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.
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.
I think that the loophole is that, as long as you don't watch programs as they are broadcast, you are legally allowed to watch programs using the iPlayer (VoD system) without buying a TV license (~$250/year).
In the UK, if you have equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV signals, you are legally obligated to buy a TV license (irrespective of what you actually watch).
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
iPlayer is the BBC's online catch-up/live TV service. It's integrated into set-top boxes and smart TVs as well as being available from computers (either with Flash or HTML5 (in beta)).
The loophole is that the wording of the TV licencing laws mean you only need a TV licence if you're watching live broadcasts/streams. If you're happy to wait an hour or two for the whatever was just on TV to become available on the on-demand service (which it will be for 30 days or so), no licence is needed.
Not everything that is broadcast makes it to the on-demand service - films, foreign imports, some sports, etc.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
They'll be telling us we can't nick from shops next.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
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.
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.
Combine that with dropping GeoIP restrictions on iPlayer, and they might suddenly find that a lot of foreigners would start paying their license fee.
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.
You are wrong. A TV license is required if:
1. You install equipment capable of receiving broadcast TV, OR
2. You watch live broadcasts through any medium (including Internet-based video-on-demand services)
So, if you don't have a broadcast TV receiver, option 1 doesn't apply and, if you only watch delayed programming on Internet-based video-on-demand services, option 2 does not apply. That's the loophole.
It's all here
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
A license to own a TV?! So do people actually do this?
I am in the UK and it works like this :-
If you live in a "law-abiding" middle class part of town they will check their records to see if any houses do not have a licence. There will only be a few, and they will hound those houses mercilessly, assuming that every house in the area must have a TV. I moved out of such a house leaving it empty for a year, returning once a fornight to pick up any post. There was a constant stream of legally threatening letters from the licencing authority who assumed I was watching TV woithout a licence, and I have no doubt there would have been attempted visits from their inspectors too. I ignored them all, only wishing that they would get on and carry out their threat to take me to court.
In the rougher no-go parts of town however, I understand that they consider it too dangerous to intervene, and too complex where for example six illegal immigrants are sharing part of the house and maybe TVs, disowned by all of them who pretend they cannot speak English anyway.
They also used to operate "detector vans" which could pin-point TVs from their high frequency emissions, but I don't know if that works with LCD TVs.
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.
Slight correction, it's not a requirement just to own equipment that can receive broadcasts (e.g. a TV), only to actually receive them. You can have a TV as long as you don't use it to receive anything live, so iPlayer, Netflix, games consoles, DVD players etc are all fine.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The BBC licencing fee is worth it if it saves having to sit through the commercial breaks that the non-BBC (ITV) channels have - typically 15 minites in a 1 hour programme.
This is less relevant however with the ability to record ITV programmes and watch later, fast-forwarding through the ads. That is the only way I watch ITV these days. Oh wait, I'm stealing.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/a...
"Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as theyâ(TM)re being shown on television without a TV Licence."
Note that you have to install AND use to watch our record for it to be an offence. This is reiterated here:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/f...
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
See, "installed or used"
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
It pays for the BBC and is a lot cheaper than a cable TV subscription in the USA.
The alternative is no license fee, conventional ads on the BBC and much worse programming.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
But what does "installation" mean? Simply plugging a TV into the mains without connecting an aerial or tuning it in would presumably not count as installation of a television receiver, as in that state it wouldn't *be* a television receiver.
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.
Input license number to view. Fixed!!
What worries me about this is that the BBC might enforce it by finally adding some effective DRM to iPlayer, breaking the excellent third party get_iplayer tool that is by far the best way of managing BBC programmes.
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.
Why I dumped my TV license. Live TV is just so bad! Unfortunately the BBC are biased toward the Conservatives, they need them on side to negotiate new licensing laws. Meanwhile, I bet the Tories would love to privatise the BBC, putting themselves, the Tory peers, and their chums up for the first few rounds of share buying.