TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 11 °C Saturday 18 May, 2013

EU’s top court to hear dispute over TV streaming website

Broadcasters say TVCatchup, which hosts streams of TV channels for UK users, should not be able to stream their content.

Image: rickremington via Flickr

Updated, 12:31

THE EUROPEAN UNION’S top court is today hearing arguments in a case which could have an impact on the provision of some online TV streaming services throughout the EU.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is hearing a matter referred to it by the High Court in London, in a case brought by Britain’s commercial broadcasters, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 against the popular TV streaming website TVCatchup.

That website offers live streams of 50 free-to-air British channels, and is accessible to users who sign up for a free account – essentially offering a competing live stream to those offered by the broadcasters themselves.

However, the website also includes its own advertisements alongside those which are carried on the original broadcast – prompting claims from the TV companies that the website is making money by carrying their content.

They also argue that the website’s service is an act of ‘communicating broadcasts with the public’ – a service which is restricted under the EU’s 2001 directive on copyright in the information society.

TVCatchup argues, however, that because its streams are only available to users in the UK – where users holding TV licences would be able to watch the streams anyway – it merely offers another platform for users to view content they are already entitled to see.

The High Court in London, which has already rejected related complaints of copyright infringement from the broadcasters, has asked the ECJ to decide whether a “communication to the public” of copyrighted material includes a system like TVCatchup’s where users are already entitled to receive a broadcast.

The High Court has also asked for guidance on whether TVCatchup’s advertisements – and the fact that it therefore acts in direct competition with the original broadcaster – should have an impact on its consideration of the case.

The Court in London has already dismissed challenges against TVCatchup’s streams of the major UK free-to-air channels, though the distribution of a smaller number of minority channels (including time-shifted ‘+1′ channels) is at stake in the European court’s ruling.

Read: Cost of Premier League TV rights soar

Read next:

Comments (9 Comments)

  • I think it is the article that doesn’t quite smell right: http://forums.tvcatchup.com/showthread.php?10767-Announcement-TVC-amp-The-European-Courts&p=89233#post89233

    Today (19th November) TVC will be verbally presenting our position regarding the rights of users to access online cable services before the Advocate General of the ECJ.
    This has been misleadingly reported by an Irish blog as being the start of the actual hearing of matters by the ECJ.

    As has been publicly announced, TVCatchup has already been deemed to be a qualifying cable service by Justice Floyd in his ruling in the London High Court on November 15th 2011.

    The distribution rights of TVC to the majority of popular channels have already been confirmed, thus TVC has already therefore substantively beaten its opponents. The remaining arguments being put before the ECJ only concern some of the additional minority channels (e.g. ITV1+1), and we remain completely confident of our continued success against the remaining handful of broadcasters who oppose us.

    Having already beaten SKY in court in the past year, and having had to call in the bailiffs to recover our substantial costs from them, we have every expectation that we shall be doing the same against other broadcaster after the 8-12 months this last step in the drawn out process is expected to take.

    Reply
    • Good for you Daniel. I’ve used TVcatchup a lot in the UK. Great service.

      Reply
    • Hi Daniel – thanks for your comment (I suspect from your surname that you are involved with the site, in which case I particularly appreciate you cross-posting the forum post.)

      First of all, it was not my intention to mislead and I apologise if readers misconstrued the nature of the matter at hand. The piece has been edited to make it clearer that the matter being heard today is the referral of a relatively minor (though still substantive) aspect of a case which has already been ruled upon.

      To an Irish audience the key outcome of the case would be an ECJ instruction on whether a second-source stream, such as those available on TVC, is covered by the directive’s provision about the “communication to the public”. Though TVC’s distribution rights for the major channels have been secured by the High Court in London, the ECJ ruling on the matter at hand would have significantly greater impact on the provision of similar services in other jurisdictions such as here in Ireland. If the court finds that the directive applies to such services, the impact would be felt across the continent, depending on the nature of the domestic law of each member state – so even though TVC’s rights have already been secured, the rights of other services in Ireland and elsewhere are not quite so equivocal. This is why the article focusses on that matter, even though doing so could be seen as disproportionate in terms of TVC’s individual case.

      I hope this helps to explain why the article has focussed on the matter at hand, and am happy to amend the piece to make it clearer that the majority of TVC’s own services are not at stake.

      Reply
  • Broadcasters would have this problem if they used some of that license fee to catch up with the times! Sometimes watching a stream on your laptop, tablet phone etc is just much more feasible than sitting in front if your tv.

    Reply
  • It makes sense to have online tv, tvcatchup is just beating the old farts in the broadcasting companiew to the punch. As long as tvcatchup isn’t making money directly from its broadcasts (i.e. ad pop ups during broadcasts/ sign up fees) then it should be ok, like they said once the viewer holds a tv licence they’re entitled to watch the broadcasts no matter what the interface.

    Reply
  • Thank you Gavan, both for your response and the graceful edit

    The whole process was a calculated act of attrition targeted by the broadcasters against TVC, which is now starting to bite them in their corpulent backsides. We have done well to achieve recognition as a qualifying cable provider, and anticipate ultimately being able to lift many of our geo-restrictions in favour of our European neighbours. To be forced to continue with such discriminatory restrictions against fellow European states will be held as unlawful as it is already distasteful.

    The revenue argument put forward by a few of the broadcasters just doesn’t wash, they allow – even encourage – people to upload recorded content to YouTube, yet they don’t complain when YouTube saturate that content with advertising. Such hypocrisy hasn’t gone unnoticed by the ECJ, I’m glad to say.

    I appreciate the right to reply, and I have very much to be thankful for to our friends in Ireland (most especially, the veteran pirate broadcaster and mentor of years gone by, Ronan O’Rahilly). The lesson learned from those days have gone a long way in helping us to do as we are, and we’re here for the long haul and itching to extend our services across and beyond the European boundaries.

    Reply
  • Best of luck to TVC the major broadcasters reason for objection is pure good old greed if you were offering them a percentage I wonder would they complain I hope you kick there ass go TVC

    Reply
  • How come I smell something not quite right about these claims?

    Reply

Add New Comment