1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

In article .com, Arfur
Million replied to my:
If you cannot find anyone who pays the licence fee and doesn't benefit
from BBC services then this discussion is based on a false premise. We
(many of us) are required to pay a nominal sum and we (more of us) have
access to services that are provided by that money. Some of us notice
and/or appreciate the services more than others and we all benefit by the
existence of the services. We would all be poorer without those services.

That is your opinion, not the opinion of many. Some of us consider the fee
to be far from nominal

It is compared with any of the commercial offerings.

(how much are you on) and to grossly exceed any benefit that the BBC gives
for it. I could certainly spend that money in different ways for a greater
reward.

You wouldn't. You couldn't.

The vast majority of the BBC's expenditure gives no benefit whatever except
to those people who watch or listen to its services,

Which either means nothing or is not true.

and how much of a "benefit" that is a highly questionable.

The vast range of benefits are clear. In addition you ignore a massive amount
and haven't even thought of many.

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article . com, Arfur
Million wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
In article , DAB sounds worse
than FM wrote:
And if BBC1 is so popular

Why is it that you're rabbiting on about BBC1 whilst everyone else is
discussing the whole of the BBC's output? You're saying that, with all
the money the BBC receives it could produce something better than just
the output of BBC1. Let's agree. It could. It does.

More is not synonymous with better.

True. But you always ignore a large amount of the BBC's services when
criticising it. That's because you can only make any headway with your false
arguments by pretending that most of your target doesn't exist.
Even then your argument fails.

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 13:27:11 on 13/07/2006, Pyriform delighted uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:

Alex wrote:
It depends on your definition of "time-shift", and it is
this
definition that would be tested in court. The licence is
required if you receive programmes at the same time or
virtually the same time as they are broadcast. I would
argue
that an hour later is not even virtually the same time and
therefore a licence is not required.

You did receive them "at the same time or virtually the same time
as
they are broadcast".

The person doing the recording did, yes. And the act of recording
them
requires a licence.

That you chose not to view them until some time
later is utterly irrelevant!

And the act of viewing them from the recording does not require a
licence.

Please cite the section of the TVL Act that states that.

Alex wrote:
At 13:27:11 on 13/07/2006, Pyriform delighted uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:

Alex wrote:
It depends on your definition of "time-shift", and it is this
definition that would be tested in court. The licence is
required if you receive programmes at the same time or
virtually the same time as they are broadcast. I would argue
that an hour later is not even virtually the same time and
therefore a licence is not required.

You did receive them "at the same time or virtually the same time as
they are broadcast".

The person doing the recording did, yes. And the act of recording
them requires a licence.

Well make up your mind! You claimed the definition of time shifting was what
would be tested in court, whereas that is quite clear. This is what I like
to think of as the "Hercule ******** defence".

Perhaps I missed whatever tedious point you were trying to make, which
presumably involves one licence payer recording programmes for all his
non-licence paying scum acquaintances to watch at their leisure, violating
only copyright law in the process. I don't see how the precise definition of
time shifting plays any part in that argument.

I have already had to gnaw off my left arm to read as much of this thread as
I have, and I'm quite keen on preserving my right. You'll forgive me if I
don't go back to check the finer details.

"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 13:49:07 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted
uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...

snip

Please cite the section of the (TVL) law that agrees with your
assertions.

Why not check your licence itself? From the TVL website: "If you
use a
TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for
example,
a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you
need a TV Licence."

No, I want you to cite the *law*, not what is printed on the baclk of
the TVL.


Note: "to receive or record TV programmes". NOT "to watch"
programmes.
It's no accident that they didn't write "to watch" - because it's
not
true.

That allows people to use an un-licensed TV to watch pre recorded
COMMERCIAL recordings, not to allow you to watch off air broadcast
recordings.

At 14:06:11 on 13/07/2006, Pyriform delighted uk.legal by announcing:

Alex wrote:
At 13:27:11 on 13/07/2006, Pyriform delighted uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:

Alex wrote:
It depends on your definition of "time-shift", and it is
this definition that would be tested in court. The licence
is required if you receive programmes at the same time or
virtually the same time as they are broadcast. I would
argue that an hour later is not even virtually the same
time and therefore a licence is not required.

You did receive them "at the same time or virtually the same time
as they are broadcast".

The person doing the recording did, yes. And the act of recording
them requires a licence.

Well make up your mind! You claimed the definition of time shifting
was what would be tested in court

The situation whereby you watch the recording within a short time of it
being made is what would need to be tested.

Perhaps I missed whatever tedious point you were trying to make,
which presumably involves one licence payer recording programmes for
all his non-licence paying scum acquaintances to watch at their
leisure, violating only copyright law in the process. I don't see how
the precise definition of time shifting plays any part in that
argument.

Because I was responding to the idea of a distribution system which
allows those acquaintances to watch the programme within a short while
of it having been recorded. Do try to keep up.

In article , Alex wrote:
In the UK, everything is permitted unless there is legislation preventing
it. So the question to you is, can you cite the legislation that prohibits
me from watching recordings of TV broadcasts?

Nothing - as long as that recording was made legally and you have obtained
that recording legally. In the example cited the recording wasn't made legally
(the right to record broadcast material is time and person restricted) nor was
it obtained legally. Could conspiracy charges be added?

--
John Cartmell [email protected] followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
oups.com...
snip

Complain loudly. Stop trusting in those unaccountable people who
purport to do things for your own good, and empower yourselves to
choose what entertainment you pay for.

You are quite right, we should all be complaining loudly about
BSkyB's (aka News International) attempt to take over and control the
UK media.

As someone else said, when a country is taken over by 'rebel forces'
the media, and in particular radio and television stations, are prime
targets for occupation...

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
ups.com...
John Cartmell wrote:
In article ,
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
And if BBC1 is so popular

Why is it that you're rabbiting on about BBC1 whilst everyone
else is
discussing the whole of the BBC's output? You're saying that,
with all the
money the BBC receives it could produce something better than
just the output
of BBC1. Let's agree. It could. It does.

More is not synonymous with better.


Quite agree, have you seen what is broadcast on ITV's multiple
channels...

At 14:05:26 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted uk.legal by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...
At 13:27:11 on 13/07/2006, Pyriform delighted uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:

Alex wrote:
It depends on your definition of "time-shift", and it is
this
definition that would be tested in court. The licence is
required if you receive programmes at the same time or
virtually the same time as they are broadcast. I would
argue
that an hour later is not even virtually the same time and
therefore a licence is not required.

You did receive them "at the same time or virtually the same time
as
they are broadcast".

The person doing the recording did, yes. And the act of recording
them
requires a licence.

That you chose not to view them until some time
later is utterly irrelevant!

And the act of viewing them from the recording does not require a
licence.

Please cite the section of the TVL Act that states that.

No; *you* cite the section that prohibits it.