Free Music

[ramblarider]

The full story on these "Detector Vans" and the secrecy surrounding them is worthy of a James Bond novel.

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector%20vans.htm

The point is made there that legally, they cannot (and as far as I know never have) been used in a single prosecution - in over 50 years! The basic problem being that in order to provide evidence in court, their full workings would be subject to scrutiny by the defence (as are speed cameras).

[guest4538]

Not sure if its correct but i recall being told that when you bought a new TV your name and address had to be supplied to the Licencing authority then also .

Your later added comment is correct. And I believe it's still done. That's so the licensing authority have you on their database and can then keep sending you threatening letters. And it's probably because of that, some people have assumed it necessary to have a licence as soon as they purchased new equipment. In other words the propaganda has worked in some areas, and it's been far cheaper than having lots of detector vans rolling around at great expense!

[guest4538]

Well my recollection is 25 years old and the internet wasn't available as it is today so i can easily believe they have changes things a bit , back then the only way most people watched TV was via a TV set , owing a working one or anything capable of receiving a transmitted signal was the criteria for needing a licence at that time .

And all men are guilty of rape since they have the necessary equipment!

[Optomist]

Just to be boring: it is not a crime to receive BBC 'free-to-air' television in Spain. It is more difficult, in that you need a much bigger satellite dish here than in the UK, but certainly not illegal.

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast in the UK. But if you're over 75, as ex-pats in Spain, it's free anyway!This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder - http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/. Simply owning the equipment is not an offence!

Well my recollection is 25 years old and the internet wasn't available as it is today so i can easily believe they have changes things a bit , back then the only way most people watched TV was via a TV set , owing a working one or anything capable of receiving a transmitted signal was the criteria for needing a licence at that time .

Not sure if its correct but i recall being told that when you bought a new TV your name and address had to be supplied to the Licencing authority then also .

[guest4538]

Just to be boring: it is not a crime to receive BBC 'free-to-air' television in Spain. It is more difficult, in that you need a much bigger satellite dish here than in the UK, but certainly not illegal.

Some people might be paying others, who redistribute the signals. That is a crime – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2198204/The-1m-Sky-jackers-Fraudsters-tapped-satellite-signal-sold-bogus-subscriptions-sports-TV-channels.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26authornamef%3DInderdeep%2BBains .

BBC radio is free to listen to anywhere. You don't need a licence. And you can listen to it in Spain on BBC-iplayer, without the need for 'ex-pat shield'.

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast in the UK. (But if you're over 75, as ex-pats in Spain, the licence is free anyway!) This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder. Simply owning the equipment is not an offence! - http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/.

[Optomist]

i am not recommending it but if you poke the bare wires into a socket each time you want to watch it then pull them out and you receive a visit from the inspectors you can not be done  providing its not poked in the socket when they ask to see . You are not deemed to have a piece of equipment capable of receiving a transmitted signal until the plug is fitted .

The database of every house in the UK throws up a list of homes without licences and those are the properties targeted. Strangely enough, the vans they use sit outside for a short time and monitor which channels you are watching, at what times, in each room. Then you get the knock  :redcard:

Now if you live out in the wilds or in a mansion with a 3 mile driveway you might possibly get away with poking wires because you'll see their lights coming towards you. The rest of the country just pays up. v)

T hats absolutely correct Arrow , as you say they can even tell what channel your watching but i can assure you on the council estate close to where we were situated the van is soon spotted and everyone knows about it . The numbers that they caught was tiny compared to the ones they should have caught , They do also have dummy vehicles plus real but unmanned ones they drive around as a deterrent and i have no idea how they differ from the manned ones but they dont fool those accustomed to fiddling whatever system going . I would be a rich man now if i had been prepared to set the date stamp back to late the previous evening , fortunately since the Post Office introduced terminals its not a temptation , its also better for Post offices as they wont have to tolerate the threats and abuse for not bending the rules a bit , would never have another Office . 30 k  year in the 90s but would need to be 10 times that to ever do it again .

[Tetley]

. You are therefore breaking that law receiving them. Why do you think people need ex-pat shield and the like to receive the BBC via internet?
Yer fair point thair Primo ,imangine how many new Darlecks doctor Who could afford if this lot got thair hand down  ;D

plus if thairs any money left after the Darleck update,the could get the 60 min team in from ITV  and give the old Tardise a freshen up as well  ;D x2

[arrow]

i am not recommending it but if you poke the bare wires into a socket each time you want to watch it then pull them out and you receive a visit from the inspectors you can not be done  providing its not poked in the socket when they ask to see . You are not deemed to have a piece of equipment capable of receiving a transmitted signal until the plug is fitted .

The database of every house in the UK throws up a list of homes without licences and those are the properties targeted. Strangely enough, the vans they use sit outside for a short time and monitor which channels you are watching, at what times, in each room. Then you get the knock  :redcard:

Now if you live out in the wilds or in a mansion with a 3 mile driveway you might possibly get away with poking wires because you'll see their lights coming towards you. The rest of the country just pays up. v)

As far as freesat is concerned (via sky or any other boxes) you'll probably know that the programs transmitted are invariably copyrighted for broadcast in the UK only. You are therefore breaking that law receiving them. Why do you think people need ex-pat shield and the like to receive the BBC via internet? ???

[Tetley]

Well we watch the telly here,and all we do is bang a few quid to children in need red nose days watzitts to even it up a bit for the beeb  :handshake  :)

[Optomist]

In the UK they cover themselves not by saying you need a TV licence to view it but you need a TV licence if you own a piece of equipment that is capable of receiving a transmitted signal . If the TV is in a box and unpacked you need a tv licence but if its in a room you use and has no plug fitted then you don't  .

i am not recommending it but if you poke the bare wires into a socket each time you want to watch it then pull them out and you receive a visit from the inspectors you can not be done  providing its not poked in the socket when they ask to see . You are not deemed to have a piece of equipment capable of receiving a transmitted signal until the plug is fitted . If the TV for some other reason can be shown not to be operable and needs to be repaired again you are safe .

It was a common trick used in the poorer areas where we once had a Post Office , inspectors were regular visitors to check if TV licences had been applied for when someone was caught and claimed they had just applied for one the inspectors would come in to check their story .

Have no idea what the situation is outside the UK if you use FREESAT but would be interesting to know .

As we are not supposed to view channels then its a bit of an anomaly and grey area as there is no TV licence system here for private homes .

[Tetley]

were,s Pings post just gone ,i think the under 75,s BBC "signal lifters "have just zapped it  ;D

[Tetley]

Just out of intrest

whats everybodys angle on watching BBC programes and listening to BBC radio without paying the telly licence fee here ? would you all say it was theft ? ie a sort of " satalite signal shop lifting?

TVM  :tiphat:

[loafer]

I'm pulling out of this thread. 

I think I have made my views well-known and I accepted (some time ago) that those who are morally and ethically bankrupt enough not to understand that the downloading of copyrighted material steals from those who produced it are never going to change their stance.

I just hope that it happens to them one day - then see how quickly the boot will move to the other foot.

Of course, this rarely happens, as they are usually artistically bankrupt as well.

You put your case across well, you made your point(s), you know you are doing the right thing and there are many others that agree with you - job done.  :)

[guest4538]

You cannot be serious! Unlike tinned beef, music is available free everywhere: radio, television, youtube, free Spotify... So why would someone, who was stopped from torrent downloading, change to buying?  

Music on the radio, television, etc. might be 'free' to the end listener, but someone paid for the right to broadcast it and the copyright holders (both intellectual and mechanical) got their fair dues.

Not sure about Spain, but in the UK (and many other countries) the use of a radio or TV in a public place, such as a bar, requires the owner to pay a fee for 're-broadcasting'.

So it has always been. Therefore no change, and still no more income for the copyright owners!

[guest4538]

I understand you can have free books through this forums Reading Room?

Well spotted Hawkeye. It would seem that the Forum's Reading Room has no scruples!

[guest4538]

OK.... so, if I wander into Mercadonna and steal a can of tinned beef that is fine, because (as a vegetarian), I would never buy it anyway?

You cannot be serious! Unlike tinned beef, music is available free everywhere: radio, television, youtube, free Spotify... So why would someone, who was stopped from torrent downloading, change to buying?   

[Hawkeye1]

I understand you can have free books through this forums Reading Room?

[ramblarider]

OK.... so, if I wander into Mercadonna and steal a can of tinned beef that is fine, because (as a vegetarian), I would never buy it anyway?

[guest4538]

Downloaders, on the other hand, permanently deprive the copyright owner of his fair dues.

I'm surprised that this debate is still on going! But since it is: I would suggest that you may be making an enormous false assumption. I suspect that 'downloaders' are generally unlikely to buy instead, if they were prevented from downloading. So even if the law were changed to make downloading illegal in Spain, and such a new law were actively enforced, the unfortunate copyright owners are unlikely to benefit by any increase in income!

[loafer]

:wave

now children play nicely

did any of you ever listen to pirate radio station inthe 60's??

Mike

:tiphat:

Radio Caroline - did then and do now, still a good station. :)

[sparkiemike]

 :wave

it's exactly the same as downloading music for free

radio London, Caroline, Essex never paid a penny in royalties

by listening to these & many other station we collectively condoned their actions

Mike

:tiphat:

[sparkiemike]

 :wave

now children play nicely

did any of you ever listen to pirate radio station inthe 60's??

Mike

:tiphat:

[Karen4]

Agreed, Loafer. It's also the same as bands/groups playing covers of other writers' songs, even if they only play for the public in little local bars, here or anywhere else.  Maybe they pay the licence to perform? Maybe the bars do? I don't know but I would think someone has to or I suppose it's also stealing the music, is it not?  v) :drinks:

[loafer]

I'm with ramblaraider all the way on this.

ping has obviously never produced anything of intellectual merit, only to have had it subsequently ripped off by others.  I have and I can tell you, whatever the law might say, to interpret it as giving permission to steal copyrighted work was most certainly not its intention. If ping ever has this happen to him/her, you can bet the farm his/her stance will will rapidly change.

The law is a total ass in many ways but, in this modern age, it's finding it almost impossible to keep with the rapid advance of technology that allows this sort of thing to be done, hence the poor framework of much intellectual property law.

ping says "Furthermore "theft" is defined in many jurisdictions as the act of taking another person's property with the intention of permanently depriving them of that property: I don't think that applies to copying music."
I say, of course it applies to music.  It's taking the intellectual property of another person and permanently depriving them of any money they would have made through the sale of that property. To the mind of any thinking person, that equates to theft.

This is all very commendable, it's all right getting worked up and outrageous about it, but the facts are the times are not just a'changing - they have changed. Record companies, artistes and producers at last understand that since the Internet phenomenon things will never, ever, be the same again and are changing how they sell and promote music through the net, hence musicians own web sites with offers, Spotify and numerous ideas. Sure, we shouldn't expect our music for nowt, but one should remember the record companies have been ripping off the British buying public for decades, they got away with over pricing albums for years, double the cost of a similar record in the States (Simon & Garfunkel - Best Off - 40 year old tracks? - that will be £12.50, thank you sir) over the years I never heard bands or artistes complaining about that, pleading with the record companies asking that their records should be sold at a fair price. That attitude has now come back to bite them and while we read about how many billions Sony, Apple and the like profit from the music industry every year and how musicians and singers of even modest talent seem to be millionaires in no time at all, people that download illegal music from the net are not going to feel guilty about it. Your protestations are commendable, but in specific relation to the music business out of date. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating stealing, just seeing things as they are and will be, not should be. I presume in order with your beliefs you would not borrow a CD from a friend and play it on your HI-Fi because you haven't actually paid for the privilege to do that, if you did you would be stealing the intellectual rights from the artiste - so you have never, ever played a CD you haven't paid for? - or you are really in the same boat as the rest of us.

Have a nice day.  :tiphat:

[saiminja]

Next to Microsoft :-)

[saiminja]

Hi

If you still have a problem with torrents and downloading music then might i suggest contacting the Albox Computer club about membership and, when you are a fully paid member, you can have all your questions answered by people who actually know what they are talking about. Or you can contact me. I do the "computer corner" in the SolTimes (usually near the back - but hey ho :-)

[Karen4]

Oh I think there's a difference! Never mind, time to get outside and enjoy a bit of fresh air and chillax time!  :wave

[ramblarider]

greedy companies on the planet!

That was the reference that came to mind....

[Karen4]

I'm not sure what your point is about large profits - that is the aim of every business and I have neither mentioned this nor do I have an issue with it per se. I simply said I do not like the over-hyped approach, and their over-priced products, nor do I like their modus operandi. I'm glad not to have to buy their products, and I choose not to. Samsung? Now there's a thought! :lol:

[ramblarider]

I was merely making the point that "Apple Bashing" seems to have become some kind of new sport...  of course they want to make large profits. That is what companies exist for. To make profits. No-one forces you to buy their stuff. Buy something else instead.

If you really want to annoy them, you could buy Samsung....

[Karen4]

Oh I think we're allowed to criticise even if we haven't achieved the same levels of success as they have! It's only an opinion after all, and if it's valid to criticise politicians, flim-makers, singers, the NHS etc, etc then I think we're allowed to criticise Microsoft, Apple and the rest! The alternative? If we don't criticise then we fail to challenge and so no improvements are ever made. 

[ramblarider]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2197248/Bruce-Willis-fights-leave-iPod-tunes-family-Actor-considering-legal-action-Apple-battle-owns-songs-downloaded-iTunes.html
This interested me because it appears that even when you pay to downloaditunes you are really only "borrowing" them!?
I hope he wins the case - I believe Apple to be one of the most over-hyped and greedy companies on the planet!

You do not "own" the music on CD's you buy either.

You own the CD. There's a difference. Same with DVD's. You do not own the movie - you own the media it was delivered on.

What you can do with the music or movie is subject to many limitations. This is all in the small print that no-one reads.

People have said the same about Microsoft... they now say it about Apple. Fact is, both have been incredibly successful and without them the world would be a very different place. Both of them have made technology that was once the preserve of mega-corporations to just about everyone. Computers in every home, iPhones...  both Microsoft and Apple have made this work. When you have achieved a mere fraction of what they have, by all means criticise them.

[Karen4]

You're quite right Graeme...but one gun at a time! I just find something very unsavoury about Apple's general philosophy and modus operandi, no doubt they are very successful (unless you are currently a shareholder!), just find the whole setup unclean. Yes, there are many others like them, but as I said, for me, one gun at a time!

[Karen4]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2197248/Bruce-Willis-fights-leave-iPod-tunes-family-Actor-considering-legal-action-Apple-battle-owns-songs-downloaded-iTunes.html
This interested me because it appears that even when you pay to downloaditunes you are really only "borrowing" them!?
I hope he wins the case - I believe Apple to be one of the most over-hyped and greedy companies on the planet!

[ramblarider]

Another relevant news article that appeared today:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19474829