89 replies to this topic

[duffman]

You still need a tv licence if you use iplayer.

no you don't.
Look on the TV licence's own web site!!! it clearly states you do NOT need a licence to watch pre recorded programs such as Iplayer, i can quote direct from their site if you want

DIRECT QUOTE
"You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD."

Edited by duffman, 13 March 2013 - 08:48 PM.

[TopCatCustom]

But i don't do anything illegal so why should i pay. i only ever watch top gear on the iplayer a few hours later as the kids monoplize my TV so why should i pay for a service i don't use, i hardly see it as being crooked, if YOU watch it then YOU pay for it. I don't so why should i have to.

If you watch Top Gear, live, an hour after or a year after, it still is a product of the BBC, which is funded by the British public. You are using the service by watching a production funded by us!

How can you say you watch it, then say you don't so why should you have to!!! I know there is no separate radio licence, but I thought that BBC radio stations were also funded by the TV licence- if not, where does it come from, do you listen to R1 or R2?

[duffman]

https://www.google.c...iQv415VOT7upQCQ

[Dan]

If you genuinely don't use it then you don't have to go to these lengths to not pay for it. Simply don't have a licence, and don't have a TV. +1 channels are covered by the licence, you don't understand what the term live broadcast means. It simply means that is currently being broadcast over the national broadcast system from programme control, not that it's live. Do you think repeats aren't covered either? Also since not having a TV licence is an instant dismissal offence at the BBC I doubt any celebrities employed by them have admitted to this strange behaviour.

Incidentally, referring to something you said earlier, it IS a criminal offence to own a device that you reasonably believe might be used to watch broadcast TV if you don't have a licence. So if you think your kids might be watching broadcast TV on a device you own, then you are just as guilty as if you watch it yourself. Hence the fraud. And if you don't think it's your responsibility to pay for the service your kids are using then you have other issues.

Councils can put people in a position of having trespassed by revoking access because they have already got a court order preventing access. The act of trespass is part of the act of breaching the court order which is itself illegal. I assure you that simple trespass by itself is not a crime. You will not manage to get a court order preventing TV licensing from accessing your property.

I would also point out that I am not a fan of the way TV licensing is conducted. I think the whole system of retailers reporting customer purchases and the way they phrase their advertising is verging on illegality and Communism. Not having a licence when you know you should have one though is exactly why they have to go to the lengths they do. People who do this kind of thing are the ones making all our lives a little worse every day by generating the need for the authorities to be so draconian.

[duffman]

But i don't do anything illegal so why should i pay. i only ever watch top gear on the iplayer a few hours later as the kids monoplize my TV so why should i pay for a service i don't use, i hardly see it as being crooked, if YOU watch it then YOU pay for it. I don't so why should i have to.

If you watch Top Gear, live, an hour after or a year after, it still is a product of the BBC, which is funded by the British public. You are using the service by watching a production funded by us!

How can you say you watch it, then say you don't so why should you have to!!! I know there is no separate radio licence, but I thought that BBC radio stations were also funded by the TV licence- if not, where does it come from, do you listen to R1 or R2?

No i don't listen to R1 or R2. because i watch it on the Iplayer (which i don't need a licence for) why does that make me scum and a swindler? why should i pay for a service i don't use, you wouldn't want to pay for a service you don't use so why should i? i don't watch any live as broadcast BBC channels and the only BBC program i watch (VIA Iplayer) is top gear which to be honest i don't think is worth 12 quid a month when i pay 20 for 50x more channels on sky.

[duffman]

I'm happy to debate this with you but as i have pointed out several times, it is NOT an offence to own a device that can receive live broadcast TV, it clearly states this on the TV licencing web site, it is only an offence if you use this device to watch live broadcast TV. for example, if there is no ariel fitted to the back of the TV it is not an offence as you cannot watch live broadcast.

I understand where your coming from in regards to +1 channels, what i mean is pre recorded stations such as the iplayer which will allow you to watch a program 1 hour after it has finished live broadcast, once the actual +1 channel has finished.

Trespass is covered by common law and removal of implied rights of access will cause all people entering the premises to break the law as trespass. i agree you will struggle to get a court hearing or prosecute for it BUT it is classed as harassment if it is done for a second time which is far easier to prosecute. to be honest it is not for the company but rather the individual as most corporations will discipline employee's who repeatedly break the law or receive formal police warnings for harassment and trespass.

Edited by duffman, 13 March 2013 - 09:13 PM.

[duffman]

I would like to point out that removing implied right of access does NOT stop court appointed officials carrying a court stamped warrant, a high court writ etc from coming onto your property.

[minisilverbullet]

Doesn't sound like a loophole sounds more like dishonesty

[Dan]

But if they send a different inspector each time the individual has not harassed you, the company has. Given that the majority of the population considers the actions of the TV licensing inspector to be reasonable, which you can see by the response to this thread that I'm certain is not what you expected it to be, you will not get a court to accept this is harassment. The court will tell you it is simpler to just answer the inspector's questions if you genuinely don't need a licence and may in fact bring you up for contempt or malicious prosecution if you seek court help after only 2 or 3 attempted communications from the licensing body.

The iPlayer site has this to say:

It is a criminal offence to watch 'live' television without a TV licence or to possess or control a device which you know or reasonably believe will be used to watch 'live' TV without a TV licence.

And incidentally you can't watch anything until 2 hours after it has been broadcast, not 1. So if it's on a +1 channel too that means waiting 3 hours. The same show being broadcast on two different stations is still the same show being broadcast. The download doesn't make the distinction between which channel it is coming from, the original or the +1, unless it is a simulcast which you wouldn't be able to watch anyway.

Also, in the interest of transparency I will state that I am one of the people whose pay packet you are damaging by not wanting to pay for the TV you consume. It's the same as pirated movies. People think it doesn't hurt anyone but it does. Celebrities, directors, producers, writers and everyone in management at the BBC or the studios continue to get paid well and get pay rises as everyone else in the world would expect year on year. The people who get hurt are those of use who are classed as below the line, at my grade in TV the BBC are still trying to pay the amount they were paying 10 / 14 years ago when I started. Sometimes even less. This is why I avoid working for the Beeb as much as possible but all the other companies use them as a yard stick. Crew pay in TV has not substantially changed for over a decade now, given rampant inflation we have all taken a massive cut.

Edited by Dan, 13 March 2013 - 09:33 PM.

[mini-luke]

You don't watch live TV but your kids do thereford you don't need a license? Great example you are setting them, it's OK to steal so long as you don't get caught

[duffman]

But if they send a different inspector each time the individual has not harassed you, the company has. Given that the majority of the population considers the actions of the TV licensing inspector to be reasonable, which you can see by the response to this thread that I'm certain is not what you expected it to be, you will not get a court to accept this is harassment. The court will tell you it is simpler to just answer the inspector's questions if you genuinely don't need a licence and may in fact bring you up for contempt or malicious prosecution if you seek court help after only 2 or 3 attempted communications from the licensing body.

The iPlayer site has this to say:

It is a criminal offence to watch 'live' television without a TV licence or to possess or control a device which you know or reasonably believe will be used to watch 'live' TV without a TV licence.

And incidentally you can't watch anything until 2 hours after it has been broadcast, not 1. So if it's on a +1 channel too that means waiting 3 hours. The same show being broadcast on two different stations is still the same show being broadcast. The download doesn't make the distinction between which channel it is coming from, the original or the +1, unless it is a simulcast which you wouldn't be able to watch anyway.

Also, in the interest of transparency I will state that I am one of the people who's pay packet you are damaging by not wanting to pay for the TV you consume.

That is only if you are using the device to watch live TV, if your only using it for the iplayer then a licence is not required.
You are missing the point. you are paying for the licence because as you watch the BBC channels. I do not watch any live broadcast TV channels so i am effectively helping your pay packet and it is mine that is being damaged. would you be happy about paying for a service you neither want nor use?

I know the licence officially covers 'all channels' that are broadcast live BUT it is the BBC that receives this money, If it were to be abolished and the BBC made to find alternative funding like the other channels do OR become a subscription service i would only be paying for the BBC channels so in effect the other channels are free (hence free view). I suppose what i'm saying is i'm paying my TV licence for BBC channels and i don't watch any BBC channels. I'm the one that's being mugged here.

[duffman]

You don't watch live TV but your kids do thereford you don't need a license? Great example you are setting them, it's OK to steal so long as you don't get caught

why would i divulge everything i think or do to my children?
My kids watch sky channels which i pay a subscription for thank you very much. read the thread before commenting and be very very careful when questioning peoples parenting skills fella.

[duffman]

Doesn't sound like a loophole sounds more like dishonesty

BUT who's the dishonest one, Me who refuses to pay for a service i do not use OR the corporation that forces you to pay for a service you do not want or use. if it were possible i'd be happy for them to block all BBC channels from my viewing.

[Dan]

It also pays to run the transmission network and engineering which is not cheap. The switch to digital has reduced running costs in terms of power consumption to 1/5 of what it was but it still uses megawatts and employs engineers and runs facilities all over the country.

What is only if you are using it to watch broadcast TV? I don't know what you are referring to. If you mean possession of a device, it's clearly not! It's if you believe it is being used to watch broadcast TV by ANYONE in your home including visitors. You said your kids use it a lot, do they not watch anything that you should be paying for?

The corporation is not forcing you to pay for anything. All of your points are that you genuinely don't need a licence, so why are you going to such lengths when all you have to do is fill in the form saying you don't need one? You do consume this television because you watch Top Gear. Now the fact that there is a method by which to view it legally without paying is a separate issue, you vehemently claim that you are being forced to pay for a service which you don't want but you clearly do want it. Even if you do only view one show, it still has to be paid for and is in fact fairly expensive to make as magazine shows go. If as you claim your TV is being used completely legally without a license then there is no problem, simply don't have a licence. Why bother with the rest of this? The law is the law, whether you agree with it or not. Simply ignoring the law is not the best way to campaign against it.

[duffman]

It also pays to run the transmission network and engineering which is not cheap. The switch to digital has reduced running costs in terms of power consumption to 1/5 of what it was but it still uses megawatts and employs engineers and runs facilities all over the country.

What is only if you are using it to watch broadcast TV? I don't know what you are referring to. If you mean possession of a device, it's clearly not! It's if you believe it is being used to watch broadcast TV by ANYONE in your home including visitors. You said your kids use it a lot, do they not watch anything that you should be paying for?

The corporation is not forcing you to pay for anything. All of your points are that you genuinely don't need a licence, so why are you going to such lengths when all you have to do is fill in the form saying you don't need one? You do consume this television because you watch Top Gear. Now the fact that there is a method by which to view it legally without paying is a separate issue, you vehemently claim that you are being forced to pay for a service which you don't want but you clearly do want it. Even if you do only view one show, it still has to be paid for and is in fact fairly expensive to make as magazine shows go. If as you claim your TV is being used completely legally without a license then there is no problem, simply don't have a licence. Why bother with the rest of this? The law is the law, whether you agree with it or not. Simply ignoring the law is not the best way to campaign against it.

The problem is because i have Sky, i pay a large subscription for pretty much all channels. i personally watch very very little TV and what i watch is usually comedy channel, UK gold or discovery channel. The technicality they have got me on is i am CAPABLE of receiving live broadcast TV of terrestrial channels through my sky box. I realise i watch top gear on the Iplayer but it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if i had it blocked, it is repeated by Dave once they have bought the rights to it anyway. I also cannot prove that i don't watch them so they say i HAVE to have a licence. i gave them the option to block my box from receiving their channels when i bought my licence but they said they can't so i'm having to pay for a service i don't use. theres a about 8 months left on my licence so plenty of time to argue with them or ways of blocking it from my sky box/TV then i can prove i do not use their service ALTHOUGH, i did hear a rumour that the licence is now required for ALL terrestrial channels as people were paying an engineer to block their TV from receiving BBC but i've got to do more researching into this yet

Edited by duffman, 13 March 2013 - 10:03 PM.