Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: BBC sends cops to arrest nonviewer for refusing to pay the licensing fee
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2025 03:18:01 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <101ggp9$1op3m$2@dont-email.me>
References: <101fqpt$1evk0$1@dont-email.me> <101g4o0$1911r$7@dont-email.me> <101gc9r$1ndoa$1@dont-email.me> <101ge9g$1npub$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=fixed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2025 05:18:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3cd670a3aee92d783857844403e39f43";
	logging-data="1860726"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18j1vlHPYIVdaHHWhDe/tXr"
User-Agent: Usenapp/0.92.2/l for MacOS
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7oOu/8zmgRgkGypCbUd10Ei5vLQ=

On May 31, 2025 at 7:35:29 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> May 31, 2025 at 4:52:31 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
>>> 2025-05-31 5:02 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> 
>>>> Americans who complain about the inconsequentially small subsidy given
>>>> to public television and radio licensees have no idea how good we have
>>>> it in this country. In the UK, there's been a mandatory licensing fee
>>>> for receiving radio and television via the natural electromagnetic
>>>> spectrum and expanded to receiving a signal via other methods. The BBC
>>>> receives a phenomenal public subsidy of close to lb 4 billion.
> 
>>> And I thought our CBC got an obscene amount of money ($1.5 billion a 
>>> year under Trudeau, increased by $150 million under Carney, probably to 
>>> thank them for their enthusiastic coverage of his recent election 
>>> campaign.)
> 
>>>> It's very difficult to avoid being not subject to the licensing fee. A
>>>> man chose not to watch tv and informed BBC that he was not subject to
>>>> the licensing fee.
> 
>>> The video was educational for me. I knew about the license fee but not 
>>> the precise terms. I always thought it was only for BBC channels but 
>>> apparently it's for the commercial channels like ITV and Channel 4 as 
>>> well. BUT you don't have to pay it if you don't watch live TV and you 
>>> don't use any services like iPlayer to view programming on a delay.
> 
>>> That means if you use your TV simply to watch DVDs, BluRays, VHS, etc. 
>>> you don't need to pay the license fee. But it's not clear how they know 
>>> that you're not watching live TV or if you have to notify them to be 
>>> exempt from the fee.
> 
>>>> BBC sent the police to arrest him. Not watching tv is criminal behavior.
> 
>>>> They had videod him looking at a video with a still taken from a BBC
>>>> program that the man found on the Internet. They obviously couldn't
>>>> prove this was live tv (in fact they knew that it wasn't being
>>>> broadcast) and the judge threw the criminal case out.
> 
>>>> But that meant they had to peep through his windows, trespassing.
> 
>>> I'm not so sure about that. I was under the impression that they have 
>>> trucks with direction finders or something similar to tell if you are 
>>> receiving a TV signal.
> 
>> That wouldn't work for people with smart phones or tablets using cellular
>> data
>> or wifi to watch Netflix or the Prime.
> 
>> And is YouTube considered something you need a license for?
> 
> If it's live streaming, then the license fee applies. Recorded videos, I
> wouldn't think so.

So if you're watching Mizzy break into people's homes and terrorize them live,
you need a license, but if you wait ten minutes until the stream ends and
watch it back, you don't?

What a fucked up way to run a country.
> 
> 
>>> Something along the lines of the vans they used 
>>> during WWII to see if someone was operating a radio transmitter and was 
>>> presumably a foreign spy.
> 
>>>> I've seen videos in which UK barristers explain that BBC license
>>>> enforcement has an implied right of access to enter the premisis to look
>>>> for contraband unlicensed radio and tv receivers.
> 
>>>> The man was sick of the nasty letters and pounding on the door to be let
>>>> in, so he wrote to BBC in order to withdraw the implied right of access.
> 
>> Seems like simply posting a sign saying "All implied rights of access to this
>> property are expressly revoked and trespassers will be prosecuted" would do
>> the trick.
> 
> If they have a suspicion -- whether reasonable or not -- that a receiver
> subject to licensing is on the premisis, then implied consent cannot be
> revoked.

Then it's not consent at all. If it can't be revoked, then by definition, it's
not consent, implied or otherwise.

> That's why the guy wrote the letter. They continued to harass
> him. They desperately need an equivalent of the Bill of Rights in a
> written constitution.