Sky Business

[jhowe60]

I took out a contract with SKY TV Business for the public house I took over in December 2009. I could only take out a 12 month contract because that's all they do.
The 2 closest pubs to mine both had Sky Tv, but one had been closed for a number of months and the other had illegal foreign satellite channels. I had already contacted Sky about these and they informed me that they were aware of this because they had been told by others.
Having the foreign channels already affected my business, especially when the had matches that weren't screened on Sky.
In March Sky introduced 3D TV and they allowed it to be installed alongside the foreign satellite channels, thus enhancing the package that that the pub already had. Other pubs complained. The 2nd local pub reopened and had 3D TV, although you had to be with them for 6 months. This was waived because the were a major PUBCO.
The 3D TV was a nail in the coffin and business on football days declined by up to 50%.
I refused to pay the monthly installment and now SKY are taking me to court. In the literature that SKY TV gave to me it states '
[FONT='Arial Rounded MT Bold','sans-serif']a) [FONT='Arial Rounded MT Bold','sans-serif']You invest in Sky to ensure that your business offers customers the best sporting action available. We understand how frustrating it can be if certain bars in your area are competing with you unfairly by using foreign satellite systems or domestic subscriptions, both of which are illegal. We have a number of initiatives to prevent this kind of fraud as well as established field forces to detect unauthorised showing of matches. [/font][/font]
[FONT='Arial Rounded MT Bold','sans-serif']To date Sky have not done anything to protect my business.[/font]

 

[Williams lester]

Is there a question here?

 

[MrMichael]

Obviously the question is whether or not the pub owner can defend court action by Sky on the basis of their failure to prevent the third party pub from showing foreign satellite channels.

The short answer would be no because Sky haven't really agreed to actually do anything in relation to the matter, only suggesting they have initiatives in place. Further, it's not central to the contract so wouldn't entitle you to stop performing your obligations under the agreement (if they stopped providing the channels, you would be entitled to stop providing payment for example).

 

[jhowe60]

So really all the jargon that Sky use, such as 'exclusive rights to Premiership football' is a lie and to say that they will protect my investment is also a lie? So I could in fact seek a course of action for false advertising?
So really I could sell cocaine as well as a pint to enhance my business?
If it's illegal, as Sky say it's illegal, what is the difference? What's the point of Sky having initiatives, if they don't use them?
Surely I have a good argument?

 

[Williams lester]

If it is illegal, then is this not a matter for the police and not Sky?

 

[jhowe60]

I haven't got a clue! Sky appear to be happy to take your money, provide a service and then do nothing when you have a problem created by them. In my lease it states that if I carry out illegal operations on the premises it would jepordise my lease and licence, but the pub company will not do anything about the illegal systems used in the other pub. They too turn a blind eye. I'll still argue my case because I beileve I am in the right and have been lead to believe by Sky that they were their to help, it says so in their literature and on their website. Their contract is surely worthless?

 

[Astaroth]

I very much doubt it is "illegal" and I would be highly surprised if Sky had used such wording in any formal communication - call centre staff excluded.

The issue is that the "illegal activities" of the other pub is between them and their suppliers etc and it is up to their suppliers if they want to enforce the contract or not. Your contract doesnt state that they will act against other pubs in the area so unfortunately you dont have a leg to stand on.

Where does it mention that wrongful action may impact your licence? I don't know much about the pub licensing laws but if that is general and not specific to an agreement between you and your brewery then perhaps a call to the local licensing agency to highlight the issue? Obviously its up to them if they want to do something or not but they tend to be less commercially driven than a company naturally is.

 

[MrMichael]

There's actually a case at the Court of Justice in the European Union at present about the matter on the illegality or otherwise of publicans using paid for foreign satellite channels to show TV. If they rule in favour of publicans, landlords would be able to use foreign satellite from other EU countries.

The publicans are arguing that if Sky are able to prevent usage of foreign satellite channels, this is a breach of free movement of trade laws in the European Union. Sky on the other hand are arguing that they are entitled to slice up the market in the EU on a geographical basis. Clearly the issue isn't resolved, and even if the publicans aren't allowed to do this, the matter is a breach of civil rather than criminal law.

A company called Media Protection Services Limited take action against publicans on behalf of the Premier League and Sky so you may want to try and take up the matter with them.

You can argue the issue with Sky but the central point is that you have been receiving satellite tv from Sky in return for payment. You haven't entered into an agreement with them to prevent third parties from showing foreign satellite channels.

http://www.out-law.com/page-9313

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?storycode=61994

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

'exclusive rights to Premiership football' - they have - in the UK. If the pub up the road is showing a foreign channel that is broadcasting football that is possibly also in breach of their rights.

Sky may go after them, but, unfortunately, I do not hold out much luck!

 

[jhowe60]

So if the young lady wins the European court case, then Sky would have no case to say 'exclusive rights to Premiership football, because you will be able to buy it in cheaper than the price that they charge? If Sky win, then all the publicans in the country showing illegal broadcasts will be prosecuted and could lose their licences? I know that there are 2 laws at stake here, one which is being dealt with, plus the 2nd law stating that you cannot show football live between 3pm and 5.15 pm on a Saturday. This was brought in the 60's to protect footbal when Tv was a booming industry. These 'illegal' foreign satellite channels allow them to do this. So would Sky, if they lost, look to prosecute those that showed games on a Saturday, which are illegal? No matter what the 2nd law, 3pm - 5.15pm, has been in use for 40 years and surely cannot be challenged?

 

[MrMichael]

Of course the decision of the court and the consequences that flow are too separate matters. If the court finds in favour of Sky then you should certainly apply more pressure on Sky and potentially try to contact Media Protection Services Limited to alert them to the situation although they may act only on Sky's directions.

Not sure about laws relating to not showing games between 3 and 5.15pm although the below link suggests this was only done at the request of the Premier League, to protect their revenue stream presumably, and has been overturned according to the below link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2006/apr/12/judgeblowswhistleinskypub