Tv License question....just curious

[The GodMother]

fully agree with you Dave.

 

That is why l dont pay for a licence either as l refuse to watch drivel. I have enough DVDs to keep the 4 year old happy and if l want to see anything l get a mate to record it for me.

[buzby]

As the law stands, the burden of proof rests with you to show that you don't have the ability to watch the broadcasts. It would be up to a judge to decide (if you were put in this position) that you did not use it for those purposes, but it has been held and successfully argued that a fully operational telly that only needs to be plugged in and an aerial is a slam dunk. If it has the tuner disabled, there's no problem as this fact can be easily proved. By having a TV and no licence, the onus is always on the user to prove he doesn't watch - if it wasn't, we could all say we never watch live TV, and just make sure a DVD was on when they call and check. I'm no fan of the system, but there's little point in exposing yourself to litigation if you don't need to.

 

As for their 'enforcement' officers - don't make me laugh. The sooner this is moved to a civil and not criminal penalty, the better.

[robin9342]

Buzby, you are still wrong. The tuner does not have to be disabled, just detuned. In some cases, devices such as X-Boxes and DVD players need to be connected to the TV via its aerial socket, especially if you have an older TV: you wouldn't be able to do this if the tuner were disabled.

 

You are only committing an offence if you install or use television receiving equipment for the purpose of watching or recording live or near live broadcasts originating in the UK. It is up to TVL to prove that you have committed such an offence. They usually do this by obtaining a signed statement from the unwary when their enforcement officers call. It is worth noting that noone has ever been prosecuted using TV detector van "evidence".

[buzby]

I'm wrong? Spend some time in a court you'll find out for yourself. There is no magic in de-tuning a TV. A button press tunes it back in. For those that are cautioned under pace, not signing the statement do not avoid prosecution as you appear to imply. If all the enforcement officer has to do is plug in and add an areal to receive a picture, you'll be done as so many have been before. The best one I heard was the TV was actually installed in a wardrobe, and the house did not appear to otherwise have receiving equipment. The house went on fire.

 

TV Detector van 'evidence' has never been an issue, so why mention it? And as there are no more detector vehicles, it's all academic.

[robin9342]

In order to be cautioned under PACE, you first have to let the enforcement officer in. TVL can, of course, obtain a warrant for entry. But first they have to show a magistrate reasonable suspicion that you are breaking the law.

 

Not having a licence is not sufficient suspicion. Neither is having an aerial on your roof. An enforcement officer could claim that he heard your tv or perhaps saw you watching it through a window. However, if you have written to TVL withdrawing their "implied right of access", then this cannot be used either.

 

Please note I am not condoning licence evasion (although in my opinion the licence is archaic and should be scrapped), but rather I hate the way the TVL system assumes everyone in the country watches TV and must therefore be guilty of evasion unless you prove otherwise to them.

[Conniff]

I don't care what you 'think' you saw or heard in court, it is not illegal to have a tv set in the house.

This is from the TVL own website

 

If you use or install television equipment to receive or record television programmes as they are being broadcast, you need to be covered by a valid TV licence. Viewing television without a licence risks prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000.

 

You cannot fault that sentence and say 'it is how you interpret it'.

 

the onus is always on the user to prove he doesn't watch

 

No it is not.

You make a statement that you do not need a tv license and that is logged on the database. They then know that address does not have a license and can then send a detector around. He will either see that you are watching because you have your curtains open or detect the local oscillator of that receiver on his hand held detector. As the LO transmitts on different frequencies for each channel, they can then tell which chanell you are watching.

 

License evasion will 'never' become a civil matter as the tv license fee is a tax.

[Conniff]

I just found this of the friendly tvlc man - oh dear.

 

TVL Assault | www.tpuc.org

[StormWarrior]

I've only caught up with this thread, and would like to add a few points.

 

Back in the 1980's, British Telecom operated the Detector vans etc, and my BT employee ID card, acted like a 'warrent' card in relation to the Wireless Telegraphy Act. It authorised access to any building or ship (?) to investigate unlicenced use of ANY transmitter or reciever, it was actually printed on the back of the card. THANKFULLY, not something that was conferred onto people like Crapita!

 

As mentioned above, the Local Oscilator (LO) radiates a signal which can be detected and used to identify the channel being recieved. Modern hand held detectors can even pinpoint the reciver in the house to within a few feet in the hands of an experienced operator.

 

A TV licence is only needed for recievers that are installed for the purpose of reciving tv signals or used for the reception of tv signals.

 

A licence is NOT needed for a tv that is not installed for that purpose or used for that purpose. Nor is a licence needed to recieve only the audio componant of TV signals.

 

The transmission of TV signals may be by any medium, wireless, cable, opticfibre, etc. including data encoding and transmission over computer data networks, e.g. the internet.

It does not matter where they arre transmitted from, e.g. the UK or anywhere else. On earth or above.

 

Also, an unlicenced wireless reciever, has to be recieving a (near) real-time signal to be comitting an offence. Replaying video recordings of TV programs recorded at another address, does not break the wireless telegraphy act, however it prob would break the Tradesmarks legislation, max penalty 10 years !!

[dave]

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Although I have a question. I don't understand how a TV programme (other than it's name) can be trademarked.

[robin9342]

It does not matter where they arre transmitted from, e.g. the UK or anywhere else. On earth or above.

SW, I believe you dont need a license for programmes broadcast from outside the UK not intended for UK audiences, i.e satellites other than Sky TV.

 

Dave, all TV programmes are subject to copyight law. I seem to recall that when video recorders first became available it was technically illegal to record tv programmes with them, but the law was changed to allow for this and you are now allowed to record for "timeshifting" purposes only. It remains illegal to record a programme at your home, then lend it to someone else.

 

Consumer Q and A - Protecting Creativity - The Industry Trust

[buzby]

Some observations;

 

(1) Your ID card may well have identified you as a duly authorised investigator for Wireless offences, however it provided no right of entry to ANYTHING. Unlike the police, who must have 'reasonable suspicion' in order to effect an entry, BTs employees and their followers can be refused entry until a formal JP warrant has been obtained, there is no blanket right of entry.

 

(2) The handheld detectors, along with their bigger brothers could indeed detect the local oscillators, but in high density housing, identifying WHICH of these signals was from unlicensed premises was near impossible. They did not detect 'unlicensed sets' but ALL sets. The fact the detector fleet was retired was testament to their uselessness and preference for postcode harassment.

 

(3) I have witnessed successful prosecutions in court of those who have 'installed' (but were not using at the time) unlicensed TV equipment. The majority were caught with a live TV, others did not have it on when the inspector called, however HE turned it on "to make sure it's OK" and noted it as a live set. Similarly, those that hid the set and it was discovered, were treated in a similar way.

 

(4) I am interested in your definition on 'near real time'. I do not think this is enshrined in law in this way - it is either 'live ' or it isn't. The 'near' element may have been suggested because there is always a delay in digital broadcasts, but a digital delay of (say) 30 seconds, may be enough to avoid prosecution because the signal isn't live.

 

(5) Breaking 'trademarks legislation'? Sorry, I don't see where you've got that from. I would contend it does nothing of the sort, and there is no possibility of any action in this regard.

[Conniff]

Fully agree with you on this buzby. Your para 3 is the way it is, you can't have a tv and claim you don't need a licence because you aren't watching it. If it is set up to receive live programmes but switched off, then a licence is required.

 

I think maybe stormwarrior got mixed up with the words 'trademark' and 'copyright'. If you change that word then it makes sense.

[buzby]

Actually, I don't see how 'copyright' is an issue either! (Sorry). There is no infrigement of copyright 'by looking' - if it was, Art Galleries would be outlawed! So too might those TV rental shops of old if they had sets on in the window and you only had a radio licence....!

 

No prosecutions, as I recall.

[barracad]

I believe you dont need a license for programmes broadcast from outside the UK not intended for UK audiences, i.e satellites other than Sky TV.

 

No, you need a licence to receive any broadcasted transmissions - including ones from overseas.

[robin9342]

Actually, I don't see how 'copyright' is an issue either! (Sorry). There is no infrigement of copyright 'by looking' - if it was, Art Galleries would be outlawed! So too might those TV rental shops of old if they had sets on in the window and you only had a radio licence....!

 

No prosecutions, as I recall.

When SW was talking about copyright, he was talking about recording TV, then watching the recording at a different premises. (albeit he used the word "trademark" rather than "copyright")

see:

Consumer Q and A - Protecting Creativity - The Industry Trust

[robin9342]

No, you need a licence to receive any broadcasted transmissions - including ones from overseas.

 

My mistake: It was changed in the Communications Act 2003.

Another revenue generating [problem] by the BBC.

 

Still, at least I can watch BBC iPlayer and other channels equivalent offerings without needing a license.

[StormWarrior]

(1) Your ID card may well have identified you as a duly authorised investigator for Wireless offences, however it provided no right of entry to ANYTHING. Next you will be telling me that BT didn't have thier own ARMED officers! Which they did. Not all things are as they seem, or as you would wish!

(2) The handheld detectors, along with their bigger brothers could indeed detect the local oscillators, but in high density housing, identifying WHICH of these signals was from unlicensed premises was near impossible. They did not detect 'unlicensed sets' but ALL sets. Directional accuracy means that you can pinpoint the general location by basic triangulation. It's usually quite easy to get to two side of any property.

 

The fact the detector fleet was retired was testament to their uselessness and preference for postcode harassment. Not uselessness, simple cost effectiveness. Somewhere I still have the entire wiring diagrams for a TV Detector van.

(3) I have witnessed successful prosecutions in court of those who have 'installed' (but were not using at the time) unlicensed TV equipment. The majority were caught with a live TV, others did not have it on when the inspector called, however HE turned it on "to make sure it's OK" and noted it as a live set. Similarly, those that hid the set and it was discovered, were treated in a similar way. Availability for use can satisfy the requirements for a conviction according to the law, if a magistrates bench decides to accept that.

 

(4) I am interested in your definition on 'near real time'. I do not think this is enshrined in law in this way - it is either 'live ' or it isn't. The 'near' element may have been suggested because there is always a delay in digital broadcasts, but a digital delay of (say) 30 seconds, may be enough to avoid prosecution because the signal isn't live. Please point me to the LEGISLATION that mentions LIVE reception.

(5) Breaking 'trademarks legislation'? Sorry, I don't see where you've got that from. I would contend it does nothing of the sort, and there is no possibility of any action in this regard

Simple really, copying a trademark in ANY format (without permission) is an offence. So, to record the BBC, ITV, SKY, etc trademarks, or any trademarked logo for a program, etc, etc, is to make a copy and therefore illegal.

It's one of the ways to increase the penalties for pirate DVD's to 10 years in prison and unlimited fines. It's only 2 years for copyright offences.

[The GodMother]

Well i see the TV licence ppl no how to break the law.

[dave]

...copyright, I understand, but I don't believe they would actually be awarded patented trademarks for programmes names - most names of programmes would actually decribe what the programme was about, and thus breaking one of the rules of a trademark application.

[StormWarrior]

The BBC logo is a trademark, as is the Shy logo, the channel 4 logo, etc.

[Conniff]

It's boring enough sitting through most of the BBCs programs, but to sit through 90 minutes of the BBC logo would be a death sentence.

[buzby]

The BBC logo is a trademark, as is the Shy logo, the channel 4 logo, etc.

 

Yes? And since it is the trademark holder that is actually broadcasting it, how are you going to make an unlicensed viewer liable for copyright infringement when they've not used, modified, re-broadcast, misappropriated or done anything else with it? What would be their crime? Does this mean anyone with an unlicensed copy of Windows XP can be prosecuted for using the OS simply because the trademark appears on the screen at boot up ...?

 

I don't think so! In either case, I've never seen anyone in court having to defend a charge of copyright infringement whilst watching a TV.

[Conniff]

I think this is being taken out of the context to which it was first posted:

 

Replaying video recordings of TV programs recorded at another address, does not break the wireless telegraphy act, however it prob would break the Tradesmarks legislation, max penalty 10 years !!

 

I think we have acertained that 'Trademark' was a typo and it should be 'Copyright'. It was also pertaining to the recording at one address and showing at another.

 

This is a breach of the copyright of the owner of the programme.

[buzby]

Even so, has there been a single prosecution of anyone in the last 30+ years for viewing a tape? It cannot be somehow legal for one person to view it, whilst another watching the same screen find themselves committing an illegal act (ignoring for the moment censor/age variations).

[Conniff]

There has been an 'exception' made to the copyright:

 

You make the copy in your own home; and

You copy from the original broadcast; and

Your only reason for copying is to view the broadcast at a more convenient time.

 

It is still technically illegal to make any copy of any programme without a license. That exception could be withdrawn, but it would be impossible to police.

 

I remember in the early days of the cassette recorders and Radio 1, DJs used to talk over the front or ending of records to mess up any attempt at recording.