http://www.bbcworldwide.com/
And your comment states £620.0m from BBC Commercial Businesses, plus £24.2m from other income. That is money NOT collected from public funding (hence my comment that the BBC is partially funded by the Government). You typed it, I assume you read it first. As you say, well-established facts....
You may be correct about web streaming requiring a TV licence but I cannot find any statement to that effect on the licence or when Googling. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place. As you note circumvention would be illegal, but that doesn't mean you couldn't do it I suppose. I stand by my statement that it is logical from the point of trying to make a business from web streaming in the way that the article describes. Yes they could do more - and, who knows, they might - but I think that they have a sound business plan even if I don't like it....
The BBC has numerous businesses outside of the terrestrial BBC TV broadcasts, which are the only thing covered by the Charter. The BBC World Service, the BBC Monitoring Service, BBC World satellite TV, the sale of videos, CDs, programs to overseas TV companies etc. None of these are covered by the Charter and they are all funded from money other than that raised by the licence fee and stand-alone as business opportunities. Equally, any one of them can fail. The web streaming will initially be free but I would bet a tidy sum that it will become another business if it is successful - another reason why they want to be able to control it, hence DRM. No magic money pixies, but some sound business decisions even if we don't like them.
Your licence pays for the ability to receive ANY TV broadcasts from ANY source in ANY format. But this is NOT a TV broadcast, which is the only thing covered by the Charter, but web streaming. The Government has partially funded the BBC - YOU HAVE NOT! You have paid a licence fee to the Treasury. They are complying with the Charter. IP blocking was looked at as a possible means but, as you have pointed out, it is easy to circumvent. Therefore, to comply with the law, they have chosen DRM. I don't like it either but it is entirely logical and it is nothing to do with the Charter.
If you are going to quote the Charter you ought to read it. Streaming is OUTSIDE the terms of the charter and therefore your licence fee, Government funding, or personal feelings are, in this case, irrelevant to what is a business decision. I also dislike it, but it makes sense.
I'm afraid that you are talking crap. Please see my posts elsewhere in this thread
Nobody pays a tax to the BBC. UK citizens for a licence to allow them to receive ANY TV broadcasts from ANY source and in ANY format.
The Government partially funds the BBC to fulfill its charter. The BBC is obliged to provide significant public service broadcasts in addition to regular TV which must 'educate, inform and entertain'. They get stuck with providing schools broadcasts, arts programs, and a host of other programs that the average couch potato has no interest in watching. No other UK broadcaster has this obligation nor do they want it, hence they do not get Government funding.
Web streaming is OUTSIDE the requirements of the BBC's charter. They are free to do what they want. In this regard, they have NO existing obligation to the UK Government, UK citizens or anyone else. It is a business decision which will have to stand or fall on its business merits.
The BBC (or any other broadcaster for that matter) has to comply with its own licence regarding transmissions and intended audience. Although I think that DRM is despicable, they have to use it or something similar to comply with international law.
You don't pay ANY TAX TO THE BBC! Please read your licence. You pay a licence fee for the ability to receive ANY television broadcast, in ANY format from ANY source. The Government partially fund the BBC providing it complies with a Charter, which none of the other broadcasters are obliged to do (nor do they want to do!).
We had this entire discussion on Sunday (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/22/2 08205) but to summarise:
You do not pay you licence fee to the BBC. You pay the government for the right to be able to receive television broadcasts from any source in any format. Read your licence.
The government funds part of the BBC providing it fulfills its charter and provides public service facilities for use during times of crisis.
Web streaming is NOT covered by the charter nor, therefore, by any funding provided by the government. You licence fee is totally irrelevant to this discussion
You are correct when you say that the BBC is restricting choice to those who use Windows systems - I am as unhappy with this decision as you are. However, they are free to provide web streaming in whatever format they choose with no regard to outside influence (either government or licence payers). They have chosen to stream to the largest possible user base that supports DRM (i.e. Windows). We are stuck with their decision - but from a business point of view it make sense.
DRM, or some other form of control over who can receive the data. is necessary in this instance. If they were to stream data around the world they would be breaking the terms of their own broadcasting licence and annoying other broadcasters in other countries. For example, if they are streaming coverage of the Olympic Games in near-real-time then they would be providing unfair competition to broadcasters in other countries.
Yes, it means just that, except that the police must know who you are so it is not, of course, used for identity checks. However, you are not held but are told to report to a police station of your choosing with your driver's licence and tax and insurance documentation.
landlord verification
There is no such thing as 'landlord verification'. Rather , it is simply a method for getting someone to verify something that you have said. For example, if you told the police your name, address and a point of contact for someone who could verify that information, the police would simply telephone them to confirm the details and probably ask them to describe your appearance. As long as everything tallied the police would have no reason to detain you. If the description did not tally (and this has happened when 'good friends' have intentionally given an inaccurate description for a joke), then the police will continue to hold you until they can prove your identity positively.
Addressing issues
I've looked back through the posts but I'm not sure that I know which issues you are referring to. However, with regards to daily law enforcement (e.g. parking tickets or motoring offences) there is no particular problem caused by not carrying an ID. If the police are content that you are being truthful, they can issue a ticket on the spot made out to the owner of the vehicle. If they are not certain that you are being truthful, as in the case that we have been discussing, then they can hold you until while they make enquiries. Our local cells in the police station are not often used for this purpose, although they can be if the police think it is justified, they tend to simply ask you to be seated in a waiting room. Dispel all images that you have from American TV of being locked in a jail with a number of other ne'er-do-wells.
Finally, although carrying ID is not a legal requirement, most people do it by default. The latest version of the driver's licence carries your photograph. Many companies issue ID cards with a photograph for control of entry. Even having credit cards and mail addressed to the name and address that you have quoted can be adequate if the police have no other reason to suspect you of any crime. Despite what you read on/., the UK is far from being the police state that it is painted to be although I am sure that there will be any number of stories to follow this post telling you otherwise. I've lived there for 55 years, I am just an 'average joe', and neither I nor anyone I know has ever had any significant problem with this aspect of law enforcement.
Re:XP is _still_ better then linux and it's 7 year
on
Pimp Your XP
·
· Score: 1
If a foreign power did the intelligence collection from outside the US (but with the full support and knowledge of the current government) what makes you think they can be 'extradited'? US law does not apply outside the US as an earlier post has pointed out. And the foreign power is unlikely to cooperate with a request for extradition if it the likely outcome was to show it conducted intelligence collection against an ally and friendly state.
You are missing the point - either willfully or because you do not understand. The laws regarding data retention and its protection are far stricter in Europe than in the US. The law clearly specifies who may collect data, what information may be collected, how long it may be kept, how it must be used and how it must be protected. The example we see in the US of 'businesses' collecting, keeping and aggregating information is illegal in Europe. The fact that an ISP in the UK has been authorised to hold data does nothing to conflict with this law. The ISPs will know what they may collect, how long it must be kept, how it may be used and how it must be protected. However, it CANNOT be sold for business purposes, it CANNOT be used to help direct advertising and it cannot be 'lost', 'compromised' or otherwise misused without coming under the scrutiny of the law. Now does it make sense?
No, I wasn't there but I can use common sense, however I think that you are being silly. It took the police 5 hours to find something that validated his identity, to confirm that his friend was the legal owner of the vehicle (i.e it had not been stolen), to check that neither he nor his friend had any criminal record and to confirm that no crime had taken place. Do you know what time of the day this all occurred? Day or night? How close to home did this accident occur? Five hours during the night is not long to get results. You try finding someone who can vouch for your identity and who doesn't mind being woken up. Try getting someone to travel any significant distance to the police station where they were being held. How cooperative were they with the police or, perhaps being a bit angry and/or frustrated, did they exacerbate the situation by not being as helpful as they might otherwise have been? How well staffed were the police at the time? What other tasks did they have that might have slowed the process down? We haven't got all the facts so we shouldn't try to judge how the police handled it. And until that point that the police had all the facts they couldn't very well let him go now, could they? In your Utopian world, how would you have handled the situation?
The aluminium-bodied vehicle, built by British manufacturer Bristol Cars, was in good condition and was exempt from road tax because of its status as a classic car.
Mr Stewart, who insists a special "nil payment" disc was clearly displayed in the windscreen, took legal action against the council after the incident in December 2004.
But more than two years on, despite the council admitting liability, he has still not received a penny - and he has been reduced to driving an ageing van instead of his treasured Bristol.
It was not taken by the police, it was the local council. A mistake was made but, despite the council admitting liability, they haven't recompensed the owner. That is the error here. I can see how the council employee made the mistake. The car was not displaying a tax disc but he didn't know that there was such a thing as a tax exemption disc. It does not justify his mistake - he was wrong - but it does explain it.
You guys in the UK have cops who arrest people yelling at trespassers, who take people's cars off the streets and crush them for no reason....
There is NO law that permits the police to take peoples cars off the streets and crush them for no reason. Your assertion is wrong. Which is why they didn't do it.
As has already been pointed out - there is no requirement to carry ID in the UK. It is not an arrestable offence in itself. Carrying false documents might be suspicious but carrying no documents should not be. You have 48 hours (I think, but several days at least) to provide ID and relevant vehicle documentation at a police station of your choice should the police believe that they need to verify them. In this particular case, if the police were led to believe that you were lying about your identity even after having it verified by your landlord, what else could they have done? If you were lying, they could hardly release you and ask you to appear at a police station of your choice with the relevant documentation because they could not enforce your compliance with that request i.e. they wouldn't know your true identity and could not come after you if you failed to show up. They did think that you might have committed an offence - the theft of a motor vehicle. Although I sympathise, I cannot see what else the police could reasonably have been expected to do. The police have to use their discretion but, in this instance, it seems that it unfortunately resulted in someone being detained for 5 hours.
"take people's cars off the streets and crush them for no reason"
Rubbish. If the car is not displaying a valid tax disc then the law is being broken. A quick check tells the police whether a valid disc exists for a car's registration number and, if not, it 'can' be removed and crushed. You may not like that, but I do. I pay my car tax, I have insurance and a valid driving license. I do not have problems with the police enforcing the law in this particular instance.
If 'yelling' at trespassers is likely to cause a 'breach of the peace' then an offence is being committed. The police have the right to use their discretion on how this should be treated. If, after being warned that he should stop yelling because it is an offence, the individual concerned continues to shout, then the police would be well within their rights to arrest him if it is necessary to enforce the law in this instance. However, unlike some other countries he is unlikely to be shot, nor will he be expected to endure anal rape as part of his punishment. You see, we feel that we are quite advanced and try to respect human dignity, although it is true that we sometimes fail. But nothing that would justify a revolution....
Taking into account my comments and the comments of others regarding your post, it seems that your post is based in incorrect information, probably because you are viewing this from several thousand miles away without the benefit of knowing at first hand anything about that upon which you are commenting. Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers or see on the TV. Don't even believe everything you hear on/.
You stick to the revolutions. We've not had one for several hundred years and, in many ways, I think we do well when compared with other western nations. Of course, my experience of those countries at first hand is limited, but at least I have visited many of them.
It is often not the information that the spies collect that needs protecting. It is their methods and sources. The information that they collect should be acted upon otherwise there is no point in collecting the information in the first place. The knack is to act without compromising exactly how much you know, and how you came to know it....
Much of this should not be applicable to a police force, with a few notable exceptions (i.e perhaps the identity of informants etc). They should be enforcing the laws by identifying the person breaking the law and taking the appropriate action. You do not have to be 'secret' about stopping someone for a driving offence, or hiding what you know about a crime that caused you to identify and arrest the perpetrator of that crime. In fact, you have to provide much of what you know as evidence.
Thank you. Two genuinely funny remarks - at least to my sense of humour. However, please do not give up your day job as I fear your new career might be a short-lived one.....
NO, NO, NO. Your license is NOT for the BBC - as I have already stated several times in this thread - it is for having the ability to receive ANY television broadcast, from ANYWHERE in the world. Please read your license! Whether you want to watch the BBC is irrelevant to the entire argument regarding license fees. If you do not want to pay you can either a) not own any apparatus capable of receiving television broadcasts or b) use it solely for watching DVDs and computer games and inform the licensing authority in writing that this is what your television is for. Otherwise you can end up in court and, ultimately, in prison.
You appear to be pissed off with the license fee and the reason is that you haven't bothered to read the license in the first place. Another breathtaking contribution to a thread from an AC!
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.bbcworldwide.com/ And your comment states £620.0m from BBC Commercial Businesses, plus £24.2m from other income. That is money NOT collected from public funding (hence my comment that the BBC is partially funded by the Government). You typed it, I assume you read it first. As you say, well-established facts....
You may be correct about web streaming requiring a TV licence but I cannot find any statement to that effect on the licence or when Googling. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place. As you note circumvention would be illegal, but that doesn't mean you couldn't do it I suppose. I stand by my statement that it is logical from the point of trying to make a business from web streaming in the way that the article describes. Yes they could do more - and, who knows, they might - but I think that they have a sound business plan even if I don't like it....
This should help answer you question: http://www.bbcworldwide.com/
The BBC has numerous businesses outside of the terrestrial BBC TV broadcasts, which are the only thing covered by the Charter. The BBC World Service, the BBC Monitoring Service, BBC World satellite TV, the sale of videos, CDs, programs to overseas TV companies etc. None of these are covered by the Charter and they are all funded from money other than that raised by the licence fee and stand-alone as business opportunities. Equally, any one of them can fail. The web streaming will initially be free but I would bet a tidy sum that it will become another business if it is successful - another reason why they want to be able to control it, hence DRM. No magic money pixies, but some sound business decisions even if we don't like them.
Your licence pays for the ability to receive ANY TV broadcasts from ANY source in ANY format. But this is NOT a TV broadcast, which is the only thing covered by the Charter, but web streaming. The Government has partially funded the BBC - YOU HAVE NOT! You have paid a licence fee to the Treasury. They are complying with the Charter. IP blocking was looked at as a possible means but, as you have pointed out, it is easy to circumvent. Therefore, to comply with the law, they have chosen DRM. I don't like it either but it is entirely logical and it is nothing to do with the Charter.
Because it is against international law. The BBC, like every other broadcaster has international commitments which limit its intended audience.
If you are going to quote the Charter you ought to read it. Streaming is OUTSIDE the terms of the charter and therefore your licence fee, Government funding, or personal feelings are, in this case, irrelevant to what is a business decision. I also dislike it, but it makes sense.
I'm afraid that you are talking crap. Please see my posts elsewhere in this thread
Nobody pays a tax to the BBC. UK citizens for a licence to allow them to receive ANY TV broadcasts from ANY source and in ANY format.
The Government partially funds the BBC to fulfill its charter. The BBC is obliged to provide significant public service broadcasts in addition to regular TV which must 'educate, inform and entertain'. They get stuck with providing schools broadcasts, arts programs, and a host of other programs that the average couch potato has no interest in watching. No other UK broadcaster has this obligation nor do they want it, hence they do not get Government funding.
Web streaming is OUTSIDE the requirements of the BBC's charter. They are free to do what they want. In this regard, they have NO existing obligation to the UK Government, UK citizens or anyone else. It is a business decision which will have to stand or fall on its business merits.
The BBC (or any other broadcaster for that matter) has to comply with its own licence regarding transmissions and intended audience. Although I think that DRM is despicable, they have to use it or something similar to comply with international law.
You don't pay ANY TAX TO THE BBC! Please read your licence. You pay a licence fee for the ability to receive ANY television broadcast, in ANY format from ANY source. The Government partially fund the BBC providing it complies with a Charter, which none of the other broadcasters are obliged to do (nor do they want to do!).
We had this entire discussion on Sunday (http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/22/2 08205) but to summarise:
You do not pay you licence fee to the BBC. You pay the government for the right to be able to receive television broadcasts from any source in any format. Read your licence.
The government funds part of the BBC providing it fulfills its charter and provides public service facilities for use during times of crisis.
Web streaming is NOT covered by the charter nor, therefore, by any funding provided by the government. You licence fee is totally irrelevant to this discussion
You are correct when you say that the BBC is restricting choice to those who use Windows systems - I am as unhappy with this decision as you are. However, they are free to provide web streaming in whatever format they choose with no regard to outside influence (either government or licence payers). They have chosen to stream to the largest possible user base that supports DRM (i.e. Windows). We are stuck with their decision - but from a business point of view it make sense.
DRM, or some other form of control over who can receive the data. is necessary in this instance. If they were to stream data around the world they would be breaking the terms of their own broadcasting licence and annoying other broadcasters in other countries. For example, if they are streaming coverage of the Olympic Games in near-real-time then they would be providing unfair competition to broadcasters in other countries.
Yes, it means just that, except that the police must know who you are so it is not, of course, used for identity checks. However, you are not held but are told to report to a police station of your choosing with your driver's licence and tax and insurance documentation.
landlord verificationThere is no such thing as 'landlord verification'. Rather , it is simply a method for getting someone to verify something that you have said. For example, if you told the police your name, address and a point of contact for someone who could verify that information, the police would simply telephone them to confirm the details and probably ask them to describe your appearance. As long as everything tallied the police would have no reason to detain you. If the description did not tally (and this has happened when 'good friends' have intentionally given an inaccurate description for a joke), then the police will continue to hold you until they can prove your identity positively.
Addressing issuesI've looked back through the posts but I'm not sure that I know which issues you are referring to. However, with regards to daily law enforcement (e.g. parking tickets or motoring offences) there is no particular problem caused by not carrying an ID. If the police are content that you are being truthful, they can issue a ticket on the spot made out to the owner of the vehicle. If they are not certain that you are being truthful, as in the case that we have been discussing, then they can hold you until while they make enquiries. Our local cells in the police station are not often used for this purpose, although they can be if the police think it is justified, they tend to simply ask you to be seated in a waiting room. Dispel all images that you have from American TV of being locked in a jail with a number of other ne'er-do-wells.
Finally, although carrying ID is not a legal requirement, most people do it by default. The latest version of the driver's licence carries your photograph. Many companies issue ID cards with a photograph for control of entry. Even having credit cards and mail addressed to the name and address that you have quoted can be adequate if the police have no other reason to suspect you of any crime. Despite what you read on /., the UK is far from being the police state that it is painted to be although I am sure that there will be any number of stories to follow this post telling you otherwise. I've lived there for 55 years, I am just an 'average joe', and neither I nor anyone I know has ever had any significant problem with this aspect of law enforcement.
Do people actually write in HTML? - I don't!
If a foreign power did the intelligence collection from outside the US (but with the full support and knowledge of the current government) what makes you think they can be 'extradited'? US law does not apply outside the US as an earlier post has pointed out. And the foreign power is unlikely to cooperate with a request for extradition if it the likely outcome was to show it conducted intelligence collection against an ally and friendly state.
LOL! Spoken like a true North American. By the way, I suppose that it would taste like any other, but I've nothing to compare it with!
Good to see that /. edits out useful symbols.
"So I will simply say, I think you meant less than 1% rather than greater than 1%"
I was going to respond, but I can see that you are talking crap and it will all be wasted on you.
So I will simply say, I think that you meant "1%". You were doing alright until that sentence, but it went downhill after that...
I take it that is simply an opinion? Can you show any evidence to support your views?
You are missing the point - either willfully or because you do not understand. The laws regarding data retention and its protection are far stricter in Europe than in the US. The law clearly specifies who may collect data, what information may be collected, how long it may be kept, how it must be used and how it must be protected. The example we see in the US of 'businesses' collecting, keeping and aggregating information is illegal in Europe. The fact that an ISP in the UK has been authorised to hold data does nothing to conflict with this law. The ISPs will know what they may collect, how long it must be kept, how it may be used and how it must be protected. However, it CANNOT be sold for business purposes, it CANNOT be used to help direct advertising and it cannot be 'lost', 'compromised' or otherwise misused without coming under the scrutiny of the law. Now does it make sense?
No, I wasn't there but I can use common sense, however I think that you are being silly. It took the police 5 hours to find something that validated his identity, to confirm that his friend was the legal owner of the vehicle (i.e it had not been stolen), to check that neither he nor his friend had any criminal record and to confirm that no crime had taken place. Do you know what time of the day this all occurred? Day or night? How close to home did this accident occur? Five hours during the night is not long to get results. You try finding someone who can vouch for your identity and who doesn't mind being woken up. Try getting someone to travel any significant distance to the police station where they were being held. How cooperative were they with the police or, perhaps being a bit angry and/or frustrated, did they exacerbate the situation by not being as helpful as they might otherwise have been? How well staffed were the police at the time? What other tasks did they have that might have slowed the process down? We haven't got all the facts so we shouldn't try to judge how the police handled it. And until that point that the police had all the facts they couldn't very well let him go now, could they? In your Utopian world, how would you have handled the situation?
It was not taken by the police, it was the local council. A mistake was made but, despite the council admitting liability, they haven't recompensed the owner. That is the error here. I can see how the council employee made the mistake. The car was not displaying a tax disc but he didn't know that there was such a thing as a tax exemption disc. It does not justify his mistake - he was wrong - but it does explain it.
You guys in the UK have cops who arrest people yelling at trespassers, who take people's cars off the streets and crush them for no reason....There is NO law that permits the police to take peoples cars off the streets and crush them for no reason. Your assertion is wrong. Which is why they didn't do it.
As has already been pointed out - there is no requirement to carry ID in the UK. It is not an arrestable offence in itself. Carrying false documents might be suspicious but carrying no documents should not be. You have 48 hours (I think, but several days at least) to provide ID and relevant vehicle documentation at a police station of your choice should the police believe that they need to verify them. In this particular case, if the police were led to believe that you were lying about your identity even after having it verified by your landlord, what else could they have done? If you were lying, they could hardly release you and ask you to appear at a police station of your choice with the relevant documentation because they could not enforce your compliance with that request i.e. they wouldn't know your true identity and could not come after you if you failed to show up. They did think that you might have committed an offence - the theft of a motor vehicle. Although I sympathise, I cannot see what else the police could reasonably have been expected to do. The police have to use their discretion but, in this instance, it seems that it unfortunately resulted in someone being detained for 5 hours.
Rubbish. If the car is not displaying a valid tax disc then the law is being broken. A quick check tells the police whether a valid disc exists for a car's registration number and, if not, it 'can' be removed and crushed. You may not like that, but I do. I pay my car tax, I have insurance and a valid driving license. I do not have problems with the police enforcing the law in this particular instance.
If 'yelling' at trespassers is likely to cause a 'breach of the peace' then an offence is being committed. The police have the right to use their discretion on how this should be treated. If, after being warned that he should stop yelling because it is an offence, the individual concerned continues to shout, then the police would be well within their rights to arrest him if it is necessary to enforce the law in this instance. However, unlike some other countries he is unlikely to be shot, nor will he be expected to endure anal rape as part of his punishment. You see, we feel that we are quite advanced and try to respect human dignity, although it is true that we sometimes fail. But nothing that would justify a revolution....
Taking into account my comments and the comments of others regarding your post, it seems that your post is based in incorrect information, probably because you are viewing this from several thousand miles away without the benefit of knowing at first hand anything about that upon which you are commenting. Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers or see on the TV. Don't even believe everything you hear on /.
You stick to the revolutions. We've not had one for several hundred years and, in many ways, I think we do well when compared with other western nations. Of course, my experience of those countries at first hand is limited, but at least I have visited many of them.
It is often not the information that the spies collect that needs protecting. It is their methods and sources. The information that they collect should be acted upon otherwise there is no point in collecting the information in the first place. The knack is to act without compromising exactly how much you know, and how you came to know it....
Much of this should not be applicable to a police force, with a few notable exceptions (i.e perhaps the identity of informants etc). They should be enforcing the laws by identifying the person breaking the law and taking the appropriate action. You do not have to be 'secret' about stopping someone for a driving offence, or hiding what you know about a crime that caused you to identify and arrest the perpetrator of that crime. In fact, you have to provide much of what you know as evidence.
Thank you. Two genuinely funny remarks - at least to my sense of humour. However, please do not give up your day job as I fear your new career might be a short-lived one.....
NO, NO, NO. Your license is NOT for the BBC - as I have already stated several times in this thread - it is for having the ability to receive ANY television broadcast, from ANYWHERE in the world. Please read your license! Whether you want to watch the BBC is irrelevant to the entire argument regarding license fees. If you do not want to pay you can either a) not own any apparatus capable of receiving television broadcasts or b) use it solely for watching DVDs and computer games and inform the licensing authority in writing that this is what your television is for. Otherwise you can end up in court and, ultimately, in prison.
You appear to be pissed off with the license fee and the reason is that you haven't bothered to read the license in the first place. Another breathtaking contribution to a thread from an AC!