Oops. TV licence saw ITV on the telly.

Olinda99

The licence is permission to receive electromagnetic waves at a certain frequency. 
 
You can get other EM licences for example a licence for transmission at a certain frequency.

You can argue and discuss what exactly receive means - for example a coat hanger on the washing line will 'receive' the same signals - but for this purpose it usually means being able to view or hear them, record them etc ie convert the EM radiation into A/V signals

Cornucopia

For clarity, accessing Youtube to view on-demand content never requires a Licence (even for content originally broadcast on the BBC).

For Youtube live content, TV Licensing have messed things up (or it could have been the Government).   They say you need a Licence to access professional live content, and not user generated live content.   

The exact breakdown is in a BlackBeltBarrister video.

I still suspect that the distinction is whether it is a parallel TV broadcast being streamed on YT (that requires a Licence), but if they admitted that it would throw the whole thing open to much more live streaming, including exclusive events on Netflix and Amazon.

prowla

It's interesting - the TV Licensing page refers to "watch", but the law itself says "installed or used".

The act itself says that is it up-to-date as of yesterday, so any assertion of it being from a time before widespread Internet adoption are dispelled.

As far as intent, the act of connecting it to the aerial, switching it on, and tuning to ITV could be said to be a fact which thereby proves the intent.

The assertion that every smart phone or tablet is implicitly caught by the law is incorrect, because it needs an app to be installed (eg. YouTube TV, which is US-only).

IMHO, it's a fair-cop!

Cornucopia

From a legal perspective, there is no intent component - no "mens rea".   The question is solely the factual one of was the action unlawful, and was it done by you?   That's similar to e.g. minor motoring offences.   (So the question of installation, and even purpose is only one of whether something was installed from a factual POV, and whether its purpose appears to be to receive broadcasts).  

There is an issue with TV Licence law in that TV Licensing (part of the BBC) has a wide-ranging responsibility to educate the Public, interpret the law, come up with a practical approach to enforcement, and enforce.   Their work is based upon legislation, but at the margins there can be differences.     

PPCDefeater

prowla said:

It's interesting - the TV Licensing page refers to "watch", but the law itself says "installed or used".

The act itself says that is it up-to-date as of yesterday, so any assertion of it being from a time before widespread Internet adoption are dispelled.

As far as intent, the act of connecting it to the aerial, switching it on, and tuning to ITV could be said to be a fact which thereby proves the intent.

The assertion that every smart phone or tablet is implicitly caught by the law is incorrect, because it needs an app to be installed (eg. YouTube TV, which is US-only).

IMHO, it's a fair-cop!

Exactly! This is the issue I’ve been trying to point out too. The law itself says "installed or used," while TV Licensing keeps saying "watch." They’re not even consistent with their own terminology—it’s a complete mess.

And as for intent, just having a device capable of receiving live TV and the actual act of connecting an aerial, switching it on, and tuning in—still to me does not prove intent.

Just because it's switched on and tuned in doesnt mean you're receiving or using any services. You may still be displaying something else like your PlayStation, and playing games on it.

You therefore, do not need a licence. Now, let's say you decided you were going to watch some football, you could then aquire a licence and watch it on telly with no fuss as its already all set up ready to use.

Cornucopia

"Watch/Record" is an example of over-simplification by TVL.   The could say "Receive" but then that emphasises over-the-air transmissions, when they want it to be wider than that.  

Then there's the whole "live TV" debacle...

Grumpy_chap

prowla said:

the TV Licensing page refers to "watch", but the law itself says "installed or used".

The law seems clear.
The website is only guidance.

I think trying to draw a distinction between "watch" and "installed or used" or, in the OP's case "received and displayed live broadcast TV but only for background noise but did not watch anything" are simply nonsense. 

Unless, the OP, when "accidentally" disconnecting the HDMI lead and "accidentally" connecting the TV aerial and "accidentally" completing the tuning set up and "accidentally" switching to the third channel (ITV) but all just for some background noise but definitely not watching anything so I assume the OP had covered the screen with a blanket (which we know was not the case because the TV Inspector saw the live stream daytime TV through the window) or was wearing eye masks.
Frankly, should TV Licensing take action, would the OP really expect the court to accept all those "accidental" events?

With all those "accidental" things going on, I'd hate to be the OP's insurer for anything

PPCDefeater

Grumpy_chap said:

prowla said:

the TV Licensing page refers to "watch", but the law itself says "installed or used".

The law seems clear.
The website is only guidance.

I think trying to draw a distinction between "watch" and "installed or used" or, in the OP's case "received and displayed live broadcast TV but only for background noise but did not watch anything" are simply nonsense. 

Unless, the OP, when "accidentally" disconnecting the HDMI lead and "accidentally" connecting the TV aerial and "accidentally" completing the tuning set up and "accidentally" switching to the third channel (ITV) but all just for some background noise but definitely not watching anything so I assume the OP had covered the screen with a blanket (which we know was not the case because the TV Inspector saw the live stream daytime TV through the window) or was wearing eye masks.
Frankly, should TV Licensing take action, would the OP really expect the court to accept all those "accidental" events?

With all those "accidental" things going on, I'd hate to be the OP's insurer for anything

Have you not read and taken in a single thing I have said pal? 

Go back and read my comments again. SMH

Grumpy_chap

PPCDefeater said:

Have you not read and taken in a single thing I have said pal? 

Go back and read my comments again. SMH

I have read everything you said.

The HDMI cable "accidentally" got disconnected so the TV was on with live streaming daytime TV because the aerial was in and the TV was tuned, but you only had this on for background noise.
You now seem to be wanting to split the difference between "watching" TV and only "hearing" the TV as background noise and whether the latter is "installed or used" as per the law.
I don't think, should TV licencing pursue you for not having a licence, that the court would make the distinction between "watching" and "using" that you wish.

The whole conversation is quite possibly moot as I don't think that TV Licencing will pursue you simply based upon what they may or may not have seen through the window.
The Inspector called to check the previous occupant (ABC) who did not have a licence.  You advised, correctly, that ABC has moved away.
I suspect that will be fed into a computer and checked against current licence at the property.
The computer will pick up no licence and, most probably, send a "to the occupier" letter in the first instance about TV licences.  A long chain will follow before TV Licensing take any stronger actions.
That is what I suspect.  I don't know.

PPCDefeater

No, I didn't accidentally do of all those. You may have missed one of my other comments but I did say we had a TV licence and watched live television at my previous address which at the time would have had ITV broadcasting at that time.

 We then moved in January as we bought a new house and hadn't watched any Live telly yet. We did have it set up so that we could watch live telly if we wanted to in future and we'd have bought a licence then. It was all set up for use except it wasn't used.
 
Then I had my laptop connected to the telly with youtube playing music whilst we were tidying up (that's what I meant by background noise, not actual live television) - THEN the hdmi was accidentally disconnected whilst hoovering and because of the way smart TVs work, it's automatically connected to a working source, which was the last thing we watched when were in the old house.