Help with BBC iPlayer on a TV monitor please

Thank you Derry. Why Stu finds it so difficult to accept what is very clearly stated on the TV Licensing website I simply cannot understand.

Peter

When you have to prove in a court of law you have not been using?

Give me a hard time.

End of.

Stu.

Given English Law requires the proof of guilt rather than proof of innocence, the burden of proof would that the accused had been using, rather than they having to prove they had not.

On a computer there would be a trace, but on an analogue telly, none. I am not sure if the buffer might prove it with a digital receiver though! If the authorities confiscated the equipment.

That is English Law of a Millennium and more.

ATB from George 

To use iPlayer legally you need a TV licence - it is in the terms and conditions for using the application. It is free if you have a TV licence. So you might just as well use the TV. 

OK, STU AND GUY, TO CLARIFY ONCE AND FOR ALL!!! PEASE, PLEASE READ THE RELEVANT WEBSITE INFO CORRECTLY.  I AM NOT MAKING IT UP -  IT IS THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE!!!

From the TV Licensing Website:

Under the section: How to tell us you don't watch TV:

If you don't watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV, on any device, you don't need a TV licence.

1.  A Reminder of the law

The law states that you need to be covered by a TV licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TV's, computers, mobile phones, games consoles,digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.

You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVD's or play video games, or you only watch 'catch up' services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.

OK, so there it is from the official TV Licensing website.

Stu,

Please don't take my word for it. Look it up for yourself and get the  FACTS.

Incidentally, I served as a magistrate for a year so I think I know a little more about the workings of the law than you seem to think you do.

No doubt you will now insist that the info given on the official website is wrong........

Peter

• 3.2.2If you do not have a valid television licence
• You may not watch television programmes using BBC Online Services on any device (including mobile phones, "smart" phones or devices, laptops, tablets and personal computers) at the same time (or virtually the same time) as the programmes are being broadcast, simulcast or otherwise made available by the BBC on television, unless you have a valid television licence. For more information on this requirement please see the Frequently Asked Questions or you can contact TV Licensing by calling 0870 241 5590 or by visiting www.tvlicensing.co.uk.

From the iPlayer T&Cs.

If this is a loop hole, then it should be "plugged".

How would it work if this great service was not paid for by the licence payer.

No such thing as a free lunch.

Bit like, petrol, gas electricity....you use it you pay for it..

Hardly a loop hole, and not something that requires plugging. What most people seem to be entirely missing is that iPlayer is in essence a "catch-up" service. This means that one is not watching live TV. In order to watch live TV legally then one must purchase a TV licence.

It is a matter of choice. There is no compulsory law to purchase a TV licence. Those that decide to purchase one thus have no grounds for objecting to the provision of a free service like iPlayer. It is free for everyone. If you think that it is unfair to pay for a licence while others can watch a similar range of material on iPlayer for free, albeit not live, then the answer is very simple. Don't buy a licence - watch iPlayer instead!

I amuses me that some people seem to be taking a misguided moral stance over this. I wonder how many of you people illegally watch movies or other copyrighted material for free on Youtube? Yes, you are breaking the law if you watch a copyrighted movie that someone has uploaded. What about all those people who have purchased the movie on DVD or Blu-ray? Is it fair that you should watch it for free when they have paid for it? Of course many people do it, and it is an un-enforcable law. But before taking a misguided moral stance over perfectly legal facilities like iPlayer perhaps you should ensure that your own doorstep is spotless.

Peter

Actually it may be time to consider whether there is a future for the BBC. If after ninety years it cannot manage better than it seems it can currently when the system is stressed, it may be time to allow it to go the way of the Dodo. Then there would be no reason for a TV License at all.

ATB from George

The finer points of the law are not your strong point, are they?

You are most certainly NOT breaking the law if you watch copyrighted material that has been uploaded to YouTube or some other channel.

In the UK it is not actually illegal to watch anything, certain kinds of pornography excepted.

The rest of your post is transparent and rather pitiful backpedalling, and you know it.

The BBC should not be allowed to die George, it is too important to the cultural and intellectual life of the country. Although it might be time to consider other funding methods.

That could have happened here in the US had our Presidential election resulted in a Republican win. Our Public Broadcasting System's 350 regional television stations require no license.  60% of their funding is through member donations, with the rest coming from the federal tax budget supporting the arts. 

One of Romney's more awkward campaign moments was during the Presidential debates when he vowed to end the federal contribution for PBS.  Ironically, the debate was being moderated by PBS news anchor Jim Lehrer...

"...I’m sorry, Jim, I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too. But I’m not going to — I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for. That’s number one."

Romney's quote went viral, and was used against him very effectively. In retrospect, it seems like a really silly place to have made a stand on spending, since the federal contribution for PBS adds up to about 1% of the cost of running one nuclear submarine!  At the same time, Romney said we needed to build three new nuclear subs.

This comment pissed off a lot of Moms who depend on Sesame Street to occasionally babysit their toddlers.

Hook

In my view it is time to change the management structure [of the BBC], the governing of it [including a complete change to the structure of the Trust]. a new set of journos, who are seeking truth and not sensationalism, a complete change of culture over covering things up.

What is left?

The equipment and buildings!

The BBC has been in a very privileged position in British life for generations and this is the mess that this privilege has bred. 

Time to cut down the old tree, and plant a new one of an entirely different breed in my view.

It is an interesting comment on British cultural and intellectual life that the BBC is too important to be disbanded. Shades of the comment that the Banks were too big to be allowed to fail.

We must have a very frail culture if that be the cases. I hate to find myself on the same side as Rupert Murdoch concerning the BBC, but at least he is not feather bedded by the system.

Otherwise I don't see much difference between the morality of the BBC as shown over the last weeks [and covering the last forty years as the flood gates holding down the evil within the Corporation have been forced open] and Murdoch's particular twisted style of journalistic practice.

Yes it is time for something different. Time for for something smaller and time for some honest, and morally decent.

It is not the only institution that needs either scrapping or sorting out, root and branch. 

ATB from George

Oh George! You really don't know abut Murdoch, do you? He makes much play of his "outsider" status but in truth he is as much a part of the old boy system and the establishment as all the other egregious plutocrats.

But because Murdoch is not paid for by an effective Tax, he stands or falls - and he has fallen - on the basis of his business plan. Fortunately Murdoch works in an area where there is honest competition on a level playing field.

The BBC should now be scrapped and replace as a public service broadcaster by a totally honest and straight news service working on one radio station and one TV station only, providing a transparently honest news service. There is absolutely no reason why this should not be financed from the general Tax take as it would be a tiny cost compared to bloated, out of control, and morally corrupt BBC of today. The Corporation has grown beyond control under the current dispensation. I do not understand how the honest employees of the Corporation can bring themselves to work for such an organisation.

The matter of making BBC celebrities who act in rotten ways must stop. The list of those BBC celebrities that have used their position to act unacceptably is long and not just shown in the last few weeks. And the BBC reporting of this has been lamentable.

ATB from George

“Exception: If you only watch catch-up services online, then you don’t need a licence. For example, you don’t need one to use BBC iPlayer, or ITV player, to catch up on programmes after they have been shown on TV.”
(search:tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology--devices-and-online-top8/).

One of the issues is whether Peter watches programmes after they have been shown on TV. If he is catching up on a programme, and using the TV as a monitor from his computer, he doesn’t seem to need a license.

However, some here feel he should buy a license to support the BBC if he is going to enjoy it online. That is another issue.

I wonder if anyone will assist him in his original request to view the player full screen on his ’TV monitor.’

Firstly I am not backpedalling at all and I fail to see how you have reached that conclusion. I stand 100% by everything I have said re- iPlayer, its use and the TV licensing laws.

I do not claim to be a legal expert and to know all the finer points of the law, but I certainly think I have a much firmer grasp of it than Stu or yourself judging by the utter nonsense claimed by the both of you re- TV licences. In one of your posts above you claimed that it was necessary to have a TV licence if you have a TV in your home capable of receiving live broadcasts. You are a fool sir! Have you bothered to look at the TV Licensing website section that I referred to above? I suggset you do so before spouting any more foolish clap-trap!

As for watching movies on Youtube, well if they are non-copyright, ie. in the public domain, then all is well. If they are copyrighted material that has been uploaded to Youtube without the permission of the copyright holder then the act of uploading them was illegal as it has broken the copyright laws re distribution. Likewise the act of watching them is illegal since you are doing so without the permission of the copyright holder. OF COURSE IT IS ILLEGAL - IT IS PIRACY AND YOU ARE SUPPORTING IT!!!

Peter

There is absolutely no reason why this should not be financed from the general Tax take as it would be a tiny cost compared to bloated, out of control, and morally corrupt BBC of today. The Corporation has grown beyond control under the current dispensation. I do not understand how the honest employees of the Corporation can bring themselves to work for such an organisation.

George you seem like a lovely man in most of your posts but this is hysterical garbage.

The BBC is NOT morally corrupt. Nor is it out of control. It IS bloated, but mostly with unnecessary layers of management.No other organisation (broadcaster or otherwise) is as held to account as much as Auntie is.

It is in the pickle it's in because a) it acted with excessive caution and/or indolence re the Savile investigations; b) very, very shoddy journalism on the part of certain people at Newsnight, for which those responsible should be sacked.

The BBC needs fewer managers, fewer box-tickers, no consultants and fewer BBC "lifers". It needs a strong DG, and more good journalists. It is not beyond fixing, but it needs to be fixed. Quickly.

And if you think Murdoch got where he has through fair competition and level playing fields, you are being extremely naive I am afraid.

Murdoch also built his mighty empire in this country (starting with his purchase of the NOTW back in '69, the profits of which financed the purchase of The Sun, Fox, TNL, Harper-Collins and the founding of Sky). He has paid very little, if any, tax here - so we are all in effect paying for his enrichment.

Likewise the act of watching them is illegal since you are doing so without the permission of the copyright holder. OF COURSE IT IS ILLEGAL - IT IS PIRACY AND YOU ARE SUPPORTING IT!!!

Perhaps then you'd like to give us all the benefit of your knowledge on this matter, and point us to an example of someone prosecuted for watching copyrighted material someone else has illicitly uploaded onto YouTube, Vimeo, MyVideo or similar channel.

Dear Kevin,

I certainly am not equating the expected values that the BBC should [and certainly has not over apparently most of my half century life] embody with those of Murdoch.  Rightly given the BBC's unique financing and position it has assumed in UK life, we are entitled to expect the highest standards, and not what is now shown as having been the situation for decades.

The rot has reached the structure, not just the surface of this dreadful and irredeemable organisation.

What is to admire now?

If we did not have a vigourous private sector news and entertainment sector, the BBC would have just carried on without in any way trying to sort itself out. It took an ITV broadcast to uncover what the BBC tried -one last time - to cover up for decades.

The BBC should be abolished ...

It should be replaced with an honest Public Service News organisation that is financed by a relatively much smaller Tax take than the current TV License allows.

The BBC should never have gone down the road to the position from where you say it should be quickly fixed.

The time is past for a rescue of its reputation. Enough covering up, let's have the poison out in the public domain and let's then make a change for the better, by removing this pompous, self congratulatory, self preserving, organisation once and for all ...

No person should mourn the passing of such a dreadfully morally corrupt,and widely incompetent organisation.

It may interest you to know that my interest in this goes back more than a decade, and ultimately led to me sharing some fascinating conversations on the role the BBC with academics at University in 2002. These people of course defended the "noble and good" BBC, and it would be interesting to see if they were quite so keen to defend what is now shown as an ignoble, venal, self-preserving, and morally bankrupt system in all its so called glory.

There are certain tipping points, and this is one. Time to cut the old tree down and plant a better one. The old one has rot at the base of its trunk. 

ATB from George

Kevin,

Whether or not you would stand prosecution in a court of law is an entirely different matter, and, in a sense, academic. As I said, it is an un-enforcable law. But by watching such material you are most certainly acting contrary to the law of copyright.

Peter

Care to provide some proof (for example, from the CD&P Act 1988 or the US Copyright Act of 1976) for this assertion, or am I expected to accept your statement because you say it is so?

I'm genuinely interested to know what the legal position is.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one George as I think you are wrong as much as you think you are right. Although I do agree with you that a vibrant newspaper and commercial broadcasting industry does help the BBC on its toes, otherwise it would have sunk into complacency decades ago.

I will say, however, that if the "old tree", as you put it, is cut down, the chances of you getting a new, better one, are very slim indeed. There are too many vested interests who want to destroy not just the BBC, but the very idea of public service broadcasting. Once it's gone it'll be gone forever.

Dear Kevin,

The BBC is still in a unique position because its ninety year history and its special financing arrangements.

As residents in the UK we are entitled to expect something unique in return for this financing arrangement and the BBC's place in our daily lives.

If what is done by the BBC is not uniformally of the highest standard, then I have to ask, what is its purpose apart from a big lie and con trick on the rest of us?

The BBC's biggest enemies are clearly on the inside!

And if they kill off they golden egg laying goose, then they will be the poorer for it. 

But the rest of will not. There is nothing to miss about a BBC conducting itself as it has for the last forty years.

ATB from George

Sorry that's rubbish George.

And what entitles you to speak for the country ("the rest of us" to whom you refer)? Pray tell?