Had a Visit from TV Licence Man

Buzby

They do appear to make up much of this 'on the hoof' then pass it on as 'the law' - when it clearly is not. The Comms Act was drafted before BBC iplayer etc, however, TVL state the definition of a 'live broadcast' is within 10 minutes of a terrestrial transmission.

Reasonable, as far as it goes - so if a BBC Server streams a show 10 mins AFTER the first terrestrial showing, there is no transgression.

Where it really gets stupid, is with BBCs (new) policy of making programmes available on iPlayer in ADVANCE of the terrestrial broadcast! You can watch this before the terrestrial showing - and after, but not during! So, what are the chances of an inspector calling and at the precise moment seeing you viewing online whilst terrestrial broadcast is being simulcasted? Slim to none.

They won't care, just let the viewer state their case to the sheriff or magistrate and trust on their judgement. As it isn't mentioned in the Acts, you end up being at risk.

adouglasmhor

spiro wrote: »

The MoD etc use Tempest monitors to stop any radiation that can be intercepted. The method of remotely 'viewing' the data uses a thing called the Van Eck phreaking.

Lucky 14 sigs aren't running TVL then.

oldgrumpygit

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

Maybe its your age, technology is changing very fast.

No idea what my age has to do with anything.

Technology is changing very fast, the law struggles to keep up.

The points you and I have raised could only be tested to a conclusion in a court.

I would be more than happy to argue my point.

(were it needed, this is purely hypothetical as I do watch live TV and am covered by a licence)

oldgrumpygit

Cornucopia wrote: »

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.

That's interesting (genuinely) where is it from?

Cornucopia

Buzby wrote: »

Where it really gets stupid, is with BBCs (new) policy of making programmes available on iPlayer in ADVANCE of the terrestrial broadcast! You can watch this before the terrestrial showing - and after, but not during! So, what are the chances of an inspector calling and at the precise moment seeing you viewing online whilst terrestrial broadcast is being simulcasted? Slim to none.

They won't care, just let the viewer state their case to the sheriff or magistrate and trust on their judgement. As it isn't mentioned in the Acts, you end up being at risk.

But it is mentioned in the Acts. It doesn't name iPlayer any more than it names BBC 2, but the definitions are clearly intended to distinguish a linear TV broadcast from everything else.

The issue with Web Previews happens already with Repeats (that is that you could be streaming the original broadcast whilst the repeat goes out over the air).

Cornucopia

oldgrumpygit wrote: »

That's interesting (genuinely) where is it from?

From here...

In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/part/3/made

oldgrumpygit

Cornucopia wrote: »

From here...



HAD TO REMOVE THE LINK AS A NEWBIE

Thanks

I'm not sure I agree with your comments about "the entire population" but take the point about non live streaming (VOD) not being the same as broadcast.

sniggings

oldgrumpygit wrote: »

Apologies but I cannot find the link to the case you provided showing that someone was convicted on the grounds you suggest.

Could you repost it please?

The argument around the use of a TV for a purpose other than watching live TV is hardly "silly" it is what those who do not have a licence rely on.

was in post 109

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C83QybcH9Qc

http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/new...icence_battle/

the guy in this video was convicted, not for using or watching as he wasn't caught doing either, he was convictor as when a test was carried out a picture was said to be seen on the screen, it turned out, on the guys original vidoe he recorded and posted on youtube, no picture was seen, some how TV licencing got a hold of the video, took the guy to court, and amazingly a picture appeared on his screen, on applear he won as it was proved the original didn't have a picture.

Thats why arguing over the use of "use" is getting silly as the tests carried out are to see if a picture can be seen, so a TV used for only radio but can still get a picture would almost certainly be classed as needing a licence, you can argue that with a judge but I doubt you would win, or it would made the testing of equitment and warrants pointless.

oldgrumpygit

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

Ah I see, so your dubious untested advice wasn't putting your self at risk just other readers, very wise.

If I was required to test this in court I would be happy to do .

If my advice saves someone buying an unneeded licence then good.

Its all about money saving.

People can of course take your advice and buy a licence.

That is the beauty of advice, you can act on it or ignore it.

oldgrumpygit

sniggings wrote: »

was in post 109


the guy in this video was convicted, not for using or watching as he wasn't caught doing either, he was convictor as when a test was carried out a picture was said to be seen on the screen, it turned out, on the guys original vidoe he recorded and posted on youtube, no picture was seen, some how TV licencing got a hold of the video, took the guy to court, and amazingly a picture appeared on his screen, on applear he won as it was proved the original didn't have a picture.

Thats why arguing over the use of "use" is getting silly as the tests carried out are to see if a picture can be seen, so a TV used for only radio but can still get a picture would almost certainly be classed as needing a licence, you can argue that with a judge but I doubt you would win, or it would made the testing of equitment and warrants pointless.

There is no reference in either of those links to anyone being convicted of anything.

Are they leading me to the wrong pages?


According to the BBC a "TV used only for radio" does not need a licence