Premier League wins anti-piracy court order

[Serpha]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40727972

The Premier League has been awarded a High Court order for the forthcoming 2017-18 season, which will help it combat the illegal streaming of games.
The blocking order will require UK Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to prevent people from illegally accessing streams of its matches.
It will allow the league to combat the illicit sale and use of devices such as pre-loaded IPTV and Kodi boxes.
A similar order was obtained for the final two months of the 2016-17 season.
That saw more then 5,000 server IP addresses blocked that had previously been streaming Premier League content.
Sky and BT Sport hold the live rights for Premier League football. The two firms paid a record £5.136bn for rights to show live matches for three seasons.
What are Kodi boxes?
Kodi is free software, built by volunteers, that is designed to bring videos, music, games and photographs together in one easy-to-use application.
Some shops sell set-top boxes and TV sticks known as Kodi boxes, preloaded with the software.
The developers behind Kodi say their software does not contain any content of its own and is designed to play legally owned media or content "freely available" on the internet.
However, the software can be modified with third-party add-ons that provide access to pirated copies of films and TV series, or provide free access to subscription television channels and programmes, including sports events.
The English top flight League is currently undertaking its biggest ever copyright protection programme.
Its anti-piracy efforts have also contributed to a range of prominent apps and add-ons being closed down as the law catches up with them.
"This blocking order is a game-changer in our efforts to tackle the supply and use of illicit streams of our content," said Premier League Director of Legal Services, Kevin Plumb.
"It will allow us to quickly and effectively block and disrupt the illegal broadcast of Premier League football via any means, including so called 'pre-loaded Kodi boxes'.
"The protection of our copyright, and the investment made by our broadcast partners, is hugely important to the Premier League and the future health of English football."
A recent poll of 1,000 people for BBC 5 live Daily found:
Nearly half of fans say they have streamed a match online through an unofficial provider - just over a third do so at least once a month and about one in five at least once a week
The main reasons include a friend/family member doing it and they just watch; the quality of the stream; and because sports TV packages are considered not good value for money
Just under a third of fans do not know whether it is illegal to stream live Premier League matches online from unofficial providers, but another third believe it is always illegal.
Share this story About sharing

When corporations have this much power over internet, it's when tyranny begins. Very worrying outcome, I understand why they are trying to do it but not like this, not like this!

[durrtygoodz]

UK ISPs are already required to block torrent sites and I don't think that has slowed anyone down. Anyone who can use a torrent site is capable of using a VPN, same goes for people streaming PL matches.

[Mister Cheese]

Of course its illegal. But it doesn't mean that the person doing it is going to stop.

[Serpha]

I think this sets a precedence to further censor internet. What's stopping them block other IP's? Nothing, now other things will follow, things that government doesn't like.

[Tackhisis]

Internet wasn't made to facilitate the crime. To block users who violate the law is OK.

[Thrif]

Not sure why people are getting their knickers in a twist over this, it's perfectly reasonable for companies to want to protect their IP. Let's wait until they start banning half the internet like certain countries we won't mention, and then we can start getting upset...

[Reyzzz]

Internet wasn't made to facilitate the crime. To block users who violate the law is OK.

Hardly a crime, to me law should be about guidelines/morals etc, how to live without conflict all that, this "law" you speak of just has been created out of thin air to increase profits and ticket sales.

[Tomservo]

Hardly a crime, to me law should be about guidelines/morals etc, how to live without conflict all that, this "law" you speak of just has been created out of thin air to increase profits and ticket sales.

Sounds like this could be theft of service. Where does that stand in morality to you?

[Deleted]

Hardly a crime, to me law should be about guidelines/morals etc, how to live without conflict all that, this "law" you speak of just has been created out of thin air to increase profits and ticket sales.

The law has always been primarily about protecting the financial investments of the privileged few, don't be naieve enough to think otherwise.


Also I have no interest in stopping watching games 'illegally' while Sky/BT make the whole experience incredibly expensive and excessively annoying.

[Charge me Doctor]

The two firms paid a record £5.136bn for rights to show live matches for three seasons.

The fuck? Is this for real? Why it's so expensive in the first place? I would love to see how they came up with these numbers.

- - - Updated - - -

The law has always been primarily about protecting the financial investments of the privileged few, don't be naieve enough to think otherwise.

That's not true. Some individuals pushed unlawful laws, other individuals ignored this problem and we have what we have now. Law exists exactly for the purpose @Reyzzz describe and not for some monetary gain - these should be swept with a filthy broom

[durrtygoodz]

The fuck? Is this for real? Why it's so expensive in the first place? I would love to see how they came up with these numbers.

In the old deal Sky essentially had the monopoly on the rights to broadcast, but when the rights went up for renewal BT entered as a serious contender and a bidding war ensued. It's worth that much money to these two companies because of subscription fees and huge ad revenues.

[Charge me Doctor]

Not sure why people are getting their knickers in a twist over this, it's perfectly reasonable for companies to want to protect their IP. Let's wait until they start banning half the internet like certain countries we won't mention, and then we can start getting upset...

That case creates a precedent for banning whatever big compaines want "to protect their IP" - cutting off buyers arms before they enter your shop so they won't steal shouldn't be the case.
They provide shitty service, people show them that it's not hard to provide good service - they blame people instead of providing good service. Fucking great logic here m8.

We had similar crap with our local ICP when it was easier to ask for a proxy for internet access via local network from your neighbor splitting the bill than pay ridiculous amount of money for internet. Guess what did the ICP? They didn't blocked this function but provided users with cheaper internet options, because they knew that if they just ban proxying the'll lose all their clients

- - - Updated - - -

In the old deal Sky essentially had the monopoly on the rights to broadcast, but when the rights went up for renewal BT entered as a serious contender and a bidding war ensued. It's worth that much money to these two companies because of subscription fees and huge ad revenues.

Well i guess if they didn't spend this ridiculous amount of money they could provide users with cheaper access, which would solve that problem of illegal streams, but hey, who needs that shit right?
Thanks for providing some context tho

[Tackhisis]

Hardly a crime, to me law should be about guidelines/morals etc.

So expecting people to be paid for their work is not a morally right thing to you?

[Serpha]

In the old deal Sky essentially had the monopoly on the rights to broadcast, but when the rights went up for renewal BT entered as a serious contender and a bidding war ensued. It's worth that much money to these two companies because of subscription fees and huge ad revenues.

Yup, I'm paying £51 a month for BT Infinity 2 and BTSport, if I wanted to move to cheaper provider Plusnet it would cost me £29 a month, so you can see how much BT is charging for the "privilege" of watching Champions League.

[owbu]

Youtube is a pretty good example, why companies (ISPs in this case) being in charge of handeling conflicts between their users can be terrible. Comapnies will always try to spent as little effort as possible on this, while trying to avoid law suits. Which means an automated system, that usually says yes to companies requests, wether they made sense or not.
Even if Sky and BT are really trying to only block actual premier league streams, there will be cases of accidental blocking. And I am somewhat sure, that there is a bunch of lawyers, siting in a room at BT right now, trying to figure out, what else they could technically be allowed to block under this ruling.
So yeah, not as bad as the goverment blocking sites in the name of "freedom", but I dont see this ending well.

[Thrif]

That case creates a precedent for banning whatever big compaines want "to protect their IP"

Possibly, but not necessarily. All we know as of now is that they're shutting down illegal streaming sites, which is well within their rights.

- cutting off buyers arms before they enter your shop so they won't steal shouldn't be the case.

Not really getting that metaphor if I'm honest.

They provide shitty service, people show them that it's not hard to provide good service - they blame people instead of providing good service. Fucking great logic here m8.

Uh, it's not a shitty service vs good service issue, it's a company that has every right to offer whatever service they see fit vs illegal streaming websites issue. If they provide shitty service you have every right to not use it, which is how it usually goes.

We had similar crap with our local ICP when it was easier to ask for a proxy for internet access via local network from your neighbor splitting the bill than pay ridiculous amount of money for internet. Guess what did the ICP? They didn't blocked this function but provided users with cheaper internet options, because they knew that if they just ban proxying the'll lose all their clients

Yeah, because as you said, they'd lose all their clients otherwise, not because they wanted to. It's comparative to a store having to lower their prices because otherwise people starts walking in and just stealing everything, it's not really how business is supposed to work...

[Reyzzz]

So expecting people to be paid for their work is not a morally right thing to you?

I find it immoral that a single player is paid millions of currency units a year, while people who actually advance society/humanity get a fraction of that. If you want to get to the bottom of it, I mean.

[Miyagie]

So expecting people to be paid for their work is not a morally right thing to you?

Germans are forced to pay for there puplic TV and the puplic TV/Radio earns every year around 8.1 Billion € and the CL contract is running out, the only thing that would be interresting (for most germans) goes off air from our puplic TV stations. So even as one of the biggest football nations we have to pay twice to see the games now (atm we pay twice to all CL games). So in the near future i will watch the shity streams too for the final games and i dont give a shit if the people getting paid for, i only hope the complet football industry crashes hard.

[Rixis]

Germans are forced to pay for there puplic TV and the puplic TV/Radio earns every year around 8.1 Billion € and the CL contract is running out, the only thing that would be interresting (for most germans) goes off air from our puplic TV stations. So even as one of the biggest football nations we have to pay twice to see the games now (atm we pay twice to all CL games). So in the near future i will watch the shity streams too for the final games and i dont give a shit if the people getting paid for, i only hope the complet football industry crashes hard.

Same in the UK, you have to pay for the TV licence, then pay for Sky or BT.