twitter
    Follow Forde Campbell on Twitter

Friday 4 February 2011

Half-time Score: Single Market 1 Sky Sport 0

On Wednesday, the European Union advised that EU law could not prevent UK pubs from using foreign broadcasters to show football matches. The face of selling sports rights and other IP rights look set to change drastically if the Court upholds this opinion.

UK pub landlady, Karen Murphy was fined for using a cheaper Greek Decoder to show Premier League matches in her pub. Sky currently has exclusive rights to show Premier League matches in the UK. Murphy argued that the legal concept of the EU single market should allow her to use any European broadcaster.

Attorney General, Juliane Kikott maintained that territorial exclusivity agreements about broadcasting matches did contradict EU law. The Attorney General’s opinion is not binding but can be very persuasive. The European Court of Justice is not commonly known for regularly deviating from these opinions. The ECJ will make a ruling on the issue later in the year.

The Premier League has also told the press that they are concerned about the ruling. It can be argued that the interests of viewers and broadcasters may be harmed by territorial agreements being no longer legitimate. The way in which intellectual property rights are managed throughout the UK could change radically. The Premier League has expressed unease at the constitutional implications if the ruling follows Kilkott. They argue that changes to laws should be made through the proper legislative process and not by the courts.

The extent of how the ruling could affect other rights in music, literature, film etc, will not be realised until after the ECJ judgement later in the year.

By Nicola Mallon

Further Reading



Tuesday 1 February 2011

ACS Law Update: Death threats force firm to drop copyright litigation

ACS law is a firm with experience in file sharing infringement cases. The London based law firm hit the headlines in September when they sent out thousands of letters to people accused of file-sharing. Concerns had been raised over this method and its potential to incriminate those who have been wrongly identified. The Solicitors Regulation Authority is now investigating the firm’s practices.

Andrew Crossley of ACS law revealed that death threats, bomb threats and hacked email accounts were amongst the reasons for withdrawing from the case. ACS law have been the targeted before. Last year their website was hacked, leaking details of thousands of people stored on their servers. The details included names, address and telephone numbers. This incident could cost ACS law £500,000 in fines if the information commissioner concludes that ACS law held the information insecurely.

Currently, the tables appear to be turned. It is the law firm who brought the infringement cases are now on trial for the methods and practices employed during communications with accused infringers. Events have been further complicated by the new role by law firm GCB Ltd issuing similar payment demands on behalf of MediaCAT. The relationship between this new firm and ACS law is to be scrutinised.


By Nicola Mallon

Further Reading