The latest Ticket Injunction Heralds Hope for Fans of the Section.
The latest ticket injunction has been granted by Manchester Magistrates Court in the case brought by the Premier League against StubHub and Viagogo, who both trade in tickets to Premier League football matches.
The injunction, granted on 10th November 2014, prohibits StubHub and Viagogo from selling tickets to people who reside in the UK for any event taking place in the UK. The injunction applies immediately for StubHub and will be enforced as of 1st December 2014.
The injunction is good news for fans, providing a real deterrent to unauthorised ticket resellers who attempt to profit from football match fixtures by buying tickets and selling them on at highly inflated prices.
It is also good news for English football clubs and their supporters because it helps reduce the number of “touts” at matches by preventing them from using online platforms such as StubHub and Viagogo to sell tickets at inflated prices. This helps to remove pressure on clubs to increase ticket prices or reduce stadium capacities, which would be detrimental to attendances.
The injunction will remain in force until July 2015 when a full trial of the issues between the parties will take place.
The latest ticket injunction has just been granted and will be welcomed by fans of the Section. This is the first time in a long time that an injunction has been made and fans of the Section had been getting used to the Section being unenforceable at football matches. However, there is some hope that the Section can be enforced against those ticket touts who are determined to make money from other people’s misery. Fans of the Section have always held that more can be done to put a stop to these touts, but this decision will at least help stop them from making money from tickets for big events such as Wembley Cup Finals and concerts.
This decision was made in the High Court by Mr Justice Arnold who ruled that Viagogo Ltd had breached the Consumer Rights Act 2015 by failing to provide certain information about tickets purchased through its website. He also ruled that it had breached section 84(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because it made consumers pay fees in excess of those permitted under section 83(3) of that Act when they bought tickets. The effect of these two decisions is not only that Viagogo Ltd cannot make such charges but also that they must provide details of where in an arena each ticket is located. In issuing this injunction against Viagogo Ltd
The latest injunction from the High Court has caused a stir amongst fans of the Section, with many claiming that the ruling heralds hope for their side.
The injunction, which was issued by Judge Anthony Hayden, prevents supporters from entering into a ground if they have been convicted of a football-related offence in the last three years.
It comes after a complaint from Crystal Palace, who were concerned about a number of incidents at their recent home game against Brighton and Hove Albion.
Brighton’s “ultras” are well known for their active support. The club has encouraged this in recent years after chairman Tony Bloom said he wanted to create an “intimidating atmosphere” at the Amex Stadium.
Although the club’s ultras are not thought to be involved in any illegal activities or organised crime, there are concerns that their behaviour is too intimidating and could lead to violence.
The government has welcomed the injunction and urged other clubs to take similar action.
A spokesperson said: “Football is a family game enjoyed by millions every week and we want to keep it that way.”
We are used to the fact that our favorite programs are broadcast at different times in different countries. But with the advent of the Internet and new technologies, fans have found ways of getting their beloved programs. And along with that, the question of copyright infringement has been brought up.
In an attempt to tackle this issue, a group of people involved in the television industry have formed a coalition called Section 117.
Their primary goal is to get more information out there about what the copyright laws state and how they apply to watching programs online or through other means. This blog will be updated regularly with news from members of Section 117 as well as links to other sites on the web that deal with this topic.
Today’s latest section 117 injunction did not come as a shock but it is still welcome news. The injunction, granted by Mr Justice Arnold, will serve as a useful reminder to sites that repeatedly provide access to other people’s content without permission that they are liable for copyright infringement.
The injunction relates to the provision of links to copyright content on a number of websites and was against the operator of these sites.
This is the third such injunction from the High Court in the last few months following injunctions against Newzbin 2 and TVShack.net. These injunctions reflect a general trend towards granting injunctions against such sites, with an increasing number of domain names being suspended by Nominet, for example.
Today’s injunction reminds us that operators of sites that link to infringing content cannot hide behind excuses about not having any control over the material published on their site. They will be liable for copyright infringement and could face an injunction if they continue to profit from other people’s work.
What is section 117? Section 117 of the Copyright Act of 1976 provides that copyright owners cannot prevent the owner of a lawfully acquired copy of a copyrighted work from reselling the work, or from reselling the second-hand work after the first purchaser has transferred it to another person.
The inclusion of section 117 in the Copyright Act of 1976 was intended to provide balance to copyright laws. The purpose of copyright law is to advance science and useful arts by rewarding authors and inventors with exclusive rights over their works. However, this right must be balanced with the right of individuals to use and enjoy what they have purchased.
Section 117 does not create an unrestricted right for purchasers to resell any copyrighted work that they own. Owners are only permitted to resell works that they have acquired lawfully, and only under certain circumstances.
For example, if you purchase a software program on CD or DVD, you generally cannot make a copy of the work to sell. You can only sell your original CD or DVD. This is because section 117 was passed before there were digital products sold via download, and therefore did not provide for transferring digital products between users.
In addition, many software licenses expressly prohibit resale, so even if you physically transfer your original
It has been a busy week for copyright lawyers, with tickets to the upcoming Rugby World Cup being the latest target of section 92A injunctions.
Once again, the injunction was sought and granted ex parte, meaning that no notice was given to the defendant. This was despite the fact that only 4 days earlier, Justice Fogarty had heard submissions from both sides in relation to this same defendant. As I mentioned in my previous post on this issue, it is hard not to see these as a cut-down version of Ross Cranston’s proposal for an expedited copyright process: no substantive hearing, no discovery and no cross examination of witnesses.
While this injunction is similar to previous ones in form, there are some differences worth noting. The first is that it extends to unauthorized resale at less than face value. Injunctions against online ticket scalpers have tended to focus on their advertising and marketing activities rather than their sales themselves; presumably because the latter would be more problematic from an enforcement point of view.
Of course, any attempt at enforcement would need to take account of s 22(3) of the CCA which states: “A person who buys or hires goods in trade or commerce … is not taken for the purposes of this Part to have induced another
