TV Licence Woes

GillsMan7

paddedjohn wrote: »

this arguement holds no water. If someone wants to use iplayer, which is free, why should they have to buy a tv license? Cyclists ride on the road but they dont offer to pay road tax! (unless they have a car at home)

Just to let you know, Cyclists do pay for the road. Road is paid for out of Council Tax, not Road Tax.

GillsMan7

fthl wrote: »

Gills - if you read my posts you'll see that I accept the legal side. It is just my personal view that I find it distasteful because I believe that the content has a value. I pay to have this content, as does the majority of the country, but there are a small number of people that don't feel that they need to. My fear, and this is where I suggest that you are perhaps not seeing the bigger picture - if enough people did this then either iplayer would go or the beeb itself would. Somebody needs to pay for this stuff to be made. If you watch it, why should you not contribute?

There are lots of things in life that I am not compelled to do, but I do them anyway. give blood, carry a donor card, give up my seat on the train to those that need it, help friends and family where I can. The moral contract and sense of contribution is missing from this society, it is all about me-me-me - what can I get, how can I get compensation, it's not fair, why can't I have etc. A corrupt sense of twisted entitlement that takes us one step nearer a truly broken country. Nothing is free, at some point, the bill will need paying.

The problem with your examples is that most people agree that giving blood, giving up a seat, etc, is an example of moral greatness. But to want to pay a corporation for content which they are providing without needing payment is just utterly bizarre. As I've said before, it's like visiting the excellent Guardian website and feeling compelled to pay as you haven't clicked on any adverts (thereby not generating revenue for them).

The BBC website, podcasts and iPlayer content is paid for. It's paid by the license fee. It's just that the reason you need to pay, and the way the BBC spends the money are two separate things.

===================

I should probably come clean and admit that I DO pay a TV license, and I DO subscribe to Sky Sports, though I have had periods when I don't. I'm not really playing devil's advocate as I genuinely believe in the points that I'm making.

Mark_Hewitt

GillsMan7 wrote: »

Just to let you know, Cyclists do pay for the road. Road is paid for out of Council Tax, not Road Tax.

Not entirely true. Road tax goes into a giant pot, part of which is given back to the councils in the form of a grant from central government as council tax only covers part of it.

Plus cyclists are allowed to ride on any non-motorway roads many of which are Highways Agency owned and maintained.

GillsMan7

Mark_Hewitt wrote: »

Not entirely true. Road tax goes into a giant pot, part of which is given back to the councils in the form of a grant from central government as council tax only covers part of it.

Plus cyclists are allowed to ride on any non-motorway roads many of which are Highways Agency owned and maintained.

Fair point, but as cyclists don't really contribute to the wear and tear of the road but do contribute to the cost of maintaining many roads, my point still stands.

esuhl

Does fthl make a list of adverts seen on commercial TV so he/she can spend the appropriate amount compensating the advertisers them for their sponsorship? If not, how can he/she justify watching commercial TV without contributing anything?

And if it's immoral to make free use of content that costs money to provide... how much does fthl pay Martin to use this website? Or is fthl simply being a hypocrite...?

Another example: printers are often sold for less than they cost to manufacture, with huge profits coming from the ink cartridges. When fthl buys a printer, does he/she ask the manufacturer to pay extra to ensure that the company gets a suitable profit?

The moral position on these matters is just as clear as the legal position.

Norant

To be honest i would have just let them in and let them see that there is no television in the house,it would save all the letters of threat and all the hassel that you are no doubt going to get in the future.

Gers

Mankysteve wrote: »

If you haven't got a TV why didn't you just let him/her in to have a look?

Then you wouldn't get any follow up visits. It would only take 5 min max.

I know there no legal right to entry but sometimes you can be difficult just for the sake of it.

Would you let the DVLA into your garage to 'have a look' to check you haven't got a car, therefore no licence and therefore no road tax?

Would you let an inspector from Kellogg's into your kitchen to 'have a look' to check that you haven't got any of their products?

It's just the same.

Not having a licence is not illegal. Having a TV without a licence is not illegal. There is no imperative for you to prove your innocence but for Capita (sales people) to prove your guilt.

A couple went on vacation to a resort up north. The husband liked to fish, and the wife liked to read. One morning the husband came back from fishing after getting up really early that morning and took a nap. While he slept, the wife decided to take the boat out.

She was not familiar with the lake, so she rowed out and anchored the boat and started reading her book. Along comes the Game Warden in his boat, pulls up alongside the woman's boat and asks her what she's doing?

She says, "Reading my book." The Game Warden tells her she is in a restricted fishing area. She explains that she's not fishing.

To which he replied, "But you have all this equipment. I will have to take you in and write you up!"

Angry that the warden was being so unreasonable, the lady told the warden, "If you do that, I will charge you with rape."

The warden, shocked by her statement, replied, "But I didn't even touch you."

To which the lady replied, "Yeah, but you have all the equipment!

fthl

Does fthl make a list of adverts seen on commercial TV so he/she can spend the appropriate amount compensating the advertisers them for their sponsorship? If not, how can he/she justify watching commercial TV without contributing anything?

I'm not sure that this argument is really the same, advertises pay to get a benefit themselves, they don't pay for the service for their competitors or others, that is the crux of my objection. Some folk seem to want to benefit from the beeb, but don't want to pay for it. In any event, preferring that the rest of us pay for it so that it can exist for their benefit.

I don't watch adverts. that is what sky plus and the the beeb are for. This said, I believe I do contribute to the costs of running commercial tv, whether I watch the adverts or not as the rate card for the advert is set on viewing figures. I also pay my sky subscription and tv licence fee, thus also paying my contribution. Yes, some of the tv licence fee goes to fund commercial channels, albeit often indirectly. This means that your comparison is a poor one, only those that wish to benefit from the service (i.e. the advertisers) pay for it. It is their choice whether to do so or not and if they do not pay, they do not use the service. A more accurate comparison for my argument would be a company paying to advertise another company's product.

And if it's immoral to make free use of content that costs money to provide... how much does fthl pay Martin to use this website? Or is fthl simply being a hypocrite...?

I pay the same as everyone else, that is the point. The correct comparison would be if we all paid for the site but a few people used it and did not pay. I also like to think that I also 'pay my way' by advising where I can. Assuming you have a tv licence, you are paying £12 a month (or what ever) so that other people can have the same thing without paying, just because of the medium by which they want to access the content. You are paying for them. You might be happy about this, I resent it. If you are happy, then perhaps you could also pay my sky subscription too?

Another example: printers are often sold for less than they cost to manufacture, with huge profits coming from the ink cartridges. When fthl buys a printer, does he/she ask the manufacturer to pay extra to ensure that the company gets a suitable profit?

Again, I don't really agree with your argument, nor do I really understand your point, but making an assumption that I think I know what you are getting at (and I apologise if I'm wrong) the printer company is still getting the profit no matter how it is loaded. The correct comparison would you paying for a printer and ink and then me coming around to use it.

The problem with your examples is that most people agree that giving blood, giving up a seat, etc, is an example of moral greatness. But to want to pay a corporation for content which they are providing without needing payment is just utterly bizarre. As I've said before, it's like visiting the excellent Guardian website and feeling compelled to pay as you haven't clicked on any adverts (thereby not generating revenue for them).

The BBC website, podcasts and iPlayer content is paid for. It's paid by the license fee. It's just that the reason you need to pay, and the way the BBC spends the money are two separate things.

But that is my point, ins't it, the content does need paying for. Licence holders pay for it. If we didn't, it wouldn't exist at all. I've said above why i don't accept the guardian website argument, it is a fact of this medium that advertising is how the adverts are paid for. Magazines and newspapers get the revenue from the adverts they publish and the rate card is determined on the amount of viewers. I don't know if the website gets any revenue on a pay per click basis, but based on my experiences with posting job adverts and similar, I doubt that it does. It commands a demographic and 'circulation' that I'd warrant that they don't need to drop to that part of the market. At the end of the day, all users of the site pay the same.

The times is experimenting with another model entirely, if it is successful I dare say this is the way most online media will go.