ECJ; it's ok to view your Premier League matches in the UK on Greek TV.

Dispersion of media content in the EU is hopelessly fragmented. Producers are so used to this that they sell rights on a national basis and then fence those off by prohibiting people from one country buying trough a provider in a different country. But now finally the ECJ has ruled that the model is in violation of EU law and that basically makes it possible for people to take a subscription from a company regardless of where that company is based in the EU and use their services anywhere in the EU.

It's a small step but I hope this will lead to a real EU market so that unlike in the present situation I will be able to buy content I want rather than have to resort to other means to see and read what I want.


source

Good.

Personally I would like to see not just the end to this, but going even further the end of fragmentation across the world that hinders free and fair trade. Why should I be ripped off compared to eg the Americans because we're "Region 2"?

This ruling is unfortunately far from clear and simple though. It appears that while they're making it clear that for personal use a Briton watching the Premier League through a Greek subscription would be OK. What they've not 100% made clear is whether or not it is OK for a publican to broadcast that for commercial purposes, which is what this case was all about. The court has left a window of opportunity for the Premier League to claim copyright under certain circumstances and still fragment it commercially. :down:

Yeah, well, babysteps. I think that tearing down the system inside the EU will make it more attractive to producers to treat the EU as one market, thus making it less attractive to keep the zoning system also.

I don't necessarily think this means it will be cheaper (at least not for all) but that 'this item is not for sale for your area/country' impediment becoming a part of history is a much more important goal for me.

Well, for DVDs etc which I have the issue with we already are one market.

Won't stop some things being only available/available first/cheaper because they're Region One.

How does the Region 1-4 crap work with the PAL and NTSC formats? I have a few PAL region gamecube games, and they can be a bit of a headache getting to work with our TVs over here cause of the difference between PAL and NTSC.

Along the lines of what OG said, my bigger problem is that most playback devices are Region locked, which can be a huge pain in the ass. I have a boatload of Region 1 stuff, but it's quite possible I'll move to Region 2 at some time in the future. True, it's possible to switch many devices a limited number of times, but with a mixed library that's utterly useless. The only real way around this is breaking the DRM on your media, which happens to be illegal in many places. Blech. They should realize that fundamentally media is a single global market and just get over the whole mess.

Yeah but even if you break the Region stuff, if you have a NTSC DVD, does it work in a PAL region? Otherwise getting rid of region codes is not that great.

It depends, but you can often get convertors that work decently. Also, NTSC discs > PAL players work better than vice versa, so moving to the US/Canada is worse than moving away from the US/Canada.

Convertors? Seems tricky, I mean, going from ~30 fps to 25 fps and vice versa means losing/adding frames.. without losing smoothness. Neat that it exists :)

A good thing.

Pubs are closing in their thousands currently.

Many pubs rely on screening Premiership matches to bring the punters in.

The monopolising Premier League-stamped public broadcast licence was too high a fee for many pubs, particularly the smaller independent ones. Many could not afford to continue paying the licence fee in the current climate, so didn't, lost their punters to larger chains, and were forced to close.

Bringing in other european broadcasters will introduce competition and hugely drive down the broadcast licence fees that Sky and ESPN, as the only Premier League authorised broadcasters, charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

How does the Region 1-4 crap work with the PAL and NTSC formats? I have a few PAL region gamecube games, and they can be a bit of a headache getting to work with our TVs over here cause of the difference between PAL and NTSC.

---

I think the problem is bigger for consoles as they really expect you to use the hardware the way they intend you to use them. Otherwise I haven't come accross a DVD player yet that didn't come with (easily accessible) information on how to change the region-setting and the ability to both play back pal and ntsc content on a PAL tv.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Timbuk2

A good thing.

Pubs are closing in their thousands currently.

Many pubs rely on screening Premiership matches to bring the punters in.

The monopolising Premier League-stamped public broadcast licence was too high a fee for many pubs, particularly the smaller independent ones. Many could not afford to continue paying the licence fee in the current climate, so didn't, lost their punters to larger chains, and were forced to close.

Bringing in other european broadcasters will introduce competition and hugely drive down the broadcast licence fees that Sky and ESPN, as the only Premier League authorised broadcasters, charge.

---

Not necessarily, it could very well be that the PL starts selling broadcasting rights on a EU basis, but that doesn't mean they will do so for less money than they do today.

A good decision IMO a ruling that favours free markets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Convertors? Seems tricky, I mean, going from ~30 fps to 25 fps and vice versa means losing/adding frames.. without losing smoothness. Neat that it exists :)

---

Most modern TVs have no problem supporting different frame rates, BlueRay e.g. is 24fps which is the cinema format), PAL is 50i not 30p. Well even my old PAL CRT TV could handle NTSC.

For DVDs one other simple solution is merely to have 2 DVD Players. Use one for one region, another for another. Shouldn't be necessary though.

They should also take a look at the music market. Just look at what hoops YouTube, Spotify or basically anyone has to go through if he wants to offer a service based on music in Europe. One of the reasons why Spotify is still not available in Germany - the GEMA is our equivalent of the RIAA, only more expensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

For DVDs one other simple solution is merely to have 2 DVD Players. Use one for one region, another for another. Shouldn't be necessary though.

---

That wont help if the TV doesn't eat the analog signal your DVD player outputs. But as I said with modern TVs and HDMI this shouldn't be a problem.

You can buy a Code Free DVD player from over here if they don't over that in your country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

They should also take a look at the music market. Just look at what hoops YouTube, Spotify or basically anyone has to go through if he wants to offer a service based on music in Europe. One of the reasons why Spotify is still not available in Germany - the GEMA is our equivalent of the RIAA, only more expensive.

---

Yeah, you Europeans really need a government to protect you from your governments. :noob:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Yeah, you Europeans really need a government to protect you from your governments. :noob:

---

Actually it's businesses trying to fleece the consumers for all that they are worth by blocking access to markets. It's 'government' telling businesses that they can't tell people not to use their products just because they happen to live in another part of the EU.

10 years ago car dealers were very much in the business of refusing to sell cars to 'out-of-country' car buyers. Untill they were told by the courts that they couldn't do that. Then car producers tried to force their dealers not to do maintenance on cars imported from other EU countries.

Uh, except the businesses are using the various national laws (specifically patent, copyright and IP laws) to fleece the consumers and enforce what is a government-mandated monopoly in the first place.

Hence, you guys need a government to protect you from your governments [' stupid laws on IP and such]. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Uh, except the businesses are using the various national laws (specifically patent, copyright and IP laws) to fleece the consumers and enforce what is a government-mandated monopoly in the first place.

Hence, you guys need a government to protect you from your governments [' stupid laws on IP and such]. :p

---

Eh, no, these businesses are breaking the law, as this ruling shows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Uh, except the businesses are using the various national laws (specifically patent, copyright and IP laws) to fleece the consumers and enforce what is a government-mandated monopoly in the first place.

---

Nope, it's contracts that do that in this case. Contracts are enforced by the government, but only if they are legal. Which they aren't in this case.

Which the EU high court just determined a few days ago? You and Hazir seem determined to blame this on companies, when they were just following the law as it was determined to be, until that determination was changed by a judge a few days back. The problem, if any, was that governments were enforcing those contracts, because they were believed to be legal, but it was just determined that they weren't. It's a clusterfuck of governments not being sure what government rules apply, and what government rules are permissible, according to the overarching government rules of the overarching regulatory body. And maybe, just maybe, there's a hint to why business typically charge more in the EU or restrict themselves to one EU nation in that vast Gordian Knot of tangled and unclear bureaucracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Which the EU high court just determined a few days ago? You and Hazir seem determined to blame this on companies, when they were just following the law as it was determined to be, until that determination was changed by a judge a few days back. The problem, if any, was that governments were enforcing those contracts, because they were believed to be legal, but it was just determined that they weren't. It's a clusterfuck of governments not being sure what government rules apply, and what government rules are permissible, according to the overarching government rules of the overarching regulatory body. And maybe, just maybe, there's a hint to why business typically charge more in the EU or restrict themselves to one EU nation in that vast Gordian Knot of tangled and unclear bureaucracy.

---

Nonsense, we're talking about civil law and judges don't say anything about that untill they are asked to do so. These things were never legal at all, they were just not challenged.

The average person behind the business models that are being struck down must have known they were in the wrong but have a very strong economical motive for their wrong-doing. The rule they violate is quite simple; you are not allowed to contravene the single market that is the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

The problem, if any, was that governments were enforcing those contracts, because they were believed to be legal, but it was just determined that they weren't.

---

Could you provide any evidence for that claim? Because in the news that I read the UK court asked the EJC for legal advice and it wasn't an overruling. (I don't think a local court ruling can be considered as "the government enforces")

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

Could you provide any evidence for that claim?

---

Other than that being the default state for a [signed] contract? A signed contract is considered valid and enforceable, and will be enforced by the government in question, unless one party can present positive proof that it is invalid, such as a court ruling.

Until the court ruling this thread is about, no such positive proof existed to say that a fragmented Euro-zone market was illegal, and in fact, it was rather the standard for media distribution.

So, all well and good to say that it's big media's fault (and it is, partially), but it ignores the fact that governments have been enforcing these localized media monopolies in the EU for decades, and it's the government enforcement that does the harm, not the fact that a couple companies wrote some words on a piece of paper.

I can only speak for our judicial system:

Quote:

---

Obligation Right
Article 20
II. Nullity
1. A contract that has an impossible or illegal content or violates good morals is void.

---

Void as in Void ab initio. As if the contract never existed. And I don't see how a government could enforce a contract without going to court, how do you think the government is enforcing contracts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Other than that being the default state for a [signed] contract? A signed contract is considered valid and enforceable, and will be enforced by the government in question, unless one party can present positive proof that it is invalid, such as a court ruling.

Until the court ruling this thread is about, no such positive proof existed to say that a fragmented Euro-zone market was illegal, and in fact, it was rather the standard for media distribution.

So, all well and good to say that it's big media's fault (and it is, partially), but it ignores the fact that governments have been enforcing these localized media monopolies in the EU for decades, and it's the government enforcement that does the harm, not the fact that a couple companies wrote some words on a piece of paper.

---

You're getting it wrong. The government was not "enforcing" those contracts. Because unless one party complains, the government does nothing unless it's criminally illegal.

It usually went like this: You closed a contract with a company. Company includes an illegal clause (under civil law!) but proceeds to tell you that it is legal. You cave because you are also led to belive it's legal.

However: Whether or not a clause is legal is only determined by the government if you actually involve the government! In my example, the government was never involved. They usually only get involved in civil cases when you call upon the courts to determine the validity of a contract. Because it would be highly impractical otherwise due to the massive amount of contracts closed every day - do you really want to have the government look at each and every contract to determine its legality?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by earthJoker

I can only speak for our judicial system:

Void as in Void ab initio. As if the contract never existed. And I don't see how a government could enforce a contract without going to court, how do you think the government is enforcing contracts?

---

OK, who do you *think* is enforcing contracts, if not the government?

Try it like this. You borrow money from a loan shark, who will break assorted bones of yours until the debt is paid off. Does he actually have to take a baseball bat to your kneecaps in order to "enforce" the terms of your repayment schedule? No, the threat is enough. That contract is enforced by the threat of violence. Therefore, a contract that is enforced through the threat of government action, as all legal contracts are, (ie, "we'll sue you") is one that is "enforced by the government."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

You're getting it wrong. The government was not "enforcing" those contracts. Because unless one party complains, the government does nothing unless it's criminally illegal.

---

So, civil courts, not a part of the government? Nice try, or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

It usually went like this: You closed a contract with a company. Company includes an illegal clause (under civil law!) but proceeds to tell you that it is legal. You cave because you are also led to belive it's legal.

---

Involving the government implicitly... as in, if you wish to contest this, you must take it to the courts... courts, which are, in actual fact, part of the government (no matter how inconvenient that may be to your position on this subject).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

However: Whether or not a clause is legal is only determined by the government if you actually involve the government! In my example, the government was never involved. They usually only get involved in civil cases when you call upon the courts to determine the validity of a contract. Because it would be highly impractical otherwise due to the massive amount of contracts closed every day - do you really want to have the government look at each and every contract to determine its legality?

---

Again, which implicitly involves the government. Any contract that needs to be enforced goes to court, AKA the government. The rest are assumed valid and are enforced by the implicit threat of government action.

Again, the default state for a signed contract, even in Europe, is valid until proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on the claimant, meaning that the validity and enforcement (which is ultimately through government action) is assumed. Until, for example, a government court issues a decision saying otherwise, as in this thread.

Or, how else do you explain the prior decades of contractually-dictated local media monopolies on that continent of yours?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

OK, who do you *think* is enforcing contracts, if not the government?

---

Did I suggest the opposite?

Quote:

---

Try it like this. You borrow money from a loan shark, who will break assorted bones of yours until the debt is paid off. Does he actually have to take a baseball bat to your kneecaps in order to "enforce" the terms of your repayment schedule? No, the threat is enough. That contract is enforced by the threat of violence. Therefore, a contract that is enforced through the threat of government action, as all legal contracts are, (ie, "we'll sue you") is one that is "enforced by the government."

---

No, if I see something illegal in the contract I just wont obey to that part. I wont feel threatened by the government. Civil law doesn't work with threads and fear, only criminal law works like that.

Quote:

---

So, civil courts, not a part of the government? Nice try, or something.

---

Did someone claim that?

Quote:

---

Again, which implicitly involves the government. Any contract that needs to be enforced goes to court, AKA the government. The rest are assumed valid and are enforced by the implicit threat of government action.

---

There is no implicit thread of the government. There might be an explicit thread by your partner, but if you're in this situation there are several ways to get legal advice, and in the worst case, you can get a lawyer. This is not an abstract business, it's daily business. For example the minimal legal warranty for electronics products is 1 year in Switzerland. There are many contracts that say that for product X of company Y the warranty is 6 months. This part of the contract is void, right from the start. No one goes to court over it, because every company with common sense knows they wont stand a chance to keep that part of the contract legal.

Quote:

---

Again, the default state for a signed contract, even in Europe, is valid until proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on the claimant, meaning that the validity and enforcement (which is ultimately through government action) is assumed. Until, for example, a government court issues a decision saying otherwise, as in this thread.

---

Not really. If I think part A of a contract is illegal, I simply can ignore it. The other party doesn't have any way it can enforce me to act upon that part but to go to court. And the court will than decide whether that part is legal.

Quote:

---

Or, how else do you explain the prior decades of contractually-dictated local media monopolies on that continent of yours?

---

Many people used devices from aboard for many years, in this case the UK government did wrongly fine her (which was corrected by the ECJ) but the government didn't fine her out of the blue, she had to be sued first (I suppose by Sky).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

OK, who do you *think* is enforcing contracts, if not the government?

---

Okay, let's try the explanation again:

A contract needs no "enforcing" when both sides are under the assumption that the contract is valid. Because during that period of agreement they both adhere to the contract.

Okay, now one side does not adhere to the contract, let's say, does not pay the money owed. The other party then will contact a collection agency (not a government one) which will then try to collect. Government is still not involved.

ONLY when you involve a lawyer who THEN drags the whole thing to court, THEN the government becomes involved - at your express wishes. And that's the point when a contract will be checked if it's actually valid. There's NO "government enforcement" before that point.