Fan Pass - I'll Pass On That

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Fan Pass - I'll Pass On That

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 25

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1783087 16-May-2017 13:05

Wiggum:
trig42:

^ I've just done the same.

I'm sure that's what Sky wanted too. The $49 deal is too good not to do (I was going to get 2 or three full month Fan Passes anyway, and I will cancel the Sky after Xmas, so it isn't costing a huge amount more).

Where is this deal? Just checked their web-page and I came to the following:

- Sky Basic

- MySky

- Sky Sports

- HD Ticket.

Total $104.80 per month. WHAT??

Thats a huge amount of money, and I have not included Movies, or the Rugby Channel. Its also the cut down MySky box, as opposed to the MySky+ Box. Its been a while since I was a sky subscriber but those prices seem out of reach for most Kiwis.

Its sad that Sky have started charging an arm and a leg now for fanpass. I was using it on the odd occasion but now they have just left a sour taste in my mouth. I will continue with my Kodi/OSMC raspberry pi setup. The bonus is I can actually get the Sky UK Sports channels all for free, and I dont have to listen to that biased NZ commentary. $104.80 per month. They must be having a laugh each time somebody new signs up.

Gee. Sky UK.
Original
The cut down sky q box
Sport
Hd ticket
Total euro 64.50/mth. WHAT?
Sky UK must be having a laugh right?

Or you could just take it for free. No sour taste in your mouth. As you walk out of the diary with your stolen cigarettes.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

MileHighKiwi

782 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 581

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1783094 16-May-2017 13:14

Wiggum:

Where is this deal?

Look up the Sky Deals thread. It's offered by a telemarketing company, not direct from Sky. Basic $29.99, + Premium channels (Sports or Movies) for $10 each, free MySky box. 12 Month deal then reverts to full price. Its been available for a few years, obviously Sky are happy with the arrangement. The contract is with Sky.

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1783136 16-May-2017 14:01

ockel:

Or you could just take it for free. No sour taste in your mouth. As you walk out of the diary with your stolen cigarettes.

Stolen? Thats really debatable. There are plenty of online SkySports UK streams available on the internet, and via Kodi addons. No geoblocking even necessary. Sorry, but that does not fit into my definition of "stealing".

myndlyz

472 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 99

#1783143 16-May-2017 14:15

Wiggum:

ockel:

Or you could just take it for free. No sour taste in your mouth. As you walk out of the diary with your stolen cigarettes.

Stolen? Thats really debatable. There are plenty of online SkySports UK streams available on the internet, and via Kodi addons. No geoblocking even necessary. Sorry, but that does not fit into my definition of "stealing".

You're definition of stealing needs to be updated

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1783150 16-May-2017 14:20

Wiggum:

ockel:

Or you could just take it for free. No sour taste in your mouth. As you walk out of the diary with your stolen cigarettes.

Stolen? Thats really debatable. There are plenty of online SkySports UK streams available on the internet, and via Kodi addons. No geoblocking even necessary. Sorry, but that does not fit into my definition of "stealing".

I believe that as you're viewing Sky UK broadcast material you'd be in breach of the UK's Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988.

S297 (1) A person who dishonestly receives a programme included in a broadcasting service provided from a place in the United Kingdom with
intent to avoid payment of any charge applicable to the reception of the programme commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

Seems like your stealing. And now you're actually aware of the UK law that you're breaking. Whether you have any qualms about theft is over to you. I dont think the person that breaks into your house and rips you off gives a toss about how you feel either.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

Wiggum

1199 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 472
Inactive user

#1783167 16-May-2017 14:55

ockel:

Wiggum:

ockel:

Or you could just take it for free. No sour taste in your mouth. As you walk out of the diary with your stolen cigarettes.

Stolen? Thats really debatable. There are plenty of online SkySports UK streams available on the internet, and via Kodi addons. No geoblocking even necessary. Sorry, but that does not fit into my definition of "stealing".

I believe that as you're viewing Sky UK broadcast material you'd be in breach of the UK's Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988.

S297 (1) A person who dishonestly receives a programme included in a broadcasting service provided from a place in the United Kingdom with
intent to avoid payment of any charge applicable to the reception of the programme commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

Seems like your stealing. And now you're actually aware of the UK law that you're breaking. Whether you have any qualms about theft is over to you. I dont think the person that breaks into your house and rips you off gives a toss about how you feel either.

So which law in NZ am I breaking here?

UK law, and the UK's Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988 does not apply in this country.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16356

Lifetime subscriber

#1783182 16-May-2017 15:18

From the 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon:

Steal

the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required.

[Emphasis mine]

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s074.htm

This is an old argument. Theft is depriving someone of their property. Copyright violation is not. The copyright mafia keeps trying to conflate the two in order to push its vested interests, but they are different things.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1783209 16-May-2017 15:33

Wiggum:

ockel:

Wiggum:

ockel:

Or you could just take it for free. No sour taste in your mouth. As you walk out of the diary with your stolen cigarettes.

Stolen? Thats really debatable. There are plenty of online SkySports UK streams available on the internet, and via Kodi addons. No geoblocking even necessary. Sorry, but that does not fit into my definition of "stealing".

I believe that as you're viewing Sky UK broadcast material you'd be in breach of the UK's Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988.

S297 (1) A person who dishonestly receives a programme included in a broadcasting service provided from a place in the United Kingdom with
intent to avoid payment of any charge applicable to the reception of the programme commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

Seems like your stealing. And now you're actually aware of the UK law that you're breaking. Whether you have any qualms about theft is over to you. I dont think the person that breaks into your house and rips you off gives a toss about how you feel either.

So which law in NZ am I breaking here?

UK law, and the UK's Copyright Designs and Patent Act 1988 does not apply in this country.

You're breaking UK law. It is possible for the UK to apply for an extra territorial application given you are knowingly violating its laws but it'd be highly unusual given the nature and degree of punishment for the breach. Just pointing out that you are dishonestly receiving a programme - and you are aware that you are dishonestly receiving a programme - and that you have no intention of paying for said programme despite knowing that the only way you would be legally able to view the programme is by paying for it.

Smells like stealing, looks like stealing.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16356

Lifetime subscriber

#1783221 16-May-2017 15:40

If there is no way to pay for it then there is no loss of income from someone viewing over the shoulder from abroad. Smells and looks like something else to me.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

ockel

2031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 545

#1783270 16-May-2017 17:11

Rikkitic:

If there is no way to pay for it then there is no loss of income from someone viewing over the shoulder from abroad. Smells and looks like something else to me.

I continue to find it staggering that you dont see that the owner is being financially deprived.

Here is a perfect case in point: @wiggum used to use Fanpass on the odd occasion. There is a way to pay for it and he/she did previously pay for it. Instead they now choose to source an illicit stream from another subscription service - with no intention to pay for it. And with theft there has to be no intent to pay, doesnt there? I seem to recall that from somewhere in the statute. So clearly there must be a loss of income? And there is an intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit - its the financial benefit that the owner is being deprived of.

Sixth Labour Government - "Vision without Execution is just Hallucination"

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1220

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1783274 16-May-2017 17:19

Rikkitic:

From the 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon:

Steal

the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required.

[Emphasis mine]

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s074.htm

This is an old argument. Theft is depriving someone of their property. Copyright violation is not. The copyright mafia keeps trying to conflate the two in order to push its vested interests, but they are different things.

Are you not depriving them of the income they should be getting? Income = money.

A lot of people think "it's fine i would not pay for it anyway" but the hard facts are that you are stealing peoples work. A lot goes into getting sports to a tv/screen, hundreds of hours of manpower. The more people "watch" without paying the less income is made which means less jobs for people and at some point its all going to break and companies will not invest into rights, then the end users gets pee'd off and you get the "well i am paying for sports but you're not showing <enter random sports here>" People that steal the content can take some of the blame for this.

Now don't get me wrong, I think media rights like they currently are is just mad and very 1980/90's however this is how they are currently and you either pay to watch (in the correct geo zone) or you don't watch.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1220

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1783300 16-May-2017 17:24

It's also like Sky has said in the past, it 10's of thousands of dollars to roll a truck to a sporting event and to bring that content to tv and/or interenet. It takes a lot of work from a lot of people to supply the sports that you like to watch. It's the same all over the world. If people are stealing the content then there is less money to cover events.

Disclosure: I work for sky, but not on the broadcast side.

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1220

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1783305 16-May-2017 17:34

And if you still don't think it's stealing. Look at this way

If you are watching the content you are "stealing" their bandwidth for the stream, there is a direct cost to the broadcaster for the bandwidth that you are using without paying for it.

Which falls into your "deprive the owner of its use or benefit" You are depriving the owner (broadcaster) in bandwidth to supply their paying customers the content.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16356

Lifetime subscriber

#1783323 16-May-2017 18:12

ockel:

I continue to find it staggering that you dont see that the owner is being financially deprived.

Here is a perfect case in point: @wiggum used to use Fanpass on the odd occasion. There is a way to pay for it and he/she did previously pay for it. Instead they now choose to source an illicit stream from another subscription service - with no intention to pay for it. And with theft there has to be no intent to pay, doesnt there? I seem to recall that from somewhere in the statute. So clearly there must be a loss of income? And there is an intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit - its the financial benefit that the owner is being deprived of.

You may be right in this case. I can't say. But I would continue to argue for the principle. I think current copyright legislation around the world is skewed to serve narrow vested interests and consumers suffer as a result of this. I personally deeply resent the fact that content I value and can access is not legally available to me here solely because I happen to live in a small country with a really crappy media offering. I am happy to pay for the content I want but I am not given that option because of a system that has been set up to serve the greedy. So they have no business complaining if people find other ways to access that content.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19086 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16356

Lifetime subscriber

#1783324 16-May-2017 18:17

tripp:

Are you not depriving them of the income they should be getting? Income = money.

A lot of people think "it's fine i would not pay for it anyway" but the hard facts are that you are stealing peoples work. A lot goes into getting sports to a tv/screen, hundreds of hours of manpower. The more people "watch" without paying the less income is made which means less jobs for people and at some point its all going to break and companies will not invest into rights, then the end users gets pee'd off and you get the "well i am paying for sports but you're not showing <enter random sports here>" People that steal the content can take some of the blame for this.

Now don't get me wrong, I think media rights like they currently are is just mad and very 1980/90's however this is how they are currently and you either pay to watch (in the correct geo zone) or you don't watch.

This only applies if there is a paid option. I agree with your comment about the current media rights situation. I am in favour of a 21st century solution, just not the present mess.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ... | 25