft'.

People still don't have to pay.  This is a micky mouse game of football. 
Nothing the slightest bit important.

>> And I suspect that any expectation of a 'win' for the landlady will not 
>> result in cheaper prices in the UK, but no UK live football exported to 
>> other countries.
>
> And perhaps the Premier League might not enter into such an 
> anti-competitive arrangement with $ky.

The PL are entitled to enter into whatever worldwide rights deals thay want.

If selling to e.g. France, dilutes what they can get from the UK, no-one, 
not even the EU, can force them to sell the rights to France.

tim

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "Old Codger"  wrote in message 
> news:4772647c$0$21092$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> "OG"  wrote in message 
>>> news:5tdccuF1ciq5hU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> "Graham Murray"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:87odceo4rl.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
>>>>> If the Premier League imposed the condition that
>>>>> the live matches were not to be shown to UK viewers then surely the PL
>>>>> should be suing the Greek TV station for breach of contract rather than
>>>>> the person in the UK who purchased a Greek viewing card.
>>>> No, the suite is with the UK viewer because it is the UK viewer who is 
>>>> in breach of the rights assigned to and sold on by the PL to the Greek 
>>>> TV contract holder.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Really?  It was bought in the EU by an EU viewer - ever heard of freedom 
>>> of trade.
>>>
>>> Substitute Utah and Georgia for UK and Greece - you wouldn't get this 
>>> nonsense in the USA - it would be laughed out of court.
>> Fortunately we are not *yet* the United States of Europe.  :-)
>>
> So are you going to do her time and pay the bill for her? 

No, just pointing out that, even if you were right about Utah and 
Georgia, the EU is not *yet* comparable because it is not *yet* a 
federation of "United States".  I hope we do not become one, at least 
unless or until popular opinion *throughout* the EU wishes for that to 
happen.

The Single Market Rules should be sufficient without the need to become 
the United States of Europe.

-- 
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make 
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:27:39 -0000, "tim....." 
wrote:

>And the same is true of every national football league, it is worth more to 
>the home country than to others.

Of course it is. That doesn't (or shouldn't) prevent residents of the home
country buying it more cheaply elsewhere in the EU.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

"Mike Ross"  wrote in message 
news:5lg5n3l575hd1e671424v2a2g0n2ja2buu@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:27:39 -0000, "tim....." 
> wrote:
>
>>And the same is true of every national football league, it is worth more 
>>to
>>the home country than to others.
>
> Of course it is. That doesn't (or shouldn't) prevent residents of the home
> country buying it more cheaply elsewhere in the EU.
>

When it comes to copyright, the owner of the rights can assign some of those 
rights to others by contract. The rights are limited and it doesn't really 
make any difference what you think 'should' be the case. What the pub owner 
bought did not include the right for public entertainment showing of PL 
football in UK.

"Mike Ross"  wrote in message 
news:5lg5n3l575hd1e671424v2a2g0n2ja2buu@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:27:39 -0000, "tim....." 
> wrote:
>
>>And the same is true of every national football league, it is worth more 
>>to
>>the home country than to others.
>
> Of course it is. That doesn't (or shouldn't) prevent residents of the home
> country buying it more cheaply elsewhere in the EU.

morally or legally?

As to the first, I am completely uninterested in this point.

As to the second, the jury is out, buy the current position is that you are 
incorrect.

tim

"tim....."  wrote in message 
news:5tg0hmF1cqi6hU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Mike Ross"  wrote in message 
> news:5lg5n3l575hd1e671424v2a2g0n2ja2buu@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:27:39 -0000, "tim....." 
>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>And the same is true of every national football league, it is worth more 
>>>to
>>>the home country than to others.
>>
>> Of course it is. That doesn't (or shouldn't) prevent residents of the 
>> home
>> country buying it more cheaply elsewhere in the EU.
>
> morally or legally?

Both - it is ridiculous that HP, MS or Yamaha complain about "grey markets" 
in their goods that they have sold cheaply elsewhere (e.g. Hong Kong) and 
some trader with a bit of enterprise has imported into the UK to sell below 
the rip off prices they charge for the same stuff here.

Legally one would hope that the UK courts would uphold over a century of 
Free Trade law and tradition in the UK and the treaties about this that the 
UK has entered into.

>
> As to the first, I am completely uninterested in this point.
>
> As to the second, the jury is out, buy the current position is that you 
> are incorrect.

Judge actually and the full decision hasn't been made yet.

>
> tim
>
>
>

BTW do you work for some ROBbers or what?

"R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
news:A5adnQvxJNReXu7aRVnyigA@bt.com...
>
> "tim....."  wrote in message 
> news:5tg0hmF1cqi6hU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Mike Ross"  wrote in message 
>> news:5lg5n3l575hd1e671424v2a2g0n2ja2buu@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:27:39 -0000, "tim....." 
>>> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>And the same is true of every national football league, it is worth more 
>>>>to
>>>>the home country than to others.
>>>
>>> Of course it is. That doesn't (or shouldn't) prevent residents of the 
>>> home
>>> country buying it more cheaply elsewhere in the EU.
>>
>> morally or legally?
>
> Both - it is ridiculous that HP, MS or Yamaha complain about "grey 
> markets" in their goods that they have sold cheaply elsewhere (e.g. Hong 
> Kong) and some trader with a bit of enterprise has imported into the UK to 
> sell below the rip off prices they charge for the same stuff here.
>
> Legally one would hope that the UK courts would uphold over a century of 
> Free Trade law and tradition in the UK and the treaties about this that 
> the UK has entered into.
>
>>
>> As to the first, I am completely uninterested in this point.
>>
>> As to the second, the jury is out, buy the current position is that you 
>> are incorrect.
>
> Judge actually

Hm (takes book of idioms off shelf,  looks for "judge is out", nope sorry, 
can't find that one)

tim

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:04:19 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
 wrote:

<snip>

>
>So far from the poor landlady being a criminal, she has not even got a civil 
>case to answer.

The only people who think that are those who think that copyright law
is immoral.

I believe most people disagree with them.


-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Nobody home but the lights, and they're out too.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Alex Heney"  wrote in message 
news:gug8n39t6v01n1k9fnncb008b1n5vgqk7u@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:04:19 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
>  wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>>So far from the poor landlady being a criminal, she has not even got a 
>>civil
>>case to answer.
>
> The only people who think that are those who think that copyright law
> is immoral.
>
> I believe most people disagree with them.

I'm not sure that's right.

I think most people would agree that there should be some protection for 
artistic, musical and literary works in the form of copyright, but I also 
think most people would regard the length of protection (70 years ish from 
the death of the author) as being vastly too long.  It was designed to 
protect not only the author through his life but also two subsequent 
generations of his family.  Is that moral, especially given that a patent 
for an invention, however superb, lasts for a maximum of 20 years from its 
conception?

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:57:36 -0000
"Norman Wells"  wrote:

> 
> "Alex Heney"  wrote in message 
> news:gug8n39t6v01n1k9fnncb008b1n5vgqk7u@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:04:19 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
> >  wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>
> >>So far from the poor landlady being a criminal, she has not even
> >>got a civil
> >>case to answer.
> >
> > The only people who think that are those who think that copyright
> > law is immoral.
> >
> > I believe most people disagree with them.
> 
> I'm not sure that's right.
> 
> I think most people would agree that there should be some protection
> for artistic, musical and literary works in the form of copyright,
> but I also think most people would regard the length of protection
> (70 years ish from the death of the author)

That's in the USofA. Other countries have 50 years while Iraq has 30
years. That being one of the reasons Disney had Dubya invade. Or so
some wit put about

> as being vastly too
> long.  It was designed to protect not only the author through his
> life but also two subsequent generations of his family.  Is that
> moral, especially given that a patent for an invention, however
> superb, lasts for a maximum of 20 years from its conception?
> 
Quite agree

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 08:57:36 -0000, "Norman Wells"
 wrote:

>
>"Alex Heney"  wrote in message 
>news:gug8n39t6v01n1k9fnncb008b1n5vgqk7u@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:04:19 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
>>  wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>>So far from the poor landlady being a criminal, she has not even got a 
>>>civil
>>>case to answer.
>>
>> The only people who think that are those who think that copyright law
>> is immoral.
>>
>> I believe most people disagree with them.
>
>I'm not sure that's right.
>
>I think most people would agree that there should be some protection for 
>artistic, musical and literary works in the form of copyright, but I also 
>think most people would regard the length of protection (70 years ish from 
>the death of the author) as being vastly too long.  It was designed to 
>protect not only the author through his life but also two subsequent 
>generations of his family.  Is that moral, especially given that a patent 
>for an invention, however superb, lasts for a maximum of 20 years from its 
>conception?

All of which, while very likely true, is utterly irrelevant to the
question at issue.

The question at issue has nothing whatsoever to do with period of
copyright protection, but is about whether the copyright holder, when
licensing the showing of the works he has made, can impose
restrictions on that licence (such as, in the case at hand,
restricting purchasers of the licence to only show the material in
Greece).
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Can you repeat the part after "Listen very carefully"?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Alex Heney"  wrote in message 
news:94san39and7v7r9l1bi5pbfi4cveapoa10@4ax.com...

> The question at issue has nothing whatsoever to do with period of
> copyright protection, but is about whether the copyright holder, when
> licensing the showing of the works he has made, can impose
> restrictions on that licence (such as, in the case at hand,
> restricting purchasers of the licence to only show the material in
> Greece).

A licence is something freely entered into.  As such, it can contain any 
provisions the parties decide are in their mutual interests.  If the 
licensor and licensee agree that the the broadcasts will only be made in 
Greece, that is a matter entirely between themselves.  What can't be stopped 
under EU law is the free movement of goods placed on the market in one 
member state by or with the consent of the rights owner to any other member 
state.  That does not apply here, since it is not a question of taking 
anything from one member state to another, but of intercepting something 
intended for one member state and using it in another without the original 
member state being involved at all.

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:01:04 -0000, "Norman Wells"
 wrote:

>
>"Alex Heney"  wrote in message 
>news:94san39and7v7r9l1bi5pbfi4cveapoa10@4ax.com...
>
>> The question at issue has nothing whatsoever to do with period of
>> copyright protection, but is about whether the copyright holder, when
>> licensing the showing of the works he has made, can impose
>> restrictions on that licence (such as, in the case at hand,
>> restricting purchasers of the licence to only show the material in
>> Greece).
>
>A licence is something freely entered into.  As such, it can contain any 
>provisions the parties decide are in their mutual interests.  If the 
>licensor and licensee agree that the the broadcasts will only be made in 
>Greece, that is a matter entirely between themselves. 

Absolutely. And that is the crux of this discussion.


> What can't be stopped 
>under EU law is the free movement of goods placed on the market in one 
>member state by or with the consent of the rights owner to any other member 
>state.  That does not apply here, since it is not a question of taking 
>anything from one member state to another, but of intercepting something 
>intended for one member state and using it in another without the original 
>member state being involved at all.
> 

Yep.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Let's split up, we can do more damage that way.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

"Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
news:fl2dq4$6e9$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Alex Heney"  wrote in message 
> news:gug8n39t6v01n1k9fnncb008b1n5vgqk7u@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:04:19 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
>>  wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>>So far from the poor landlady being a criminal, she has not even got a 
>>>civil
>>>case to answer.
>>
>> The only people who think that are those who think that copyright law
>> is immoral.
>>
>> I believe most people disagree with them.
>
> I'm not sure that's right.
>
> I think most people would agree that there should be some protection for 
> artistic, musical and literary works in the form of copyright, but I also 
> think most people would regard the length of protection (70 years ish from 
> the death of the author) as being vastly too long.  It was designed to 
> protect not only the author through his life but also two subsequent 
> generations of his family.  Is that moral, especially given that a patent 
> for an invention, however superb, lasts for a maximum of 20 years from its 
> conception?
>

That is not the point here - PL/$ky have accepted payment once (albeit in an 
other EU country) and now they want paid again and then some...

Having their cake and eating it?

"Alex Heney"  wrote in message 
news:vafdn35nj5eqf8lonl2gdleokdsulf7s5a@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:01:04 -0000, "Norman Wells"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Alex Heney"  wrote in message
>>news:94san39and7v7r9l1bi5pbfi4cveapoa10@4ax.com...
>>
>>> The question at issue has nothing whatsoever to do with period of
>>> copyright protection, but is about whether the copyright holder, when
>>> licensing the showing of the works he has made, can impose
>>> restrictions on that licence (such as, in the case at hand,
>>> restricting purchasers of the licence to only show the material in
>>> Greece).
>>
>>A licence is something freely entered into.  As such, it can contain any
>>provisions the parties decide are in their mutual interests.  If the
>>licensor and licensee agree that the the broadcasts will only be made in
>>Greece, that is a matter entirely between themselves.
>
> Absolutely. And that is the crux of this discussion.
>
>
>> What can't be stopped
>>under EU law is the free movement of goods placed on the market in one
>>member state by or with the consent of the rights owner to any other 
>>member
>>state.  That does not apply here, since it is not a question of taking
>>anything from one member state to another, but of intercepting something
>>intended for one member state and using it in another without the original
>>member state being involved at all.
>>
>
> Yep.
> -- 
> Alex Heney, Global Villager
> Let's split up, we can do more damage that way.
> To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

The Single European Act applies to Goods AND SERVICES.

I don't think $kp/PL care if the receiver and card are imported, what they 
are trying to prevent is UK resellers legitimately buying the service more 
cheaply in another EU country, so they have three choices: -

1. Stop selling out-side the UK.
or
2. Equalise the prices.
or
3. Use the full panoply of the law to try and criminalise those smart enough 
to trade internationally.

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 18:42:56 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
 wrote:

>
>"Alex Heney"  wrote in message 
>news:vafdn35nj5eqf8lonl2gdleokdsulf7s5a@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:01:04 -0000, "Norman Wells"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Alex Heney"  wrote in message
>>>news:94san39and7v7r9l1bi5pbfi4cveapoa10@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> The question at issue has nothing whatsoever to do with period of
>>>> copyright protection, but is about whether the copyright holder, when
>>>> licensing the showing of the works he has made, can impose
>>>> restrictions on that licence (such as, in the case at hand,
>>>> restricting purchasers of the licence to only show the material in
>>>> Greece).
>>>
>>>A licence is something freely entered into.  As such, it can contain any
>>>provisions the parties decide are in their mutual interests.  If the
>>>licensor and licensee agree that the the broadcasts will only be made in
>>>Greece, that is a matter entirely between themselves.
>>
>> Absolutely. And that is the crux of this discussion.
>>
>>
>>> What can't be stopped
>>>under EU law is the free movement of goods placed on the market in one
>>>member state by or with the consent of the rights owner to any other 
>>>member
>>>state.  That does not apply here, since it is not a question of taking
>>>anything from one member state to another, but of intercepting something
>>>intended for one member state and using it in another without the original
>>>member state being involved at all.
>>>
>>
>> Yep.
>> -- 
>> Alex Heney, Global Villager
>> Let's split up, we can do more damage that way.
>> To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
>
>The Single European Act applies to Goods AND SERVICES.

I think we all know that.

>I don't think $kp/PL care if the receiver and card are imported, what they 
>are trying to prevent is UK resellers legitimately buying the service more 
>cheaply in another EU country,
>

You are simply wrong on this assertion.

As has now been decided by the courts.

> so they have three choices: -
>1. Stop selling out-side the UK.
>or
>2. Equalise the prices.
>or
>3. Use the full panoply of the law to try and criminalise those smart enough 
>to trade internationally. 
>

You mean use the law to enforce the licenses they have sold.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Crime doesn't pay... does that mean my job is a crime?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:02:30 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
 wrote:

>
>"Norman Wells"  wrote in message 
>news:fl2dq4$6e9$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> "Alex Heney"  wrote in message 
>> news:gug8n39t6v01n1k9fnncb008b1n5vgqk7u@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:04:19 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>So far from the poor landlady being a criminal, she has not even got a 
>>>>civil
>>>>case to answer.
>>>
>>> The only people who think that are those who think that copyright law
>>> is immoral.
>>>
>>> I believe most people disagree with them.
>>
>> I'm not sure that's right.
>>
>> I think most people would agree that there should be some protection for 
>> artistic, musical and literary works in the form of copyright, but I also 
>> think most people would regard the length of protection (70 years ish from 
>> the death of the author) as being vastly too long.  It was designed to 
>> protect not only the author through his life but also two subsequent 
>> generations of his family.  Is that moral, especially given that a patent 
>> for an invention, however superb, lasts for a maximum of 20 years from its 
>> conception?
>>
>
>That is not the point here - PL/$ky have accepted payment once (albeit in an 
>other EU country) and now they want paid again and then some...
>
>Having their cake and eating it? 
>

They have accepted payment once for showing the material in *Greece*.
They have NOT accepted payment for showing the material in the UK.

They now want payment to licence showing the material in the UK.

That is perfectly fair and reasonable IMO.

And legal in the opinion of the courts.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:45:25 +0000, Alex Heney  wrote:

<vast snip>

>You mean use the law to enforce the licenses they have sold.

It's still not clear to me who has sold what to whom:

1. Is the satellite service legitimately sold in Greece?
2. Is the Greek supplier authorised to sell it?
3. Are there terms attached to that authorisation which purport to preclude the
Greek supplier from selling it to the UK, or to a British individual?

If yes, yes, and no - I don't know what all the fuss is about.
If yes, yes, and yes - I don't see how that's compatible with EU rules on free
movement of goods and services. AFAIK no-one can force the Greeks to sell to the
UK, but no-one can prevent them either.

I'm not clear why Sky and/or the FL even have standing to intervene in the
relationship between the publican and the Greek company - she's not a customer
of either of them, in fact she has NO business relationship with them. But the
court seem to have decided that... what? Something like 'national copyright
laws'?... override EU free movement of goods and services provisions? I honestly
don't see that surviving appeal; that would be a means of shutting down quite a
few important areas of free trade.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

Alex Heney  writes:

> They have accepted payment once for showing the material in *Greece*.
> They have NOT accepted payment for showing the material in the UK.
>
> They now want payment to licence showing the material in the UK.
>
> That is perfectly fair and reasonable IMO.

How is this different from the case of the BBC/ITV/C4/Five buying the
rights to a show particular programme/series in the UK and the
terrestrial transmissions being received by viewers in the Netherlands?
Have the rights owners of any programmes shown on UK terrestrial TV ever
prosecuted a viewer on the continent because the programme was not
licensed to be received in their country[1]?

I know that this is a slightly different scenario, but I think the
principle is the same. Why should a Greek family living in the UK be
prohibited from buying a viewing card to watch satellite TV from Greece
just because the Premier League, and others, say that the material that
the Greek station has licensed from them (which is probably a very small
proportion of the station's output) is only to be shown to viewers
in Greece? 

IMHO this whole area of law needs changing to bring it into line with
the single European market. Such that anyone in any member state be
allowed to legally purchase and use a viewing card for any satellite
station whose signal they can receive. As these stations are
subscription only, the rights holders know how many (potential) viewers
there are. This would enable those who have exercised the right of
working and living in any EU country to watch their 'home' TV
stations. It would also, both for the stations and programme providers,
introduce more competition.

[1] Possibly because the rights for their country have been sold to a
different TV station.

"Graham Murray"  wrote in message 
news:8763yff7l6.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
> Alex Heney  writes:
>
>> They have accepted payment once for showing the material in *Greece*.
>> They have NOT accepted payment for showing the material in the UK.
>>
>> They now want payment to licence showing the material in the UK.
>>
>> That is perfectly fair and reasonable IMO.
>
> How is this different from the case of the BBC/ITV/C4/Five buying the
> rights to a show particular programme/series in the UK and the
> terrestrial transmissions being received by viewers in the Netherlands?

Nothing.  (though it could be that somebody has paid for a license to do 
this)

> Have the rights owners of any programmes shown on UK terrestrial TV ever
> prosecuted a viewer on the continent because the programme was not
> licensed to be received in their country[1]?

No, but that doesn't mean it's because they don't expect to win.  It's 
almost certainly because the quantum doesn't make it work the bother.

> I know that this is a slightly different scenario, but I think the
> principle is the same. Why should a Greek family living in the UK be
> prohibited from buying a viewing card to watch satellite TV from Greece
> just because the Premier League, and others, say that the material that
> the Greek station has licensed from them (which is probably a very small
> proportion of the station's output) is only to be shown to viewers
> in Greece?

for the same reason that SKY won't (oficially) let people living in Greece 
(or Spain) buy a viewing card for their service.  Because they haven't 
bought the rights to show the program (in English) in Greece (or Spain). 
It's irrelevent that this 'rights' issue only affects a small proportion of 
the channel's output, it is a business decision for the channel to decide 
how they solve the problem of not having the rights.

> IMHO this whole area of law needs changing to bring it into line with
> the single European market. Such that anyone in any member state be
> allowed to legally purchase and use a viewing card for any satellite
> station whose signal they can receive. As these stations are
> subscription only, the rights holders know how many (potential) viewers
> there are. This would enable those who have exercised the right of
> working and living in any EU country to watch their 'home' TV
> stations. It would also, both for the stations and programme providers,
> introduce more competition.

I agree.  But I don't see that it is reasonable to attempt to reach this end 
by flouting the law and then going into a sulk when you are told (that which 
you already knew), that it is wrong.

tim

> [1] Possibly because the rights for their country have been sold to a
> different TV station.

"Graham Murray"  wrote in message 
news:8763yff7l6.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk...
> Alex Heney  writes:
>
>> They have accepted payment once for showing the material in *Greece*.
>> They have NOT accepted payment for showing the material in the UK.

They have accepted payment for goods and services in Greece which is part of 
the EU.

They are now using the goods and services elsewhere in the EU.

>>
>> They now want payment to licence showing the material in the UK.

They have sold a licence to watch the material in one EU state and it is 
being used in another - it is not being used twice.

>>
>> That is perfectly fair and reasonable IMO.
>>
>> And legal in the opinion of the courts.

not yet - that part of the judgement is reserved.

>
> How is this different from the case of the BBC/ITV/C4/Five buying the
> rights to a show particular programme/series in the UK and the
> terrestrial transmissions being received by viewers in the Netherlands?
> Have the rights owners of any programmes shown on UK terrestrial TV ever
> prosecuted a viewer on the continent because the programme was not
> licensed to be received in their country[1]?
>
> I know that this is a slightly different scenario, but I think the
> principle is the same. Why should a Greek family living in the UK be
> prohibited from buying a viewing card to watch satellite TV from Greece
> just because the Premier League, and others, say that the material that
> the Greek station has licensed from them (which is probably a very small
> proportion of the station's output) is only to be shown to viewers
> in Greece?

Why should it have to be a Greek family?  I happen to like to watch French 
TV - this was easy before digital because I bought a D2-MAC decoder (not 
decrypter) and a SECAM compatible TV and they used to show (for free) the 
same films $ky charged for with the English (VO) sound track available - and 
you could often get UK football on Scandinavian stations, although I actuall 
watch very little.

>
> IMHO this whole area of law needs changing to bring it into line with
> the single European market. Such that anyone in any member state be
> allowed to legally purchase and use a viewing card for any satellite
> station whose signal they can receive. As these stations are
> subscription only, the rights holders know how many (potential) viewers
> there are. This would enable those who have exercised the right of
> working and living in any EU country to watch their 'home' TV
> stations.

Hear hear!
Why only "home", why not anything one happens to want to watch?

> It would also, both for the stations and programme providers,
> introduce more competition.

Now we are getting near the nub - competition is the very last thing $ky 
wants, if there was genuine competition prices would come down and they 
wouldn't be able to make monopoly profits.

IMO it is the duty of the state to ensure open and orderly markets and 
exactly the opposite has happened with English language satellite TV.  True 
the BBC and ITV eventually realised that being in bed with $ky was actually 
counter to their interests, lets hope that $ky's other methods of keeping a 
grip on content (EPG manipulation, outbidding on football rights etc.) can 
be seen off too.

>
> [1] Possibly because the rights for their country have been sold to a
> different TV station.

"Mike Ross"  wrote in message 
news:1bpgn35f4n0nse0g6934k904jghudnkf8g@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:45:25 +0000, Alex Heney  wrote:
>
> <vast snip>
>
> > As has now been decided by the courts.

Only partly.

>
>>You mean use the law to enforce the licenses they have sold.
>
> It's still not clear to me who has sold what to whom:
>
> 1. Is the satellite service legitimately sold in Greece?

Yes.

> 2. Is the Greek supplier authorised to sell it?

Yes.

> 3. Are there terms attached to that authorisation which purport to 
> preclude the
> Greek supplier from selling it to the UK,

Maybe, but under the Single European Act there is nothing to stop the 
transfer of goods and services between member states, so either someone can 
buy it and move it (which is what happened) or the vendor could even 
actively sell into the UK (because T&C to prevent this would be a restraint 
of trade so void and severable).  OTOH if a foreign company did market 
directly into the UK $ky would probably persuade the PL to stop serving them 
and the UK government would strangle them with red tape (films to be 
certified etc.).

> or to a British individual?

This would be contrary to the EDHR and illegal (racism).

>
> If yes, yes, and no - I don't know what all the fuss is about.
> If yes, yes, and yes - I don't see how that's compatible with EU rules on 
> free
> movement of goods and services. AFAIK no-one can force the Greeks to sell 
> to the
> UK, but no-one can prevent them either.
>
> I'm not clear why Sky and/or the FL even have standing to intervene in the
> relationship between the publican and the Greek company - she's not a 
> customer
> of either of them, in fact she has NO business relationship with them. But 
> the
> court seem to have decided that... what? Something like 'national 
> copyright
> laws'?... override EU free movement of goods and services provisions? I 
> honestly
> don't see that surviving appeal; that would be a means of shutting down 
> quite a
> few important areas of free trade.
>
> Mike
> --
> http://www.corestore.org
> 'As I walk along these shores
> I am the history within'

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:47:28 +0000, Alex Heney  wrote:


>They have accepted payment once for showing the material in *Greece*.

They have accepted payment for showing the material in the EU.

They want to be able to dictate which parts of the EU the material can and can't
be shown in.

To me that's bad and wrong, and makes a mockery of EU free trade in goods &
services.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:34:33 -0500, Mike Ross  wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:47:28 +0000, Alex Heney  wrote:
>
>
>> They have accepted payment once for showing the material in *Greece*.
>
> They have accepted payment for showing the material in the EU.
>
> They want to be able to dictate which parts of the EU the material can and can't
> be shown in.
>
> To me that's bad and wrong, and makes a mockery of EU free trade in goods &
> services.

There is a degree of freedom of movement that allows providers and
suppliers to offer goods and services within the EU but there is no
requirement that they do so.  There never has been a right of a consumer
to force a supplier to offer goods or services where and when the supplier
chooses not to (with exceptions, such as a public service licence requires
the supply or declining to supply would be unlawful discrimination.)

Tony

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 15:36:21 -0500, "Anthony R. Gold" 
wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:34:33 -0500, Mike Ross  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:47:28 +0000, Alex Heney  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> They have accepted payment once for showing the material in *Greece*.
>>
>> They have accepted payment for showing the material in the EU.
>>
>> They want to be able to dictate which parts of the EU the material can and can't
>> be shown in.
>>
>> To me that's bad and wrong, and makes a mockery of EU free trade in goods &
>> services.
>
>There is a degree of freedom of movement that allows providers and
>suppliers to offer goods and services within the EU but there is no
>requirement that they do so.  There never has been a right of a consumer
>to force a supplier to offer goods or services where and when the supplier
>chooses not to (with exceptions, such as a public service licence requires
>the supply or declining to supply would be unlawful discrimination.)

Of course not. The PL has no obligation to deal with Sky, or anyone. Sky isn't
required to sell services in Greece. Greek distributors aren't compelle