Oolite Bulletins

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/20 ... bbc-hd-drm

Depressing!

All because of Backhander Britain.

Gotta love "the state". Big Brother is watching you, but you're not allowed to watch Big Brother.

This is why I resent paying a license fee.

Why do I get the impression that money changed hands in a back room somewhere?

CommonSenseOTB wrote:

Why do I get the impression that money changed hands in a back room somewhere?

Because you're a cynic realist

Smivs wrote:

CommonSenseOTB wrote:

Why do I get the impression that money changed hands in a back room somewhere?

Because you're a cynic realist

You know, I try to be an optomist...but this kind of thing, a decision made by people charged with serving the public interest, that doesn't, and only makes sense if some money changes hands, well, I don't believe these people are stupid, I do believe individuals can be greedy, therefore occam's razor shapes my beliefs. I am optomistic that eventually humanity will unshackle itself from the slavery of money that places the wrong people in charge to make the wrong decisions.

While we wait for that, do you suppose there's enough time to go for another coffee then, eh?

Hang on if their going to Sh*tcrypt all their content and I don't have a freeview box does that mean I don't have to pay a licence fee?

There's also simple, honest, basic stupidity to consider. Explaining "DRM" to senior executives is, I would imagine, a bit like explaining the differences between the original series and the remake of Battlestar Galactica to a cat. A cat, moreover, with little or no interest in science fiction, with a low attention span, in a room full of catnip mice and twirling laser pointers.

ClymAngus wrote:

Hang on if their going to Sh*tcrypt all their content and I don't have a freeview box does that mean I don't have to pay a licence fee?

That sounds fair and reasonable, so my guess would be "no".

Disembodied wrote:

ClymAngus wrote:

Hang on if their going to Sh*tcrypt all their content and I don't have a freeview box does that mean I don't have to pay a licence fee?

That sounds fair and reasonable, so my guess would be "no".

If only....as I understand it if you have any equipment capable of receiving TV transmissions you need a licence. This includes broadcast, cable and satellite receivers, and computers (which could contain a TV tuner.
'They' have a list of every household that has a licence, and therefore a list of every household which doesn't. A household which doesn't have a licence must make a declaration that they do not have a TV receiver of any sort, and is obliged to admit on demand an inspector whose job is to check that you do not have any TV related equipment.
Only fair, I'd say!

Ok you see this is where the water gets a little muddy, you CAN get charged £1000 for non-payment of licence. But your more likely to get charged on average £152. It all appears to hang on "Viewing at time of broadcast". So computer viewing is a bit of a gray area.

I wonder if you had a box that delayed the signal for 10 seconds then you are not receiving the signal at time of broadcast, so you no longer need a licence. Sorry this kind of complete disregard for the people that pay their wages makes me want to be civilly disobedient.

culled from wiki:
TV Licensing enforces the BBC's statutory obligation to ensure that every address where a television licence is required is correctly licensed,[50] but its agents have no special rights and, like any other member of the public, rely on an implied right of access to reach the front door.[64][62] The occupants may deny an agent entry to the premises[65] without cause and are under no obligation to answer any questions or enter into any conversation. If an agent has evidence that television is being watched or recorded illegally but is denied entry by the occupants so that (s)he cannot verify the suspicion without trespassing, then TV Licensing may apply to a magistrate for a search warrant, but the use of such warrants is rare.[52] The BBC states that a search warrant would never be applied for solely on the basis of non-cooperation with TV Licensing[62][66] and that in the event of being denied access to unlicensed property will use detection equipment rather than a search warrant.

As with anything if you want to do this then you've got to treat it like a semi-serious hobby and have more time to spend than the dude sent to catch you. I'm liking the idea of youtube tv though. It would blow the whole god damn thing out of the water.

I don't have a TV, so I don't pay the license fee. However, I can legally watch programs (via the BBC iplayer etc) on my computer as long as I only watch them after the 'live' program has been broadcast... that's how it stands atm. I expect that will change at some time though.

I stand (slightly) corrected. The system is merely harsh, not Draconian.

No your right I'd go with draconian
Criminal record for tax evasion if they nail you. They have to catch you first however Meep meep!

ClymAngus wrote:

I wonder if you had a box that delayed the signal for 10 seconds then you are not receiving the signal at time of broadcast, so you no longer need a licence. Sorry this kind of complete disregard for the people that pay their wages makes me want to be civilly disobedient.

If you have that box and your box receives the signal at time of broadcast but delays it then it is still your box and you receive the signal at time of broadcast.

Disembodied wrote:

There's also simple, honest, basic stupidity to consider. Explaining "DRM" to senior executives is, I would imagine, a bit like explaining the differences between the original series and the remake of Battlestar Galactica to a cat. A cat, moreover, with little or no interest in science fiction, with a low attention span, in a room full of catnip mice and twirling laser pointers.

Like this future senior executive.

http://youtu.be/xZfK8ulOIt0