Exactly. But, because people in the UK feel as though they have already paid for the BBC through the license fee (the 'BBC tax'), they believe that they have a right to all of its products. I'm afraid that they are, quite simply, wrong. The license pays for the right to receive television broadcasts from any provider. The BBC provides what is required of it under its charter. Anything over and above that provision must be paid for from other funds. To the BBC, eventually providing streams via the internet for a price seems like a good money spinner. The need for DRM means that WMV is the obvious format but that is locking out those who do not own a Windows machine which is why the OSC is up in arms. However, there is nothing in the license or the Charter that prohibits this and the BBC can argue that they are trying to reach the greatest number of people. I dislike it because I am a linux user, but I can understand what is happening, and why.
Correct. But if they find any kind of aerial, antenna, satellite dish or cable connection then they will assume the worst and, in the past, have had a good success rate in court.
Agreed, but they will want to raise money in the future. Additionally, if the broadcast is available without restriction on the internet, why would anyone need to have a TV, and its associated license (ignoring the other channels for the time being)? And, in that event, their funding would dry up. So they have to have a system which allows them to control who can receive it, and to prevent the widespread transmission of the data in real-time. For example, if the BBC was streaming the Olympic Games around the world in near real-time, I can imagine that many foreign TV companies would be very upset if it resulted in them losing part of their own audience.
My video will record both/either NTSC or PAL. It is a trivial conversion.
If you have an 'apparatus' that is designed for the reception of 'TV Broadcasts' then you need a license. I'm not saying that it is a good law, but it is the law. Feel free to challenge it in court. Others have tried it as a defence and failed in their attempt.
The BBC raises additional funding through a variety of channels. The BBC World broadcasts (not the World Service, which is paid for by FCO funding) is a separate business, as is the sale of CDs and other materials, including Videos, DVDs etc. They are also free to charge for their internet streaming because it is outside of the existing Charter and not one of the items funded by the Government.
It all seems confusing (but isn't once you understand what is happening) because everyone in Britain calls the license fee a BBC tax. It isn't. You have to have a license to receive any TV broadcast from any source in any format. That license is issued by the Government and the license fee is paid to the Treasury. The Government and the BBC have a unique arrangement. The Government funds much of the BBC operation but, in return, the BBC has specific obligations to the Government. These include the broadcasting of programs to the public (which must "entertain, educate and inform") but also include various public service broadcasts which would be of great importance during a national crisis e.g. natural disaster, war, etc. The other TV channels in the UK do not have the same obligations but they would all like, of course, a chunk of the funding that is raised by TV licenses. The Government view is (or was, I could now be out of date) that if they are willing to have their programming dictated to a certain degree and accept a similar Charter to that imposed upon on the BBC then there might be something to consider. Of course they would not accept such a degree of 'interference' and the Government is quite content to keep its current relationship with the BBC. The agreement is why the BBC puts a lot of university courses on air during the night. Very few would actually pay for them but they are required to enable the BBC to fulfill the "educate" element of its charter. Those who wish to study for a degree at home (known as the Open University (OU) in the UK) can record the programs which provide valuable additional material to that available from the other OU sources.
Whether an individual thinks that they are getting value for money varies considerably. The BBC must 'educate and inform' as well as entertain. A certain percentage of programs from the BBC are not what the average couch potato wants to watch. They might include programs on the arts, politics, science or whatever. Some criticise the BBC for this but, in fact, the BBC is simply complying with its charter. So there is a feeling amongst some (not all, by any means, and perhaps not even the majority!) that they are paying for the BBC in the form of their 'TV Tax' and they are getting programs that they don't want to watch.
The main issue is with DRM, you are correct, but the way the system works at the moment (during testing, I've personally not seen the system live) it cannot detect a player on anything other than a Windows machine so it will not even get to the streaming stage. It prompts to let you install the player which is of no use to anyone using anything other than MS Windows.....
There is no advertising on the BBC. It doesn't have to raise funding by selling air time. It is one of the most outstanding features of the BBC. No adverts, no interruptions, just the program that you wanted to watch.....
Yes, a license is required for an NTSC set. See my post below, but a short quote here "Your license fee is because you own '.... an apparatus capable of receiving television broadcast transmissions...'. It doesn't specify any particular channel (BBC, ITV, Sky etc) or any particular format (PAL, NTSC etc)." After all, converting from one format to another is relatively simple i.e. a few microchips in many video players seems to cope with the problem without too much hassle.
Your license fee is because you own '.... an apparatus capable of receiving television broadcast transmissions...'. It doesn't specify any particular channel (BBC, ITV, Sky etc) or any particular format (PAL, NTSC etc). If you own a TV - or some device capable of receiving TV programs e.g. a video tape recorder) you need to have a license. The license fee is paid to the Government. They elect to use the money raised to partially fund the BBC providing that it complies with it charter under which it "educates, entertains and informs" and provides other public service broadcasts.
The streaming via the internet is NOT a TV broadcast, it is the transmission of a program using the internet. Your license fee is actually irrelevant in this instance and the BBC is, unfortunately, free to use any DRM or format it chooses for its internet streams. While I sympathise, and strongly agree with, your sentiment I'm prepared to bet that it will not win any legal battles in this particular case.
Except they are not a company; they are a corporation paid for by government funding raised by charging all citizens for their TV license. The argument being stated here is that if I pay the license fee, surely I have a right to be able to watch their content without having to install Windows on my computer. I assume that you pay taxes and license fees in your country, wouldn't you complain if you were prevented from getting any benefit from the money raised?
Of course, in Sweden, TPB is not doing anything illegal. It is not storing copyright material, it is simply indicating where such material can be found. Therefore it is fully compliant with the relevant Swedish laws. Now why do you have difficulty understanding that? Is it because your laws might be different? That is one of the marvelous things about all these different countries. They are all completely independent of each other and can have their own customs, laws and beliefs. So why don't you consider the opposite of what you are hinting at; rather than claim that there is something illogical because TPB is not being declared illegal in Sweden, why don't you try to have your law changed so that such an act wouldn't be illegal in your own country?
Do you think that Linux is only used in America? I don't know the figures, but I suspect that a similar proportion of people outside of the US choose to use linux in preference to a pirated version (or even genuine version!) of Windows to those in America.
LOL! Perhaps having 2 older brothers doesn't make one stupid, but it doesn't mean that YOU are not stupid. For example, do you know which thread you are in.....?
And why is the ability to use email now a yardstick for someone being capable to do their job? I flew aircraft, using email was totally irrelevant. Nor is it a critical skill for a shopkeeper, a gardener, a fireman or a million other tasks. Sure, they can all use it if they wish to do so, but it does not affect their ability to do their job. I commanded large groups of people and I didn't need to use an email to do it. Lots of information had to be written down but an email was NOT an acceptable format for a set of orders, an intelligence assessment, a personal report on a subordinate or a request for leave. In my environment, you had to be able to write correctly and accurately, using a big boy's pen. Yes, it could be typed, using a traditional typewriter or a computer, but it still didn't need an email to do it. For security reasons, the vast majority of the computers that I used were either standalone or on very limited networks. The email facility, if used at all, wasn't always high up on the list. You probably work in something connected to computers, hence your interest here on/. You are probably interested in technology and other geek pursuits. It might be important to you, but that doesn't make it important to others.
They DO provide just the mechanism you describe. Anyone can flag up a file that is of doubtful legality. As long as it meets Swedish law - not 'community' censorship, which is not what they want! - the file can remain.
If warez are legal in Sweden, why shouldn't they post them? Because your laws say no? However, I think that you will find that such things are illegal in Sweden also and so will not survive long. The site gives anyone the ability to flag up a post (image, file, whatever) if it is, or even might be, illegal. It will be checked and allowed to remain if OK under Swedish law.
OK, I see you point. But there are images that might be legal in one country but not in another, as you have noted yourself. Here is a hosting site which will make not censorship decisions other than is what is permissible in the place where the server is located. They will not judge religion, politics, or whatever. That cannot be said of many western countries, including the UK. There are several notorious incidents where one person's family snapshots - a young child in the bath, or playing naked on a beach - have been claimed by some to be child pornography. Another example, I note that one of the first things to appear on bayimg (which I suspect the Swedish Government will come to regret...!) are the cartoon of Allah that caused the problems about a year or so ago. However 'offensive' they might be to muslims, they are not illegal nor should they, in my view, be censored. I am not commenting on the wisdom of putting them on the site only that there is no law that specifically forbids it.
Look, there are millions of reasons why lots of people might want to share images. Unfortunately, some of those people will want to share the wrong kind of images but that is hardly the fault of TPB. After all, guns kill people but I don't see guns or the gun manufacturers being made illegal in the USA, do you? Drunks get into cars and kill people but that doesn't result in the banning of all motor vehicles or the drinks manufacturers. People are to blame for their actions and not those who made something that could be abused and misused to commit a crime. My job meant that I had to travel around the world. One of my hobbies is photography. I took lots of pictures and my friends and family, who were also spread around the world, could see where I was and what my life was like. It wasn't illegal, immoral or even fattening! People in this thread seem to concentrate simply on how bayimg can be misused for crime. To me, that says more about the way they think than it does about TPB and bayimg.
[quote]And to think I pay $69 a month for this bullshit.[/quote]
My initial reply, regarding value for money, was to dosius if you follow the parent links. I'm not sure how you came to think I was directing it to you....?
How do you estimate the '500 years' of use? The usage is typically American, and America was founded when? I do not believe that the native Americans used it, and its current usage in Europe is as a result of the influence of TV over recent decades.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. But, because people in the UK feel as though they have already paid for the BBC through the license fee (the 'BBC tax'), they believe that they have a right to all of its products. I'm afraid that they are, quite simply, wrong. The license pays for the right to receive television broadcasts from any provider. The BBC provides what is required of it under its charter. Anything over and above that provision must be paid for from other funds. To the BBC, eventually providing streams via the internet for a price seems like a good money spinner. The need for DRM means that WMV is the obvious format but that is locking out those who do not own a Windows machine which is why the OSC is up in arms. However, there is nothing in the license or the Charter that prohibits this and the BBC can argue that they are trying to reach the greatest number of people. I dislike it because I am a linux user, but I can understand what is happening, and why.
Correct. But if they find any kind of aerial, antenna, satellite dish or cable connection then they will assume the worst and, in the past, have had a good success rate in court.
Shhhh! Please don't mention 'internet tax' near any European politician - they might think it is a good idea!
See my post immediately before your comment.
Agreed, but they will want to raise money in the future. Additionally, if the broadcast is available without restriction on the internet, why would anyone need to have a TV, and its associated license (ignoring the other channels for the time being)? And, in that event, their funding would dry up. So they have to have a system which allows them to control who can receive it, and to prevent the widespread transmission of the data in real-time. For example, if the BBC was streaming the Olympic Games around the world in near real-time, I can imagine that many foreign TV companies would be very upset if it resulted in them losing part of their own audience.
My video will record both/either NTSC or PAL. It is a trivial conversion.
If you have an 'apparatus' that is designed for the reception of 'TV Broadcasts' then you need a license. I'm not saying that it is a good law, but it is the law. Feel free to challenge it in court. Others have tried it as a defence and failed in their attempt.
The BBC raises additional funding through a variety of channels. The BBC World broadcasts (not the World Service, which is paid for by FCO funding) is a separate business, as is the sale of CDs and other materials, including Videos, DVDs etc. They are also free to charge for their internet streaming because it is outside of the existing Charter and not one of the items funded by the Government.
It all seems confusing (but isn't once you understand what is happening) because everyone in Britain calls the license fee a BBC tax. It isn't. You have to have a license to receive any TV broadcast from any source in any format. That license is issued by the Government and the license fee is paid to the Treasury. The Government and the BBC have a unique arrangement. The Government funds much of the BBC operation but, in return, the BBC has specific obligations to the Government. These include the broadcasting of programs to the public (which must "entertain, educate and inform") but also include various public service broadcasts which would be of great importance during a national crisis e.g. natural disaster, war, etc. The other TV channels in the UK do not have the same obligations but they would all like, of course, a chunk of the funding that is raised by TV licenses. The Government view is (or was, I could now be out of date) that if they are willing to have their programming dictated to a certain degree and accept a similar Charter to that imposed upon on the BBC then there might be something to consider. Of course they would not accept such a degree of 'interference' and the Government is quite content to keep its current relationship with the BBC. The agreement is why the BBC puts a lot of university courses on air during the night. Very few would actually pay for them but they are required to enable the BBC to fulfill the "educate" element of its charter. Those who wish to study for a degree at home (known as the Open University (OU) in the UK) can record the programs which provide valuable additional material to that available from the other OU sources.
Whether an individual thinks that they are getting value for money varies considerably. The BBC must 'educate and inform' as well as entertain. A certain percentage of programs from the BBC are not what the average couch potato wants to watch. They might include programs on the arts, politics, science or whatever. Some criticise the BBC for this but, in fact, the BBC is simply complying with its charter. So there is a feeling amongst some (not all, by any means, and perhaps not even the majority!) that they are paying for the BBC in the form of their 'TV Tax' and they are getting programs that they don't want to watch.
The main issue is with DRM, you are correct, but the way the system works at the moment (during testing, I've personally not seen the system live) it cannot detect a player on anything other than a Windows machine so it will not even get to the streaming stage. It prompts to let you install the player which is of no use to anyone using anything other than MS Windows.....
There is no advertising on the BBC. It doesn't have to raise funding by selling air time. It is one of the most outstanding features of the BBC. No adverts, no interruptions, just the program that you wanted to watch.....
Yes, a license is required for an NTSC set. See my post below, but a short quote here "Your license fee is because you own ' .... an apparatus capable of receiving television broadcast transmissions...'. It doesn't specify any particular channel (BBC, ITV, Sky etc) or any particular format (PAL, NTSC etc)." After all, converting from one format to another is relatively simple i.e. a few microchips in many video players seems to cope with the problem without too much hassle.
Your license fee is because you own ' .... an apparatus capable of receiving television broadcast transmissions...'. It doesn't specify any particular channel (BBC, ITV, Sky etc) or any particular format (PAL, NTSC etc). If you own a TV - or some device capable of receiving TV programs e.g. a video tape recorder) you need to have a license. The license fee is paid to the Government. They elect to use the money raised to partially fund the BBC providing that it complies with it charter under which it "educates, entertains and informs" and provides other public service broadcasts.
The streaming via the internet is NOT a TV broadcast, it is the transmission of a program using the internet. Your license fee is actually irrelevant in this instance and the BBC is, unfortunately, free to use any DRM or format it chooses for its internet streams. While I sympathise, and strongly agree with, your sentiment I'm prepared to bet that it will not win any legal battles in this particular case.
Except they are not a company; they are a corporation paid for by government funding raised by charging all citizens for their TV license. The argument being stated here is that if I pay the license fee, surely I have a right to be able to watch their content without having to install Windows on my computer. I assume that you pay taxes and license fees in your country, wouldn't you complain if you were prevented from getting any benefit from the money raised?
Of course, in Sweden, TPB is not doing anything illegal. It is not storing copyright material, it is simply indicating where such material can be found. Therefore it is fully compliant with the relevant Swedish laws. Now why do you have difficulty understanding that? Is it because your laws might be different? That is one of the marvelous things about all these different countries. They are all completely independent of each other and can have their own customs, laws and beliefs. So why don't you consider the opposite of what you are hinting at; rather than claim that there is something illogical because TPB is not being declared illegal in Sweden, why don't you try to have your law changed so that such an act wouldn't be illegal in your own country?
Do you think that Linux is only used in America? I don't know the figures, but I suspect that a similar proportion of people outside of the US choose to use linux in preference to a pirated version (or even genuine version!) of Windows to those in America.
LOL! Perhaps having 2 older brothers doesn't make one stupid, but it doesn't mean that YOU are not stupid. For example, do you know which thread you are in .....?
And why is the ability to use email now a yardstick for someone being capable to do their job? I flew aircraft, using email was totally irrelevant. Nor is it a critical skill for a shopkeeper, a gardener, a fireman or a million other tasks. Sure, they can all use it if they wish to do so, but it does not affect their ability to do their job. I commanded large groups of people and I didn't need to use an email to do it. Lots of information had to be written down but an email was NOT an acceptable format for a set of orders, an intelligence assessment, a personal report on a subordinate or a request for leave. In my environment, you had to be able to write correctly and accurately, using a big boy's pen. Yes, it could be typed, using a traditional typewriter or a computer, but it still didn't need an email to do it. For security reasons, the vast majority of the computers that I used were either standalone or on very limited networks. The email facility, if used at all, wasn't always high up on the list. You probably work in something connected to computers, hence your interest here on /. You are probably interested in technology and other geek pursuits. It might be important to you, but that doesn't make it important to others.
They DO provide just the mechanism you describe. Anyone can flag up a file that is of doubtful legality. As long as it meets Swedish law - not 'community' censorship, which is not what they want! - the file can remain.
If warez are legal in Sweden, why shouldn't they post them? Because your laws say no? However, I think that you will find that such things are illegal in Sweden also and so will not survive long. The site gives anyone the ability to flag up a post (image, file, whatever) if it is, or even might be, illegal. It will be checked and allowed to remain if OK under Swedish law.
OK, I see you point. But there are images that might be legal in one country but not in another, as you have noted yourself. Here is a hosting site which will make not censorship decisions other than is what is permissible in the place where the server is located. They will not judge religion, politics, or whatever. That cannot be said of many western countries, including the UK. There are several notorious incidents where one person's family snapshots - a young child in the bath, or playing naked on a beach - have been claimed by some to be child pornography. Another example, I note that one of the first things to appear on bayimg (which I suspect the Swedish Government will come to regret...!) are the cartoon of Allah that caused the problems about a year or so ago. However 'offensive' they might be to muslims, they are not illegal nor should they, in my view, be censored. I am not commenting on the wisdom of putting them on the site only that there is no law that specifically forbids it.
Look, there are millions of reasons why lots of people might want to share images. Unfortunately, some of those people will want to share the wrong kind of images but that is hardly the fault of TPB. After all, guns kill people but I don't see guns or the gun manufacturers being made illegal in the USA, do you? Drunks get into cars and kill people but that doesn't result in the banning of all motor vehicles or the drinks manufacturers. People are to blame for their actions and not those who made something that could be abused and misused to commit a crime. My job meant that I had to travel around the world. One of my hobbies is photography. I took lots of pictures and my friends and family, who were also spread around the world, could see where I was and what my life was like. It wasn't illegal, immoral or even fattening! People in this thread seem to concentrate simply on how bayimg can be misused for crime. To me, that says more about the way they think than it does about TPB and bayimg.
[quote]And to think I pay $69 a month for this bullshit.[/quote] My initial reply, regarding value for money, was to dosius if you follow the parent links. I'm not sure how you came to think I was directing it to you....?
So, if you're not getting value for money, why do you continue to pay it?
1 Euro = 100 centimes, so 'cents' is correct. However, it should say 0.02 Euros, or 2 cents, but not both.
Why don't you stop paying? Have you tried reading a book, or going for a walk?
How do you estimate the '500 years' of use? The usage is typically American, and America was founded when? I do not believe that the native Americans used it, and its current usage in Europe is as a result of the influence of TV over recent decades.