Slashdot Mirror
BBC Strikes Deal With YouTube
twofish writes "Google's YouTube video site will soon be showing content from the BBC in a deal announced today. Auntie Beeb's content will be spread across three different channels, one for news and two for entertainment programmes. Content will include adverts, and clips from shows such as "Top Gear," "The Mighty Boosh," and nature shows narrated by David Attenborough. The deal is likely to be controversial, particularly since the BBC is paid for by a compulsory tax system (the license fee) rather than through advertising or subscription. The article goes on to say that they won't be 'hunting down' people that upload their content to YouTube. Just the same, they reserve the right to take down or remove programmes that have run on their channels which might damage relationships; examples might be football offerings or 'edited' shows."
And national defense
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
This actually seems somewhat reasonable. While I would love for BBC for post these shows advertisement-free, at least they're going to post them in a format that can be viewed in any major browser on varying OSs.
Is there software to download and store videos from youtube for Linux?
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Worth noting that in the UK, the BBC's "iPlayer" project which is currently being rolled out, will provide ad-free TV-over-IP on-demand for anyone with a UK IP address. Thus, just like BBC America, the BBC's adverts are the BBC's way of maximising the value they offer to the UK public, by getting foreigners to watch 'em.
-sheriff
Score:-1, Funny
Finally somebody got into their heads that quality of YouTube is crap and broadcasting programs there will work only as an advertisement. What's the point of suing them if you can work with them and have advertisement for free. If somebody likes their programmes they will watch them on telly anyway. Think about watching Attenborough's programs and thinking: "Are those 20 pixels a lion trying to catch an antilope (other 20 pixels)?"
And for commercial stations that would be even better - they would be able to add some of advertising, or such.
"an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often, quite often, picturesque liar" - Mark Twain
Not compulsory taxation. It's a subscription, it's just that you take out the subscription by owning a TV (or other device capable of receiving TV signals).
BBC resells the programming to other countries. Like I get BBC World here in Canada (and BBC-K on one of them digital channels). I'm sure my they make money off that. While BBC is paid for by the tax, it's supplemented by the resell royalties.
I should add that I hate BBC World taunts of Top Gear "Not Available In North America" bullshit. hehehehe. Though it is nice to get sports/news from a diff part of the world.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I'm hoping they put full Top Gear episodes on there, there have been some good ones. My favorites are the Ariel Atom ("so fast it will destroy your face!"), Evo vs. Gallardo, F1 vs. street cars, and there are a few others I can't think of. That guy who does the reviews just cracks me up.
It's a licence fee. The money goes to the BBC. Not the government. And you don't have to own a TV, so you don't have to have a licence.
"they reserve the right to take down or remove programmes that have run on their channels which might damage relationships"
:)
And ones that show how they were involved in the 9/11 conspiracy!
That's a joke, BTW
...for the so called "Öffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunk" Radio and TV. An organization called GEZ ("Gebühreneinzugszentrale") makes sure everyone pays this tax. They go to houses and ask people to let them in (some people think they have to).
;-)
The problem is that the german Radio and TV stations like to expand their offers to new media like Satellite and Internet without asking the citizens. So now we have to pay these compulsory taxes also for owning a satellite dish or owning a computer(!). Even companies that work with computers have to pay this tax.
That's outsourcing IT businesses german-style
>..is the perfect way to fund public goods, like information.
It's not really a "compulsory" tax. You're obliged to pay the license fee if you own a television tuner set to recieve broadcast television stations.
This is, as you might imagine, ludicrously difficult to enforce. I'm a student, I use a tv tuner card, and I sure as hell don't pay £130 or whatever it is per year. How exactly am I going to be forced to pay the license fee? I get threatening letters often (which is the primary tactic the license fee collection agency use to get people to pay up) but if a license inspector ever comes to my property and asks to come in to verify I don't own an operational tv tuner, I'll politely tell him to fsck off.
From there, the only way he can get access to my property is to get a warrant from a judge, based on zero evidence that I'm doing anything wrong. Good luck there.
The license fee collection agencry is an RIAA type agency that uses scare tactics and ignorance to collect its money. The only people who get fined tend to be relatively poor people who don't pay for a license but also don't realise that they have the legal right to refuse entry to a license inspector. An inspector calls round, demands to be let in, the person lets them in, shows them the tv, and they get a fine to the order of several thousand pounds.
The whole system is ludicrous, outdated and monstrously inefficient. We would be much better served if an independent body determined an appropriate level of funding for the BBC year-on-year, and the money came from general taxation.
I love that show, but the quality over youtube is fine for a few minutes, not for an hour long show.
BT still wins in that case.
www.finalgear.com in case anyone cares
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
What if you have a tv tuner in your computer?
What if you never watch tv, but your laptop came with a tv tuner. are you supposed to pay as well?
Washington bullets will simply be known as the "Bulle
They don't "sweep an area", they park their vans outside houses which are in their database as not having a license around the time the residents are coming home from work. I'm not sure how technically effective the vans are, probably just more scare tactics to prompt you into getting a license.
Yes, unless you get the receiver disabled. Same as if you buy a TV, and only use it for video/playstation/whatever
Score:-1, Funny
Entertaining journalist too
t s/jeremy_clarkson/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnis
You know what I miss? Leeches.
License payers fund it. What resolution will these offerings be and what codec?
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
They don't "sweep an area", they park their vans outside houses which are in their database as not having a license around the time the residents are coming home from work. I'm not sure how technically effective the vans are, probably just more scare tactics to prompt you into getting a license.
In Old Blighty, TV watches YOU.
People seem to be thinking this is entire episodes- so far all that's been announced are clips. I'd be very surprised if the BBC moved to allowing regular episodic content to go to YouTube, especially given they're going to be putting a lot of their efforts behind their own iPlayer project now.
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
Hopefully the find the missing footage from 9/11 that they claim to have lost and post it. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part _of_the_conspiracy.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EuK3tCihJ0
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
That it's a "licence" doesn't mean it also isn't a tax. A tax doesn't have to be paid by everyone - there are many taxes which only have to be paid by some people. That's like saying income tax isn't compulsory because you don't have to have a job, or council tax isn't compulsory because you don't have to own a property...
It's a tax AND a licence. And, like most taxes, it's compulsory for people who fulfil a certain criterion (in this case, owning a TV).
The only real difference is that the money doesn't go to the Government as you say, although this isn't that different to any other taxation money which the Government hands to private companies for services. The BBC still have the Government backing to be able to enforce it (clearly, no other TV company has the right to "licence" its services this way).
Or if you don't have an aerial (unless thats what you meant). My friend's family owns a TV for DVDs, but doesn't own an aerial (they live in a secluded hamlet in a valley, I'm not sure if they even get reception). They had an inspector call around because of their lack of a television license but once they showed him that they didn't have an aerial he buggered off.
They don't use the vans as a scare tactic any more because they don't work.. they've admitted they have a big database and use that instead.
They might have worked in 1950 when maybe one in 10 houses had a TV, no computers, etc. but there's so much electrical noise now that I doubt you could pinpoint a single TV set in an average street with any accuracy.
Then how do you explain that there are several examples of flourishing television content production without any compulsory tax funding? Like, for example, HBO. HBO continues to create great shows that lots of people will voluntarily pay for. HBO does not need the tax man, armed cops, and prisons to make it work.
They don't have any now and this is one of the main things I like about the BBC. And what would be there to prevent people from skipping the adverts on Youtube anyway?
The BBC needs to remain neutral, non-partisan and informal; a public service! It seems to be forgetting that more and more recently since the Iraq War fiasco. When Greg Dyke resigned after: He said his sole aim had been to defend the BBC's independence and "act in the public interest".
I don't understand why he had to resign for that.
Question. If you own a TV in the UK but don't use it for viewing television programs (like hooking it up to an Atari 2600 full time,) do you still have to pay the license fee?
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
Even "Squirrel Hugging Department" translates to something like Eichhörnchenumarmendienst, which is enough to cause immediate French surrender by merely thinking it loudly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/par
8)
Techincally no ... But it seems they put you on a "list" if you do it this way.
Why aren't you encrypting your e-mail?
I strive for accuracy. The licence may appear to be a tax, and have many things in common with it, but from a legal point of view, it is different in much the same way as the BBC is a public body, not a governmental body. Don't pay it and you won't be charged with tax evasion. You will be charged with not paying your TV licence. It's remarkably similar, but calling it a tax is technically incorrect.
As for compulsory, that's just hyperbole. There's a compulsory fee for buying groceries. It's called the price.
It's more general than that. To quote their website, "You need a TV Licence to use any television receiving equipment such as a TV set, set-top boxes, video or DVD recorders, computers or mobile phones to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV." And if you look at the small print on the license you find that you don't only need a license to watch or record the TV, you need a license to be in posession of equipment /capable/ of watching or recording TV. So if any TV company anywhere puts any of their broadcast simultaneously online, then you need a licence for a computer and an internet connection. It's so very nearly compulsory that I doubt they have much difficulty getting getting magistrates to sign off a warrant. I know people who genuinely don't need a license who have had a licence inspector turn up at the door accompanied by a police officer with a warrant, so the evidence level needed doesn't seem to be set very high
I agree with others on this thread who think a taxation model is the best way to go for public service broadcasting (although when the government simultaneously forces the BBC to chase ratings there is perhaps an insufficiently clear idea of what constitutes public service), but I agree with you that the enforcement hassle of the license (and the RIAA-like tactics of some of the agencies subcontracted to do the enforcement, probably stemming from frustration that nothing else works) mean that it's a bad way to administer the tax.
The whole system is ludicrous, outdated and monstrously inefficient. We would be much better served if an independent body determined an appropriate level of funding for the BBC year-on-year, and the money came from general taxation. Yes, that would probably be better; rough on those who genuinely don't need a license though.Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
No. You only have to pay the license fee if you have equipment set up to receive TV signals. So if you've got an Atari plugged in instead of an aerial, no license needed. On the other hand if you have a computer with a TV card, or even just a standalone VCR connected to an aerial (and power), then you do have to pay.
No, you don't have to pay it if you just plug a game console into it. You would need to show that you don't have the aerial plugged in. I have a friend who has a TV but only uses it for watching videos/DVDs. She doesn't have to pay the license either.
MOre info here.
Public funding is, in my opinion, the best way to get zero-marginal-cost goods paid for, but not the only way. God bless anyone who can make another system work.
To correct your misperception, though: HBO *does need armed cops and prisons to sustain their business. Test the theory by subscribing to HBO, recording everything they broadcast, and setting up your own competitive station charging less for the same programming.
You will quickly learn that HBO *can charge for their service only because of a government-granted monopoly called copyright.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
But you can't watch their content (legally) on YouTube, dummy. That was the point of the GP.
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
They put you (or rather your address) on a list if you don't have a television at all.
Just like the Advertising tax I pay (indirectly) to Rupert Murdoch every time I buy something from the shops. I I don't even own a satellite dish or read the sun.
I think I'll stick with paying the BBC upfront.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
No.
You only need pay if your TV (box, laptop, PCI card) is attached to the aerial. Damn difficult to prove without a warrant. Asfter all, you can always detact the coaxial and coil it up to the wall if you ever decide to let them in. Takes a couple of minutes while your other half delays them at the door. Then say you just use the TV for DVDs and games consoles.
As it happens I truly believe that people who avoid paying this are dishonest scum and deserve a right royal twatting. There you go.
Oh arse
Not to worry, when the Conservative government get in at the next election they will end the current system. They have promised Rupert Murdock they will do this some time ago.
On your point of them being a RIAA type organisation I think you are taking this a bit far. They are actually pretty fair. The reason they let you off being a student for instance is that they know that in all probability your parents have a TV licence and you can claim that is your primary residence. They have access to the register of voters (electoral role) and can use this see if anyone at that address is registered to vote.
The poster below makes a valid point regarding new TV purchases though, but this also extends to your TV card. Now all retailers who sell any equiptment capable of picking up a TV signal are required to get your details and hand them on to the TV licence people. If you refuse to provide them they are legally obliged to refuse to sell you what you want. If you buy on any sort of card they dont ask, they just get the details via your bank.
They also do have the ability to pick up the RF signal that cathode ray tubes generate, and then decode an image (Van Eck Phreaking - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking). Thus if a TV license inspector arrives at your door and you are watching TV they usually know what channel you are watching.
They do not however have any rights of entry to your property, so can be told to sod off and come back with the police and a search warrant. I am not aware of any incidences where they have come back with the police, but I expect in the worst cases where they can proove that the person does have the money for a TV licence but simply chooses not to buy one they probably do.
You point about them only fining poor people is a bit harsh. You imply that people who are poor do not know they have the right to refuse entry to their home. This is complete rubbish, I have lived on a council estate for years and believe me, most residents knew exactly what the score was in this regard.
It is also worth noting that under british law they are unable to fine you more money than you can afford to pay, so the several thousand pounds bit is crap too. When you arrive in court you have to fill out a form detailing your assets. The only way you can be fined more than you can afford is if you refuse to disclose your assets or if you fail to turn up in court, neither of which are a particularly good idea as the british legal system takes a very dim view of this.
I dont read
They do more then just sit there. (from http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/tvdetecto rvans.jsp)
How do the detector vans work?
We have a range of detection tools at our disposal in our vans. Some aspects of the equipment have been developed in such secrecy that engineers working on specific detection methods work in isolation - so not even they know how the other detection methods work. This gives us the best chance of catching licence evaders.
What if you can't get close enough to detect my TV in your van?
We can use a hand-held scanning device. These measure both the direction and strength of a signal, making it easy for us to locate TVs - even in the hardest to reach places.
From what I remember they can also use a technology (I cannot remember what it is called) to remotely view what is on your screen (I watched "Tomorrow's World" demo it once), on top of picking up the signal from your antenna. I also recall that when home computers first started to appear, they actually took some people to court to pay the fee for their computer monitor.
Funny you should mention that. I saw one of these TV licensing vans not so long ago down my street, and somebody was walking 'round with a funny looking device with a built in antenna.
You don't have to as long as the TV is not tunable to terrestrial broadcasts. In practice, you'd probably get hounded for years, especially if you used to have a license and then stopped having one. Frankly I'd happily pay twice as much for the license as I think the BBC do a damn good job of producing quality programs (Eastenders excepted of course).
I've posted about my troubles with the TV licence people. I did just a couple of days ago, get it in writing that I do not have to pay for a TV licence - even though I have a TV. I wrote a story on it here.
This makes for two parallel systems:
1. Information the government wants to be available, which is produced by tax money and consumers can get for free.
2. Information the government would rather you didn't have, which costs consumers money.
Do you really want the government deciding what information should be easily accessible? Do you want people to be bribed to consume government propaganda?
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Really, it's up to the submitter of this article to read the thing first!
From the article you will note that one of the entertainment channels will be a "public service" channel with no advertising. It will only show clips and short features.
The other entertainment channel will be run by BBC Worldwide, a wholly owned COMMERCIAL SUBSIDIARY of the public service BBC. This channel will be funder by advertising. It is worth noting that all BBC Worldwide profits are put directly back into the BBC, thus reducing the need to heavily increase the license fee. BBC Americas, for example, is part of BBC Worldwide. Do you watch any BBC programmes in a country other than the UK? Then these programmes have been licensed for broadcast by BBC Worldwide, and the money goes back into the BBC. If I recall, BBC Worldwide put £89million back into the BBC last financial year.
The news channel will have advertising on the page, which is fine, as it means non-UK residents are in fact "paying" to view BBC content. If UK residents want advert free BBC news content, just go to the BBC news website - http://news.bbc.co.uk/
Frankly, I don't see what is controversial about this deal at all - despite what the submitter or other media companies might say.
Brought to you by the author of such childrens' classics as "Some Kittens can Fly!" and "All Dogs go to Hell."
No. I've got a few friends who use monitors for their film and video work and one's even been visited by the licence people to check. Bottom line seems to be that if you've got it plugged into an antenna, you're probably watching tv so you need a licence. But the emphasis in law is on them proving that you were watching tv, rather than you proving you were not. They can't fine you (for not having a licence) until they can prove you were watching tv (detector van outside your house). It's a known dodge in squats just to unplug the antenna and if they do get permission to check you out (court order) then to sit there and say "prove it, look you can see the games console/VCR is plugged into it, that all I do with it".
One of the arguments people make is that it's unfair for people who never watch the BBC (only commercial channels) to have to pay a licence fee but I've never met anybody who never watches the beeb. Being able to watch a film all the way through or an hour long documentary without commercial breaks every 20 or 30 minutes is worth it I reckon....
Hear Hear! The Moss is the man.
Roy: [singing] We don't need no education.
Moss: Yes you do; you've just used a double negative
A compulsory tax. As opposed to an optional one?
echo $SIGNATURE
Perhaps we will get more choices of BBC news video to watch than in RealPlayer format.
I only ask this because I believe RealPlayer is Satan's media player.
No, you need a licence to own equipment which is capable of receiving a television broadcast and which is used for doing so. A detuned television or video recorder does not require a licence, nor does a TV card used for capturing non-broadcast video. TV Licensing used to have a more comprehensive and clear FAQ on their website, but they removed it in favour of more confusing text to avoid people realising they don't actually require a licence.
I strive for accuracy. The licence may appear to be a tax, and have many things in common with it, but from a legal point of view, it is different in much the same way as the BBC is a public body, not a governmental body. Don't pay it and you won't be charged with tax evasion. You will be charged with not paying your TV licence. It's remarkably similar, but calling it a tax is technically incorrect.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is genetically identical to a duck, it's not a duck if you decide to call it something else?
Don't take the above poster too seriously. He doesn't.
I guess that's the logical equivalent of those big, flashing "SELF-DESTRUCT" buttons evil villains always seem to have in their command centers.
As far as the constant response of "move along, nothing to see here" (in this case quite literally!), a metaphor from Ted Geisel describes it best:
"And what happened then...? Well...in Who-ville they say that the Grinch's small heart grew three sizes that day."
It's not really a "compulsory" tax. You're obliged to pay the license fee if you own a television tuner set to recieve broadcast television stations.
The TVLA keeps insisting that you need a licence to watch streaming video on your computer and on your cellphone too.
They seem to want to have their cake and eat it - either the TV licence covers the internet and thus the BBC can't derive advertising revenue from it, or the TV licence doesn't cover the internet and therefore you don't need one to receive content over the net. At the moment they are claiming the licence covers the internet but the BBC can still derive advertising revenue from it.
Also, denying UK access to the news content because of the advertising restrictions seems wrong - they should just present the content to the british public without advertising (or <shock> have YouTube redirect the british viewers to the same content hosted from the BBC website, sans adverts).
Note, in general I'm in favour of funding the BBC publicly rather than through commercial means. However, I think it's wrong for them to use my licence fee to produce content and then subject me to adverts if I want to watch it.
I'm rather of the opinion that there should be a clear line between licence-funded stuff and commercially funded stuff - if they want to use the licence fee to fund content then put it on a designated "non-commercial" channel and if they want to do something commercial then put it on a designated commercial channel and don't use the licence fee to fund it at all.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Personally i think makinging deals with all these stations/companies is kinda spoiling the whole idea. Pretty soon they are gonna have to change the name of the site to "TheirTube"...
Don't ya hate it when the correct spelling of your favorite screen name is taken?
Nope. Paint stripes on a horse and it still isn't a zebra, even if you can't tell the difference.
The BBC's R&D department created a wavelet-based video codec called Dirac, and released it as open source. There are some commits to the CVS in the last few days, so the project's not dead. I don't know what they're planning to do with the codec, though.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I would prefer watching BBC programmes on apps like LiberTV.
You can't really enjoy good documentaries/programmes unless they are in HD or at a very good fullscreen resolution.
1. It is also worth noting that under british law they are unable to fine you more money than you can afford to pay, so the several thousand pounds bit is crap too Under british law only a court may impose a fine, not a TV license inspector, not a police officer, not Tony Blair, no-one except a court may impose a fine. That dates back to 1689 and is still part of the law today (see the bit about "freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial").
2. During the last football world cup the TV licensing announced that anyone watching broadcast TV over the internet needed a license to do so as they were picking up a broadcast TV signal (albeit through a computer connected to the internet rather than through an aerial).
If you aren't far left by the age of 18 you have no heart. If you aren't far right by 30 you have no brain.
Beeb content has been showing up on Google Video for a while now, mostly because Google Video doesn't impose a 10 minute limit. And I personally like it because Google lets me download things for my iPod and PSP, which is especially nice when my laptop is doing some heavy lifting stuff. Hopefully Google will at least drag those features into YouTube.
Rawr
You may not AGREE to the Licensing laws, but they are law, and if you break them, you will expect to be prosecuted.
The fact that you can "politely tell the inspector to 'fuck off'" is a method use for GENUINE people who DON'T have a tuner, to not be bugged insistently by the inspector. For example, an inspector can't just continuously bug a person, just because he or she THINKS you have a TV, there is a due process involving getting a warrant, before searching private property. Sure it does make it a little harder to enforce, but it does help prevent abuse by the Agency, or a particular Inspector trying to make his name. The whole system is ludicrous, outdated and monstrously inefficient. We would be much better served if an independent body determined an appropriate level of funding for the BBC year-on-year, and the money came from general taxation. Highly Hypocritical, here you are, boasting away that you didn't pay for your license, you took advantage of certain "rights" (need for a warrant before a search), in order to not get caught, then talk about the "poor" who cannot get away with it, like you do.
And you wonder why its all inefficient, and pointless, and then later you probably complain when we loose essential freedoms, such as the right to request a warrant, and then before we know it, there will be further privacy implications as the Government tries new invasive stuff, to catch people like you, and make the system efficient.
No, the system would work, if people like YOU don't try to scam it, and instead be honest.
Have a nice day!
I couldn't agree more! What I don't understand is that meanwhile the french branch of CBC, Radio-Canada, has a lot of top audience-gathering shows of many types. And Radio-Canada has smaller budgets, being mostly targeted to 25% of the population of Canada!
You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
As the old fable goes they use some kind of mobile TEMPEST setup to work out if you have a (CRT, LCD they can't pick up) TV and even what you happen to be watching (so you can't pretend it's only for video's or something). I'm not so sure on the last part, but you can detect a CRT using nothing but a reel of cable as an aerial, a PC soundcard and a couple of 100MHz of CPU. Plug it all in and look for the 15kHz scan in some waterfall spectrum analysis software. I highly doubt they actually do this, as it probably not be very reliable and as mentioned it doesn't pick up LCD TV's. In my experience they generally just go round to houses without a TV license and knock on the door.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Now: http://www.youtube.com/bbc
It's similar in Russian. You could write "I love fluffy bunnies", but in Cyrillic it would look like "SUPER DEADLY POLONIUM". Russian lettering just looks like it has something to do with nuclear something.
Get your own free personal location tracker
I'm not convinced about point 1 there. In some cities around the UK you can now get an on-the0spot fine for littering (£50). Apparently no judge is needed.
Are they actually breaking the law or can the police now administer fines?
Silly rabbit
You don't get an on the spot fine. You get a Penalty Charge Notice. If you don't want to pay it you can go to court - but the magistrate's can then give you a much larger fine.
If you aren't far left by the age of 18 you have no heart. If you aren't far right by 30 you have no brain.
They never knocked on mine (not when I was home, at least), but they did park one of their vans outside around 6pm two nights in a row. That was after I got sick of having to inform them I didn't have a TV every month when they sent out their accusatory letters asking me to sign a declaration if I don't own a TV and send it back to them.
i suspect this works in the same way as speeding fines. you can either pay on the spot or go to court but if you go to court and lose you will get fined FAR FAR more than you would pay on the fixed penalty notice.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Britons will pay once in taxes, then again in their time wasted on these ads and other crap. Meanwhile, everyone watching the extra crap will be thereby paying for content Britons have already paid to produce.
Maybe if the UK lowered the taxes by the amount it receives from Google for the ads, that might resemble fairness. But even then, the UK has not gone through a process OK'ing the switch from taxes to advertising (or something else). Until it actually switches, it should just broadcast the content, and wave the British flag around the world in a new medium, the way the Queen has her subjects do since "weaving" was new media.
--
make install -not war
And which of those activities is compulsory?
Paint stripes on a horse and it still isn't a zebra, even if you can't tell the difference.
And yet you do exactly that by taking what is basically a tax, and painting on the words "It's not a tax, it's a license fee!"
Don't take the above poster too seriously. He doesn't.
I don't understand how this has a -1 score. Just look for "The IT Crowd" on youtube to see how funny of a show it is. It is sad that Americans cannot see this legally except with a pricey BBC cable package.
Under british law only a court may impose a fine, not a TV license inspector, not a police officer, not Tony Blair, no-one except a court may impose a fine. That dates back to 1689 and is still part of the law today (see the bit about "freedom from fines and forfeitures without trial").
I know this. That is why the sentence after the one you quoted talked about when you arrive in court you had to fill out an asset disclosure form.
If you had quoted both sentences together (ie - in context) point 1 or your post would seem a little strange.
Not sure why you mention the second point but an interesting piece of info none the less. Now I am off to watch several episodes of Stargate Atlantis I just downloaded.
I dont read
Yeah! It's so stupid! I even have to pay an internet tax to my ISP just to use the internet! And a phone tax to my mobile phone provider just to use the phone I bought! What the fuck is up with all these taxes everywhere?!?
The license fee is not a "compulsory tax system". If you own a TV (or TV tuner card for your PC, etc), then you must have a BBC License. It's cheaper than most of the "commercial" alternatives, and offers what is widely regarded as the best programming on the planet.
e view-report-research/pvt_iplayer/bbctrust_pwcrepor t_pva_annexe.pdf seems to be the best link I can find; they'd like to "give away" TV downloads, so long as it's WinXP and WMP 10, to support DRM restrictions so that you can watch within 30 days of download, given that it will self-destruct within 7 days of first viewing). Well, it's good that it's available. It's not good if it's on limited terms to license-fee payers, but available for anyone who can rip from YouTube under whatever terms you choose.
Yes, I'm British.
Yes, I pay the license fee. (It's about 1 month's worth of Council Tax, and I get a far greater benefit from it).
Do I mind that they're "giving it away" on YouTube? Only (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/r
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
Ignorance burns? I suppose life is pretty tough with such a disability like yours.
2 02254
As ignorant as you are I suppose you can only feel save while immersed in the bath tub.
Groan. Television sets weren't made just for the reception of BBC broadcasts and just
because it potentially receives state television programming because the state does
not bother to protect the signal should not make you owe them extra money for their
propaganda, certainly not if you don't watch it.
The obvious thing to do would be to scramble their signal, but then subscriptions
wouldn't come anywhere near the forced collection scheme as most people wouldn't bother
with the BBC and get a subscription to Sky paytv instead. This is a problem in most
European countries who more or less all have government owned and operated TV networks
and private competition, notably among those Germany, that operates its opinion outlets
on exactly the same forced collection scheme.
Oh and btw.. BBC "subscribers" get free clairvoyant reporting with their "subscriptions"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=224774&cid=18
Obviously the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 26 minutes before it happened. Slashdot's
political moderation posse didn't find it worthwhile and modded it down within two minutes
of me posting it but you might still want to see the BBC's latest "cock up" (their words)
on youtube and video.google.com:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=wtc+7+bbc
Those who worked for any PBS station in America remembers how exorbitant the licensing fees were for BBC programs such as Dr. Who and Blakes 7. The BBC made a fortune off Dr. Who in the 70's and 80's and from what I have been told, Blakes 7 was more costly than NOVA. The BBC now outsources Dr. Who to the Sci-Fi network and makes money off of that, as well as making money off of BBC America, both from ads and fees charged to the cable/satellite companies. I don't see why the BBC needs to collect fees anymore, it should be self-sufficient by now. The fees were originally created to fund programming to entice people to purchase tv sets. Besides, the line of "tv" set and computer is almost totally blurred.
"Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
I have a pricey BBC cable package, and I've never seen it on there. Do I just not know where to look? I've only ever seen the first two episodes, the ones which the BBC directly made available for download themselves.
Sorry to announce this, but the previous method of offering as quicktime files were a lot easier than this flash-only format which -S . K . i . . P s- continuesly; ruining the entire movie experience.
I'm already looking for years at these movies and found most movies very intruiging and well done. References are Farm Sluts, Kid Bang, Hangtime and even Paco's suitcase bomb for it's total stupidity
This is no longer possible in this way,
Please atleast offer the latter method too? I'm not on a dial-up but I am overseas. The previous format did not skip because it was downloaded, it was also in *much* better quality to view without all blobs inbetween.
Thanks in advance,
a very interested foxsearchlight viewer.
Gunther.
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
The point is simply that if you're being 100% accurate, from a legal point of view, it isn't a tax.
If you want to argue that it's basically/effectively/morally/ecuminically a tax, then fine. I'm with you. And I'll also submit that Microsoft's per CPU OEM licence was effectively a tax, but if you want to be pedantically accurate rather than emotive, then it's not.
The IT Crowd was from Channel 4, not the BBC.
Idiots like him give journalism a bad name. In this era of climate change, all the pro-car ranting sems more and more anticuated and idiotic.
It is also horribly ironic that one of the presenters almost died due to the unnecessary idiotic stunts they push themselves to do and the rampant disregard for security measures for drivers.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.