TV License dilemma

Kurtis_Blue

cajef wrote: »

You conveniently missed the last bit off

Where does it stipulate that you need a licence if you install a TV if you do not watch broadcasts as they are being shown on television.

Because if you are doing both actions it would say AND it clearly states OR. Install OR use. Infact if it was just the usage, why mention it is an offence to install one at all, it would simply say the usage.

Hence the requirements for TV dealers to be able to install them without a licence.


In your stated instance if you install a TV not to be used as a TV receiver then clearly no offence has been committed.
A TV not installed to watch broadcast TV is not a TV receiver, in the OPs case it is.

Shrimply

Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install [STRIKE]or use[/STRIKE] a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they’re being shown on television without a TV Licence.

So if we remove the "or use"

The original poster didn't "install a television receiver to watch or record" live television.

They installed one to avoid watching or recording live television.

It doesn't say installation of equipment capable of receiving live television, it speaks of equipment that is installed with the intention of receiving live television.

Kurtis_Blue

Shrimply wrote: »

Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install [STRIKE]or use[/STRIKE] a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they’re being shown on television without a TV Licence.

So if we remove the "or use"

The original poster didn't "install a television receiver to watch or record" live television.

They installed one to avoid watching or recording live television.

That would be their only argument, but what constitutes the installation of a TV receiver has been clearly defined in The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004.

The installation of a TV to a live Sky stb, with live connections to the dish falls very much within that remit especially when that box is in actual fact installed and actively recording live TV.
If they can get a solicitor to argue that that is not the installation of a TV receiver they will be the first.

Cornucopia

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

... The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004....

Indeed. The legislation is meaningless without reference to these regulations. The critical issue is that "TV Receiver" has a specific legal meaning as a device used to watch or record TV broadcasts. Therefore installation is intrinsically linked to use. There is also the "Rudd" precedent, which is about having a legitimate use for an installation that does not require a Licence.

TVL boil all this down themselves to: "You need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record programmes as they're being shown on TV or live on an online TV service", which is good enough for most purposes.

It's perfectly possible to own, install and use a TV in various ways that do not require a Licence. I have such a TV. It is not a TV Receiver, though, because it is not installed for that purpose.

Sky is not a good choice of platform for anyone who wishes to be legally Licence-free. There are plenty of others to choose from, most of which are cheaper than Sky, too.

If the OP is still reading after the entertainment of the past couple of pages, she should be challenging TVL to drop the case on the basis that she has bought a Licence, and she is a first offender. The BBC told the Perry (Government) Enquiry that they do not normally prosecute under those circumstances, though it appears that they are not very pro-active about it.

Buzby

An entertaining thread, and I'm broadly with Kurtiss view, as to the interpretations of the Communications Act 2003 and how it affects anyone who has a TV (Irrespective of what they actually do with it).

What TVL say is a pointless diversion and is nothing more than 'helpful advice and their interpretation' of the legislation. As a criminal act (currently) a TVL leaflet is not 'defining legislation' but no more than their view. Of the court cases I have witnessed the success or failure hinged on the credibility of the defendant. In essence this meant you had to convince the judge you hadn't done something (watched live tv) proving a negative is a nightmare. Having the 'tools' to do so works against you... NOT having any capability is the silver bullet to walking away blameless. Which route would you prefer?

The last case (in 2013) the defendant stated she never watched live TV, but admitted her kids may have. A side issue that her DVR was recording live broadcasts to permit her to view them later just compounded her admission and was found guilty. No custodial sentence, but a £450 fine and the usual victim surcharge. I heard later it would have been much cheaper if she plead guilty at the outset - but I can't confirm this either way.

With talk of de-criminalising the process being a possibility, I doubt this will be any better than (say) the decriminalised parking regimes we now experience.

One thing is certain, ambiguity is what makes the money!

Cornucopia

Buzby wrote: »

What TVL say is a pointless diversion and is nothing more than 'helpful advice and their interpretation' of the legislation.

I disagree. What TVL say to people is usually the only information they have on the subject. I won't tolerate BBC/TVL misleading people any more than I would tolerate it from any other public or commercial organisation. More to the point, BBC/TVL both inform the public, and determine prosecution policy. If there is a difference between the two, then that would be a scandal (however, it's not clear that there is, certainly in the vast majority of cases).

I'm at a slight disadvantage, here, because I have an open complaint with the BBC Trust at the moment, one of whose points is this issue of what TVL say vs. the Law (and the interpretation of the Courts). I suppose my view for the purposes of the forum is that there is a theoretical issue (and BBC/TVL ought to be clear), but that in the vast majority of cases, it is irrelevant. (i.e. people's guilt exists outside of the very narrow area between use and installation).


FWIW, it's worth a quick run-down of AV options and how they relate to being Legally Licence-free...

- Sky - not recommended, the box records TV in the background, and TV channels cannot be excluded from the EPG. Magistrates are unlikely to believe that an expensive sub is being paid without TV being watched. Better option: Now TV.

- VM - I understand it's possible to have a VM contract without TV, and that they are happy to remove the TV box. I would not recommend keeping the TV box if there is no TV Licence (for the same reasons as Sky).

- Freeview - Detune the TV channels and/or detach the aerial. Using Freeview to listen to the radio is not recommended unless the TV channels can be detuned (or a Set-top Box is being used, connected by audio cables only).

- Youview - Detune the TV channels and/or detach the aerial. The box has the capability to receive Live streaming over the Internet, and that can be disabled at the Router, if desired. (I would not worry about Talktalk's Live Sky option, as that requires a separate subscription).

- Freesat - I would not recommend.

- Chromecast, Amazon Fire, Roku, Now TV, etc. etc. - these are the options to look at (whilst the law remains as it is now).

Of the court cases I have witnessed the success or failure hinged on the credibility of the defendant. In essence this meant you had to convince the judge you hadn't done something (watched live tv) proving a negative is a nightmare. Having the 'tools' to do so works against you... NOT having any capability is the silver bullet to walking away blameless. Which route would you prefer?

If I've understood you correctly, then yes, LLF people should as far as is practicable have any AV configured in such a way as to be incapable of receiving or recording TV broadcasts. I would not suggest "heroic measures", though, like taking down an old satellite dish, or hacking cabling around.

Also I would suggest that people don't confuse themselves with the capabilities of computing equipment to "receive" TV broadcasts - that is another issue, and the rules as they apply to such equipment are different to those that apply to AV equipment.

The last case (in 2013) the defendant stated she never watched live TV, but admitted her kids may have. A side issue that her DVR was recording live broadcasts to permit her to view them later just compounded her admission and was found guilty.

She was guilty. PVR recording is an issue, not a side-issue.

No custodial sentence....

Because that is not an option.

I heard later it would have been much cheaper if she plead guilty at the outset - but I can't confirm this either way.

In England & Wales, there is a discount of 30% for an advance guilty plea, as well as qualifying for the reduced Court Fee of £120. Not sure about Scotland (but there are very few TVL court cases, there, anyway). Are you saying you were advising this defendant?

One thing is certain, ambiguity is what makes the money!

What is it that you think is ambiguous? Perhaps I can clarify it for you, or if not, we could ask the BBC?

FWIW, I used to think that ambiguity in the TVL regime was a major issue, but I've changed my mind to a large extent. Not least, because I think the issues regarding TVL are much more insidious than that - primarily that they lack the necessary authority to do what they are trying to do, and it is consequently a breach of the Right to Privacy (i.e. Article 8 of the HRA).

JimmyTheWig

Cornucopia wrote: »

Chromecast, Amazon Fire, Roku, Now TV, etc. etc. - these are the options to look at (whilst the law remains as it is now).

Does Apple TV come into this bracket?

Cornucopia

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Does Apple TV come into this bracket?

I would have thought so, but I don't know the product in enough detail to have included it.

almillar

Does Apple TV come into this bracket?

Yes - internet set top boxes, let's call them.