Quote SmokeyTA="SmokeyTA"There is an offence under the copyright and patents act of dishonest reception of a broadcast with intent to avoid payment. The fact someone else, somewhere else is paying correctly isn’t a defence for you. Im not a solicitor or sky though so im not saying you are going to prison or anything, just the principle isn’t just breach of contract.'" I understand what you're saying but sky offer the facility to create accounts for friends and family to use their sky account elsewhere so as fair as i can see the copyrights and patents act with regards to sky go is more to do with rebroadcasting streams etc not who you authorise to use your account help.sky.com/my-account/sky-id/c ... country=ie

Quote SmokeyTA="SmokeyTA"There is an offence under the copyright and patents act of dishonest reception of a broadcast with intent to avoid payment. The fact someone else, somewhere else is paying correctly isn’t a defence for you. Im not a solicitor or sky though so im not saying you are going to prison or anything, just the principle isn’t just breach of contract.'" I understand what you're saying but sky offer the facility to create accounts for friends and family to use their sky account elsewhere so as fair as i can see the copyrights and patents act with regards to sky go is more to do with rebroadcasting streams etc not who you authorise to use your account help.sky.com/my-account/sky-id/c ... country=ie

Quote clubfoot fc="clubfoot fc"I understand what you're saying but sky offer the facility to create accounts for friends and family to use their sky account elsewhere so as fair as i can see the copyrights and patents act with regards to sky go is more to do with rebroadcasting streams etc not who you authorise to use your account help.sky.com/my-account/sky-id/c ... country=ie'" Both of those specify you need to be a member of the household. You have already said that it would be a breach of Sky’s terms and conditions. Im not sure how it could be a breach of their terms and conditions and also allowed by them.

Quote clubfoot fc="clubfoot fc"I understand what you're saying but sky offer the facility to create accounts for friends and family to use their sky account elsewhere so as fair as i can see the copyrights and patents act with regards to sky go is more to do with rebroadcasting streams etc not who you authorise to use your account help.sky.com/my-account/sky-id/c ... country=ie'" Both of those specify you need to be a member of the household. You have already said that it would be a breach of Sky’s terms and conditions. Im not sure how it could be a breach of their terms and conditions and also allowed by them.

ultimately, I doubt Sky care that much.

But if he chooses to use it at my house and then I also use it while he's not there, I fail to see how they could even attempt a prosecution on that basis.

I know I don't so i'm gonna leave it there

an undertaking within the terms and conditions not to share the access information with people outside your household and a clause within the terms and conditions which says you will not access the product using that access information unless you are part of that household and a little box next to the username and password which you need to tick to say you have read, understood, and agree to the terms and conditions and that the account you are accessing is one of your household.

you have then lied, provided incorrect information and deliberately, dishonestly received the broadcast with the intent to avoid payment.

As i say, i doubt they will do so, but they can and have.

Can and have? In the circumstances I have described? Do you have a link to the judgement?

Well if you want to keep bowing down to these puppet masters, who indirectly rig the laws to suite themselves, and legally rip you off, then carry on having your pants pulled down.

not of that exact circumstance no, but its a pretty established principle. There was a case on recently in the high court. Their defence was that under the charge of dishonestly receiving a broadcast with the intent to avoid payment they were innocent as someone somewhere else was paying the correct fee, and they had been authorized to use that persons account (the same as your defence for using your dads Skygo account). Therefor they werent dishonestly receiving a broadcast with the intent to avoid payment because the correct fee had been paid by someone else. This was actually accepted by a local magistrate and those facts werent ever disputed. Someone was paying the correct fee and so had authority to receive that broadcast and had passed that authority to someone else.
It went to the high court and the federation against copyright theft and Sky barely needed to even make representation because it is pretty established as a principle that to legally receive a pay-for broadcast you need to A) have an agreement with the broadcaster B) that agreement needed to be the correct one and C) abide by the terms of that agreement.

The same principle applies for Sky GO, for you to receive Sky GO and not be dishonestly receiving a broadcast with the intent to avoid payment you must have an agreement with Sky ( you cannot access SkyGo without one as you need to agree to the T's and C's each and every time you sign in) That agreement must be the correct one (as per the terms and conditions you agree to only share or give access to those in your household, you also agree that the account you are accessing is one of your household) and you need to abide by the terms of it (which considering the two early points you cannot possibly be if you are accessing someone elses)

Its a pretty simple principle, to not be dishonestly receiving a broadcast with the intent to avoid payment, you cant lie, pretend you are someone else, break the terms of an agreement to receive a broadcast you should have to pay for but are avoiding doing so.

again im not saying you are going to be prosecuted, its much more likely they will look at technical and DRM ways of minimizing unauthorized usage. Its just there is no point arguing something technically isnt theft, when technically, and morally, it is.

Sky arent legally ripping me off at all. They provide a product i want to buy, so i buy it. I dont have to buy it, i choose to.

To be honest, i understand the hatred of murdoch, i dont understand the hatred of Sky, they do something very very well. Their sports coverage is second to none, they provide you with a huge amount of content that otherwise wouldnt be available and in pretty much every advancement in television in the last 30 years has been pushed forward by them, they shook up a stagnant and lazy industry.

Im a huge fan of the BBC, the natural history unit is the best in the world and should be a source of national pride. But they can;t and frankly shouldnt take some of the risks sky do.

Did you know that it wasnt until the 90's that Sky sports introduced a score bar in the top left hand corner of the a sports broadcast. The 19 bloody 90's! can you imagine watching any type of sporting event now, on any channel and there not being the time and score in the top corner? never mind HD and 3d, spidercam, ref cam, hell even having so may cameras at a game, never mind all that. The BBC and ITV were so stagnant in their sports coverage they didnt even bother to display the score.

A link to the judgement you describe, then. Shouldn't be a problem as you seem to know the case intimately.

And I'm not arguing that something technically is or isn't theft, I'm saying that in the hypothetical situation I have described, Sky would have to prove that neither my father or any member of his household was present at the time viewing took place. This would be impossible.