11 years jail for this? Really?

[Shelton’s Love Gravy]

6 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

I see the leader of an illegal football streaming racket has been jailed for 11 years:

TV fraud gang jailed for illegally streaming Premier League games https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65697595

Ok, I accept he knew what he was doing was illegal and profited from a ‘crime’, but 11 years? He didn’t kill anyone, he didn’t rape or exploit anyone - he didn’t commit a sexual crime (although one of the gang did). He didn’t even give anyone a black eye or a bloody nose.
He could end up doing more time than the killers of Baby P or Jamie Bulger simply for showing 3pm kickoff games and allowing people to bypass the extortionate prices that Sky charge. 

Our justice system is rigged to value money more than human life and safety.

I’m not saying he shouldn’t receive a punishment. The fact I totally empathise with streaming a UK football game that you are unable to obtain legally is beside the point - it’s illegal so a punishment is to be expected, but 11 years - really??

He is going to get bummed too.

And burgled.

Seems a tad disproportionate, I would agree.

It’s not like he’s murdered someone or made anyone into sausages.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Shelton’s Love Gravy

[Port Said Red]

The authorities used terrorist legislation in US and Canada to arrest and detain Adam Lackman, they took all his equipment and removed his rights to a legal defence. Presumably he will never be able to pay the fine he received, but quite how you live the rest of your life paying what you can, I don't know.

https://troypoint.com/tvaddons-kodi-repository-to-pay-millions-in-damages/

[And Its Smith]

11 years for the ringleader in a  £7m worth of fraud? Maybe 2-3 years more than I would have expected but fraud is treated very seriously so not massively surprised 

[robinforlife2]

11 hours ago, weepywall said:

I know of someone who smashed a glass and stuck it in somebody's throat and killed him in a nightclub...he got 15 years....4 years more than illegal streaming !!!

Did he get done for Manslaughter or Murder? If it's the latter, it would be life, with a minimum of 15 years, which very rarely does someone get out on 15 years. If it was Manslaughter, as a dangerous and violent crime, they would have to serve two thirds, so they would serve 10 years, before release, plus likely they would have an extended license as well.

The fraud case is auto release on 5.5 years. So there is quite a difference in the sentencing.

[ralphindevon]

I’ve not read a whole lot about it but it does seem there’s an effort being made to clamp down on illegal streaming right now.

Do we think they’ll be after those that actually stream illegally soon? I actually pay for Sky Sports etc but I’m increasingly feeling like I’m in a minority with loads of people telling me they get what seems like every channel in the world for £60 a year.

With Sky, along with EE and BT putting up my prices this year by about 15% I’m almost certainly going to ditch all 3 when the contracts are up. I know they’ll offer to reduce the price when I tell them but too late, that increase was just taking the ****

[robinforlife2]

1 minute ago, ralphindevon said:

I’ve not read a whole lot about it but it does seem there’s an effort being made to clamp down on illegal streaming right now.

Do we think they’ll be after those that actually stream illegally soon? I actually pay for Sky Sports etc but I’m increasingly feeling like I’m in a minority with loads of people telling me they get what seems like every channel in the world for £60 a year.

With Sky, along with EE and BT putting up my prices this year by about 15% I’m almost certainly going to ditch all 3 when the contracts are up. I know they’ll offer to reduce the price when I tell them but too late, that increase was just taking the ****

A good point, however there is very little that can be done about people streaming, unless their details ate known. With this case, because the OCG held everyone's details on file (which is illegal), the authorities now have the details of everyone using the platform. The likelihood will be a letter sent to each, making it clear that a case of copyright could be brought against them, but won't providing their details are not linked to further platforms in the future. To ignore said letter and be found using them at a later date could leave you open to prosecution. This is a breakthrough case and will certainly lead to others.

[Bristol Rob]

14 minutes ago, ralphindevon said:

I’ve not read a whole lot about it but it does seem there’s an effort being made to clamp down on illegal streaming right now.

Do we think they’ll be after those that actually stream illegally soon? I actually pay for Sky Sports etc but I’m increasingly feeling like I’m in a minority with loads of people telling me they get what seems like every channel in the world for £60 a year.

With Sky, along with EE and BT putting up my prices this year by about 15% I’m almost certainly going to ditch all 3 when the contracts are up. I know they’ll offer to reduce the price when I tell them but too late, that increase was just taking the ****

Like you, I also pay for Sky and BT and I have been tempted with IPTV etc previously, but....

When you suddenly find yourself in a massive hole because your account details have been sold on the black market and your credit score is shot because you knowingly gave your payment info to someone who you knew to be a bit iffy, don't expect your bank to rush to help you. 

I'm sure there are ways to protect yourself, and it probably won't be long until you can transfer crypto to a wallet in exchange for access, but I'd think twice before keying in details to anyone.

The cost of Sky and BT (and Prime) is hefty, but if I had to choose between getting subscription television or going to watch live games, it would be live football every time. 

Maybe the answer lies in some sort of tie-in between clubs at all levels and content providers where 3pm kick-offs are available for a small fee to those who are already affiliated with a particular side. 

[ralphindevon]

12 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Like you, I also pay for Sky and BT and I have been tempted with IPTV etc previously, but....

When you suddenly find yourself in a massive hole because your account details have been sold on the black market and your credit score is shot because you knowingly gave your payment info to someone who you knew to be a bit iffy, don't expect your bank to rush to help you. 

I'm sure there are ways to protect yourself, and it probably won't be long until you can transfer crypto to a wallet in exchange for access, but I'd think twice before keying in details to anyone.

The cost of Sky and BT (and Prime) is hefty, but if I had to choose between getting subscription television or going to watch live games, it would be live football every time. 

Maybe the answer lies in some sort of tie-in between clubs at all levels and content providers where 3pm kick-offs are available for a small fee to those who are already affiliated with a particular side. 

Yeah I share your concerns, despite friends telling me they’ve all been fine for the last couple of year’s it’d be just my luck……

Like you I much prefer watching live football, I’d rather watch Buckland Athletic live than a premier league game on tv.

So with all the new platforms all getting a piece of the action I’m hoping more and more pay to view events will happen. My main sport on tv is cricket, the football I’m happy to pick and chose as long as the price is right. 

[Bristol Rob]

7 minutes ago, ralphindevon said:

Yeah I share your concerns, despite friends telling me they’ve all been fine for the last couple of year’s it’d be just my luck……

Like you I much prefer watching live football, I’d rather watch Buckland Athletic live than a premier league game on tv.

So with all the new platforms all getting a piece of the action I’m hoping more and more pay to view events will happen. My main sport on tv is cricket, the football I’m happy to pick and chose as long as the price is right. 

Same here - the cricket coverage that the dedicated sports channels have been producing for a number of years now is exceptional. 

At some point, something will have to give, either broadcasters decide that the cost of having the rights to film the content is too much and withdraw from the process, leaving whoever is left to come in and bid well below what they might have done previously, or - and this is my guess - that after the latest contract ends, the Premier League decide that they'll not be putting it out to tender and will instead be looking at producing their own content, with every game available as-live in every territory and at a cost that it region appropriate. I'd have thought something like that, delivered through an app (either on a fixed (smart television) or mobile device) would be a money spinner, with more money going to clubs that attract the biggest audience, rather than prize money being handed out based on league positon, and via an app they'd have a greater opportunity to control the content and disable apps where they suspect streaming originates from. 

They'll find a way to protect the 'big 6' and to stop them from wanting to join some European Super League, make lots of wealthy people even more wealthy and take fans for every penny they can. The only hope would be that people with Season Tickets etc get less expensive coverage as fans bring the atmosphere, which in turn makes the product more interesting. 

[supercidered]

14 hours ago, alexukhc said:

Jackpot

Adrian Lewis?

[downendcity]

5 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Same here - the cricket coverage that the dedicated sports channels have been producing for a number of years now is exceptional. 

At some point, something will have to give, either broadcasters decide that the cost of having the rights to film the content is too much and withdraw from the process, leaving whoever is left to come in and bid well below what they might have done previously, or - and this is my guess - that after the latest contract ends, the Premier League decide that they'll not be putting it out to tender and will instead be looking at producing their own content, with every game available as-live in every territory and at a cost that it region appropriate. I'd have thought something like that, delivered through an app (either on a fixed (smart television) or mobile device) would be a money spinner, with more money going to clubs that attract the biggest audience, rather than prize money being handed out based on league positon, and via an app they'd have a greater opportunity to control the content and disable apps where they suspect streaming originates from. 

They'll find a way to protect the 'big 6' and to stop them from wanting to join some European Super League, make lots of wealthy people even more wealthy and take fans for every penny they can. The only hope would be that people with Season Tickets etc get less expensive coverage as fans bring the atmosphere, which in turn makes the product more interesting. 

If broadcasting revenues are ever under threat the big 6 will then turn the screw by demanding ownership of the TV rights to their own games, under threat of joining a breakaway super league.

[Bristol Rob]

 

 

[TheReds]

6 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

 

 

You outing @Davefevs

[bcfcredandwhite]

15 hours ago, robinforlife2 said:

Did they declare £7m to HMRC, NO!

Did they move money to many accounts, meaning the money could not be recovered, YES!

This is an organised crime group, it has nothing to do with football.

They gained £7m in an illegal manner, and used it for their own gain.

Actually there are many many victims. People signed up to it, are now exposed to legal threats, and their payment details were held on files, an illegal practice. Even if 10% of those who bought the streams at £10 a month (£120 per year) didn't go to games because they could watch them online this way, it's cost clubs revenue. They have taken money and not declared it, so when you think about the NHS struggling and money not going in the pot to help the elderly, think of the gang who took £7m and didn't declare it. Pretty much 2m of that should have been going in the national purse, but it never, so don't be so naive to say there are no victims. 

 

14 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

Okay, a few challenges.

Firstly, I would wager that in the laundering of the money they received, many many people have been hurt.

Secondly, the news this evening said how they were big on selling the idea of the 3pm kick offs, so clubs up and down the country have - probably not to a great extent, but some - seen potential supporters out off from going to a game, would a usual armchair fan spent £25 quid on a League One game, if they could spend £2.50 on a Premier League game.

When Sky bid, they bid with a blended cost, knowing that they will have affiliated broadcasting companies who will pay them for their content, the more accessible that content is, the less it is worth. So despite the fraudsters making millions, the knock on to others, including Sky and BT is likely to be even greater.

Does the 3pm blackout need a review? Yes.

Is this a victimless crime? Absolutely not.

Is televised sport too expensive, maybe. But if clubs are going to pay players upwards of half a million quid a week, some of that money has to come from somewhere.

Again, some fair comments/challenges here. Just to address some of them:

- The Inland Revenue missing out on tax: The group could hardly declare their income on their Tax Returns !!! Maybe if it was legalised the revenue would receive a boost (like some 'soft' drugs - but that's another topic for the politics board)!!
- I never argued that it was not illegal and I always acknowledged that it deserved punishment.
-  'People being signed up are victims now as their details have been compromised' - This begs the question of the the definition of the label 'victim', as these people were willing, sometimes eagerly or even desperately willing, consumers of and participants in this illegal activity. They were certainly put 'at risk' by deciding to sign up to the scheme, but they went into it knowing it was illegal and took the chance anyway. 
- 'This is an organised crime group, it has nothing to do with football' - Football was their 'product' and the current rules around broadcasting gifted them a gap in the market that they easily filled. They themselves may not be football fans - just like a drug dealer may him/herself not be an addict, but they sell drugs. This lot sold football. To argue that it has nothing to do with football is like saying drug dealing has nothing to do with drugs or pimping has nothing to do with prostitution. 

There are also some 'unknowns' which we can debate but it's impossible to conclude:
- For example; 'many people have been hurt through the laundering process' - this as maybe - we can ASSUME, but we really don't know HOW the money was laundered, so cannot tell for sure who, if anyone, was hurt in the process. It was not laundered very well - if at all - considering the group got caught and the figure of £7m was uncovered. I suppose the police and authorities will have some idea but we on this thread don't.
- People would happily pay £2.50 to watch a Prem match on TV, rather than go and watch their own team in their local stadium - if a 'fan' thinks like that then they can't really call themselves a true fan. I personally wouldn't but that's me. YES - if I couldn't get to Ashton Gate on that day for some reason and a Prem match was on then I would probably watch it, but it would NOT replace my passion for going to see the team I support play in person. I would guess (but cannot prove it) that this would be the same for most 'proper' fans too. Either way it's not possible to prove until/if the rules are relaxed - then we would see. 
I would argue that it is possible, if you have the broadband, the knowhow and the patience, to watch almost ANY live match NOW via dodgy streams, yet football attendances do not seem to be dropping. Even if they DO start to drop I would suggest that this has more to do with the cost of living rather than a true fan abandoning his/her club to become an armchair plastic. The cost of living may push people this way, but it would only last as long as the COL crisis then they would be back at their clubs again. That's only my OPINION of course and it can't be proven either way. 

Good debate BTW. 

[joe jordans teeth]

2 hours ago, ralphindevon said:

I’ve not read a whole lot about it but it does seem there’s an effort being made to clamp down on illegal streaming right now.

Do we think they’ll be after those that actually stream illegally soon? I actually pay for Sky Sports etc but I’m increasingly feeling like I’m in a minority with loads of people telling me they get what seems like every channel in the world for £60 a year.

With Sky, along with EE and BT putting up my prices this year by about 15% I’m almost certainly going to ditch all 3 when the contracts are up. I know they’ll offer to reduce the price when I tell them but too late, that increase was just taking the ****

I have never quite understood why people pay for IPTV and give their details over to any Tom,Dick and Harry,there are plenty of free APKs that show sports films etc(with no buffering)where you don’t have to give any details,just use a VPN to change your IP

[TheReds]

43 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

I have never quite understood why people pay for IPTV and give their details over to any Tom,Dick and Harry,there are plenty of free APKs that show sports films etc(with no buffering)where you don’t have to give any details,just use a VPN to change your IP

Plenty of people won't know what an IP is, let alone a VPN. 

[weepywall]

4 hours ago, robinforlife2 said:

Did he get done for Manslaughter or Murder? If it's the latter, it would be life, with a minimum of 15 years, which very rarely does someone get out on 15 years. If it was Manslaughter, as a dangerous and violent crime, they would have to serve two thirds, so they would serve 10 years, before release, plus likely they would have an extended license as well.

The fraud case is auto release on 5.5 years. So there is quite a difference in the sentencing.

To be honest I'm not sure what he was done for, can't remember now,  it was over 30 years ago.

[SecretSam]

Industrial scale fraud, sure, bang him/her/them up.

But...it's the comparatives: the pathetic sentences handed out to rapists (say), or people who kill whilst driving, or Tories...

[bcfcredandwhite]

I would add that clubs, including ours, are missing out on revenue by refusing to stream matches to UK customers. 

I live in Swindon, so can't get to every game for various reasons, but I would happily pay BCFC £10 (as I did during lockdown) to watch my team when I can't make it in person. 

Current rules prevent people from doing this, so their only alternatives are to (a) not bother - just watch SSN or the Final Score (b) find a dodgy stream (that actually works), or (c) subscribe to one of these illegal services. 

I believe (but can't prove) that there are MANY City fans like myself, who for one reason or another (location, illness, childcare, finances etc) can't make it to the Gate every week, but would be willing to pay a fee to cheer us on on TV.

[Port Said Red]

2 hours ago, TheReds said:

Plenty of people won't know what an IP is, let alone a VPN. 

That number is rapidly diminishing though, VPNs get bundled in with cyber security software nowadays, my 83 year old father in law uses one I set up for him and doesn't even know it. 

[Bristol Rob]

3 hours ago, Port Said Red said:

That number is rapidly diminishing though, VPNs get bundled in with cyber security software nowadays, my 83 year old father in law uses one I set up for him and doesn't even know it. 

You say that, but do you remember how outraged people were on behalf of others when the stadium went cashless?

[ralphindevon]

4 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

I would add that clubs, including ours, are missing out on revenue by refusing to stream matches to UK customers. 

I live in Swindon, so can't get to every game for various reasons, but I would happily pay BCFC £10 (as I did during lockdown) to watch my team when I can't make it in person. 

Current rules prevent people from doing this, so their only alternatives are to (a) not bother - just watch SSN or the Final Score (b) find a dodgy stream (that actually works), or (c) subscribe to one of these illegal services. 

I believe (but can't prove) that there are MANY City fans like myself, who for one reason or another (location, illness, childcare, finances etc) can't make it to the Gate every week, but would be willing to pay a fee to cheer us on on TV.

You can always subscribe to Robins TV, for the season or per match and use a VPN, hundreds or probably thousands do it every game.

You’re not really supposed to but even the club are aware this goes on and this way it’s not a dodgy stream with ads popping up but a properly produced programme that the club get money for. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

On 30/05/2023 at 19:57, robinforlife2 said:

Did they declare £7m to HMRC, NO!

Did they move money to many accounts, meaning the money could not be recovered, YES!

This is an organised crime group, it has nothing to do with football.

They gained £7m in an illegal manner, and used it for their own gain.

Actually there are many many victims. People signed up to it, are now exposed to legal threats, and their payment details were held on files, an illegal practice. Even if 10% of those who bought the streams at £10 a month (£120 per year) didn't go to games because they could watch them online this way, it's cost clubs revenue. They have taken money and not declared it, so when you think about the NHS struggling and money not going in the pot to help the elderly, think of the gang who took £7m and didn't declare it. Pretty much 2m of that should have been going in the national purse, but it never, so don't be so naive to say there are no victims. 

I briefly heard on the radio that the money they made from this would likely fund other organised crimes such as guns, drugs etc.

[Sleepy1968]

8 minutes ago, ralphindevon said:

You can always subscribe to Robins TV, for the season or per match and use a VPN, hundreds or probably thousands do it every game.

You’re not really supposed to but even the club are aware this goes on and this way it’s not a dodgy stream with ads popping up but a properly produced programme that the club get money for. 

Yep. I attend 100% home games (subject to illness) and 0% of away games. I have a sub to robinstv, and one to sky (which i may drop due to cost). I know that if a city game I don't attend is being televised I will watch it somehow. I'd rather give the money to city, but would resort to illegal streaming if that was the only remote option available.

Last season I even signed up to livescorebet because I thought they were streaming the facup replay at swansea. (They claimed they were, but didn't )

[daored]

5 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

I would add that clubs, including ours, are missing out on revenue by refusing to stream matches to UK customers. 

I live in Swindon, so can't get to every game for various reasons, but I would happily pay BCFC £10 (as I did during lockdown) to watch my team when I can't make it in person. 

Current rules prevent people from doing this, so their only alternatives are to (a) not bother - just watch SSN or the Final Score (b) find a dodgy stream (that actually works), or (c) subscribe to one of these illegal services. 

I believe (but can't prove) that there are MANY City fans like myself, who for one reason or another (location, illness, childcare, finances etc) can't make it to the Gate every week, but would be willing to pay a fee to cheer us on on TV.

Similar position to yourself, don’t live in Bristol and three kids under the age of 3 just not practical to go to games. I would happily buy to watch games on TV similar to during covid period. I also wouldn’t be against the club increasing price to reflect a match day ticket price 

[Baba Yaga]

22 hours ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

I would add that clubs, including ours, are missing out on revenue by refusing to stream matches to UK customers. 

I live in Swindon, so can't get to every game for various reasons, but I would happily pay BCFC £10 (as I did during lockdown) to watch my team when I can't make it in person. 

Current rules prevent people from doing this, so their only alternatives are to (a) not bother - just watch SSN or the Final Score (b) find a dodgy stream (that actually works), or (c) subscribe to one of these illegal services. 

I believe (but can't prove) that there are MANY City fans like myself, who for one reason or another (location, illness, childcare, finances etc) can't make it to the Gate every week, but would be willing to pay a fee to cheer us on on TV.

I think if paying for streams became widespread then the clubs income would go down not up. Obviously you have to travel far but I think even more local people would stop going to games and pay much more than £10 (much more so when you factor in food, drink etc) when there is a cheaper alternative on offer. For every fan that does this you would need probably at least 2-3 new people streaming before it made more money.

Reading the details of the new TV deal I think lots more games won't be Saturday 3pm in a seasons time making people less keen to go every game and also at some point the clean air zone will expand making travel more costly or a bigger ballache. I think either the streams would have to be quite a bit higher than £10 for this to be profitable and I would also worry that streaming would fall off in a big way if the team were doing poorly so paying game by game wouldn't work.

Also if the 3pm blackout was lifted like you also mentioned then many people could already have premier league games on a subscription at the same time City play lots of games, personally I think that would hurt lower league clubs at the expense of the bigger clubs.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Baba Yaga