Netflix, Amazon, other, in place of iPlayer?

Cornucopia

VisionMan wrote: »

I would never try to do that. I gave my honest opinion, that's all.

The trouble is that when someone comes asking for advice, there's not much point in giving an opinion that is wrong. I found the notion of calling up TVL to tell them that you've bought a Now TV box both amusing and quite, quite misguided. The Now TV site didn't even say that...

There are facts and there are opinions. We use them interchangeably at our peril.

(I have a pet theory that mankind will eventually die out as a consequence of falling out of the habit of a particular piece of housekeeping leading to a plague of something nasty, all ultimately triggered by some unduly vague advice on the Internet).

Cornucopia

Just so VisionMan doesn't feel like I'm singling him out, and because tag-teaming wrong information is sooo much worse than being a single small, still, wrong voice in the wilderness...

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

A TV license is most definitely required for Now TV because it provides access to live TV broadcasts.

Wrong. My laptop provides access to live TV broadcasts, but I don't need a Licence for it unless I actually watch them.

More fundamentally, it's not a Licence to own a piece of equipment. I know that this is a popular misconception, but it's just wrong, and has been since at least 2003.

You can indeed choose not to watch any, but you still need a license unless you specifically inform TV Licensing and can show you meet the criteria for exemption.

Wrong. There is no need to consult TVL about one's equipment or use of it. They aren't going to tell you specifically that you are "in the clear", anyway, because they don't do that. There are no "criteria" and no "exemption" - you either watch/record TV broadcasts "live" or you don't. If you don't, then you don't need a Licence.

If I am wrong, the link from TV Licensing is also "wrong".

You evidently misread it, or misunderstood it. TVL have tried many, many forms of words to try to get the Public to understand, and their present one isn't too bad.

I don't know why they don't change the name to "TV Reception Licence", though, as that would be much more accurate.

custardy

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

If I am wrong, the link from TV Licensing is also "wrong".

I guess I'll just concede the argument because others say I'm an "armchair lawyer".

Please don't complain on here when you receive a court summons.

but they put 'fact' at the start.
That makes it fact

VisionMan

I hold you in the highest respect. Yet I have found what you have said to me to be highly offensive. I'm outta here...

nolivetvoriplayer

Vision Man
I follow Cornucopia on other sites and he always sticks to the facts I have always found his posts to be well researched and relevant to what is being discussed. There was no offense intended to you

Cornucopia

Thanks (great username, BTW).

I wasn't sure whether VisionMan was talking to me or Custardy.

There was, indeed, no offence intended to VM. I was merely expressing my annoyance at the presence of TVL-related misinformation in this thread.

It's one of the great philosophical dilemmas of our time: when does the freedom to express an opinion infringe upon a more pressing need for facts?