Slashdot Mirror
Government To Bring Forward Law To Close BBC 'iPlayer Loophole' (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader notes an effort in the UK, as reported by the Guardian, to clamp down on the so-called "iPlayer loophole" which allows BBC programs to be time shifted in a way that avoids paying the television tax. From the article: In a speech on Wednesday, culture secretary John Whittingdale also asked whether popular BBC1 programmes such as Strictly Come Dancing were "distinctive" enough and launched a new initiative on the devastating impact of adblockers on the newspaper industry. After the speech at the Oxford Media Convention, Whittingdale said closing the loophole could not wait for legislation was passed to renew the BBC's royal charter by the end of the year. Instead, it would be done "as soon as practicable" through secondary legislation that could be put before parliament as early as this summer.
Input license number to view. Fixed!!
Most people who use iPlayer already pay the TV license. Those that don't probably will find other ways of not paying.
What is an iPlayer?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Ad blocking isn't one of the root causes of the newspaper industry dying. There are several reasons but that's not one of them:
1) The internet allows for competition from non-print sources like blogs. What once required a printing press, subscribers, and delivery now only requires web hosting. Many of the barriers to entry are gone.
2) Classifieds are obsolete. There are far better ways to buy and sell things such as Amazon, Ebay, and Craigslist. There are definite advantages including secure payment systems, protection of the buyer and seller from fraud, and most importantly they reach a far wider audience.
3) Ads are awful. It's necessary to block ads because they're so intrusive, frequently deceptive, and often serve drive-by malware. If users were presented with safe ads that weren't overly intrusive and deceptive, I wouldn't feel the need to block them. I'm not opposed to text ads, banners, and animated GIFs provided they're not deceptive and clearly identify as ads. Fix the ads and people will unblock them. Ad blocking is a consequence of this, which is one of the actual root causes.
4) The journalism has declined. Instead of newspapers hiring reporters to cover news in other places, most of the non-local news is syndicated from other outlets, at least in the US. That includes things like the AP and Reuters. It's cheaper, but there's not a need to pay for a newspaper when that content can already be found for free at other places online.
So there is a way to save money and someone shuts it down? Go figure. Good thing I don't pay my taxes either.
Input TV license to view! Fixed?
I like today's /. quote at the bottom of the page. It's the first helpful, or intelligent, thing anybody's said all day.
whilst timeshifting BCC broadcasts is indeed an egregious offense as it robs our government of revenue, Id like to bring it to the attention of my fellow britons that there is a far more nefarious. There has been report of a man -- perhaps multiple people -- who have found a way to use timeshifting to skirt the fundamental laws of quantum thermodynamics and causality. they do so in what seems to the naked eye to be merely a police box...but inside this device ALSO violates several casual laws of general thermodynamics as well.
I cannot abide by such a lawless scoundrel galavanting about our nation. Whats next? he'll decide the laws of gravity no longer apply to him? that death no longer impacts him? as if he were some sort of "lord" of time?!?! outrageous.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Now I won't be able to not watch the BBC on the internet either!
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Hey BBC, I understand this loophole problem is costing you £150m a year. We'll look into it for you but you have to do something for us. We want you to shoulder the cost of seniors not having to pay the license fee (costing £750m a year). Glad we agreed on that!
So they are going to bring in a draconian, half thought out (I'm being generous here) law to save £150m a year that won't work while giving up £750m to buy votes. Sounds like typical politicians.
The current situation with the BBC illustrates the stupidity of accountant driven businesses. Contrary to all the doom and gloom stories you might have heard, the BBC is actually very profitable in terms of making programs with the revenue received from TV licenses. The problem is that it has a massive pension liability that is not ring-fenced from it's normal operations (WTF?). If the pension fund's investments lose value in a year, this loss is booked against their operating profit, making them look like they are losing ridiculous sums of money. What a crazy scheme.
If the equity markets crashed, we might even end up with a situation where the BBC ceases to exist as a broadcaster, and all your license fee just goes towards paying historic BBC worker's pensions.
Anyway that is my rant about them. I actually think they produce some excellent programming.
As you could have picked up from the comments, the license is not actually for owning a television. It's a levy, per household, used to fund the BBC. Commercial TV broadcasts adverts to gain funding but BBC broadcasts don't include adverts. Kind of like an annual fee for a "no-ads" version of an online service I suppose, except more expensive. And as near mandatory as you can get; claiming you don't use a TV gets you constant hassle from the TV licensing board.
Why can't they just require a login for the iPlayer ? If you have a TV and you pay the license fee, they can send a free login code. If not, you can pay on-line. That would also solve the problem of people living outside the UK who may be interested in watching the shows on-line.
Considering that BBC's ratings went down the tubes completely, the government still insists that you must pay this tax to fund BBC regardless if you watch it or not. That's what makes it so ridiculous. Ever since the Top Gear fiasco and BBC's strive for political correctness in shows, their ratings have dropped to rock bottom. It's a subscription fee that you're forced to pay whether you like it or not. They'll make you pay for it regardless if you have a TV or not. And now that their ad funding and American subscribers are dumping them left and right, they insist on forcing the British citizen to pay for their mistakes and rescue them by any means possible.
...the BBC is actually very profitable in terms of making programs with the revenue received from TV licenses...
You buy a PC and stick linux on it... Microsoft usually still gets funded as a portion of the initial purchase.
You buy a TV in the UK and watch some non BBC source of entertainment and BBC still gets funded - every year - by you separately (There is no System76 option here, it's the LAW)
So yes they are very profitable... from making programs though? hard to say objectively.
I think this is already an extremely unfair business model for everyone, what I fear is they will try to apply the same monopoly to computers, that will be a much larger portion of people than those who end up paying Microsoft for a unused product or service... given the UK government's recent record of ill advised policies on internet, encryption and technology I have no trouble believing they would try this.
In the past every time I moved they would continually harass me and send legal threats in disbelief that I don't own a TV, they've become more tolerable in recent years and usually one phone call will do the trick... I hope we don't have to go back to the organised crime like behaviour of the past if they start involving computers.
"a new initiative on the devastating impact of adblockers on the newspaper industry."
BTW there's a Greasemonkey script available to deblock the anti-adblocker on Wired Magazine.
And yet people who do not have a tv and never watch any tv programmes, still get to pay their share of the advertising costs which fund the ITV channels.
Unless you stop buying anything, of course.
As I have posted elsewhere, you are wrong.
You need a TV license if EITHER of the following apply:
1. You own equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV OR
2. You watch TV live through any other means (eg, video-on-demand services). Live in this case means synchronous with program OTA broadcasts.
However, I winder if anyone has challenged the definition of "live". If I an using an Internet based service, it will be delayed by a few milliseconds. Is that "live"?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Actually the licence fee has also been used, for several decades, to partially support Channel 4, in addition to advertising, for specific programming.
All you need to is NOT WATCH BROADCAST VIDEO. Having a tuner, having a coax is NOT ENOUGH to require a license.
If it's not tuned in to the channels, you don't have to pay for the license. Your claims are QUITE LITERALLY WRONG.
What is happening here is a tactical deception. Everyone is so upset about the adblocker controversy and lost in the argument about what exactly are the conditions which require a UK TV licence fee to be paid, that they are missing what is being stated in plain sight.
Essentially the UK government are proposing secondary legislation [ie not debated in full] which could make UK internet users pay an internet tax to the BBC, because in essence, if the BBC can't actually identify exactly who is using iPlayer, everyone is guilty.
You have to install it to watch broadcasts. You don't install the TV to watch DVDs and not tune it in to watch broadcasts.
You DO NOT NEED A LICENSE TO OWN A TV so stop damn well lying (possibly not lying, just bought in to the BS assertions hinted at off the record and without any proclamation under legal duress) about it.
You own a TV but it isn't tuned in or connected to a receiver of the broadcasts (aerial or cable), then you DO NOT need a TV license in the UK. But if you watch only sky (which many whiners about the license fee pretend they do, they're lying or at least deluding themselves), you still need to pay the license, and that is what many of the vocal idiots who cry off about a "TV tax!" are whining over: they're paying £40 a month for their Sky package subscription and having to pay £10 a month for the BBC they watch as much of as the proportion of the channels they get via sky (because 90% of them are crap and getting worse unfortunately) really grabs their goat.
Whining about the £40 never really occurs to them. Even though 90% of it is unwatched.
You don't need it for owning a TV, you need to install to watch broadcast TV.
Without connecting it to the aerial coax or cable, you aren't installing it to watch broadcast TV. Don't tune it in and you're golden. I glued a bottle top over the coax input to make it damn obvious.
As I have posted elsewhere, you are wrong.
You need a TV license if EITHER of the following apply:
1. You own equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV OR
2. You watch TV live through any other means (eg, video-on-demand services). Live in this case means synchronous with program OTA broadcasts.
[Citation needed]
[1] is not true. You only need a TV licence if you watch TV live by any means. My source: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one
There is a difference between the law and practice here http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one indicates that you only need a licence to receive TV, not install one. Given the presence of internet-connected computers in my house (which could receive live TV) and the lack of a TV licence I have a little evidence that practice prevails.
With regards the timing, the Act includes the clause "or virtually the same time" which would cover transmission delay.
Owl tried to think of something wise to say, but couldn't.
How's this for a loophole fix: scrap the damn fee.
Hardly any country funds their public broadcaster this way. It comes out of the national budget, just like every other public service.
Nobody "evades" the fee when it's paid for by the hidden taxes on everything you buy.