My square eyes are now widescreen

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1656749]

A quick definition for the non-technology-minded:
If you're watching it on iPlayer or via any website, or via Video On Demand, then you're streaming. If you download a file to your computer to watch whenever you feel like it then you're downloading.
Oh, and VHS tapes, for the purposes of this poll, count as shiny disks. You are also banished back to the Second Millenium.

Comments

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

In the UK you have to pay a TV license to fund the BBC if you have a TV, even if you only use it to watch streaming video from websites. On the other hand, if you *don't* have a TV, but watch BBC programming ten hours a day via your computer, you don't legally have to pay a penny. I suspect this will account for a significant difference in US/UK TV possession rates here.

(BTW and completely off-topic but first time I've talked with you in a while - you really should come over and visit the UK again soon, we've not seen you in *years*).

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

(Just to emphasise, though, I watch essentially no iPlayer material because using GNU/Linux makes it too awkward, so I don't feel bad about not paying the license. I do buy a LOT of BBC DVDs though...)

[andrewducker]

Actually, if you have a TV that is never used for watching broadcast TV (or TV that is streamed simultaneously with the broadcast) then you don't need a license.

To use any TV equipment to watch or record any TV programmes as they are being shown on television.
* This includes watching or recording streamed services and satellite TV broadcast from outside the UK. If you only watch on-demand services, then you don't need a licence.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but you still need a license if your TV is *capable* of picking up a broadcast signal, even if it's never used for that.

[andrewducker]

Nope, not true. I've known people that showed they only had their TV hooked up to a DVD player and didn't have to pay. The rules I quoted are quite specific - you only need the license if you're using it to watch TV at the same time as a broadcast.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

How odd. I know it used to be that if you were capable of receiving a broadcast signal, even if you didn't, you had to pay. Wonder when that changed?

[matgb]

It never did, IIRC. But TV Licensing claimed you needed one because, well, division of Crapita.

I didn't have a licence when I lived in Torquay despite having a TV used for DVDs. I'd known that was perfectly OK for ages.

I think though, thinking about it, that there might have been a court case confirming it, thus Capita had been enforcing it on people up until someone took them to court over it.

[broin.livejournal.com]

I actually think that's changed. Possibly in the last year. I think now a laptop/computer counts for a license, and I don't think broadast time matters.

[broin.livejournal.com]

I'm totally wrong and you're totally right:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology-top8/

What's the fucking point in that? That's insane. And what's 'at the same time'? If I have 300ms lag, is that later?

[andrewducker]

I went and checked my facts before I left the original comment, because I was sure that whatever the rule was it would be Completely Bloody Stupid.

And the point, I'm sure, is make sure that people don't switch from a TV to a PC and thus escape paying the license fee. Frankly, they should abolish the license fee and put up tax by £100/year. It'd be cheaper to administer and fairer.

[kmusser]

Yeah the TV license thing probably would be enough to convince me to drop the TV and watch via the computer instead.

Sorry about the not visiting, our travel budget has been cut back pretty severely the last few years - only made one trip this year (to Hawaii), we'll be back eventually though.

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

No need to apologise - I know how it is. Just letting you know you'd be welcome ;)