In article , {$usenet-
says...

Untrue. You are supposed to erase it after you have timeshifted it (ie
watched it), but there is no time limit on how long you may store the
recording before you watch it.

Once again I challenge you...or anyone...to come up with a law that says
that. I'm not being sarcastic, I really am interested to know. I don't
think there is a time limit on how long you can legally keep recordings.

It is a common misconception, but there is in fact definitely no time
limit on how long you make keep recordings you make for timeshifting
before you view them.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
Section 70, "Recording for purposes of time-shifting."
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988...n_4.htm#mdiv70

During the draft stages of the Act, there were discussions about putting
in a time limit (30 days or so). These were dropped, but because of
those discussions people still wrongly think to this day that there is a
time limit.

Ok, fair enough, I knew that it was in the works and I thought it had
been implemented, mind you it would be impossioble to police anyway.



This is really a FAQ, it comes up so often here. As posted only 4 days
ago in this very group by John Howells:

In , "John Howells"
wrote:
When the act was originally drafted it did include a limit of 28 days, but
it was removed before becoming law when it was lampooned unmercifully, both
in and outside parliament, as being quite unenforceable, with questions such
as whether we could now expect VCR police to be knocking on doors asking to
review all tapes to make sure none had recordings older than 28 days, and
whether one would have to keep recording over all tapes at least every 28
days to make sure it contained nothing illegal.

"ad" wrote in message
k...
In article ,
says...

Pure and simple - more people voted for his party than for anybody else.
I'd call that fairly democratic. Sure, it's not perfect - but what in
life
is?

first past the post system is out of date, we should use the same system
that is used for the E.u elections.



Which, in all honesty, is neither here nor there. Personally, I'm in favour
of FPTP but if we had PR would you then support a TV Licence propagated by a
government elected under such a system?




I wasn't aware that the UN had been forced to intervene in the UK yet?

Not directly, but they have poked their nose in a few rtime, like
telling us about our Smacking laws.

I don't think that was the UN, dearie.


It was, they wanted us to ban smacking

Which obviously hasn't worked since smacking (of children I assume you mean)
hasn't in fact been banned. Obviously, if you mean smacking of adults then
it was banned long before the UN existed.

ad ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

My human right.

So which human gave you, individually or universally this right?

Me

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

Gentlemen, I think we've been the victims of a very well executed troll.
"ad", I salute you. You have had us all strung up like kippers. I'm
impressed.

In article ,
says...
ad ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
So which human gave you, individually or universally this right?

Me

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

Gentlemen, I think we've been the victims of a very well executed troll.
"ad", I salute you. You have had us all strung up like kippers. I'm
impressed.


Thank you.

But I still do not agree with the T.V licence.

In article ,
says...

Which, in all honesty, is neither here nor there. Personally, I'm in favour
of FPTP but if we had PR would you then support a TV Licence propagated by a
government elected under such a system?


No, I still to not agree with having a licence and I do not care who say
we have to have one, it should still be done awau with.


It was, they wanted us to ban smacking

Which obviously hasn't worked since smacking (of children I assume you mean)
hasn't in fact been banned. Obviously, if you mean smacking of adults then
it was banned long before the UN existed.


chidren, no it did not happen, but now the law is very strange and it is
not easy to know what to do now.
Not that I got any children.

"ad" wrote...
says...
ad ) gurgled:
they So which human gave you, individually or universally this
right?

Me

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

Gentlemen, I think we've been the victims of a very well executed
troll. "ad", I salute you. You have had us all strung up like
kippers. I'm impressed.

Thank you.

But I still do not agree with the T.V licence.

I agree with the principle, but I think they should collect it by way of
an increment on the Council Tax applied automatically to every
household. Households would be able to apply for a refund by certifying
that they don't have a readily usable television receiver of any kind.
This would cut the collection costs rather significantly.

Matti

In article , [email protected]
reversed.com says...


But I still do not agree with the T.V licence.

I agree with the principle, but I think they should collect it by way of
an increment on the Council Tax applied automatically to every
household. Households would be able to apply for a refund by certifying
that they don't have a readily usable television receiver of any kind.
This would cut the collection costs rather significantly.


The refund part would be confusing and cost money.
The best way is a subscription, at least that way if you do not pay you
do not watch. No need for people to go knocking at peoples door.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:13:34 -0000, ad
wrote:

In article ,=20
says...
=20
My human right.
As I said, I will pay for programmes, but I do not see what right =
any=20
one have to charge me for havine and using a T.V
=20
Consistency at least amongst your replies. You don't believe in god
so that has eliminated a contentious source of rights, to which you
will not return.


=20
So which human gave you, individually or universally this right?
=20

Me=20

Ah! That makes it near the top of the league of minor irrelevant
human rights then and can be safely ignored. I would rate it at the
same league position as my self awarded human right to select the area
of the torso of a jelly baby and the manner in which I bite it
dependant on its colour. Also my self awarded right to suck my teeth
to annoy my wife when she is watching Charmed on Five on DTTV. There
we go, back on topic now.

--=20
astro

In article ,
lid says...

Ah! That makes it near the top of the league of minor irrelevant
human rights then and can be safely ignored. I would rate it at the
same league position as my self awarded human right to select the area
of the torso of a jelly baby and the manner in which I bite it


True, very true

dependant on its colour. Also my self awarded right to suck my teeth
to annoy my wife when she is watching Charmed on Five on DTTV. There
we go, back on topic now.



If you did that, while I was watching charmed, I would knock your head
off :-) That is the only programme I watch on Ch 5.