|
Charging for iPlayer
In article ,
Roderick Stewart wrote: agreed that the arrangements needing changing so that 'listen again' *also* needed a license. .... The comment was just after 4pm I think. So use of 'listen again' may find what he said and we can check the wording. :-) We'd better listen again while we still can without a licence, Listen again? I didn't listen to it the first time, so I can't be accused of "listening again" :) I invoke the Mad Hatter exemption. ("more tea?") -- --------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Mike Brown: mjb[-at-]signal11.org.uk | http://www.signal11.org.uk --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: --- |
Charging for iPlayer
On 09/07/2015 11:47, Martin wrote:
) I've never watched CSI, but I do know that the web sites do see your IP address. Some use it to get the approximate location of the person using the website. It won't reveal that in most cases, just who your ISP is, and the location of their server. Although most domestic punters do have dynamic IP address, I suspect the ISPs retain logs of who was allocated what IP address, and when. If the TVL people want to identify and match up people with IP addresses, they are going to have collate data from every ISP. -- Mark Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply. |
Charging for iPlayer
|
Charging for iPlayer
On 09/07/2015 11:47, Martin wrote:
Some use it to get the approximate location of the person using the website. They get it wrong too :( My office address is owned by an American company and connects to the Internet through Dublin. Which doesn't stop Google from thinking we're in Mumbai off and on. The BBC consistently have us abroad. Andy |
Charging for iPlayer
In article , Mark Carver
wrote: On 09/07/2015 11:47, Martin wrote: ) I've never watched CSI, but I do know that the web sites do see your IP address. Some use it to get the approximate location of the person using the website. It won't reveal that in most cases, just who your ISP is, and the location of their server. Although most domestic punters do have dynamic IP address, I suspect the ISPs retain logs of who was allocated what IP address, and when. If the TVL people want to identify and match up people with IP addresses, they are going to have collate data from every ISP. Indeed. That's why I suspect that in future an email (or visit) to ISPs will take the place of ye olde teevee detector cart. ISPs who refuse to co-operate would risk being blocked, provoking the annoyance of their 'legit' customers. Whereas co-operation would mean said legit customers would not need to be bothered or questioned and probably wouldn't notice the checks. Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Charging for iPlayer
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote: On 09/07/2015 11:47, Martin wrote: Some use it to get the approximate location of the person using the website. They get it wrong too :( My office address is owned by an American company and connects to the Internet through Dublin. Which doesn't stop Google from thinking we're in Mumbai off and on. The BBC consistently have us abroad. I presume a future form for requesting a TV license could provide a means for telling the BBC this. They can then check out the details. So might well be a means of sorting out your problems. Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
Charging for iPlayer
|
Charging for iPlayer
I suspect the ISPs retain logs of who was allocated
what IP address, and when. I suspect they are required to keep logs a lot more detailled than that. -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
Charging for iPlayer
|
Charging for iPlayer
In article , Yellow
wrote: In article , Indeed. That's why I suspect that in future an email (or visit) to ISPs will take the place of ye olde teevee detector cart. ISPs who refuse to co-operate would risk being blocked, provoking the annoyance of their 'legit' customers. Whereas co-operation would mean said legit customers would not need to be bothered or questioned and probably wouldn't notice the checks. You are either joking or the decade old debate about ISPs being responsible for providing information to commercial organisations potentially against the interests of their customers, has passed you by. No, I'm quite aware of it. Just as I'm aware that the police, and others, have search and discovery powers, and have had them for many years. Despite the beliefs of some, the internet never has been a wild west where no laws at all apply anywhere. Just that in practice enforcement of many laws has been difficult, and varied from case to case. Beyond that you'd need to unpick the relevance of your phrasing "entity being responsible for providing information to commercial organisations potentially against the interests of their customers..." It overlooks minor details like the BBC not being a conventional "commercial organisation" but one set up with a special status. Plus the point that in this context the relevant "interests" might be to evade payment. Given that, the law may well allow action to uncover what is "against the interest of the [ISP] customer" because it is in the interest of other injured parties - both the BBC and those of us who'd otherwise have to carry the payment dodged. So in practice what happens should depend on the nature of the situation. A blanket "all info is confidential from everyone" seems as daft as "all info must be openly published". Its a question of establishing a due process for when and how seach and disclosure should be done. e.g. The ISP might have to say who had been fetching from the BBC iplayer, but other aspects of their activity could be withheld or redacted or become unactionable. Personally I'm not inclined to be concerned that it may be against someone's "interests as a customer" to disclose that they dodge such payments and access material without entitlement. Leaving in the process the rest of us to pick up the tab. But then I take a similar view about people and companies who play games so as to 'lose' profits abroad and dodge things like tax, responsibilies for their own customers, employees, etc. The laws and their application should suit the circumstances. Not be driven by a simplistic one-size-fits-all dogma. Jim -- Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me. Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com