Iptv box suppliers ordered to pay premier league

bazcfc1

VIP Member
shutterstock_106521212-320x213.jpg

Suppliers of IPTV boxes ordered to pay £267,000 to the Premier League
Three suppliers of pre-loaded IPTV boxes that facilitate mass piracy of Premier League football broadcasts have been ordered to pay a total of £267,000 by the Courts for infringing copyright.

The three sellers of pre-loaded IPTV boxes ordered to pay costs are:

  • Football for Pubs Limited (based in Liverpool) was ordered by the High Court to cease the sale of the illegal devices and pay costs of £90,000;
  • Pub Entertainment Systems (based in Royston, Hertfordshire) was ordered by the High Court to cease the sale of the illegal devices and pay costs of £77,000;
  • Neosat was ordered to cease the sale of the illegal devices and pay costs totalling £100,000.
These actions are part of a wide-ranging and sustained Premier League campaign to protect its copyright, the investment in its rights from Sky and BT and the benefits they bring across English football and beyond, and support the individuals and pubs that broadcast our matches the right way.

The High Court injunctions and orders to pay costs for the three suppliers follow a case in December 2016 that saw a seller of similar devices jailed for four years.


The Premier League also supported FACT in its recent raids of several IPTV box suppliers across the North-West of England that led to five people being arrested.

The focus of the Premier League’s protection of its copyright is not only sellers of IPTV boxes but also pubs that ignore warnings and broadcast matches on unauthorised foreign channels.

Pubs from Liverpool, London and Croydon are among 10 that have paid a total of £93,000 in costs for infringing copyright with unauthorised broadcasts of Premier League football. The full list of pubs, and the costs each must pay, is available in the Notes to Editors.

Premier League Spokesman, said: “These actions are part of the largest anti-piracy campaign the Premier League has conducted to protect its copyright, and the investment from our UK live broadcasters Sky Sports and BT Sport.

“Like other sports and creative industries our model is predicated on the ability to market and sell rights and protect our intellectual property. It is because of this that clubs can invest in and develop talented players, build world class stadiums, and support young people in schools and communities across the country – all things that fans enjoy and wider society benefits from.

“These injunctions and costs orders, and the recent supplier of IPTV boxes sent to jail for four years, provide further evidence to consumers and the pub trade that the sale of these devices is illegal
 
Hum, so it's only fined preloaded IPTV supplied boxes from suppliers?

What about the suppliers providing the IPTV service only??
 
So this is a big statement aimed at warning people against it.

Yet they mention someone last year was jailed for 4 years for doing it? really where was the media coverage of this then? this would have been a big story you would have thought? last year.....but it was never mentioned? aint that summat.
 
The companies involved have brought it on themselves...using a trading name like 'Football For Pubs Limited'? - WTF? - they've attempted to legitimise themselves by adding 'limited' to their name when in reality, they can't be a limited company.

The severity of the fines are because they were dealing primarily with pubs etc, pubs pay hundreds per week for legit Sly Sports, if they'd been supplying domestic properties, neither the supplier nor customer would get hit with anything like this
 
The companies involved have brought it on themselves...using a trading name like 'Football For Pubs Limited'? - WTF? - they've attempted to legitimise themselves by adding 'limited' to their name when in reality, they can't be a limited company.

The severity of the fines are because they were dealing primarily with pubs etc, pubs pay hundreds per week for legit Sly Sports, if they'd been supplying domestic properties, neither the supplier nor customer would get hit with anything like this
There you go Pablo

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/search?q=Football+for+pubs
 
I stand corrected.
The fact that they limited their company may have a bearing on this fine and who is going to pay it - neither of the directors will lose their house as the company was struck off over a year ago, and directors of limited companies aren't personally responsible for debts / fines incurred by those companies IOW, the fine will not be paid by anyone as the company has no assets
 
I stand corrected.
The fact that they limited their company may have a bearing on this fine and who is going to pay it - neither of the directors will lose their house as the company was struck off over a year ago, and directors of limited companies aren't personally responsible for debts / fines incurred by those companies IOW, the fine will not be paid by anyone as the company has no assets

Exactly why you would run this through a Ltd company. I wonder if Mr Davies new company - CCTV & Maintenance Limited does a sideline in 'boxes for footy for pubs'?
These prosecutions are clearly run for the publicity of putting people off doing the same thing, similar to the TV License vans with fake aerials from back in the day.
 
I stand corrected.
The fact that they limited their company may have a bearing on this fine and who is going to pay it - neither of the directors will lose their house as the company was struck off over a year ago, and directors of limited companies aren't personally responsible for debts / fines incurred by those companies IOW, the fine will not be paid by anyone as the company has no assets

Ltd companies are funny things, yep, the company has no assets, but that's doesn't automatically mean the directors can't be held liable anymore,
Its a minefield tbh, the court can hold that any assets the directors have that may have been purchased using dividends from a co that accrued the money by an illegal activity can be seized.
Its no longer the case that by having a ltd company the individual is protected.
 
Ltd companies are funny things, yep, the company has no assets, but that's doesn't automatically mean the directors can't be held liable anymore,
Its a minefield tbh, the court can hold that any assets the directors have that may have been purchased using dividends from a co that accrued the money by an illegal activity can be seized.
Its no longer the case that by having a ltd company the individual is protected.
If you ever watch 'cant pay wont pay' the Bailiffs are often knocking on the door at the homes of company directors.
 
Back
Top