It is quite unnerving to find so many licensees still prepared to risk large sums of money to install foreign decoders when they have been told clearly - even by the courts - that they are illegal for Premiership football.
The Portsmouth licensee featured last week was clearly told by the judge on the last occasion she appeared that the showings were illegal. But she relied on other advice, unfortunately, which was not impartial, and so found herself back in court.
I have recently had the opportunity to look at a few websites which MA readers have pointed out to me - and what first strikes me is how strident they are in their condemnation of the copyright holders and their agents.
But as a disinterested observer, I have to say that try as I might, I cannot find a scintilla of legal argument anywhere in them which addresses the key issues concerning UK copyright in the football matches and the reasons why paying a UK vendor who sells these cards and decoders will somehow exonerate you from the copyright issues.
There is lots of bluster about "television without frontiers" and European rights, and complaints that Sky and the Football Association are using scare tactics against ordinary licensees.
The end result of all this writing is as much confusion as possible, so that readers are
contacting me with a genuine puzzlement as to who is telling the truth.
Bluster is often a signal of a weak case. The lack of a cogent argument is all too apparent in much of the text. Side issues are blown out of proportion. Sure, Sky has not covered itself in glory and some of the prosecutions have gone awry because they have not been handled correctly, in the court's view. But decision after decision has confirmed that using foreign satellite transmissions of English football, which are the copyright of the Football Association, is an offence in English law.
Anyone who is told this directly, and then installs a different satellite system, risks a court appearance and hefty fine - far more than the difference between their "cheap" version and the Sky subscription in many cases.
I should be happy to hand over half this page to the lawyer who claims to have the answer as to why it is not illegal - as long as I can have the other half to tell loyal readers why he is wrong!