Sir Paul has come in for a bit of criticism in this thread so far, but I think the fact that he is saying what he is, is actually a good thing. The music industry will not listen to most musicians but perhaps they _will_ listen to him. It matters not whether you like his music, whether you think he is past it and irrelevant to today's music scene, or whatever. He is actually saying what many of us have been saying for a long time. The way music and musicians are managed today is out-of-date. The public has changed, the medium has changed, and now the industry must change. Is that such a bad thing, no matter who says it?
In addition to trading standards, you would also find officers of what was formerly known as 'Customs and Excise' (and I think is now known as 'HM Revenue and Customs') and police officers.
Anyone can report a possible crime but only those with the appropriate authority can prosecute a crime. Neither music companies nor their paid 'enforcers' would be allowed to act as they currently seem to be able to do in the USA. However, I left the UK about 6 months ago so I might be wrong if there have been any changes since that time.
I'm not an American, so I could be wrong here, but aren't the police meant to enforce all laws, not only those which involve drugs or burglary? I would have thought that arresting criminals who are making and selling counterfeit goods WAS a police role, but I agree that private organisations shouldn't be able to use the police for their own ends. The correct way, at least here in Europe, is to turn your evidence over to the police and let them get on with prosecuting the crime.
If that's what you think, you, sir, are an ignorant.
Well, ignoring the fact that it is not a complete sentence, I am not ignorant. But I have an opinion which differs from yours. If you cannot accept that some people might not agree with you then there is little point in you taking part in discussions. This forum is not the place for any particular group of people to enforce their views on everyone else, but to discuss and question various items of common interest to learn from each other and to share information. Of course, you view of what this forum is for might also explain why you post AC - but perhaps you have a good reason for hiding behind that title.
If I am in a public place, then any number of people can see me. Whether they use their eyes, a video camera, a pair of binoculars or whatever does not change the amount of 'surveillance' that I am under. Thus, in my opinion, it does not affect my privacy one jot.
However, you make the point regarding the 'correlation' of data: this is precisely the point that the study was making about Google. They are amassing a huge amount of data which, under European law, is more than is justified for the purpose of delivering data as a result of a user search. Of course, you will argue that they can process the data to improve the service and to better target their audience with more appropriate advertising. Under EU law this could easily be illegal. If you have read my post in full, which I will assume you have, the EU data protection laws also dictate how data can be aggregated, and what the aggregated data can be used for. This in part, I suspect, is what is causing the concern in the study.
The cameras CANNOT track anybody. In each of the places that a camera is fitted there is a high probability that, at any given time, someone other than myself will be present. I never had privacy in that place and I haven't lost it now. The most that can be done is that a human being sits down and looks at each video tape and thus pieces together a specific person's movements. It is not done for everybody, nor even a large minority but for specific people who are currently the target of police interest. All the camera has provided is persistence of data so that the information that is contained on the video tape can be used once the police _know_ that a crime needs to be investigated. The analysis of tapes takes many thousands of hours, evidenced by recent police investigations into terrorist bombers. It is not a task that the police, or anyone else, undertakes without reason because it is prohibitively expensive in terms of manpower, time and equipment.
In the US, where much of the criticism of the UK camera system originates, people are under a similar level of 'surveillance' by the aggregation of credit card data, form-filling, ISP logging and numerous other physical and electronic means. However, in the UK the surveillance is subject to specific laws with much stricter laws on how the surveillance data can be collected, stored, collated and subsequently used. I have no objection to the police force protecting me while I am in public, in fact it is what I pay my taxes for. I am content that they are using cost-effective methods of enforcing the law even if, unfortunately, camera information is used more in the detection rather than prevention of crime. I would object most strongly if their surveillance reached into my private life unless they had a damn good reason and had been granted the authority to carry out the surveillance under the relevant judicial process. In the US, it seems to me that every business believes that it has the right to collect and collate data - 'to improve the service' or to maximise its profits - and such action is NOT permitted under European Law, unless the collection and collation has been registered and given approval. Such data is then subject to periodic scrutiny at the whim of the appropriate authorities.
As another poster has already pointed out, the camera
Why do you say that? Because of the cameras in public places? That does not affect my privacy - because they are _public_ places. Anonymity? Well the cameras do not affect that. They can see a person but they cannot identify who that person is without someone behind the lens. That is no different than anywhere else in the world. But we in Europe do have far better data protection, by law, than many other places in the world, including the USA. Organisations are strictly controlled on what data they can collect, how long they may keep it, how it may be processed and, specifically, how it must be protected. Which is what the study is all about. The study does not believe that Google's procedures meet what is expected by European law.
I wasn't pointing at you personally but thank you for your eloquently phrased reply.
Please, when you have time to take your head from up your arse, read my responses elsewhere on this page. You DON'T pay the BBC, you pay a license fee to the Government to receive ANY broadcast. You admit to watching the others and that is what your licence allows you to do. However, if you had paid the Government, you would realise that is why they can take the trouble to find you and prosecute you. The BBC don't hold a license database, the Government does. The Government does pay the BBC but it is NOT just for the broadcasts that you receive. If you bother to read some of the other posts on this page you will learn that much, which will certainly be your greatest achievement today, and probably your greatest achievement for quite some time.
Do you also perhaps avoid paying car tax, car insurance, perhaps you are also unemployed and live off state handouts? Of course, I am just guessing so you can come back with any denial or claims that you wish and I cannot verify them. But I'm so pleased that you are proud of your 'statement' and for sticking it to the Man. I wish you luck in the future and would you mind if I come to see you on visiting days in whichever prison you eventually find yourself? Gosh, I would be so pleased to meet a real freedom fighter in the flesh.
It is illegal to buy a decryption card if you are not a UK resident - although as you point out the law is not enforced. This is where you need a UK phone number but there are several companies who offer a service to overseas customers and who seem to advertise quite openly. I'll leave it to a UK resident to work out how that is allowed to continue. However, Sky also transmit approximately 50+ free channels (unencrypted) with includes the UK standards, three or four each from BBC and ITV.
I'm not sure where the 'right' to free access to information is enshrined but I will accept that you believe it to exist. It might do, I'm simply not arguing this point and will accept at face value your assertion that it does. However, there is a lot of information that is private. Personal information, classified information, medical information, banking information. You will have to be a bit clearer in specifying which information you believe we have a 'right' to have if you wish to debate this particular point any further and specify where I can find this right in print so that I can read it before replying to you.
There is no right which entitles you to own the technical means for receiving a Television Broadcast. Assuming that you own a licence, please do what I suggested in my previous post and read it. It doesn't mention the BBC as far as I can recall. The licence is issued by HM Government to give you permission to own the technical means. Without the licence you are breaking the law if you own such means. That is why people go to prison.
You do NOT pay a tax to the BBC - you pay a licence fee to the Government. There is no other payment required to enable you to receive TV broadcasts legally in the UK. The Government have elected to pay the BBC provided that the BBC complies with its charter, part of which is of immense benefit of the Government hence their willingness to pay them. No other TV broadcaster in the UK has this responsibility (nor do they want it!) hence they do not get paid by the Government. But, because the Government HAS paid for the BBC, the BBC must provide you with the entertainment, information and education that it is obliged to produce without any further cost. That is what everybody is trying to discuss on this page - is the BBC also obliged to provide free data streaming in addition to its TV Broadcasts? I would argue that it is probably not, because it will not mention data streaming in the Charter and they have not reduced their broadcasting, so who is losing? I think, personally, that they should provide the streaming for free as I suspect it doesn't cost them significantly more to produce and distribute it but that is only my view.
Why do you quote single mothers? Why not anybody else, you know, like naturalists, bald people, people with skin complaints or perhaps, normal people. Why? Because it is not emotive and you feel that bringing emotion into your argument will help you convince me of your cause. Nice try, but you failed. Can you provide me with a link that indicates exactly, or even approximately, how many single mothers were locked up last year, or one-legged gypsies, or banjo playing tree huggers for not having a TV licence? It is a great sound bite, but, I suspect, simply an unsubstantiated assertion. However, I will apologise here quite freely if you can convince me otherwise.
Nobody is making you own a TV, or buy a newspaper that you do not wish to read, or pay a fee to the BBC. If someone in the UK breaks the law then they should know that it can incur a penalty, which can include imprisonment. How did children grow up before we had TV? They seemed to survive quite well and, I suspect, would continue to do so in the future. They can probably get all the information they can cope with from the local library which will also be provided free, thus freeing the single mothers from another financial burden.
Please read your licence. Your licence is NOT for receiving the BBC, it is for having in your possession the technical means of receiving ANY television broadcast. You DO have the technical means if you own a TV, hence you must pay for a licence, regardless of what you actually watch on it. That is why you pay the Government and not the BBC. The Government DO hand your money to the BBC but it is not a denial of human rights. Please let me know if you intend to take this to the European Court of Human Rights - I would like to have a front row seat for what will the best, albeit probably short, comedy of the year. If you do not wish to pay for the licence - DO NOT OWN THE TECHNICAL MEANS FOR RECEIVING TV BROADCASTS.
Maybe, but as, until fairly recently, all medical and dental treatment was free (paid for by our taxes....) it should not be surprising. Many Brits don't believe in paying a fortune to have teeth like Cindy Crawford, although many would pay a fortune to be with Cindy Crawford. Nowadays, more people are using private dental and health care so perhaps in a few decades there will be lines of Brits with gleaming smiles with the odd old bastard such as myself with a more 'traditional' look.
Yes, you are correct. And the FCO is funded by the Treasury. And the Treasury receive all your taxes and the money collected from TV licenses - before they give the latter to the BBC. Along with more money, which they give to the BBC. I'm not convinced that it is quite as easily separated as you suggest although I'm sure that if you were to scrutinise the books it would always appear to be easily accounted for. The 'FCO funding' (and other government department funding of various BBC functions) is a very convenient way for the funds to be blurred and I say that as someone who used to work for the UK Government in a role that had a fairly close link with the BBC WS and BBC Monitoring Service and thus knows the full value of their work. (I actually acknowledged the point regarding World Service funding elsewhere on this page but I thought I would be polite and thank you for your correction.) However, I am not suggesting that there is anything underhand here, simply the Government getting the job done by the most appropriate people for a competitive price and I wouldn't want to suggest that this is anything less than the best possible justification.
The 'small footprint' stretches further than you think. I know of expats in Toulouse who can get satellite transmissions of UK broadcasts no problem at all which I would hardly describe as 'periphery' of the European mainland. You are, however, correct in pointing out that the footprint is much reduced from what it once was.
Thank you for correcting something that I appear to have misquoted earlier. I wasn't aware that the World Service was self-funding. When I worked for the UK Government and lived in the UK the World Service was, I believe, receiving funding via the FCO because of the recognised value of having UK influence around the globe. If this has now been stopped then I must stand corrected, although it seems very short-sighted of the UK if you are correct!
The UK Government is hoist by its own petard. If they try to change the existing license conditions to, say, a flat tax, then the other channels (ITV et al), would want to be able to claim their share of the tax. Currently, the license is tied to a technical capability i.e. the ability to receive TV transmissions whether the equipment is actually used for such a purpose or not, and not simply to fund the BBC even if that is the actual outcome. Then, if it were changed to a tax then there would be some who were being taxed who should not be - there are still some who do not own a TV simply because they do not want to - and who could claim an exemption. How would the tax be collected? By direct taxation of income? What about the unemployed, those without an income etc? The current system is actually pretty effective. They know who has a license and there are (scarce, I admit) resources to try to catch out those who abuse the system. The Government make it a law to require a license to receive specific TV transmissions, and they provide the funding collected to the BBC.
As I do not currently live in the UK I do not know what is being provided by the BBC via DRM'd data streams. But I expect it to be the same data that they broadcast via TV but simply in a different format i.e. digital. Nevertheless, the production of the data has already been funded. Those in the UK who object to someone else being able to view it are not complaining that they are being prevented from receiving the transmission because someone else is viewing it illegally, but are simply envious that something that they pay for is potentially available to others free of charge. They are still getting everything that they were always able to receive for their license fee - which, as I keep saying, is for the reception of TV broadcasts and NOT for digitally streamed information - but they begrudge anyone else getting the same product. What about the BBC World Service? It is paid for by the BBC, (i.e. the UK license payer via money provided by the Treasury to the BBC), but I'll bet it is an very small number of license payers who actually benefit directly from it. As I have also pointed out, there is great value to the 'UK PLC' in having a news service that is renowned the world over and that can be accessed by millions of people each day, or for keeping the UK's views, culture and beliefs in the forefront of many people around the world. Streamed data could have an equally valuable role to play in this - if the BBC World Service want to stream data you don't think that they would limit it to the UK do you?
The UK is not the only country to do this. Many countries transmit their programs, either national or produced specifically for the target audience, around the world. It makes a lot of sense, both politically and economically. However, the demand to receive whatever 'soap' is currently in UK vogue is unlikely to originate from overseas in any significant strength. Most expats want to keep updated on UK news and culture but don't actually give a toss about the lower end of the entertainment spectrum in my experience. I'm sure that there will be at least one person who will come straight back and correct me regarding the reception of some soap drivel as being vitally important to his life in the Algarve, Costa del Sol, Cyprus or elsewhere but I still contend that it will be a minority of those who actually enjoy what the BBC provides worldwide.
No quite true. Your license is because 'you have the ability to receive TV transmissions'. Now, we all know that only the BBC benefits from this but, if I remember correctly, the BBC isn't categorically named on the license, or at least I don't think it was last time looked. Everybody in the UK who has the technical ability to receive TV transmissions (not necessarily a TV, but a recorder or some other device) is required to have a license. The fact that they might not watch the BBC is irrelevant: the license is for the capability not the actual reception. Furthermore, claiming that they will 'stop paying' the fee is incorrect just as some people today do not pay the license fee and gamble on not being caught.
In any region of Europe, there are people who live in the border regions of any 2 countries who can receive broadcasts from 2 or more countries. They are not required to pay separate license fees to different governments. In Northern France many people can get the BBC and other UK transmissions from the Channel Islands. Elsewhere, they can get French, German and perhaps 2 or more other countries' transmissions. I pay my local license fee (which is MUCH less than I was paying in the UK) and I am content with my lot.
My previous post was to counter the fact that a claim which was made that, if DRM wasn't used, the BBC's transmissions would suddenly become available to non-uk citizens. My post stated that this shouldn't be a big problem because the BBC already makes its broadcasts available to some groups outside the UK. In fact, this has UK government approval because it increases the general awareness of UK culture and issues, as well as assisting others to learn our language. There is a very close link between the government and the BBC (Who funds the BBC Monitoring Service? Which public service broadcasts are the BBC obliged to make during times of disaster and crisis?) although there is also a reasonable attempt to separate the two as much as possible. I do not think that the prevention of the reception of BBC and other UK transmissions by the large number of non-UK license paying viewers would be in the UK's greater political interest.
I do not think that the BBC should be using DRM at all. But, more importantly, they shouldn't be tying it in to a single manufacture (Microsoft) particularly when that manufacturer is currently subject to various legal proceedings in Europe. I am not making the assumption that Microsoft is guilty, but it would seem prudent not to tie one's investment to a company that 'could' be prevented from selling its software in Europe, however unlikely that might currently appear.
The BBC's broadcasts are already free, via satellite, in Europe. I do not pay a UK license fee but can watch BBC, and the other UK channels, via Sky and without the use of any Sky subscription. I do not think that the content being available to anyone else in the world is such a major issue. The material has already been funded and you pay for your internet access so no-one is losing money.
But that is my point - it won't monitor anything useful. Illegal traffic will simply be directed to a different server. And the good 'ole USA knowing that someone in the UK, Kazakhstan or anywhere else is still stupid enough to use TorrentSpy is equally useless information. They have no legal basis upon which to make a prosecution otherwise I believe they would have tried it by now.
Firstly, not everyone is downloading illegal material. I accept that this might account for the majority of torrent traffic but it appears to me that everyone will be penalised for the actions of a smaller group of people, however large that group might be. And it goes someway to explain how you think if you believe that ONLY illegal traffic is moved by torrents. I can download more linux isos by torrent than I would wish to do by http/ftp. There are many books - legally released in electronic format - that I have downloaded than I could ever afford to have bought.
Secondly, we are not all in the USA or bound by US law. Servers in other countries will undoubtedly become far more attractive to US citizens as a result of this ruling. BUT, it will not stop torrent traffic, so what has actually been achieved?
Well said! I hope that this will also mean that there will be, in future, no criticism of the French, Russians or, in fact, anyone who isn't an American unless the criticism is on-topic and relevant? No, I thought not....
No, I am not new here, but it seems that sensible discussions quickly deteriorate into a nationalistic slanging match whenever France is mentioned, or whenever the US is shown in a bad light.
But the stereotype is based rubbish. WW2 dead - France 810,000, US - 500,000. WW1 dead - France Empire 5,651,000, US - 321,000. And when you compare that with the total size of available population the US contribution doesn't seem quite so impressive, does it? In fact, during WW2, the US came behind the USSR, Poland and Greece, as well as quite a few countries fighting for the other side. Sources: http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html and http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/bl ww1castable.htm.
I just have difficulty with a nation that (thinks it) is so advanced yet cannot see past the end of its nose...
You know, as a Brit I find the US criticism of the French a little surprising. Notwithstanding your history, the French (and the UK) stood alongside the US during Op Provide Comfort in N Iraq, and in Bosnia since 1994. But because they failed to be dragged into the current debacle - and I also wish we hadn't - you seem to think that they are not worthy friends. You keep to your Freedom Fries....
Slashdot Mirror
Sir Paul has come in for a bit of criticism in this thread so far, but I think the fact that he is saying what he is, is actually a good thing. The music industry will not listen to most musicians but perhaps they _will_ listen to him. It matters not whether you like his music, whether you think he is past it and irrelevant to today's music scene, or whatever. He is actually saying what many of us have been saying for a long time. The way music and musicians are managed today is out-of-date. The public has changed, the medium has changed, and now the industry must change. Is that such a bad thing, no matter who says it?
In addition to trading standards, you would also find officers of what was formerly known as 'Customs and Excise' (and I think is now known as 'HM Revenue and Customs') and police officers.
Anyone can report a possible crime but only those with the appropriate authority can prosecute a crime. Neither music companies nor their paid 'enforcers' would be allowed to act as they currently seem to be able to do in the USA. However, I left the UK about 6 months ago so I might be wrong if there have been any changes since that time.
I'm not an American, so I could be wrong here, but aren't the police meant to enforce all laws, not only those which involve drugs or burglary? I would have thought that arresting criminals who are making and selling counterfeit goods WAS a police role, but I agree that private organisations shouldn't be able to use the police for their own ends. The correct way, at least here in Europe, is to turn your evidence over to the police and let them get on with prosecuting the crime.
Are you sure that you are not simply providing your email address to an email harvester?
If that's what you think, you, sir, are an ignorant.
Well, ignoring the fact that it is not a complete sentence, I am not ignorant. But I have an opinion which differs from yours. If you cannot accept that some people might not agree with you then there is little point in you taking part in discussions. This forum is not the place for any particular group of people to enforce their views on everyone else, but to discuss and question various items of common interest to learn from each other and to share information. Of course, you view of what this forum is for might also explain why you post AC - but perhaps you have a good reason for hiding behind that title.
If I am in a public place, then any number of people can see me. Whether they use their eyes, a video camera, a pair of binoculars or whatever does not change the amount of 'surveillance' that I am under. Thus, in my opinion, it does not affect my privacy one jot.
However, you make the point regarding the 'correlation' of data: this is precisely the point that the study was making about Google. They are amassing a huge amount of data which, under European law, is more than is justified for the purpose of delivering data as a result of a user search. Of course, you will argue that they can process the data to improve the service and to better target their audience with more appropriate advertising. Under EU law this could easily be illegal. If you have read my post in full, which I will assume you have, the EU data protection laws also dictate how data can be aggregated, and what the aggregated data can be used for. This in part, I suspect, is what is causing the concern in the study.
The cameras CANNOT track anybody. In each of the places that a camera is fitted there is a high probability that, at any given time, someone other than myself will be present. I never had privacy in that place and I haven't lost it now. The most that can be done is that a human being sits down and looks at each video tape and thus pieces together a specific person's movements. It is not done for everybody, nor even a large minority but for specific people who are currently the target of police interest. All the camera has provided is persistence of data so that the information that is contained on the video tape can be used once the police _know_ that a crime needs to be investigated. The analysis of tapes takes many thousands of hours, evidenced by recent police investigations into terrorist bombers. It is not a task that the police, or anyone else, undertakes without reason because it is prohibitively expensive in terms of manpower, time and equipment.
In the US, where much of the criticism of the UK camera system originates, people are under a similar level of 'surveillance' by the aggregation of credit card data, form-filling, ISP logging and numerous other physical and electronic means. However, in the UK the surveillance is subject to specific laws with much stricter laws on how the surveillance data can be collected, stored, collated and subsequently used. I have no objection to the police force protecting me while I am in public, in fact it is what I pay my taxes for. I am content that they are using cost-effective methods of enforcing the law even if, unfortunately, camera information is used more in the detection rather than prevention of crime. I would object most strongly if their surveillance reached into my private life unless they had a damn good reason and had been granted the authority to carry out the surveillance under the relevant judicial process. In the US, it seems to me that every business believes that it has the right to collect and collate data - 'to improve the service' or to maximise its profits - and such action is NOT permitted under European Law, unless the collection and collation has been registered and given approval. Such data is then subject to periodic scrutiny at the whim of the appropriate authorities.
As another poster has already pointed out, the camera
Why do you say that? Because of the cameras in public places? That does not affect my privacy - because they are _public_ places. Anonymity? Well the cameras do not affect that. They can see a person but they cannot identify who that person is without someone behind the lens. That is no different than anywhere else in the world. But we in Europe do have far better data protection, by law, than many other places in the world, including the USA. Organisations are strictly controlled on what data they can collect, how long they may keep it, how it may be processed and, specifically, how it must be protected. Which is what the study is all about. The study does not believe that Google's procedures meet what is expected by European law.
I wasn't pointing at you personally but thank you for your eloquently phrased reply.
Please, when you have time to take your head from up your arse, read my responses elsewhere on this page. You DON'T pay the BBC, you pay a license fee to the Government to receive ANY broadcast. You admit to watching the others and that is what your licence allows you to do. However, if you had paid the Government, you would realise that is why they can take the trouble to find you and prosecute you. The BBC don't hold a license database, the Government does. The Government does pay the BBC but it is NOT just for the broadcasts that you receive. If you bother to read some of the other posts on this page you will learn that much, which will certainly be your greatest achievement today, and probably your greatest achievement for quite some time.
Do you also perhaps avoid paying car tax, car insurance, perhaps you are also unemployed and live off state handouts? Of course, I am just guessing so you can come back with any denial or claims that you wish and I cannot verify them. But I'm so pleased that you are proud of your 'statement' and for sticking it to the Man. I wish you luck in the future and would you mind if I come to see you on visiting days in whichever prison you eventually find yourself? Gosh, I would be so pleased to meet a real freedom fighter in the flesh.
It is illegal to buy a decryption card if you are not a UK resident - although as you point out the law is not enforced. This is where you need a UK phone number but there are several companies who offer a service to overseas customers and who seem to advertise quite openly. I'll leave it to a UK resident to work out how that is allowed to continue. However, Sky also transmit approximately 50+ free channels (unencrypted) with includes the UK standards, three or four each from BBC and ITV.
I'm not sure where the 'right' to free access to information is enshrined but I will accept that you believe it to exist. It might do, I'm simply not arguing this point and will accept at face value your assertion that it does. However, there is a lot of information that is private. Personal information, classified information, medical information, banking information. You will have to be a bit clearer in specifying which information you believe we have a 'right' to have if you wish to debate this particular point any further and specify where I can find this right in print so that I can read it before replying to you.
There is no right which entitles you to own the technical means for receiving a Television Broadcast. Assuming that you own a licence, please do what I suggested in my previous post and read it. It doesn't mention the BBC as far as I can recall. The licence is issued by HM Government to give you permission to own the technical means. Without the licence you are breaking the law if you own such means. That is why people go to prison.
You do NOT pay a tax to the BBC - you pay a licence fee to the Government. There is no other payment required to enable you to receive TV broadcasts legally in the UK. The Government have elected to pay the BBC provided that the BBC complies with its charter, part of which is of immense benefit of the Government hence their willingness to pay them. No other TV broadcaster in the UK has this responsibility (nor do they want it!) hence they do not get paid by the Government. But, because the Government HAS paid for the BBC, the BBC must provide you with the entertainment, information and education that it is obliged to produce without any further cost. That is what everybody is trying to discuss on this page - is the BBC also obliged to provide free data streaming in addition to its TV Broadcasts? I would argue that it is probably not, because it will not mention data streaming in the Charter and they have not reduced their broadcasting, so who is losing? I think, personally, that they should provide the streaming for free as I suspect it doesn't cost them significantly more to produce and distribute it but that is only my view.
Why do you quote single mothers? Why not anybody else, you know, like naturalists, bald people, people with skin complaints or perhaps, normal people. Why? Because it is not emotive and you feel that bringing emotion into your argument will help you convince me of your cause. Nice try, but you failed. Can you provide me with a link that indicates exactly, or even approximately, how many single mothers were locked up last year, or one-legged gypsies, or banjo playing tree huggers for not having a TV licence? It is a great sound bite, but, I suspect, simply an unsubstantiated assertion. However, I will apologise here quite freely if you can convince me otherwise.
Nobody is making you own a TV, or buy a newspaper that you do not wish to read, or pay a fee to the BBC. If someone in the UK breaks the law then they should know that it can incur a penalty, which can include imprisonment. How did children grow up before we had TV? They seemed to survive quite well and, I suspect, would continue to do so in the future. They can probably get all the information they can cope with from the local library which will also be provided free, thus freeing the single mothers from another financial burden.
The ball is back in your court...
We will now spend 2 hours saying 'You're welcome', 'No, no, after you...' etc. LOL.
Please read your licence. Your licence is NOT for receiving the BBC, it is for having in your possession the technical means of receiving ANY television broadcast. You DO have the technical means if you own a TV, hence you must pay for a licence, regardless of what you actually watch on it. That is why you pay the Government and not the BBC. The Government DO hand your money to the BBC but it is not a denial of human rights. Please let me know if you intend to take this to the European Court of Human Rights - I would like to have a front row seat for what will the best, albeit probably short, comedy of the year. If you do not wish to pay for the licence - DO NOT OWN THE TECHNICAL MEANS FOR RECEIVING TV BROADCASTS.
Maybe, but as, until fairly recently, all medical and dental treatment was free (paid for by our taxes....) it should not be surprising. Many Brits don't believe in paying a fortune to have teeth like Cindy Crawford, although many would pay a fortune to be with Cindy Crawford. Nowadays, more people are using private dental and health care so perhaps in a few decades there will be lines of Brits with gleaming smiles with the odd old bastard such as myself with a more 'traditional' look.
Agreed. We were (accidentally) debating apples and oranges.....
Yes, you are correct. And the FCO is funded by the Treasury. And the Treasury receive all your taxes and the money collected from TV licenses - before they give the latter to the BBC. Along with more money, which they give to the BBC. I'm not convinced that it is quite as easily separated as you suggest although I'm sure that if you were to scrutinise the books it would always appear to be easily accounted for. The 'FCO funding' (and other government department funding of various BBC functions) is a very convenient way for the funds to be blurred and I say that as someone who used to work for the UK Government in a role that had a fairly close link with the BBC WS and BBC Monitoring Service and thus knows the full value of their work. (I actually acknowledged the point regarding World Service funding elsewhere on this page but I thought I would be polite and thank you for your correction.) However, I am not suggesting that there is anything underhand here, simply the Government getting the job done by the most appropriate people for a competitive price and I wouldn't want to suggest that this is anything less than the best possible justification.
The 'small footprint' stretches further than you think. I know of expats in Toulouse who can get satellite transmissions of UK broadcasts no problem at all which I would hardly describe as 'periphery' of the European mainland. You are, however, correct in pointing out that the footprint is much reduced from what it once was.
Thank you for correcting something that I appear to have misquoted earlier. I wasn't aware that the World Service was self-funding. When I worked for the UK Government and lived in the UK the World Service was, I believe, receiving funding via the FCO because of the recognised value of having UK influence around the globe. If this has now been stopped then I must stand corrected, although it seems very short-sighted of the UK if you are correct!
The UK Government is hoist by its own petard. If they try to change the existing license conditions to, say, a flat tax, then the other channels (ITV et al), would want to be able to claim their share of the tax. Currently, the license is tied to a technical capability i.e. the ability to receive TV transmissions whether the equipment is actually used for such a purpose or not, and not simply to fund the BBC even if that is the actual outcome. Then, if it were changed to a tax then there would be some who were being taxed who should not be - there are still some who do not own a TV simply because they do not want to - and who could claim an exemption. How would the tax be collected? By direct taxation of income? What about the unemployed, those without an income etc? The current system is actually pretty effective. They know who has a license and there are (scarce, I admit) resources to try to catch out those who abuse the system. The Government make it a law to require a license to receive specific TV transmissions, and they provide the funding collected to the BBC.
As I do not currently live in the UK I do not know what is being provided by the BBC via DRM'd data streams. But I expect it to be the same data that they broadcast via TV but simply in a different format i.e. digital. Nevertheless, the production of the data has already been funded. Those in the UK who object to someone else being able to view it are not complaining that they are being prevented from receiving the transmission because someone else is viewing it illegally, but are simply envious that something that they pay for is potentially available to others free of charge. They are still getting everything that they were always able to receive for their license fee - which, as I keep saying, is for the reception of TV broadcasts and NOT for digitally streamed information - but they begrudge anyone else getting the same product. What about the BBC World Service? It is paid for by the BBC, (i.e. the UK license payer via money provided by the Treasury to the BBC), but I'll bet it is an very small number of license payers who actually benefit directly from it. As I have also pointed out, there is great value to the 'UK PLC' in having a news service that is renowned the world over and that can be accessed by millions of people each day, or for keeping the UK's views, culture and beliefs in the forefront of many people around the world. Streamed data could have an equally valuable role to play in this - if the BBC World Service want to stream data you don't think that they would limit it to the UK do you?
The UK is not the only country to do this. Many countries transmit their programs, either national or produced specifically for the target audience, around the world. It makes a lot of sense, both politically and economically. However, the demand to receive whatever 'soap' is currently in UK vogue is unlikely to originate from overseas in any significant strength. Most expats want to keep updated on UK news and culture but don't actually give a toss about the lower end of the entertainment spectrum in my experience. I'm sure that there will be at least one person who will come straight back and correct me regarding the reception of some soap drivel as being vitally important to his life in the Algarve, Costa del Sol, Cyprus or elsewhere but I still contend that it will be a minority of those who actually enjoy what the BBC provides worldwide.
No quite true. Your license is because 'you have the ability to receive TV transmissions'. Now, we all know that only the BBC benefits from this but, if I remember correctly, the BBC isn't categorically named on the license, or at least I don't think it was last time looked. Everybody in the UK who has the technical ability to receive TV transmissions (not necessarily a TV, but a recorder or some other device) is required to have a license. The fact that they might not watch the BBC is irrelevant: the license is for the capability not the actual reception. Furthermore, claiming that they will 'stop paying' the fee is incorrect just as some people today do not pay the license fee and gamble on not being caught.
In any region of Europe, there are people who live in the border regions of any 2 countries who can receive broadcasts from 2 or more countries. They are not required to pay separate license fees to different governments. In Northern France many people can get the BBC and other UK transmissions from the Channel Islands. Elsewhere, they can get French, German and perhaps 2 or more other countries' transmissions. I pay my local license fee (which is MUCH less than I was paying in the UK) and I am content with my lot.
My previous post was to counter the fact that a claim which was made that, if DRM wasn't used, the BBC's transmissions would suddenly become available to non-uk citizens. My post stated that this shouldn't be a big problem because the BBC already makes its broadcasts available to some groups outside the UK. In fact, this has UK government approval because it increases the general awareness of UK culture and issues, as well as assisting others to learn our language. There is a very close link between the government and the BBC (Who funds the BBC Monitoring Service? Which public service broadcasts are the BBC obliged to make during times of disaster and crisis?) although there is also a reasonable attempt to separate the two as much as possible. I do not think that the prevention of the reception of BBC and other UK transmissions by the large number of non-UK license paying viewers would be in the UK's greater political interest.
I do not think that the BBC should be using DRM at all. But, more importantly, they shouldn't be tying it in to a single manufacture (Microsoft) particularly when that manufacturer is currently subject to various legal proceedings in Europe. I am not making the assumption that Microsoft is guilty, but it would seem prudent not to tie one's investment to a company that 'could' be prevented from selling its software in Europe, however unlikely that might currently appear.
The BBC's broadcasts are already free, via satellite, in Europe. I do not pay a UK license fee but can watch BBC, and the other UK channels, via Sky and without the use of any Sky subscription. I do not think that the content being available to anyone else in the world is such a major issue. The material has already been funded and you pay for your internet access so no-one is losing money.
But that is my point - it won't monitor anything useful. Illegal traffic will simply be directed to a different server. And the good 'ole USA knowing that someone in the UK, Kazakhstan or anywhere else is still stupid enough to use TorrentSpy is equally useless information. They have no legal basis upon which to make a prosecution otherwise I believe they would have tried it by now.
Firstly, not everyone is downloading illegal material. I accept that this might account for the majority of torrent traffic but it appears to me that everyone will be penalised for the actions of a smaller group of people, however large that group might be. And it goes someway to explain how you think if you believe that ONLY illegal traffic is moved by torrents. I can download more linux isos by torrent than I would wish to do by http/ftp. There are many books - legally released in electronic format - that I have downloaded than I could ever afford to have bought.
Secondly, we are not all in the USA or bound by US law. Servers in other countries will undoubtedly become far more attractive to US citizens as a result of this ruling. BUT, it will not stop torrent traffic, so what has actually been achieved?
Well said! I hope that this will also mean that there will be, in future, no criticism of the French, Russians or, in fact, anyone who isn't an American unless the criticism is on-topic and relevant? No, I thought not....
See my earlier post re WW1 and WW2.
No, I am not new here, but it seems that sensible discussions quickly deteriorate into a nationalistic slanging match whenever France is mentioned, or whenever the US is shown in a bad light.
But the stereotype is based rubbish. WW2 dead - France 810,000, US - 500,000. WW1 dead - France Empire 5,651,000, US - 321,000. And when you compare that with the total size of available population the US contribution doesn't seem quite so impressive, does it? In fact, during WW2, the US came behind the USSR, Poland and Greece, as well as quite a few countries fighting for the other side. Sources: http://www.hitler.org/ww2-deaths.html and http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/bl ww1castable.htm.
I just have difficulty with a nation that (thinks it) is so advanced yet cannot see past the end of its nose...
You know, as a Brit I find the US criticism of the French a little surprising. Notwithstanding your history, the French (and the UK) stood alongside the US during Op Provide Comfort in N Iraq, and in Bosnia since 1994. But because they failed to be dragged into the current debacle - and I also wish we hadn't - you seem to think that they are not worthy friends. You keep to your Freedom Fries....