Apple TV / free anytime playback

Buzby

jibbyboo wrote: »

@Buzby I was reading another thread earlier this week ref TV licence, and "how do I prove I don't need a TV licence". Apparently it's up to the licensing people to prove that you do, as opposed to the individual proving that they don't.

It doesn't work that way in court I'm afraid. The prosecutor outlines his case before the judge. You state your case, and IF the judge believes your version then there is nothing to worry about. It all hinges on credibility and circumstances.

So irrespective of the prosecutor proving you did view, if in court you need to provide compelling reasons why you did not, as you had both the capability and equipment available.

Without such capability (like a working Freeview set) you are in the clear.

Buzby

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

Of course its not up to you to prove your innocence, the post stating you do is utter nonsense.

My car can do 186mph do I have to prove every time I go out that I haven't broken the speed limit.

I trust you have never been in court when his issue arises. Rather than suggest a method of breaking the law that is wholly inappropriate, I suggest you read the Communications Act 2002 which clearly explains the obligations on the viewer. The crime is the installation of broadcast receiving equipment, NOT the viewing. However courts then have the ability to decide whether you did. If your protestations are convincing, then no problem. If not - it's a fine.

Is the risk worth taking?

Of the 40-odd cases I witnessed, 90% were a slam-dunk admission but with mitigation. The rest depended on whether the judge believed your story in 2 cases, he did not. (Ie, they were lying - in his opinion).

bubba_ho_tep

jibbyboo wrote: »

Thank bubba- some of the working second hand ps3s are about £70 on amazon. Would you recommend any blueray players in particular?

ive got a samsung (not sure of model number) which im more than happy with , but its up to you really and what you want from it .
some are wireless enabled , some ethernet only and some you need to buy a wireless adaptor for as a extra .
different makes have different apps, though most have iplayer and netflix these days. mine also has twitter, facebook and a load of other stuff i dont use so i dont know hat these are like to operate from a blu ray player
my samsung lets me watch streamed files off my pc which is upstairs (dont know if other makes do but i would think they do ) and it also plays files from usb drives and wirelessly from my samsung phone.

you said you have a nice hd tv already have you checked to see if any of the "smart" features arent already installed on your tv ??
you might not need to spend anything if they are ??
as i can also do all of the above straight through my samsung tv

or ifr your a bit more of a geek you could also go for a android tv box,

you can get ones starting about £50 , was thinking of getting one myself as you get full googleplay store and full internet and there are a few tv/music apps/websites i would love to have through my home cinema system

almillar

I think if you've around £100 and don't mind going second hand, a PS3 is pretty unbeatable. You can get a remote for it for £20 (less second hand again) if you want to use it mainly as a Blu-Ray player, but it can do so much more, and will be kept up to date better than some of the 'smart' capabilities of these pure Blu Ray players.

bubba_ho_tep

for £100 you could get a gbox midnight android tv box (supposedly the best android box)
then you can get all the sports /films etc you want using xbmc - including the football with no sky sub

scotsbob

Buzby wrote: »

It doesn't work that way in court I'm afraid. The prosecutor outlines his case before the judge. You state your case, and IF the judge believes your version then there is nothing to worry about. It all hinges on credibility and circumstances.

So irrespective of the prosecutor proving you did view, if in court you need to provide compelling reasons why you did not, as you had both the capability and equipment available.

Without such capability (like a working Freeview set) you are in the clear.

The prosecution has to do more than "outline his case" he has to prove his case by producing evidence. The evidence has to be proof that the TV is used to view "live" broadcasts.

You do not have to state your case, you can remain silent.

Owning receiving equipment, or "having the capability and equipment" as you put it, is not an offence, there has to be evidence that it is being used to view "live" broadcasts.

bubba_ho_tep

you do not need a licence to watch catchup services at present the tv licencing site says "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder."
so if you do not watch or record live broadcasts then you are in the clear, there was a article in the times saying as much just the other day but they are looking to change the law on this soon.

a tv on its own is not receiving equipment , if it is not connected to a arial then it cannot receive anything .

Naf

Buzby wrote: »

It doesn't work that way in court I'm afraid. The prosecutor outlines his case before the judge. You state your case, and IF the judge believes your version then there is nothing to worry about. It all hinges on credibility and circumstances.

So irrespective of the prosecutor proving you did view, if in court you need to provide compelling reasons why you did not, as you had both the capability and equipment available.

Without such capability (like a working Freeview set) you are in the clear.

scotsbob wrote: »

The prosecution has to do more than "outline his case" he has to prove his case by producing evidence. The evidence has to be proof that the TV is used to view "live" broadcasts.

You do not have to state your case, you can remain silent.

Owning receiving equipment, or "having the capability and equipment" as you put it, is not an offence, there has to be evidence that it is being used to view "live" broadcasts.

The simple solution being don't tell them what you do/don't own and don't let them come in to find out. Simply tell them you don't watch live TV and therefore do not need a license. No info = no evidence = no problem.

Cornucopia

Buzby wrote: »

It doesn't work that way in court I'm afraid. The prosecutor outlines his case before the judge. You state your case, and IF the judge believes your version then there is nothing to worry about. It all hinges on credibility and circumstances.

So irrespective of the prosecutor proving you did view, if in court you need to provide compelling reasons why you did not, as you had both the capability and equipment available.

Without such capability (like a working Freeview set) you are in the clear.

This is the principle of the Magistrates' Court procedure. But the detail of the TVL sessions is somewhat different.

For a start, the vast majority of TVL defendants do not attend the court and are found guilty in their absence. The charge is read, and as long as there are no issues with it, the Guilty verdict is automatic.

For the very few defendants who do attend, some will plead Guilty and state mitigation - again no detailed consideration of the case.

Only a tiny minority who actually plead Not Guilty will have the details of their case considered. In the vast majority of those cases, though, the main evidence against them is their own confession. Whilst there are various grounds for challenging it, in practice it is a very compelling piece of evidence.

The notion that actual, physical evidence of evasion is a feature of anything more than a vanishingly small proportion of TVL cases is simply wrong.

Sad (for British justice), but true.

[Deleted User]

Isn't it incredible how this thread has become almost solely about TV licensing despite it's title and topic?