[Archived] Streaming Links

[Ste B]

In advance of other changes to our posting guidelines, we are bringing forward one change before the season starts.

Anybody who places streaming links on the site, hints at streaming links, or who requests streaming links will automatically be given a 7 day posting ban for a first offence. Persistent offending will result in more severe measures.

This is because we are unsure of the legality of such sites, and the fact that they are run commercially, and the fact that this site has a good relationship with the club.

[Hasta]

Where do we stand on naming which pubs are showing the away games live? :ph34r:

That always seems to be a touchy subject as well.

[ihateburnley]

Why doesn't someone somewhere try to find out what the rules actually are?

We've been using this 'we don't know what the law is' for far too long now, when if we had a definitive yes or no we could just amend the posting guidelines as appropriate.

And to be fair most of the people requesting streaming links seem to be those who have no physical possibilty of otherwise viewing the match - so how would this detract from the site's relationship with the club?

[Alex Rover]

Just to let you know that site's that only stream material aren't illegal at all. It's it's only the ones that actually host the material that are. I know that stream's have to come from somewhere so it is a mute point but at the moment it's a legal loophole meaning that at the moment, streams are legal.

I'm not voicing an opinion, just some information.

[Mr. E]

what happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ?

[Ste B]

Theres a balance to be struck somewhere, and its obviously unfortunate that some of our expat visitors will get hit a little.

That and the guys running the streaming sites are not doing it for the good of their health, they are making a rake of money out of them.

It appears that were actually the last Rovers site to have banned streaming sites.

[Beta Ray Bill]

And to be fair most of the people requesting streaming links seem to be those who have no physical possibilty of otherwise viewing the match - so how would this detract from the site's relationship with the club?

Would buying a pirate DVD from the back of some geezers car on a Sunday morning detract from someone's relationship with Paramount or MGM?

[ihateburnley]

Would buying a pirate DVD from the back of some geezers car on a Sunday morning detract from someone's relationship with Paramount or MGM?

Hardly the same is it? To watch the Rovers if you aren't at the stadium you can't see the game - or at least legally.

As for the streaming companies making a lot of money out of it at the club's expense - isn't this exactly what Sky have been doing for years albeit through legal avenues?

[Beta Ray Bill]

Hardly the same is it? To watch the Rovers if you aren't at the stadium you can't see the game - or at least legally.

As for the streaming companies making a lot of money out of it at the club's expense - isn't this exactly what Sky have been doing for years albeit through legal avenues?

Neither are legal and both put money into someone breaking the law's hands. Pretty similar to me.

And Sky do rather contribute to the club's fortunes you know.

[Hasta]

Theres a balance to be struck somewhere, and its obviously unfortunate that some of our expat visitors will get hit a little.

To be honest if expat's look hard enough on a match day they'll find them. I check quite a few sports-related forums on a Saturday including a well known betting exchange and a few link to the streams.

I'm not saying don't ban it. It's the admins decision and if it even might get the site into trouble then fair enough. However if anyone really wants to watch on the internet they shouldn't need this messageboard to point the way.

[Cocker]

Just to let you know that site's that only stream material aren't illegal at all. It's it's only the ones that actually host the material that are. I know that stream's have to come from somewhere so it is a mute point but at the moment it's a legal loophole meaning that at the moment, streams are legal.

I'm not voicing an opinion, just some information.

I dont think this is 100% true. I used to question how certain sites got away with it and some had a little disclaimer at the bottom saying that they were only linking to other sites so could not be held responsible for the content. I check back a few weeks later saying that Paramount/Fox which ever one it was have made them shut down the site.

Given this, if its not illegal then HOW could they have been made to shut down their site that just links to others?

At the end of the day we dont want this site getting shut down do we for fear that we are providing links.

If someone is that desperate there is a new fangled gadgie called google that might be able to help you :ph34r:

EDIT: Just fully read Hasta's post and realized that my last comment echos his

[Cheshireblue]

Just to let you know that site's that only stream material aren't illegal at all. It's it's only the ones that actually host the material that are. I know that stream's have to come from somewhere so it is a mute point but at the moment it's a legal loophole meaning that at the moment, streams are legal.

I'm not voicing an opinion, just some information.

Far be it from me to criticize the comments of an anonymous poster on an internet nessage board, but that is utter pony.

The law is unclear at the moment as to what you can and cannot stream. It is absolutely NOT the case that only hosting sites are guilty of an offence. Those that facilitate and benefit from the unauthorised breach of copyrighted or protected material are almost certainly also committing an offence either punishable criminally or in the civil courts.

Leading Counsel cannot give a definitive view on it as the law is currently untested. That is why there is not a definite yes or no answer.

I suspect that this site would not thank you for making it the test case.

[broadsword]

Hardly the same is it? To watch the Rovers if you aren't at the stadium you can't see the game - or at least legally.

As for the streaming companies making a lot of money out of it at the club's expense - isn't this exactly what Sky have been doing for years albeit through legal avenues?

makes sense to me - if you're not at the game and it's not televised, you can't watch it, seems perfectly reasonable.

Have Sky been making money at the club's expense? I didn't realise, I thought they gave Rovers money for it, no?

[roverich]

-->

QUOTE(Ste B @ Aug 2 2007, 20:11 ) 533540[/snapback]

That and the guys running the streaming sites are not doing it for the good of their health, they are making a rake of money out of them.

Oh the poor old people who pay to show/watch live games legitimately... clubs must really be suffering from the lack of TV revenue as a result of these streams :ph34r:

CheshireBlue, regarding the legality of it, I thought it was simply the fact that all countries have their own laws concerning copyrights, etc. Many Asian countries have very lenient laws allowing people to stream whatever content they like worldwide (which is why some of their Universities do it as research - testing the capabilities of the net to provide such a facility) but probably the most obvious example is Canada who have so few copyright laws it is perfectly legal to host pretty much anything on the web for others to download: their theories are that anyone who has the license for a product should have easy access to it again if required (sort of backup purposes I guess) and those that don't hold the license can't download it. That idea is probably full of holes but it's pretty much what I read somewhere when I decided to question the legality of bit torrent sites.

[Eddie]

Would buying a pirate DVD from the back of some geezers car on a Sunday morning detract from someone's relationship with Paramount or MGM?

Yes. I'm sure that those companies would be reluctant to cooperate with you if they were aware of the fact that you were aiding or supporting black market dvd sales.

It makes perfect sense that this site can't be seen to be participating in those sorts of activities. It is unfortunate for expats, but we will simply have to find other ways to communicate that won't but the site in jeapordy. Half the time the links don't work anyway.

[Biddy]

I'm suprised this thread has been allowed to go into discussion. I though the original post by Steb was clear, no requests, no links, no arguments. Simple.

Who cares what the legalities are, the decision has been made that these should not be posted.

[modes98]

I check back a few weeks later saying that Paramount/Fox which ever one it was have made them shut down the site.

Big companies have good lawyers and lots of money. They are willing to threaten sites with court action and who are they to argue when who knows what the outcome will be? They are like west ham

[LeftWinger]

I'm suprised this thread has been allowed to go into discussion.

Banning the links is one thing - but banning any discussion on it is bordering on Nazism.

[Cheshireblue]

--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ste B @ Aug 2 2007, 20:11 ) 533540[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->That and the guys running the streaming sites are not doing it for the good of their health, they are making a rake of money out of them.

Oh the poor old people who pay to show/watch live games legitimately... clubs must really be suffering from the lack of TV revenue as a result of these streams :ph34r:

CheshireBlue, regarding the legality of it, I thought it was simply the fact that all countries have their own laws concerning copyrights, etc. Many Asian countries have very lenient laws allowing people to stream whatever content they like worldwide (which is why some of their Universities do it as research - testing the capabilities of the net to provide such a facility) but probably the most obvious example is Canada who have so few copyright laws it is perfectly legal to host pretty much anything on the web for others to download: their theories are that anyone who has the license for a product should have easy access to it again if required (sort of backup purposes I guess) and those that don't hold the license can't download it. That idea is probably full of holes but it's pretty much what I read somewhere when I decided to question the legality of bit torrent sites.

You're right, it is full of holes.

I won't bore you with too much detail, but in essence, the intellectual property generated by a football game, or the recording thereof is owned by someone. They have to permit you to reproduce it. If you reproduce it without authorisation or facilitate it's reproduction you are in breach of their IP rights. The fact that, say, Canada, does not have as stringent IP laws as say the UK, does not mean that you are not committing an offence or breaching the rights of the owner in the UK, just that Canada does not recognise it as an offence in its own jurisdiction. There is nothing to stop the UK rights owner suing you in the UK of course and then enforcing his judgement against you in Canada.

Asian countries do not have laid back laws, they don't have any. It means that you cannot prosecute them in China. They have still committed a breach of yor rights, just that enforcement against them is more difficult.

[doctorryan]

.....There is nothing to stop the UK rights owner suing you in the UK of course and then enforcing his judgement against you in Canada........

You'd kind of/sort of need the assistance & OK of the Canadian Government and law enforcement for that to work Cheshire. Just ask the US Drug Enforcement Agency how well that works.

[Ste B]

Who cares what the legalities are, the decision has been made that these should not be posted.

Indeed that is true. Its kind of pointless arguing, because as a wise man once said to me "you've got to understand but the decision has been made"

I know its not overly popular, but its what we feel on the balance of things to be the right decision.

[That said, if somebody can show a fully legal free to view site, then we would review it on its merits. The decision to go publc has to be with the admin of this board.

[Guest shoppybrfc]

Shouldnt this board be more concerned about banning dickheads who have caused the most popular and most informative member ( nicko ) we've ever had on this board, to stop posting?

[Cocker]

Shouldnt this board be more concerned about banning dickheads who have caused the most popular and most informative member ( nicko ) we've ever had on this board, to stop posting?

What and also banning those that dont read the guidelines and keep using offensive language

[roverich]

-->

QUOTE(Ste B @ Aug 4 2007, 01:27 ) 534029[/snapback]

Indeed that is true. Its kind of pointless arguing, because as a wise man once said to me "you've got to understand but the decision has been made"

A wiser man once said to me "you don't need to understand because the decision has already been made"

[roverich]

oops