Re: Tv license question

At 08:48:51 on 10/06/2007, Palindrome delighted uk.legal by announcing:

I could take a 14" VGA monitor, run a wire from one of the pins of
the 15D socket to a dustbin lid and notify TVL that I had
installed a system for the purpose of receiving tv broadcasts.
That would, presumably, be all that they would need to seek a
conviction under the "install" clause, if I was unlicenced. I
don't think that the law differentiates between crimes carried
out in a technically unviable manner and those that could work...


If it doesn't meet the definition of a receiver then there's no
offence. I doubt very much that your invention would qualify.

What "definition of a receiver"?

The legal one, naturally.

Let's assume that I am an entirely competent electronics engineer and
I design, prototype and install a (working) tv broadcast reception
system, for the purpose of receiving broadcast tv. Did I need a
licence to design and build it? Clearly not. Did I need a licence to
install it? Not being a professional installer, then, clearly yes - I
did need a licence to install it..Do I need a licence to use it?
Clearly yes.

Now, let's asssume that the design was faulty and the sound appeared
distorted when I try to use it. Would the offence of installing
without a licence still hold? Of course. Would an offence of using it
without licence apply? Of course.

Now go down the slope of faulty design to one that was unviable - it
would never have worked. Is it an offence to install a faulty tv
system, for the purpose of receiving broadcast tv - and does it
depend on how faulty?

Faulty implies that it's a receiver that's not working. What you just
built is not a receiver.

I would suggest that the extent of the fault does not matter in law.
Even if the fault was such as to make the objective of receiving
broadcast tv impossible.

Of course it does.

For example, IIUC, if you attempt to murder someone using a
non-poison that you believed to be poisonous - it is the same offence
as if you had used a viable poison.

So what? I can attempt to exceed the speed limit but I commit no
speeding offence unless I actually manage it.

So, I assume that it is the same offence to install a non-functioning
tv that you believe will work as it would be to install a functioning
tv..

Well, you know what assume does.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whyfore I must pay jeremy Clarkson cos I got a puter?
    ... You need a licence to INSTALL or USE an apparatus to ... Current thinking by officialdom puts receiving "contemporaneous" broadcasts ... via computer as receiving broadcast TV and requiring a licence. ...
    (uk.rec.sheds)
  • Re: Tv license question
    ... it is not capable of receiving TV. ... I believe that it's specifically to install with the intent to receive ... If there's no intent then there's no offence. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Tv license question
    ... it is not capable of receiving TV. ... I believe that it's specifically to install with the intent to receive ... If there's no intent then there's no offence. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • MS Security Patch - Is It Bogus?
    ... receiving the same message. ... MS Outlook and MS Outlook Express as ... Recommendation Customers should install the patch at the ... Microsoft products, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)
  • RE: Microsoft Vulnerablities Scan
    ... 4- I have been receiving these 2 issues as warnings for quite some time now. ... "nass" wrote: ... 2- What version of Office you have install now on this machine?. ... I went onto HijackThis and ran a scan. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.security_admin)