1 in 6 people don't watch BBC TV

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
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.

Obviously not ITV, C4 or C5.


(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.

Membership of sports clubs, books, DVDs . . .


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.

It means that I don't get any benefit from the next door neighbour watching
Eastenders. That is true. The same goes for the vast majority of the BBC's
output.


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.


I do not ignore it, I discount it.

Regards,
Arfur

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"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.

Hardly a successful attempt at the moment, but it is true that a handful of
people have too much influence over the British 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...


.... and the first thing they do is fund them out of public money.

Regards,
Arfur

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
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.


And you have hardly made a convincing argument that a single BBC programme
should be paid for out of the licence fee, or even suggested by what
criteria this should be justified. Your assertions have been backed up by
little more that a "we know best" attitude that is rather remiscent of,
well, Auntie Beeb.

I admit that I have not watched or listened to everything broadcast by the
BBC, but what I have seen and heard is depressing enough. I doubt if you
would feel honour bound to watch everything on the Paramount channel, before
you replied, if I suggested that it's content is better than that of the BBC

Regards,
Arfur

"Alex" wrote in message
...

snip

If it's no longer a live broadcast then no licence is required.

You can, of course, cite the relevant part of the TVL Act that states
that....

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
news snip

It's funny that this anti TVL debate has only really been around
since Thatcher created the ME, ME, ME society...

At 20:59:32 on 13/07/2006, :::Jerry:::: delighted uk.tech.digital-tv by
announcing:


"Alex" wrote in message
...

snip

If it's no longer a live broadcast then no licence is required.

You can, of course, cite the relevant part of the TVL Act that states
that....

You've already been directed to the relevant legislation.

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:36:37 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Mike Henry" wrote in
message ...
In , John Cartmell
wrote:

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)

It wasn't "illegal" either, because the time and person
restrictions are
part of copyright law; which is civil not criminal. If person A
with a
licence gave person B a recording of a programme and B watches it
without having their own a TV licence, it's just a breach of
copyright.
A civil matter, so it can't be described as "illegal".


So if someone records to and streams from a computer to his neighbour
(who doesn't have a TVL) the neighbour is not committing any offence
by watching 'time-shifted' live TV - I think not!

The fact that it was a live television broadcast is the factor,
time-shifting is just that, shifting time, not the source.


It would not be "time shifted" for licensing purposes.

And it *would* require a licence, as that is required for *receiving*
a TV programme *by any means* at the same time (or virtually the same
time) as it is broadcast to the public.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Faith is good, but scepticism is better. - Giuseppe Verdi
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:02:17 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Alex Heney" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:05:26 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"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.


The part of it that does not say you *do* need one.

what the act says:
---------------------------------------------
(1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence
under
this Part.

---

(3) References in this Part to using a television receiver are
references to using it for receiving television programmes.
--------------------------------------------

It is only for the *receiving* you need the licence, not for the
*watching*.

But by definition you are receiving a television programme, only that
it's time delayed.


NO.

Playing back a recording is not "receiving" it.

And if it is time delayed ( to an extent that means it is not received
at "virtually the same time as it is received by broadcast), then no
licence is required anyway.

In this situation, the person making the recording requires a TV
licence. And if they are going to give away the recording, or show it
outside their household, then it is unlawful under copyright law
unless they get permission from the copyright holder.

But the person receiving the recording needs no licence, nor are they
breaching copyright law.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If I can't fix it, it's probably dead.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

":::Jerry::::" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Arfur Million" wrote in message
news snip

It's funny that this anti TVL debate has only really been around
since Thatcher created the ME, ME, ME society...



I remember people criticising it from the early 70's. Strange how often the
people receiving the subsidy like to portray themselves as the social
benefactors.

Regards,
Arfur

Arfur Million wrote:

":::Jerry::::" wrote:
"Arfur Million" wrote:

snip

It's funny that this anti TVL debate has only really been around
since Thatcher created the ME, ME, ME society...

I remember people criticising it from the early 70's.

...and I from even earlier.

Strange how often the
people receiving the subsidy like to portray themselves as the social
benefactors.

:-)

And just as strange how some people seem to think that things only date
from the time they became aware of them.