Fifa, Uefa lose free-to-view footie challenge Upcoming World Cup and Euro football tournaments will not be shown in the UK by pay-to-view services like Sky, the European Union's General Court has effectively ruled. The Court this week judged that the European Commission (EC) had been right to approve a list of games, including all 64 World Cup and all 31 Euro matches, …
I suggest you read the rules - they are available on-line.
In a nutshell; if you have a tuner (e.g. tv, vcr, pvr, tv-card...) that is capable of receiving *live* TV broadcasts, then you must pay - even if such devices are not connected.
There are, however, a few wrinkles:
---If you "knobble" said device (e.g. break aerial sockets) you do not need to pay.
---If you watch lots and lots of DVDs and can prove that, you can avoid paying even if the tuners can easily be made active (there is precedence for this).
If you have no tuners and only watch catch-up (no live TV) then there is no need to pay either.
No, I suggest -you- read the rules. Having a device capable of receiving live broadcasts is not illegal. Using them to receive live broadcasts without a license is. You don't need to 'nobble' the aerial sockets, or 'prove your innocence' by harping on about your extensive DVD collection. Just refuse the inspector permission to enter your house, revoke his implied leave to pass onto your property to get to your front door, and ignore the dozens of threatening letters accusing you of being a criminal that you'll get from the TV Licensing offshoot of Crapita, and you're good.
It isn't even illegal to watch BBC programmes on iPlayer as long as you don't recieve at them at the same time as they are broadcast on television.
Like Aquilus says go tell them to go fuck themselves. Same as you would if Tesco came around and asked to look in your kitchen because they didn't believe you only shop in Asda.
Thanks to this tenacious landlady, a new era of football rights is being ushered in. In fact if she wins her case in the European Courts it may have serious implications for other media rights:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2011/feb/03/bskyb-news-corporation
The annoying thing is, why do we always need the European Courts to do these things for us? Of course, 'Dave' wouldn't want to go upsetting Rupert now, would he?
(Meanwhile I long ago gave up any sense of guilt about streaming sports on my PC)
Yes, like the original poster said: Real Men.
Real Men are comfortable with their sexuality and don't resort to tedious X Y or Z is "gay" jokes.
Just look at the state of Premiership Football how many players? A hundred, maybe more. Yet staggeringly not one of them is gay, or worse, not one of them who is gay feels able to come out. Rugby isn't much better, having said that. It's pathetic and needs to change.
I am not into football at all. When the World Cup was on last, a reversal happened: it was my girlfriend forcing me to watch the footy. So I don't particularly care about this WRT football.
What I am into is Formula 1. I can see a day when this ends up on Sky Sports. At that point I will be faced with a problem.
I don't mind paying to watch it. What I do mind is having to pay for all the other stuff (football etc.) that's shown on Sky JUST to watch my F1. I don't want to watch ManU play Arsenal or whatever else, just F1, but I would be forced to subscribe to the Sports package and shell out a big chunk of my hard-earned just to see the one sport I am interested in.
I am sure many people would be prepared to pay to watch the sports they want, but don't want to pay for those they will never watch.
I can see your point, but football fans are paying for other sports currently. For example, I absolutely loathe cricket (it's entirely pointless... how can a game last for weeks, then be declared a draw, and why are games between Sri Lanka and South Africa shown on British TV, when, say, a European Qualifier between Holland and Germany isn't?). I also loathe Rugby League.
In fact, sod it, I loathe most football. Sky's "Super Sunday" a few weeks ago was Bolton vs Everton. Hardly super. Sky rammed two games down my throat on Tuesday night - I watched neither. It transpires I'm paying £20 a month to watch the one or two games that interest me.
At least, as an F1 fan, you'll be shelling out your £20 for two races, two practice sessions and two qualifiers.
That way, the stupid Astro would stop dedicating a dozen of channels for exclusive Pay-Per-View football and bring in more useful channels, like say Discovery HD and bring back BBC Entertainment.
I'm still having Dr. Who and Red Dwarf withdrawals two years into those bastards dropping the channel from their lineup.
from Fifa Mission statement:-
FIFA World Cup™ and the various other world cup competitions; it extends to safeguarding the Laws of the Game, developing the game around the world and to bringing hope to those less privileged. This is what we believe is the very essence of fair play and solidarity.
Great way to develop the game by denying it to the majority of viewers, who are less privileged and are unable to pay for "pay to view services".
I just can't wait for Sepp to pass on. Hopefully, the next bung chokes him!
Right on. It's about time the thieving bastards got their come-uppance and were made to realise that we, not they, pay their wages and WE say, stop digging into our pockets in order to exert your maximum pressure for maximum income which you have NOT earned. You've got me all of a doo-dah. After all, it's one thing being a nation of shopkeepers but totally different to be one of the forty (?) thieves.
"generally pay more for transmission permission than the free-to-air services do."
I don't think I have read or heard a discussion about footy that has not involved the money-side. It's not a game anymore, it's an industry and money-circus.
Good see the consumers finally getting something useful for once, rather than getting shafted again by Murdoch.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
