Is sky aka bskyb breaking the law?

bladeguard

I Have some more news for everyone.
Apparantly Sky policy of stopping you from viewing the material you have paid for and recorded but not viewed is very dubious as it falls foul of the Sale of Goods act 1979 . This states that as sky has supplied goods or services then it has no right to withold access if the goods have been paid for. Would love to see some one take action against sky to make them review this policy.

Is Sky breaking the law?

jonesMUFCforever

What do Sky's terms and conditions say about people cancelling or not paying their subscriptions?
Look at this first in my opinion.
If you have Sky+ and you have recorded something but then cancel the sub - it has always been my opinion that you could not view any premium programme recorded (ie anything not available on free to air).

bladeguard

I dont think sky can exlude its self from the sales of goods act by defining something in is terms and conditions which clearly breaches this legal act. I dont think any thing they could write would be pertinent. I am not talking about recording new material that is a differant matter but the items that you have already paid for or recorded on your equipment and have already paid for has been sold to you by sky for viewing. By terminating this on your equipment I believe that they cannot legally do this? unless you have already viewed them.

duchy

If you recorded it and chose NOT to watch it before giving up the subscription service that enabled you to use the technology to watch it then I'd think it could be easily argued that they didn't block what you recorded but merely your method of viewing.
Don't think you'll get anywhere with this one TBH

batmansmellsfunny

You would only be able to use the Sale of Goods act in the way you describe if you were purchasing programmes completely independantly of your sky subscription (a service sky doesn't offer) The primary contract you are in is for Sky to provide a service (a receiver box and the means to view content) for a fixed period of time. Sky don't sell anything that doesn't have the time element involved (which is the important distinction) In essence, Sky is selling you the right to use their equiptment, it is the consumers responsibility to transfer anything they may want to keep away from being exlusively under their equiptments control (i.e record it to dvd) It's slightly more complex than just saying you've been sold something and then denied access to it. You have been sold a product within the confines of a very specific, pre-agreed contract. I don't think it would be really possible to argue otherwise simply because of the technicalities involved. Even if it was contested in court the fact that any ruling that created a link between content and ownership after the contract expired could end up being bad news for many consumers. Remember, the law is a two way street and no one is better at exploiting legal loopholes and points of law than large corporations.