Had a Visit from TV Licence Man

oldgrumpygit

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

Yes then go to court and explain you installed all the TV channels for some other purpose, but I cant think of one.

A bi-product of the technology as I already pointed out.

Jamie_Carter

Cornucopia wrote: »

Your understanding is incorrect - have you read the thread?

Several of us know the law. Don't let the fact that we are quibbling about a minor detail confuse you on that.

I use Youview without an aerial connection and can only access catch-up services including iPlayer. I do not need a licence for this. This is confirmed by TVL and TalkTalk, my ISP.

At the most basic level, this is all you need to know:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/


http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ103/

Don't take this the wrong way, but I take far more notice of legislation than I do of forums. There are far too many people in forums who read an abbreviated version (as in your link), and then think they know the law.

I also take very little notice of people in call centres, because they often have limited knowledge also.

Even in court two different lawyers will argue about two different interpretations of the same text in law. So there is no way that non legal experts can know for certain.

This is from one of your links:

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.

Jamie_Carter

lazer wrote: »

I actually have sky TV installed and use it for the on demand service and the radio (Got a brilliant deal when getting broadband and phone and the on demand service and the full deal is not much more expensive than a broadband/Phone would be from another supplier).


I currently don't have a TV licence but may consider getting one as its a very grey area

Yes, I'd say you would be on very dodgy ground trying to convince a judge that you don't watch live TV.

oldgrumpygit

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

You seem to be stuck in a loop:

I refer the gentlemen to the answers giving previously.

Ditto.

Your answers are just as clear as mine.

katejo

I have disputed this with the TV Licensing body before. Their web site is misleading because it insists on referring to lodgers together with individual tenancy agreements. I have pointed out to them that lodgers don't have tenancy agreements. I have a very recent reply from them which says that a lodger who has a tv in their room (watching live tv) is required to have a licence purchased in their own name (unless they are a member of my family or au-pair). This raises questions in my mind:

1. Whose responsibility is it to check whether the lodger has a licence or needs one? My current lodger definitely has no TV of his own but could be watching iPlayer live not recorded on a laptop. How would I check that? By spying in his room? Could a landlord be prosecuted if a lodger were found to not have a licence?

2. If the TV licensing people check their records, they will see that I have a licence. They have no reason to know whether I have a lodger as there is no formal tenancy agreement.

I have come across quite a few people on MSE and elsewhere who don't know about this requirement.

Footnote: Actually the TV Licensing body appears to have paid some attention to my previous complaint a few weeks ago. The statement about lodgers no longer links them to tenancy agreements!

Cornucopia

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Don't take this the wrong way, but I take far more notice of legislation than I do of forums. There are far too many people in forums who read an abbreviated version (as in your link), and then think they know the law.

I've read both the legislation (all of it) and the BBC/TVL interpretation. Whilst there is scope for quibbling over detail, the essence of it appears to be very straightforward.

This is from one of your links: 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.

Not sure what your point is. If you watch live TV broadcasts you need a licence, whether your reception equipment is a TV, Computer, Phone, or anything else. I think we all know this.

lazer

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

In your case, not so grey, a lot of the on demand stuff is recorded from live streams to your hard drive.

You need a licence as your equipment is recording Live TV, unless you cut the Sat feeds.

That's the planner stuff that is recorded, if you set it to record, the on demand stuff is availble over the internet as you need to have the wireless connector or ethernet cable plugged in to get it

Will just have to give in and invest in some other form of internet streaming - sky was just the easy of way as I don't have any other internet connection to the TV (and previously had sky TV and used it with a licence so had the box already).

Cornucopia

oldgrumpygit wrote: »

... But would, as it is worded, actually cover using the iPlayer to watch catch up TV.

(New can of worms)

I disagree. The regulations say that a television programme service is a service that is broadcast to the entire population to be received at about the same time (my paraphrase). Clearly video on demand is not such a service.

The trouble with the law is that you need to read it all and treat every relevant piece as of potentially equal importance.

There is no dispute on this AFAICS, though. BBC/TVL readily accept that watching the non-live elements of iPlayer do not require a licence. I have already quoted them on that.

Jamie_Carter

Cornucopia wrote: »

I've read both the legislation (all of it) and the BBC/TVL interpretation. Whilst there is scope for quibbling over detail, the essence of it appears to be very straightforward.

And you didn't fall asleep? :eek:
Like I said, I'm not saying you are right or wrong, I'm just playing devils advocate.

What one lawyer may claim to be straightforward, another would find a different interpretation. And at the end of the day, it depends on which lawyer does the best job of convincing the judge.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Not sure what your point is. If you watch live TV broadcasts you need a licence, whether your reception equipment is a TV, Computer, Phone, or anything else. I think we all know this.

My point was that a program being viewed on iPlayer could be regarded as being broadcast from the BBC server. Although I think this has been explained by oldgrumpygit.

Cornucopia

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

And you didn't fall asleep? :eek:
Like I said, I'm not saying you are right or wrong, I'm just playing devils advocate.

There's actually not that much: Sections 363-366 of the Communications Act, and the 2004 Regulations. (The 1967 Dealer Notification stuff is there strictly for the hard-core).

What one lawyer may claim to be straightforward, another would find a different interpretation. And at the end of the day, it depends on which lawyer does the best job of convincing the judge.

Yes... but ultimately if no one knew what the law (probably) was before being tried, there would be utter chaos. In reality, we rely on common sense and on informed sources (like MSE, TVL in this case) to tell us the broad facts without having to trawl the legislation.

Not that ignorance is any defence... either way.

FWIW, whilst I may dispute the detail of what the BBC/TVL say about some aspects of this, it is a bit pointless to dispute their very definitive statements on the scope of licensing. If they don't know, who does?

My point was that a program being viewed on iPlayer could be regarded as being broadcast from the BBC server. Although I think this has been explained by oldgrumpygit.

You are both wrong. The law and TVL guidance on this are clear. iPlayer VOD is not a programme service any more than Youtube. That's because neither of them are broadcast to the entire general public at the same time. (That being a tidy definition of broadcast for those that might be confused by a more general meaning).