Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- From: "Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:24:33 GMT
In news:kb28b21k1ecm8nccjnf0audmg7r3s22hug@xxxxxxx,
Alex Heney <me8@xxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:00:24 GMT, "Amanda Angelika"
<manic_mandy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In news:wWNsg.28926$eQ.9508@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Amanda Angelika <manic_mandy@xxxxxxxxxxx> typed:
IOW the TVLA and BBC are trying to have it both ways. But it clearly
doesn't work like that. Something is either a TV program or it
isn't, it can't be both no matter how simultaneous or closely one
medium may ape the content of another. The mediums remain different.
I should add whilst I'm by no means a legal expert. As someone with a
background in Fine Art I do understand the differences and
distinctions between different mediums of communication. Attempting
to extend laws applicable to one medium of communication to another
which is entirely different is totally erroneous.
The act simply does not apply to Web content. TV programs may appear
to be available in a certain form on the Internet, but they are not
strictly TV programs any more than a painting of a pipe is an actual
pipe. This is a very basic concept, but unfortunately the majority
of people are not educated enough to understand such precise
distinctions, between media of communication.
You are simply wrong.
The media is irrelevant to whether they are TV programmes. If you are
seeing the same images and hearing the same sounds, then they are the
same programmes.
But you aren't seeing the same images and hearing the same sounds. You are
seeing an interpretation presented in another medium.
Whether it is broadcast from a terrestrial station, broadcast via
Satellite, piped down cables from NTL, or streamed over the internet.
The content is provided as part of a Web service so is not the primary
service, and is therefore not distibuted or provided under the terms of a
broadcasting licence.
I would say therefore the BBC and TVLA interpretation is erroneous
and highly misleading and meant to be so.
Their interpretation is exactly correct.
No their interpretation ignores the fact the streaming content is presented
and interpreted in an entirely different medium, for which an entirely
different legal framework exists.
Obvious propaganda disseminated for
entirely political ends and IMO criminally irresponsible, because
they really should know better and the intentions to mislead are
therefore quite clear.
There is no misleading.
The *law* is quite clear on this.
If the programmes are received *by any means* is what the law says.
And *by any means* obviously includes (and is intended to include) the
internet.
But you are not recieving TV programs, one is recieving Web content, the
programs are interpreted and disributed as something else and cease to be TV
programs.
Remember those regulations were only enacted in 2004. Broadband was
already reasonably commonplace by then.
True, but the act is talking about broadcasting, the medium of Television
and actual television programs. What ever streaming video content one may
find on a Website is not the primary purpose of the internet or a Website
and is not intended to replace TV. One doesn't even need a broadcasting
licence to present content on the Web, it may have some content in common,
but it is simply an interpretation, that Web site owners choose to provide
as a free service through the medium of the Web, it's not the same, it's
different.
The BBC are not the only Website or company offering such content. What
gives the BBC the right to claim rights to other people's (non broadcast
licensable) freely distributed web content and claim to be owed money for
it? The simple answer is *they don't* They don't have rights over the
copyrights or the terms by which others (including individuals) choose to
distribute such Web content, because it's an entirely different medium and
you don't need a TV licence to consume web content.
The Internet doesn't belong to the BBC, the copyrights of material on the
internet belongs to their individual artist's, designers and companies that
have created, commissioned or purchased the rights of that material. The BBC
does not have a right to extend the TV licence to Web content and change the
terms by which others create and distribute Web content or Web Streaming
video content.
If that were what the TV licensing laws were actually saying then the act
would be in direct conflict with other laws and in effect render the TV
Licence illegal.
--
Amanda
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- References:
- Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- From: Cynic
- Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- From: Amanda Angelika
- Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- From: Cynic
- Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- From: Cynic
- Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- From: Cynic
- Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- From: Amanda Angelika
- Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- From: Amanda Angelika
- Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- From: Alex Heney
- Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- Prev by Date: Re: Five year old girls sexually abused: paedophiles get off scot free
- Next by Date: Re: 'Reasonable Force' and 'Honest Belief'
- Previous by thread: Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- Next by thread: Re: Computer tax set to replace TV licence fee ( Legal?)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|