On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 23:02:48 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <
jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-10-07, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 21:02:49 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-10-07, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Now, it does say, further down that article, that
The judge recognised that Faulkner's use of the unauthorised service was a
crime in itself which lead to him receiving a separate sentence of four >>>> months' imprisonment.
Now, that is technically accurate - it's an offence under section 11 of the
Fraud Act 2006:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/11
I do love it when you say something that I think is clearly wrong...
The CPS think that FA section 11 can be used against someone who
"attaches a decoder to his TV to enable him to access chargeable
satellite services without paying".
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/fraud-act-2006
But that's not what we were talking about. We (and bestreamwise.com)
were talking about streaming from unlicensed sources, not streaming
from licensed sources without paying.
But the press release, which I quoted above, mentioned streaming licensed sources without paying. Which is, apparently, what some of the Kodi add-ons will do for you. And that is a section 11 offence, and both of the
individuals mentioned in the press release appear to have been convicted of
it. But the bestreamwise campaign doesn't make it clear which different
thing they're talking about at any one time.
Also, I suspect that a section 11 offence would be difficult to prosecute >>>> where the consumer has merely taken advantage of a freely available
unlicensed stream. The Premier League may argue that they only license their
content in the UK to Sky and TNT, but if someone is managing to access a >>>> stream from a free-to-air channel outside the UK instead then it isn't Sky >>>> or TNT's content being pirated, and there's no evasion of payment because >>>> the foreign broadcaster wouldn't be charging a fee anyway.
... and then explain why you are clearly wrong in the same post,
thus saving me the trouble ;-)
No, because in the actual cases mentioned (indirectly) in the original
report, the consumers had hacked the Sky feed in order to get that for
free. That is a pretty clear section 11 offence.
Indeed. But it also pretty clearly isn't what we were talking about.
It's part of what we're talking about.
If you stream from licensed source X while somehow avoiding paying
them for it, then as you say that is a section 11 offence. But if you
stream the same content from unlicensed source Y (while paying them
whatever fee they charge, if any) then that is clearly *not* a section
11 offence because it doesn't meet the criteria in subsection 2.
I think you'll find that "made available on the basis that payment has been,
is being or will be made for or in respect of them" means made available by
the original source (eg, Sky), and that paying someone else for them is
still obtaining them without payment to Sky. Or, rather, paying someone else for the software (eg, a Kodi add-on) which will allow you to receive a Sky stream without paying for it makes you guilty of the offence.
Mark
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)