TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

mr._prude said:

Regarding live TV, there are alot of apps that allow you to watch tv channels that are non UK broadcasted terrestrial channels.

Some channels seem to be just spooling episodes of a series continually. FAST( free add supported TV)

Samsung TV Plus app 
Plex TV app 
Pluto TV app 
LG TV / Xumo app  
Rakuten TV app

Do you still need a TV licence to watch these?

If they are actually concurrent to broadcast channels in whatever their home country is, then TV Licensing would say you need a Licence to stream them.  

But if they exist only as the stream that you are viewing then you don't need a Licence. 

Disclaimer:  TV Licensing have tried to obfuscate away from this definition.   But they do that kind of thing.

mta999

The key to needing a licence is that they are being broadcast on air at the same time as they are being spooled.

So if Coronation Street is being broadcast on ITV at 7pm and the same episode as being spooled at the same time then you need a license

Or if neighbours is being shown in Sydney Australia at 7 a.m. UK time and you're also watching it spooled at the same time then you need a license

Cornucopia

WillowLeaf said:

That's right, but Amazon Prime for example shows 'live TV' (some is actually happening right now such as sport, and some are their 'channels'). You need a TV licence for those. You don't need one for watching on-demand films and series though.

There is no concept in the Amazon example of it being 'broadcast on air' and you watching it at the same time, which is what the ask was in relation to Samsung TV, Plex etc.
 

I agree that the BBC says that "Amazon Prime" requires a Licence, and when pressed they probably narrow that down to "live" content.   Even then, I'm not sure their position is supported by the law.

The reason is exactly as you say:  the content is not being broadcast on air.  i.e. by traditional broadcast means of satellite, terrestrial or cable TV.  

I accept that what is likely to be the true answer (that the content is licensable if it is being broadcast on air anywhere by any TV channel) is too complicated legally and practically.  

Cornucopia

Fundamentally, though, the rules must be defined in legislation.   Whilst the BBC may, to an extent, interpret that legislation they should provide the Public with a clear source.

Their comments to Black Belt Barrister about some kind of qualitative measure of whether something is broadcasting or not is pure fiction, AFAIK.

mta999

"No, it can be online-only companies as well (say Amazon)...."

The TV license is a license to receive a broadcast (RF) signal. It was updated to include iPlayer, and also to say that if you are receiving a program over the internet at the same time as it was being broadcast and that would be a requirement to have a license

So if the BBC are transmissing "Strictly" and at the same time Amazon is transmissing exactly the same program online then yes you would need a license to watch it online with Amazon

pphillips

Interesting development going on between the BBC and YouTube, which seemingly gives an insight into the future of the TV licence. According to the BBC news website:

“The BBC has announced a landmark deal with YouTube, which will see the corporation make content that is tailor-made for the video streaming service.

The broadcaster has previously used YouTube, which is owned by Google, to promote clips and trailers for its own shows in the UK.

But the new move will see the BBC make content primarily aimed at YouTube's digital-native younger audience, although it may also be made available on the BBC's iPlayer and Sounds platforms.

The new programmes will feature adverts when viewed from outside the UK, generating extra funds for the corporation at a time when its future funding model is being debated.”

One has to wonder why adverts will not feature on content viewed inside the UK, it certainly isn’t out of the BBC’s generosity! I predict one of two outcomes will occur: legislative change will shortly follow the implementation of the BBC/YouTube deal or TVL will make ultra vires demands for payment of the licence fee.

oldcodger69

I don't have a TV license but I do watch the videos on You Tube.  I also read of the BBC announcement regarding their ...landmark deal...  I too wonder what the implications are for the need for a TV license.  BBC already show programmes on You Tube but they are advertised from behind  'Pay to watch' (I don't).  I have no query on that.

However I will be disappointed if they now persuade Parliament that it is within their commercial interests to include You Tube within their protection of needing a TV licence to view a private video website because ...where will it stop?

mta999

Unless legislation changes, watching BBC content (or indeed any content) on YouTube does not require a TV license unless that content is being broadcast at the same time that you watch it

Cornucopia

It's worth saying that the BBC does not set the rules that determine what requires a TV Licence.   It is defined in legislation which is set by Parliament.  

What the BBC could do (though it would be somewhat cynical) is to simulcast one or more of its broadcast channels on Youtube.  Those channels would then require a Licence to view under the existing rules.   They haven't talked in those terms, so perhaps that's not their intention.

mta999

Very interesting article on TV licence (apologies if link has been posted before)

https://www.cordbusters.co.uk/mps-bbc-track-iplayer-licence-fee-dodgers/