Available to international audiences or non-licence payers who do not own a TV? Or is this staking out ground to make TV licences mandatory for computer users in the UK?
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1760999,00.html
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
BBC unveils radical revamp of website
- Thread starter Blue Velvet
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Available to international audiences or non-licence payers who do not own a TV? Or is this staking out ground to make TV licences mandatory for computer users in the UK?
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1760999,00.html
The BBC have previously said that motion gallery content will only be available to those on a UK IP address. We pay the licence fees.
I wouldn't be surprised...currently you have to purchase a licence if your computer can receive TV signals.
AppleMatt
I wouldn't be surprised...currently you have to purchase a licence if your computer can receive TV signals.
AppleMatt
If I were a more cynical man I might say that 'user-generated content' (such as a large number of blogs and user-submitted reports) is a cheaper way of filling up a website than employing proper journalists and writers to do it.
But I'm not. So I won't.
But I'm not. So I won't.
AppleMatt said:
Not all of us do. I don't have a telly...
I wonder how this will work in practical terms? Maybe you'll have to sign up for this service and it will be cross-referenced against TV Licensing's database...
They may say that since 97% of the UK population has, or should have, a licence, limiting it to UK IP addresses should be sufficient. After all, most of the 3% without a TV (excluding BV of course) may not have any interest in watching TV on their computer either.
Applespider said:
I don't really... the appeal of it just doesn't grab me. I'm happy watching DVDs of the series I really want to see anyway which are usually HBO-type things that usually turn up on C4...
I wonder how the whole downloading programmes thing will tie in with iPods if at all? The BBC and Apple have a prior relationship and I wonder what moves they may make to incorporate the iTMS.
Blue Velvet said:
Well at the moment all online video content from the BBC is either in Windows Media or Real Player format, and while the Podcasts are in mp3 format, it would seem to require a sea change in the BBCi web designers mindset for iPods specifically to be supported.
no. no. no.AppleMatt said:
You only have to pay a licence fee if you USE equipment to receive or record broadcast signals.
This has been discussed here before ad nauseum (because it is an important principle), but OWNERSHIP of a device that can receive broadcast signals is not the same as USING the device (which then requires a licence).
kiwi-in-uk said:
I think there's a further distinction to be made here. As I understand it, you can own a device capable of receiving broadcast television signals without having to purchase a licence, but it can't be set up to do so.
If the TV Licensing Authority search your premises and find a piece of equipment tuned in and set up to receive broadcast television signals, arguing that you don't actually use it for that purpose wouldn't absolve you of your liability.
MOFS said:
There was an article on Macworld UK when the BBC rolled out the IPTV trial only to Windows users which suggested that when it went live to the public, they planned on offering it in a cross-platform format.
kiwi-in-uk said:
The law implicitly states that if you OWN a device that is capable of recieving signals you need a license. it doesn't matter if you don't use it to recieve signals. My father's solicitor's firm has represented a few people because of this. it's not good enough to say you don't use it - it is your obligation to prove you're innocent, how can you do so with a capable tv set there?
bigandy said:
By taking every reasonable step to ensure that the unit isn't capable of receiving broadcast pictures without configuration. In the case of televisions with built-in tuners, this means de-tuning the TV and removing the arial or unplugging the unit from a connection to an external arial.
bigandy said:
From http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.jsp:
If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one. [emphasis mine]
Sounds promising - the BBC really need to embrace the popularity of their website and use it's success to modernise services, and it would seem they're now getting ready to do just that.
On the TV licence front, yes I can imagine a time coming where wider licencing rules apply. I don't really care about that, it's not like the vast vast majority of people wont be getting value for money.
Roll on IPTV.
On the TV licence front, yes I can imagine a time coming where wider licencing rules apply. I don't really care about that, it's not like the vast vast majority of people wont be getting value for money.
Roll on IPTV.
That seems so very wrong. I could understand having to have a TV license if I was going to view the BBC, since that is where (I think) the money ends up going. However, if I was planning on receiving non-BBC related material (as mentioned above), it doesn't seem right that I would still pay a license fee that would go into the pockets of BBC.
Of course I may be wrong about where that money is going. As for their web services, the only I have ever used as been to read the news. I like knowing what is going on in the world, and I find it easy to visit BBC's website and get information from around the world. Blogs would be nice to read, if they had anything nice on them.
Also, I think it would make more sense (as mentioned above) if Apple and BBC got together to put BBC shows on iTMS.
Brize said:
My girlfriend had to buy a TV license even though she only used her TV for games consoles.
The laws are strange. Scanning equipment isn't that good either. My lecturer has no TV, yet he had those TV scanner people saying that he was watching TV. Turns out those scanners only see electronics in general, or something like that. They searched his home after he constantly denied ever having a TV or radio.
L
Lau
Guest
raggedjimmi said:
I don't know whether that 2003 law mentioned above changed it, but I lived in a flat in about 1999-2001 or so, and we had a TV that we just used for the odd video and SNES play, and when we told the TV licensing people that, they stopped bothering us. As long as we didn't have an aerial plugged in, they were happy.
In other words, it may be worth your girlfriend having a word with them, as she may get it free. That is unless it's changed since I was in the same situation.
raggedjimmi said:
There's some genuine confusion on this issue, largely because the TV Licensing Authority work on the erroneous premise that anyone who owns a television set is required to buy a licence.
As indicated previously, you only need to buy a licence if you're watching broadcast television, regardless of whether it's a BBC channel. Ownership of a television set with a built-in tuner does not, in itself, require you to buy a licence.
Your girlfriend would appear to have a strong case for exemption, but frustratingly, the burden of proof is on her. She'll need to notify TV Licensing that she's not using the set to receive broadcast television images, and to demonstrate this, she'll probably need to de-tune the set. More information here:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/gethelp/faqs.jsp#link1
What really annoys me is the assumption that everybody wants to watch television. I've had a few conversations with the TV Licensing authority and they seemingly find it very hard to believe that anyone can live without TV.
Brize said:I've had a few conversations with the TV Licensing authority and they seemingly find it very hard to believe that anyone can live without TV.
Probably because from their experience, most people who do claim they don't have a TV are found to have had one after investigation so odds are... they're lying.
On the other hand, I honestly don't have one and have no problem letting anyone from TV Licensing into the flat to confirm the situation. Don't miss having one at all.
Blue Velvet said:
I think the broader issue here is that television is simply a product like any other, regardless of its popularity. To be in a situation where you have to suffer an invasion of privacy just to prove that you don't want to buy a product is, quite frankly, bollocks.