Pay-per-view television service meaning

Sky UK Ltd v Office of Communications [2025] EWCA Civ 1118 What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Appeal upheld the CAT’s ruling that Sky’s pay‑television service delivered via digital satellite (Sky Pay TV Service) qualifies as an ECS. As a result, the General Conditions of Entitlement (GCs) governing ECSs bite in full, including consumer safeguards that oblige ECS providers to issue end‑of‑contract notifications (EoCNs) to customers. In practical terms, the decision confirms that blended content/transmission offerings (Hybrid Services)—even where content is the principal element—do not escape ECS categorisation or the consequent GC obligations. Providers of Hybrid Services (or their connectivity partners) should determine who bears responsibility to end users for conveyance functions, as this is pivotal to whether ECS status arises. The judgment also settles a two‑stage framework for assessing ECS designation for Hybrid Services: first, disregard any content‑service components; and secondly, apply the Principal Feature Test to what remains. A provider cannot sidestep ECS...

Original news Digital TV streaming service found guilty of copyright violations, LNB News 26/06/2014 New York Times, 26 June 2014: The US Supreme Court held that Aereo, a television streaming platform, breached copyright by capturing broadcast signals with miniature aerials and forwarding them to subscribers for payment. The ruling was a significant victory for US broadcast networks, which argued Aereo had used a high-tech method to pilfer their content. What is the state of unauthorised online streaming in the US? The Aereo judgment adds to a global discussion about third parties distributing broadcast programmes, stepping in between broadcasters and viewers. The case turned on whether US copyright law required permission from broadcasters when Aereo picked up their programmes off-air and sent them online to its users. As a general rule, retransmitting a broadcast to the public in a Berne Convention country will infringe the copyright in any protected work featured in that broadcast if done without the right holder’s authorisation. In the US, this permits broadcasters to levy substantial...

HMRC v Basic Broadcasting Ltd [2024] UKUT 165 (TCC) The UT concluded the FTT had fallen into an error of law when analysing the notional contract of the relevant worker with the client, taking account of Court of Appeal guidance in HMRC v Atholl House Productions Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 501. From 6 April 2012 until 5 April 2017, television and radio host Adrian Chiles delivered his services to ITV and the BBC via his personal service company, Basic Broadcasting Ltd. HMRC took the view that the intermediaries legislation (widely known as IR35) was in point, and issued determinations against the personal service company for income tax of £1,249,433 and National Insurance contributions totalling £460,739. The proceedings have experienced significant delay. The first FTT hearing, timetabled for November 2019, was called off due to illness. The FTT’s decision, released in February 2022 in favour of the taxpayer, was subsequently appealed by HMRC to the UT, following the taxpayer’s favourable FTT ruling...

CASE HUB ARCHIVED – this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 24 November 2020; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and related/relevant cases. Case facts Outline Case C- 445/1919 Viasat Broadcasting UK — a Danish reference seeking clarification on whether, amongst other points, a national court’s duty to impose ‘illegality interest’ on an aid beneficiary also extends to circumstances where the unlawful State aid was public service compensation later judged compatible with the internal market under Article 106(2) TFEU. Latest developments On 24 November 2020, the Court of Justice ruled that TV2/Danmark A/s must pay ‘illegality interest’ on State aid it obtained from Denmark due to a failure to notify correctly. The subsequent European Commission finding that the aid was lawful, and the fact that TV2/Danmark A/S provided a service of general economic interest, did not alter this outcome. Parties Applicant: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (Viasat). Defendant: TV 2/Danmark AS (TV...

This Practice Note offers practical guidance on how premium rate services (PRS) are regulated in the UK. Its principal source is the Regulation of Premium Rate Services Order 2024 (the PRS Order), SI 2024/1046. Information, entertainment and related services delivered over electronic communications networks, with charges recovered through a user’s telephone bill, are classified as PRS and supervised by Ofcom. What are PRS? The expression ‘PRS’ is defined in section 120(8) of the Communications Act 2003 (CA 2003) and refers to interactive services for which a charge is imposed on a customer’s mobile or landline bill. These services can be reached by several communications methods, including SMS text, digital television, or voice calls by phone; typical examples include donating to a charity by text or ringing a chatline. Certain PRS are described as ‘controlled PRS’ (CPRS). CPRS are regulated by Ofcom and are defined in article 3 of the PRS Order. A CPRS is a PRS that is: accessed via a premium rate number...