[harry_hitch]

With regards to those disappoined by the whole Liverpool TV/MUTV exclusive deals, it's no different to VM paying for exclusive rights to TIVO or VM withholding their BB in my eyes. How much do VM pay TIVO for exclusive rights?

If Sky pay good money to help launch a channel or two, why should they let anyone else have access to it? If VM were willing to help fund the channel, I am pretty sure they could have got the channel on the platform.

If VM started to market the corner in content based apps and stopped smart TV's or Sky having having them, would that be acceptable? Two wrongs don't make a right after all.

Waitrose pay Heston Blumenthal to produce exclusive meals, deserts, snacks, drinks, alcoho, Christmas products and to advertise for Waitrose. Should Waitrose allow Heston to give all the products to Tesco or Sainsbury without Tesco or Sainsbury paying back Waitrose for their original outlay given to H.B.? Would a film company, who financed a film, allow another company to screen the film without paying any royalties? It would never happen. Whilst exclusivity may be wrong, we accept in many different aspects of our lives.

Don't get me wrong. I am not a fan of Sky with holding content, but I understand it is their right to do so. VM had Film4hd exclusive for long enough, but no-one seemed to mind about that.

It seems that when it comes to a few select TV channels that Sky keep exclusive, Sky are the worst people in the world, even though the content is readily available elsewhere. I am not Sky's biggest fan, but they ar every little wrong.