>>21054 >if you're going to allow illegal methods in your argument then you might as well just let them nick a laptop instead.
Now you're just being wilfully obtuse; clearly accessing a streaming website is not comparable with stealing a laptop unless you have a severe mental problem. I don't care about your "but... but... muh laws!" argument, this is plain common sense.
Are you by any chance the same lad who thought the 5p bag charge was going to drive millions of our nation's poorest into starvation?
>>21055 I met a lot. They used to come to my Internet Cafe and spend a quid for an hour's worth of internet. This one homeless guy used to spend £3 for five hours worth of internet time, and he spent most of it watching Nature Documentaries on the iplayer before fucking off to his cardboard home after I closed the shop.
I also met a homeless man who used to be a professor. I actually googled him and read one of his papers.
Then there were all the eastern Europeans who would come and use the services to Skype with their loved ones. The fucking Romanians were barred though. Fucking cunts used to try and steal everything not bolted down.
iPlayer is not being paywalled. All that's happening is a minor tweak to the Communications Act, to include on-demand services as well as live TV.
You have always needed a TV license to watch live-streaming of BBC programmes on iPlayer. There's no enforcement, just a pop-up to remind you of this fact. The BBC has no interest in operating a paywall - it'd cost more to implement than it would recoup.
Personally, I'm in favour of a German-style system. Their TV license applies to all households regardless of whether they have a TV, but people on benefits are exempt.
So will they chuck you in jail for not having a TV license now, or can you still get away with it by just not telling them and giving your mum and dad's address if you ever need to buy a TV or TV related equipment?
Why? It's not like the old bill are going to be kicking down your door because you watched a couple of episodes of Robot Wars on the sly. You're placing 'illegal streams' in the same category as theft despite the fact there is a massive gulf in how these laws are enforced.
At this point mate you just sound like a schoolkid calling on his everything-proof shield.
Does anyone know how you enter robot wars? I assume they have a critirea they publish somewhere for open entry, but if the do they seem to have hidden it. I don't have a robot or anything I'd just like to read the entry criteria and imagine.
Any of you nutters want to team up with me next series? I figure that whichever of us wears the robot suit can just put on really really big fuck off metal boots and just punt the others cunts right down the pit or if they're small enough right into Dara's scarily round and shiny smug face. When we win the series finale we'll do the big reveal and run around gloating how humans are fucking awesome and fuck robots and shit. C'mon it'll be great.
It isn't a hugely difficult hobby to get into if you're reasonably handy. Robot Wars is the big televised showcase, but there are regular competitions across the country. Building a heavyweight robot is a massive undertaking, but just about anyone could have a go at building an antweight (<150g) or beetleweight (<1.5kg) robot.
Robot Wars is conducted under a slightly tweaked version of the Fighting Robots Association rules, which you can read at the link below:
>>21072 >You're placing 'illegal streams' in the same category as theft despite the fact there is a massive gulf in how these laws are enforced.
That might have something to do with said fact being irrelevant to the point at hand.
>>21081 >You can still watch the on-demand services of all the other broadcasters.
But, as he correctly pointed out, not the television services of all the other broadcasters.
>>21082 Well I'd have said it's fair to equate the watching of ondemand services on a television set with the consumption of a television service, but you're very welcome to point out why that's unreasonable.
>>21080 It's been like that for decades though. Not saying it's right or wrong but that's not the point of the discussion - which is the recent changes to how the BBC's online on-demand services are licensed. As it is a service the beeb are very much within their rights to charge people for the viewing of programs online.
Out of interest, does anyone know if there are plans to offer discounted "online-only" licences or will online viewers have to pay the full wack?
>>21087 >As it is a service the beeb are very much within their rights to charge people for the viewing of programs online.
No, they are not. It's part of their public service obligations. The awfully-named "iPlayer loophole" came about because of a perceived difference between the BBC's public service obligations and the requirements of the licensing regime. (That's also an awful way of describing it, since the licensing regime had an "iPlayer loophole" the same way it has a "radio loophole" or car insurance rules have a "no-car loophole".)
>Out of interest, does anyone know if there are plans to offer discounted "online-only" licences or will online viewers have to pay the full wack?
Three guesses, and the first two don't count.
>>21088 >It's part of their public service obligations
Could you point to any source that explicitly says the BBC are obligated to provide online streaming services for free? Because I would be very surprised at that.
Face it, the facts are that fewer people are watching conventional TV (whether than be via antenna, cable or satellite) and more are watching TV programs and films through the internet. In the past when iPlayer was mostly used as an additional catch-up service to accompany the main channels it wasn't worth changing the licensing legislature but now that online streaming accounts for a greater share of total views it doesn't make sense why online viewers should get a free ride compared to those who watch the conventional TV channels. BBC Three becoming online-only is another piece of evidence for how the BBC's business model is changing with the times.
Even though an online-only option would be nice, £145 per year isn't actually that much in the context of other streaming services - that's less than a yearly subscription to the Entertainment and Sports packages from Now TV for example. Personally I'd much rather pay and get a better online service from the BBC, so that they are better able to handle the increasing number of online viewers and continue providing high quality original programmes but that is just my opinion - if you aren't happy paying for the BBC you're very welcome to subscribe to Now TV, Netflix, Sky Go etc instead.
>>21090 >Could you point to any source that explicitly says the BBC are obligated to provide online streaming services for free?
"For free" doesn't come into it. They have a public service obligation. Independently, you have a licence obligation. The two don't interact - you're not paying for TV and getting radio and iPlayer for free in the bargain, just like paying VED does not mean you're paying for the roads.
In that light, the rest of your post is meaningless.
For what exactly? The onus is on you to prove that this obligation explicitly includes online services without requiring a licence - otherwise I don't really understand what you are arguing for.
>>21093 >without requiring a licence
You really seem to be having difficulty with this, don't you?
>They have a public service obligation. Independently, you have a licence obligation. The two don't interact
>>21096 Ha ha ha. I assume from your lack of proper response that you have indeed pulled this "public service obligation" line from up your arse.
It may pain you to admit it but the BBC has to function in largely the same way as any other business. Sure there are exceptions, they don't show commercials and they are expected to put on programmes for the public good as well as mindless entertainment, but they need licence payers in order to pay for said programming.
>It may pain you to admit it but the BBC has to function in largely the same way as any other business.
No, not really. The BBC answers only to the BBC Trust, an independent body who decide the activities of the BBC. They compete with commercial broadcasters only to the extent that the Trust see fit. The Trust are guided by both the Royal Charter and the BBC agreement with the secretary of state for Culture, Media and Sport. This structure is profoundly unlike the management structure of any private business.
The BBC collect the license fee, but they don't decide who should pay it or how much it should cost - that's parliamentary business. Parliament has decided that people who watch iPlayer on-demand programmes are liable to pay the license fee.
The BBC has an obligation to provide its public services in the UK. Words like "for free" or "without a licence" don't remotely come into it. Asking whether the BBC has to provide iPlayer without a licence is like asking whether the local council has to maintain roads for people that don't pay car tax.
>>21098 >>21099 OK so now your just splitting hairs over whether it is the BBC's Trust or Parliament who decides on how the licensing works. What point are you trying to make, other than trying to be a smart-arse?
>>21101 At the end of the day, it is licences that pay for BBC programming and it is right and fair that online viewers share the burden of supporting the BBC along with TV viewers. The specific ins and outs of the BBC's management are not relevant when talking about the service as a whole. Comprende?
>>20994 >You could imagine Craig Charles MCing a night of bareknuckle boxing in the back room of a Southend pub in exchange for a big lump of crack. The slightly ramshackle nature of the presentation made it feel more real, more dangerous.
I love how .gs has some creative writers. We should write a book together.