I can't afford Sky - but am I breaking the law?

Mrs X feels disgruntled about Sky's prices and has been approached by a foreign satellite supplier to screen live football. But is it legal to use foreign satellite systems to show Premier League games?

I was approached recently by a firm offering to sell me a foreign satellite system for a one-off payment of £1,195 plus VAT.

They assured me that I can show all the usual Sky matches and have also inferred that I can screen many other matches, including those shown at 3pm on Saturdays, without any problems or risk of prosecution.

My Sky satellite bills at this pub have rocketed over the years to a level where it amounts to such a big financial outlay that I am not sure whether I am willing to pay their high prices.

Continuing to use Sky for a season would cost me about 10 times as much as using this foreign satellite supplier.

The other problem I face is that many of my competitors have installed foreign systems showing home and away Premiership team games and I'm losing trade to them.

I read a lot about prosecutions and I know that some licensees do win their cases.

The whole situation seems so unfair and it's such a grey area that I feel confused.

My main questions are:1 Is the foreign satellite system legal or not?2 If it is illegal, why are other pubs nearby allowed to continue using it while I pay full Sky rates and risk losing my customers?3 Can I show games at 3pm on a Saturday without facing prosecution?

Peter Coulson MA legal editor

I have great sympathy with licensees who are confused by the current avalanche of disinformation on showing live Premiership football - perhaps the more they read, the more confused they become!

I do not think either side is helping the licensee. The purveyors of satellite systems produce yards of material on side-issues, but carefully avoid addressing the main point — that actual copyright of the matches is owned by the Football Association, who ultimately decide who can show it to the public in the UK.

The FA and Sky have a patchy track-record. They failed to enforce the copyright position strongly enough in the early days, because they were selling loads of football packages to pubs, and prosecutions cost money which they were not prepared to spend.

With the trade revolting against Sky subscription levels, people are looking for other providers. Foreign satellite companies' attraction lies in appearing to "under-cut" Sky by a huge margin.

Combine this with an apparent lack of enforcement and people are prepared to take the risk.

Of course, the package you have been offered — and promises made — looks inviting, because the actual hardware and card suppliers are not paying the FA for copyright permission to transmit matches in the UK.

They know very well that the actual showing of matches on their system to a pub full of customers is not approved by the FA and is in itself a breach of the 1988 Copyright Act.

No satellite company can honestly claim that use of their equipment and card can legitimately over-ride this.

Dan Johnson spokesman, FA Premier League

It is easy to see why licensees are being tempted by some suppliers using foreign satellite systems to offer live matches at discounted rates. But if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

Let's deal with the legal facts as established by every prosecution undertaken, including 100 successful prosecutions and the four we have lost during the last 18 months. Simply showing Premier League matches at any time using a foreign satellite system is illegal and leaves you open to prosecution - there are no exceptions or loopholes.

I agree it's unfair that some licensees install these systems at a fraction of the cost and use them to attract business from honest licensees who have the correct commercial Sky subscription or choose not to show live football. Those using foreign satellite systems, whether pictures are beamed in from Europe or further afield, are breaking the law to gain a competitive advantage. To

combat this, the Premier League is holding briefing sessions to make the industry aware of the definitive legal position.

We are increasing our pubs visits to 200 a month and there will be more prosecutions. If people persist in using illegal systems, they are likely to be caught, prosecuted and fined. With new licensing laws in place they could also lose their licence. We will also be targeting suppliers, as they are also breaking the law - clearly, it's more effective to aim to cut this problem off at its source.

My advice is simple - don't show Premier League matches through foreign satellite systems. You are breaking the law, and saving money now could end up costing your livelihood.

Paul Dixon solicitor, Molesworths Bright Clegg

I will consider your questions in turn:1. Provided the system is not what the law calls an "unauthorised decoder" - a "pirate" or "chipped" box - designed to hack into satellite signals without paying the official subscription, the foreign system is almost certainly legal. All my cases have involved the use of legitimate foreign systems to receive Premiership matches.2. I don't know - you could ask the Football Association Premier League (FAPL) why they only prosecute some licensees, and how FAPL and/or Sky tackle Mediterranean bars showing Sky's live FAPL match broadcasts.3. In all my cases, such as Brian Gannon and the "Pompey Five," each client was charged with "fraudulently

receiving programmes". The FAPL must show that the licensee "dishonestly received a programme included in a broadcasting service, provided from a place in the UK, with intent to avoid payment of any charge applicable to the reception of the programme".

I doubt very much whether the FAPL would be able to prosecute you successfully for the offence of fraudulently receiving programmes if you show closed-period games. It is important to note that an article such as this can only ever consider specific questions posed and is not intended to be legal advice. As always, the golden rule is that you should take independent legal advice from a solicitor specialising in this complex area of law before purchasing and using satellite equipment. The solicitor will provide comprehensive advice, tailored to your personal circumstances, about all aspects of the law.

Mrs X's response

Thank you to the MA experts for their advice, but the only certain point is Coulson's view that the more you read, the more confused you get.

Your answers have given me a hell of a lot to think about - what a huge contrast of opinions exists on this matter.

I just can't understand how the views of the FAPL and Paul Dixon can differ so much.

I have taken the decision to dump Sky from my pub and will delay installing a foreign system for at least two months. I want to see how much money I can save without Sky and how much trade I lose by not showing football, and then take a business decision on whether I need football at all.

I appreciate that it may be risky to install the foreign systems, but if everyone else continues to do it without being prosecuted, I may come to the conclusion that I have no choice.

Surely the simplest solution to this mess would be for Sky to reduce its rates significantly?

Have you got a question for our panel of experts? Contact Ewan Turney on 01293 610388 or email rjna.ghearl@jvyyvnz-errq.pb.hx​

Regular experts

Alison Carter, licensee, Bayview InnAnthony Mears, licensee, Ivy HouseAnn Elliott, marketing consultant, Elliott IndependentMartin Roslyn, accountant, Roslyn GroupRichard Miles, accountant, MilestoneDavid Morgan, chartered surveyor, DMPPaul Davey, business sales agent, Davey & CoNigel Martyn, business banking, Lloyds TSBChris Heard, finance broker, Marlborough Leisure