Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
leif
10 Apr 21 16:07
Joined:
Date Joined: 26 Jun 08
| Topic/replies: 5,407 | Blogger: leif's blog
If they are to be undone might that be the route the tracks take?

I dunno, not a  lawyer.

If you stage the event and it costs you to do so, you don't want all and sundry broadcasting coverage of your event unless they want to cough up for the privilege?
Pause Switch to Standard View Drone operators stealing intellectual...
Show More
Loading...
Report Rico-Dangleflaps April 11, 2021 11:06 AM BST
any different to 4,000 people at at a george michael concert filming the event with their mobile phone?
Report dustybin April 11, 2021 11:23 AM BST
Aye...the selling bit
Plus he’s dead
Report leif April 11, 2021 11:30 AM BST
It's doubtful an entertainer will take the time and money to sue anyone caught filming their concert but legally they can.

If the track owners can get the drone operators done for theft of intellectual property and get their expensive toys confiscated it could be curtains for their productions.

They'll get them one way or the other.

all good things come to an end eventually.
Report dave1357 April 11, 2021 11:39 AM BST
There is no general law that prevents someone filming public activity and doing what they like with that material.  If you attend a sporting event or concert you agree to terms that include your agreement over media rights.  if you are outside the venue you can do what you like.
Report punts April 11, 2021 11:43 AM BST
The courts will have to weigh in on this... if it gets there.
Report dustybin April 11, 2021 11:48 AM BST
This is a circular argument that keeps going around, I have stopped bothering debating the part of interpretation of ‘creating ones own art’ since it’s pointless until a judge defines it.
Where somebody is when filming is also something of a nonsense.

The point is if this route were taken (and I’m not certain this would be the preferred option0 I honestly could not see any judge singularly defining the act of filming via drone alone, they will be forced to review the context, and the context is theft, a person opportunistically riding the back of enterprise, possibly not paying tax and doing so for personal gain in the pursuit of supplying those wanting an advantage betting.
It’s just not a good look, and it would be one hell of a maverick judge to determine the drone operator was in anyway contributing.
Report dustybin April 11, 2021 11:59 AM BST
As I’ve said numerous times, they won’t bother with the complexity of filming, they will focus on the selling.
There are bans on selling things, only certain people can trade cannabis, ivory etc etc.
You get a licence to sell the image for the act of gambling
Done.
Report noobile April 11, 2021 12:31 PM BST
It's doubtful an entertainer will take the time and money to sue anyone caught filming their concert but legally they can.

If concerts where being livestreamed for a fee from someone unconnected to the promoter pretty sure they would take action.
Report dave1357 April 11, 2021 12:36 PM BST
^that's because ticketholders agree to terms and also there are laws that protect music writings etc.  These laws don't apply to sporting events.
Report dustybin April 11, 2021 1:23 PM BST
5Facilities for gambling

(3)A person provides facilities for gambling (despite subsection (2)(c)) if—

(c)the nature, adaptation or presentation of the facilities is such that—

(i)they cannot reasonably be expected to be used for purposes other than gambling, or

(ii)they are intended to be used wholly or mainly for gambling.



It could easily be argued on present Law that providing streaming of visual imagery is facilitating IR gambling (since without it they wouldnt bet)
and therefore require a licence already.....even if the likes of the GC continued to strain an argument to not act as the present law dictates, there could easily be a simple addition to clarify that streaming is one of the 'remote' provisions under...

4Remote gambling

(1)In this Act “remote gambling” means gambling in which persons participate by the use of remote communication.

(2)In this Act “remote communication” means communication using—

(a)the internet,

(b)telephone,

(c)television,

(d)radio, or

(e)any other kind of electronic or other technology for facilitating communication.

(3)The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a specified system or method of communication is or is not to be treated as a form of remote communication for the purposes of this Act (and subsection (2) is subject to any regulations under this subsection).
Report Andrew.in.Sweden April 11, 2021 2:02 PM BST
Filming any event is not connected to IPR that is for establishing a concept or creating a definitive product. Very common in the aerospace industry.
Report dave1357 April 11, 2021 2:12 PM BST
^^probably dustybin's most idiotic post on the subject.
Report dustybin April 11, 2021 2:14 PM BST
and whys that then dave?
Report dave1357 April 11, 2021 2:27 PM BST
Because you have to read an entire section of a law to interpret it correctly.  You cant just pluck bits out.  Your bolded phrase is part of a section that outlines when providing "facilities for remote communication" will be considered providing facilities for gambling.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with streaming.
Report greenteethnarrabacktroutmoy April 11, 2021 2:33 PM BST
dustybin 11 Apr 21 10:59 
As I’ve said numerous times, they won’t bother with the complexity of filming, they will focus on the selling.

good luck proving that.
Report dustybin April 11, 2021 2:39 PM BST
I simplified it for convienience, the Act is available for all to read, I highlighted the points based on the argument that streaming horse race betting is created (in this instance) for the single purpose of gambling and therefore meets the criteria I outlined
It necessitates gambling, is a remote communication and part of the facility of IR betting, ergo as GC have a duty to meet the objectives of (1) they should act. But even if they argued not to, if you knew anything about the nature of IR betting then you would know exactly how the GC have failed to meet that objective.
Report dave1357 April 11, 2021 2:48 PM BST
utter drivel, you are a clown.  The section is about providing a remote link to a gambling facility or for the sole purpose of gambling and absolutely nothing to do with streaming.  And ironically you miss the point that it is arguable that internet facilities provided in on course rooms fall under that section, although the GC has decided that they don't.
Report ItsMeSwaddle April 11, 2021 2:50 PM BST
Agree with OP
Report dave1357 April 11, 2021 2:52 PM BST
dustybin would have springwatch getting a gambling license in case someone bets on when the blue tits fledge.
Report dustybin April 11, 2021 2:56 PM BST
Calling me a clown is rich you being an insignificant pedant that just gets ignored by most people on here.

Is there a gambling market to bet on springwatch you f00kin abortion?
If the visual data is part of the relied upon facility for IR gambling and therefore without a version of it no gambling IR (save for keep bets) would exist and that its sole intention is for use for betting, then it clearly can be interpreted as requiring regulation.
Report dave1357 April 11, 2021 3:01 PM BST
stop digging you moron - I have helpfully told you how to interpret that section of the law.  You are an utter laughing stock if you think that all sporting broadcasts are subject to the regulation of the gambling act.
Report dustybin April 11, 2021 3:10 PM BST
I never said the Gambling Act was intentionally written for the direction of regulating sporting broadcasts you maggot fart.

I said given the definitions it can easily be interpreted that the media that is provided for that single purpose requires regulation and that the issuing of licences to create a standard to meet the original objectives of the GC could apply to them given the definitions.

The idea that I'd ever listen to you is actually whats funny. For you to help me you'd go and stick your fingers in your own eyes.
Report DOUBLED April 11, 2021 3:14 PM BST
I'm glad you children are back to school tomorrow
Report greenteethnarrabacktroutmoy April 11, 2021 3:14 PM BST
dusty has effigys of the drone lads...
Report dave1357 April 11, 2021 3:15 PM BST
^^^That's my fault, I had no idea that you were such a huge thicko, who despite no work experience in interpreting legislation would think that he can pluck a line or two from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ and the forum would go ooh dustybin seems very smart.
Report dustybin April 11, 2021 3:21 PM BST
F uck me, I never realised I was in the company of such wisdom. The person who only ever comes on here to attempt at condescension.
How many times now have you done it to a whole string of users of this site?
You imply either that there is no problem of IR discrepency and therefore the regulator need do nothing, or that you knowing all about legal affairs have the answer Mr hot5hit.
Then crack on, you enlighten us all as to how youd do it then, because thats all Ive been doing.
Report dustybin April 11, 2021 3:24 PM BST
greenteethnarrabacktroutmoy • April 11, 2021 3:14 PM BST
dusty has effigys of the drone lads...

Ill watch as they and you decide which corner you decide you are in and fight it out between you
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com