(Image from here)The Premier League was today dealt a blow in its global fight against online piracy after a court in Israel threw out an attempt to shut down a pirate website that was showing live matches free of charge.The league failed in a bid to force Israeli ISP Netvision and web portal Nana to reveal the identity of the Israeli owner of LiveFooty.org, a website that used servers based in the country to stream live footage of Premier League matches for nothing.
In a judgment that could set a worrying precedent for the Premier League, the Tel Aviv District Court ruled that it was a case of "fair use" since no profit was made from the broadcasts and that, in Israeli law, breach of "broadcasting" copyright only referred to cable or wireless transmission and not streaming over the internet.
What I find most interesting about this is the further comments made by the judge in the case:
The judge, Michal Agmon-Gonen, furthermore ruled that the site had important social aims – "watching sports events is socially important and should remain in the realm of mass entertainment, and not just be for those who can afford it" – and argued that those who view online were not damaging the revenues of broadcasters. She said they were mainly "those of small means or who are not sufficiently interested in sport to pay".
Which is a great argument to make. I find it hard to imagine a judge in this country saying something similar, looking beyond the money and at the actual social worth of sport instead, standing up for those who can't afford to engage in sporting events, rather than the people making money off people's engagement with sport.
The problem being that the actual reason for the verdict, for allowing the judge to weigh the rights of the copyright holder against the rights of the fan, was something like a loophole:
the Premier League had failed to prove any infringement of its rights because online broadcasts were different from television ones. The judge ruled that without clear laws regarding the internet, the court has to choose between the rights of copyrights holders and the rights of the users.
A loophole that will no doubt be closed.
To add one other thing to the argument. Interest in, and the monetary value of, The Premier League continues to rise. They would no doubt argue that this is despite the illegal streaming, I would argue that it is rather because of it. It makes the Game more readily available, you can follow every game your team plays, rather than just the games deemed broadcastable. Which drives up interest in the "product." When games are televised it is always preferable to watch them on official channels, for ease, for comfort, in the pub, in company, etc.. It is admittedly a grey area, but the evidence - the money raked in by The Premier League - would suggest illegal streaming isn't doing too much harm. It seems akin to something I remember when The Phantom Menace came out - we had simultaneous news reports of record-breaking opening and the hideous effects of movie piracy. You can't have it both ways - though they'll certainly try...
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment