When you click no are Capita recording you IP Address??

Even if they were recording your IP address its not much use to them as most IP addresses are dynamic and you may not have the same IP address today as tomorrow

But the IP address is unique at the point it is used ? And surely they can identify which internet provider, what device is being used etc. They might then apply to court on a list of say BT customers, asking the court for an order that BT must provide the customers details. They then match the list against addresses that don't have licences and investigations are started.

It would not be easy and as it is still a criminal offence i believe Magistrates would require proof that satisfies that Mrs X committed an offence.

In a way I suppose your are correct, but even with this information they then have to prove that the particular IP address actually accessed programs via iPlayer. Its made even more complicated because a single IP address may be used by several devices for example my router has the following devices attached - my laptop, my wife's laptop, my eldest son's desktop, my youngest son's laptop, my youngest son's iPad, my mobile phone, my wife's mobile phone, my wife's tablet, my kindle, my work phone, my work laptop, a backup drive, so that's 12 devices, now prove which one is accessing iPlayer as all are capable of doing so, all that capita (or whoever) would have is the IP address of the router, the IP address they have does not identify which device! Nor can they prove which device is accessing iPlayer.

That is where i think you need to know all of the legislation and i don't. I think they could look to prosecute whoever pays for the internet connection, if there is a legal basis for this. Are they legally responsible for any criminal acts committed on their paid for internet connection ? I can't see how they would be responsible. If someone in a family home downloaded something illegal or commits fraud, it is the person who commits the illegal act that would face prosecution, not the bill payer who might not be aware. If the bill payer admitted knowing that someone in their house was watching BBC iplayer, then i suspect they could well face prosecution using that admission.

That is where i think you need to know all of the legislation and i don't. I think they could look to prosecute whoever pays for the internet connection, if there is a legal basis for this. Are they legally responsible for any criminal acts committed on their paid for internet connection ? I can't see how they would be responsible.

If you have an unsecured WiFi hub, anyone passing by could use your connection for nefarious purposes, including viewing iPlayer content. Alternatively, you could wander in to your local Starbucks, plug in to their WiFi hotspot and download all sorts of illegal content (I'm betting the average coffee house won't have a TV licence for the building).

I doubt very much that a prosecution would stand up in court if they tried to hold the registered account holder liable for the activities of an unidentified third party. Even if the account holder did admit to allowing someone to download iPlayer content, that individual may well be covered by a TV licence at another property if he/she was using a mobile device.

every single BT home hub has free Wi-Fi to other BY users

with a simple email log in.

so how the beep can they police that and find whos done it?

within less that 5 mins you can search and find 1000's of BT email address with passwords online that can be used to login...

But the IP address is unique at the point it is used ? And surely they can identify which internet provider, what device is being used etc. They might then apply to court on a list of say BT customers, asking the court for an order that BT must provide the customers details. They then match the list against addresses that don't have licences and investigations are started.

 

It would not be easy and as it is still a criminal offence i believe Magistrates would require proof that satisfies that Mrs X committed an offence.

Don't think they could just apply to a court with just a list of Bt ip addresses so they can go on a fishing expedition as to what ip addresses have a to license or not so they can start an investment gathering on. No court would sanction that. If they had a list of ip addresses that they reasonably suspected of not having a tv license that they had somehow determined then a court would allow that.

In any event using a vpn or ip changer would make it fruitless for them anyway.

Don't think they could just apply to a court with just a list of Bt ip addresses so they can go on a fishing expedition as to what ip addresses have a to license or not so they can start an investment gathering on. No court would sanction that. If they had a list of ip addresses that they reasonably suspected of not having a tv license that they had somehow determined then a court would allow that.

In any event using a vpn or ip changer would make it fruitless for them anyway.

It would be similar to internet copyright claimants using NPO's. They apply to a court in London that deals with them, but of course you are correct that TVL would have to evidence to a court that they had reasonable belief that live TV or I player was being viewed at an address without a licence.

As it concerns a criminal matter, are Judges more or less likely to agree an NPO ?

Been trying to find the actual legislation that has been passed closing the iplayer loophole. Hard to find

It would be similar to internet copyright claimants using NPO's. They apply to a court in London that deals with them, but of course you are correct that TVL would have to evidence to a court that they had reasonable belief that live TV or I player was being viewed at an address without a licence.

 

As it concerns a criminal matter, are Judges more or less likely to agree an NPO ?

They would agree an npo if bbc could show reasonable proof that a specific IP address was illegally using iplayer. And then they would probably risk having to disclose how they obtained the reasonable proof at a later court hearing if they decided to prosecute based on that so that the defendant could challenge the accuracy of IP address etc

Been trying to find the actual legislation that has been passed closing the iplayer loophole. Hard to find

It was done as a statutory instrument, which was not debated or subject to any vote. They just get nodded through parlament.

There are links on some CAG posts, if you search.