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.

Comments

Rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Rubbish

[seth_hartbecke]

The AP put newspapers on the path to death decades ago.

If you think about it, The Associated Press was basically an RSS feed of news items for many decades before things like the internet existed. Small papers found that they could subscribe to this feed, and then fire reporters. It kept their papers full of ink, but the AP had hollowed out their organization.

What we realized when the internet happened is: our local hard working news paper wasn't really all that hard working. They were essentially an RSS aggregator, with a few local style pieces tossed in.

What newspapers didn't see coming was technology being able to so easily replace their RSS aggregation functions and cut them out as the middle-man.

What we need to ask ourself is: not how do we save newspapers. How do we support quality content generators and reporters?

Re:What's the loophole?

[whoever57]

Hmm...I couldn't find in the article that described exactly what the iPlayer loophole was...?

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).

Re:What's the loophole?

[wonkey_monkey]

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.

far from the most pressing concern.

[nimbius]

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.

Re:Yet another good reason to never visit England

[Coisiche]

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 not charge ?

[slashping]

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.