No tv license

joeypesci

onomatopoeia99 said:

None of the text you have included says what you claim it says.  Please read it again and then explain what words you think it says you need a licence to watch DVD, and why you think so.

Its the way its worded. If not read carefully you'll believe you require a license for watching a DVD/VHS. People that don't know may assume, anything that is "Being shown on TV" is covered by a license.

They then list devices. Its clearly written in a way to make people that are fearful of breaking a law worry that they require a license just for owning an old VHS because all they watch are old VHS'. Its much the same how Bob Monkhouse was accused of piracy back in the 70s.

Cornucopia

If it were any other public body, I'd probably give them the benefit of the doubt, but TV Licensing do this all the time.  I'd even go so far as to say that they are incapable of accurately and transparently communicating any of the major aspects of their activities.  

MSE's article on this is good.   Certainly the parts about what requires a Licence and what doesn't are accurate, and better than TVL's own.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/

RogerBareford

joeypesci said:

onomatopoeia99 said:

None of the text you have included says what you claim it says.  Please read it again and then explain what words you think it says you need a licence to watch DVD, and why you think so.

Its the way its worded. If not read carefully you'll believe you require a license for watching a DVD/VHS. People that don't know may assume, anything that is "Being shown on TV" is covered by a license.

They then list devices. Its clearly written in a way to make people that are fearful of breaking a law worry that they require a license just for owning an old VHS because all they watch are old VHS'. Its much the same how Bob Monkhouse was accused of piracy back in the 70s.

It may not be worded as clear as it possibly could be but it certainly doesn't say you need a licence to watch a DVD/VHS in any way.

Cornucopia

RogerBareford said:

joeypesci said:

onomatopoeia99 said:

None of the text you have included says what you claim it says.  Please read it again and then explain what words you think it says you need a licence to watch DVD, and why you think so.

Its the way its worded. If not read carefully you'll believe you require a license for watching a DVD/VHS. People that don't know may assume, anything that is "Being shown on TV" is covered by a license.

They then list devices. Its clearly written in a way to make people that are fearful of breaking a law worry that they require a license just for owning an old VHS because all they watch are old VHS'. Its much the same how Bob Monkhouse was accused of piracy back in the 70s.

It may not be worded as clear as it possibly could be ... 

This is the point though.   The BBC is one of the wealthiest and best resourced communication companies in the World, so if they are using confusing or ambiguous language it is right to ask why, and to expect it to be quickly corrected.

I'm not sure I understand why that would be remotely controversial.

nyermen

Good thing no one asked about twitch or youtube, thats even more confusing (and it appears there's some ambiguity between regular streaming by companies, and adhoc by individuals, the line for which can be decided by the tv licensing board directly i think?)

Personally, I still support the BBC (for various reasons) but as someone who was working abroad and so didnt bother with a license for a short period, was appalled by the level of pressure (especially those dodgy letters) that I received back around 2006 or so.  Maybe thats changed now.

Also not a fan of decriminalising, for one simple reason - right now, it's proof beyond reasonable doubt, so they need evidence of you watching, or a signed confession.
I think it would become "balance of probabilities" if it was decriminalised?  Much easier for them to win surely, just the presence of a TV could be considered on balance that tv is being watched?

MattMattMattUK

Cornucopia said:

RogerBareford said:

joeypesci said:

onomatopoeia99 said:

None of the text you have included says what you claim it says.  Please read it again and then explain what words you think it says you need a licence to watch DVD, and why you think so.

Its the way its worded. If not read carefully you'll believe you require a license for watching a DVD/VHS. People that don't know may assume, anything that is "Being shown on TV" is covered by a license.

They then list devices. Its clearly written in a way to make people that are fearful of breaking a law worry that they require a license just for owning an old VHS because all they watch are old VHS'. Its much the same how Bob Monkhouse was accused of piracy back in the 70s.

It may not be worded as clear as it possibly could be ... 

This is the point though.   The BBC is one of the wealthiest and best resourced communication companies in the World, so if they are using confusing or ambiguous language it is right to ask why, and to expect it to be quickly corrected.

I'm not sure I understand why that would be remotely controversial.

It is not even the wealthiest in the UK, Sky's UK operation has a revenue nearly three times higher, with a net operating income four times higher. Virgin Media's UK operation turns over slightly less than the BBC, but with operating income three times higher. Netflix has a revenue half of the BBC in the UK, but it reinvests nearly everything back into production. Globally Amazon Studios spend 8 times more than the BBC, in the UK Amazon Studios production budget (just making shows) is slightly more than half of the BBC's total operating budget (all costs).

The BBC is hardly broke, but it's universal provision and having to offer a diverse service also swallows up a lot of money, it is also quite inefficient with the way it provisions special interest programming. It is however a long way behind the likes of Disney, Amazon, Netflix, film studios etc. in terms of assets and revenues, although it has always punched above it's weight when it comes to drama and natural history content. 

Cornucopia

nyermen said:

Good thing no one asked about twitch or youtube, thats even more confusing (and it appears there's some ambiguity between regular streaming by companies, and adhoc by individuals, the line for which can be decided by the tv licensing board directly i think?)

It's not a question of whether the source of the live streamed content is a company, but whether it is a TV Channel.  

So in our diverse media environment, live streams from Newspapers and Radio Stations(*) are completely permissible to watch without a TV Licence.   Twitch is always okay, since that is solely end-user content (AIUI).

TV Licensing claim that they don't make the rules, but in reality there is both interpretation of the law and prioritisation of different rules and viewing scenarios going on.

(*) Assuming that the Radio Station is not an audio broadcast of a TV channel (like GB News Radio, or TalkRadio).

nyermen said:

Personally, I still support the BBC (for various reasons) but as someone who was working abroad and so didnt bother with a license for a short period, was appalled by the level of pressure (especially those dodgy letters) that I received back around 2006 or so.  Maybe thats changed now.

No, there are still "dodgy letters".  (And another example of where the BBC should not be using confusing and ambiguous language).

nyermen said:

Also not a fan of decriminalising, for one simple reason - right now, it's proof beyond reasonable doubt, so they need evidence of you watching, or a signed confession.
I think it would become "balance of probabilities" if it was decriminalised?  Much easier for them to win surely, just the presence of a TV could be considered on balance that tv is being watched?

These legal principles mean little to TV Licensing.   They work on the basis of the fear and credulity of the Public leading to a confession statement.   That statement likely fails the true UK definition of a confession (not given willingly, with informed consent, with access to legal advice and in a spirit of contrition), but we still see well over 100,000 such prosecutions a year.  

I doubt that decriminalisation would make a great deal of difference to that - a "confession" is still a powerful piece of evidence in these minor offences in the UK.   The bigger question is to break down the whole process so that it can be seen transparently by the Public and any issues with it can be resolved.

However, at the moment it looks like the TV Licence will be abolished (and replaced) before it is thrown open for such inspection.

Cornucopia

MattMattMattUK said:

Cornucopia said:

RogerBareford said:

joeypesci said:

onomatopoeia99 said:

None of the text you have included says what you claim it says.  Please read it again and then explain what words you think it says you need a licence to watch DVD, and why you think so.

Its the way its worded. If not read carefully you'll believe you require a license for watching a DVD/VHS. People that don't know may assume, anything that is "Being shown on TV" is covered by a license.

They then list devices. Its clearly written in a way to make people that are fearful of breaking a law worry that they require a license just for owning an old VHS because all they watch are old VHS'. Its much the same how Bob Monkhouse was accused of piracy back in the 70s.

It may not be worded as clear as it possibly could be ... 

This is the point though.   The BBC is one of the wealthiest and best resourced communication companies in the World, so if they are using confusing or ambiguous language it is right to ask why, and to expect it to be quickly corrected.

I'm not sure I understand why that would be remotely controversial.

It is not even the wealthiest in the UK...

Sure.   But not really my point.   

I think we should rightly expect and demand that an organisation in receipt of £3bn+ of public money, uses a tiny fraction of that to communicate accurately and clearly with the Public about a question of criminal law enforcement that it is charged with undertaking.  

The alternative where either through malice, lack of competence and/or ambivalence it creates public communications that are confusing and ambiguous isn't really acceptable on any level.

RogerBareford

Cornucopia said:

RogerBareford said:

joeypesci said:

onomatopoeia99 said:

None of the text you have included says what you claim it says.  Please read it again and then explain what words you think it says you need a licence to watch DVD, and why you think so.

Its the way its worded. If not read carefully you'll believe you require a license for watching a DVD/VHS. People that don't know may assume, anything that is "Being shown on TV" is covered by a license.

They then list devices. Its clearly written in a way to make people that are fearful of breaking a law worry that they require a license just for owning an old VHS because all they watch are old VHS'. Its much the same how Bob Monkhouse was accused of piracy back in the 70s.

It may not be worded as clear as it possibly could be ... 

This is the point though.   The BBC is one of the wealthiest and best resourced communication companies in the World, so if they are using confusing or ambiguous language it is right to ask why, and to expect it to be quickly corrected.

I'm not sure I understand why that would be remotely controversial.

I wouldn't say it was confusing or ambiguous as it's correct in what it says and the way it's worded as the first paragrah says the rules on live TV and the second paragraph starts with "This applies" and then lists examples of equipment the first paragraph applies too.

It's just not as clear as it could be for people who skim read, make assumptions or have a lower than average reading ability.

But given their reputation i can see why they would purposely want to make people read it wrong.

DE_612183

Live programmes on ITV hub are about 20-30 seconds behind live TV I can watch using Sky, so do they get caught by being live?