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.
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.
"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.
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 had the same trouble. But I tried their website and it told me to phone. I then tried the phone and after about 20 minutes of being re-directed between different robots and being told to ring differnt numbers, a robot eventually told me to go and use the website.
At that point I decided I would not spend any more time or money humouring their paranoia. That if they wished to take me to court, let them. Their weekly letters became increasingly hysterical but would then cease for a month or two, then start up from the bottom of the scale again.
It seemed to me that their position was analagous to a shopkeeper who has wares spread out on the pavement in front of his shop. I walk past and the shopkeeper runs out accusing me of stealing something on no firmer basis than that it would be easy. Seems to me that if that is what the shopkeeper believes it is for him to make the effort of finding any evidence and taking me to court.
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!
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.
Yep. I have no license, but my TV in my bedroom is plugged in to the aerial so I can receive radio broadcasts. Alarm on my TV tuned to Radio 2 wakes me up every morning.
Quote from http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/a...
Is a TV Licence required for listening to digital radio broadcasts?
A TV Licence is required to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on TV, regardless of the channel and device being used (e.g. TV, computer, laptop, tablet, mobile phone, game console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder), and how it is received (terrestrial, satellite, cable, via the internet or any other way). You do not need a TV Licence if you only use this equipment to listen to digital radio broadcasts.