[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
film/video

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts]
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 20985)
Message
File  []
close
New_Robot_Wars_logo.jpg
209852098520985
>> No. 20985 Anonymous
25th July 2016
Monday 1:35 am
20985 spacer
I totally forgot it was on tonight, watching on iplayer.
28 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown. Expand all images.
>> No. 21057 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 2:14 pm
21057 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 21058 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 3:04 pm
21058 spacer

Screenshot_20160802-150353.png
210582105821058
Cunts.
>> No. 21059 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 4:03 pm
21059 spacer
>>21057
>I don't care about your "but... but... muh laws!" argument
Mate, that's the entire fucking point of the discussion.
>> No. 21060 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 4:33 pm
21060 spacer
>>21058
Why did you want to?
>> No. 21061 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 5:12 pm
21061 spacer
>>21059
Do keep up, we're now discussing whether said criminialisation is going to "rob" people "of a few hours enjoyment every week". It won't.
>> No. 21062 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 5:21 pm
21062 spacer
>>21061
On what basis do you say that? Hint: illegal streams (including iPlayer itself) don't count for obvious reasons.
>> No. 21063 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 5:35 pm
21063 spacer
>>21060
Because this thread is about robot wars, not 'poor' cunts and BBC license fee policy.
>> No. 21064 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 6:41 pm
21064 spacer
>>21063
Really? Looks like it's about both.
>> No. 21065 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 7:13 pm
21065 spacer
>>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.

Anyway, I hope it doesn't go behind a paywall.
>> No. 21066 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 7:50 pm
21066 spacer

Untitled.png
210662106621066
>>21065

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.
>> No. 21067 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 7:50 pm
21067 spacer
>>21065

How often did you have to chuck people out for wanking?
>> No. 21068 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 7:56 pm
21068 spacer
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?
>> No. 21069 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 8:34 pm
21069 spacer
>>21066
I'd rather we just got rid of it altogether.
>> No. 21071 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 8:53 pm
21071 spacer
>>21069

So to clarify, do you think the BBC should find its money else where, or do you think it shouldn't exist?
>> No. 21072 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 9:00 pm
21072 spacer
>>21062
>Hint: illegal streams (including iPlayer itself) don't count for obvious reasons.

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.
>> No. 21073 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 9:01 pm
21073 spacer
>>21067
I worked there for a couple of years. In that time, I only ever stopped a dozen men from watching porn.
>> No. 21074 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 9:02 pm
21074 spacer
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.
>> No. 21075 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 9:12 pm
21075 spacer
>>21074
https://twitter.com/MentornMedia/status/687976544082374657
>> No. 21076 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 9:30 pm
21076 spacer

A.w.e.s.o.m.-o.png
210762107621076
>>21074
>>21075

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.
>> No. 21077 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 9:46 pm
21077 spacer
>>21074

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:

http://www.fightingrobots.co.uk/documents/Build-Rules.pdf
>> No. 21078 Anonymous
2nd August 2016
Tuesday 9:52 pm
21078 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 21079 Anonymous
3rd August 2016
Wednesday 8:30 am
21079 spacer
>>21051 I'm poor and I pay monthly, much easier.

Also, stop being so bloody dramatic. Being asked to pay for a product is hardly unreasonable. It's not like the BBC is the NHS.
>> No. 21080 Anonymous
4th August 2016
Thursday 3:36 am
21080 spacer
>>21079
>Being asked to pay for a product
It isn't quite like that. If you want to watch any TV, then you have to fund the BBC.
>> No. 21081 Anonymous
4th August 2016
Thursday 3:51 pm
21081 spacer
>>21080
That's not true. You can still watch the on-demand services of all the other broadcasters.
>> No. 21082 Anonymous
4th August 2016
Thursday 4:00 pm
21082 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 21083 Anonymous
4th August 2016
Thursday 4:14 pm
21083 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 21084 Anonymous
4th August 2016
Thursday 4:19 pm
21084 spacer
>>21083
Does listening to a cassette/CD/MP3 player through your car stereo equate to "listening to the radio"?
>> No. 21085 Anonymous
4th August 2016
Thursday 4:24 pm
21085 spacer
>>21084
If it's a recording of a radio show, then in a very reasonable sense, yes.
>> No. 21086 Anonymous
4th August 2016
Thursday 4:39 pm
21086 spacer
>>21085
I'm assuming from the fact that you aren't geofagged to Rio that you didn't make the mental gymnastics team for the Olympics.
>> No. 21087 Anonymous
4th August 2016
Thursday 4:40 pm
21087 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 21088 Anonymous
4th August 2016
Thursday 5:40 pm
21088 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 21089 Anonymous
4th August 2016
Thursday 6:55 pm
21089 spacer
Privatise it!
>> No. 21090 Anonymous
4th August 2016
Thursday 7:12 pm
21090 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 21092 Anonymous
4th August 2016
Thursday 9:08 pm
21092 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 21093 Anonymous
4th August 2016
Thursday 11:32 pm
21093 spacer
>>21092
>They have a public service obligation.

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.
>> No. 21094 Anonymous
4th August 2016
Thursday 11:51 pm
21094 spacer
>>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
>> No. 21095 Anonymous
4th August 2016
Thursday 11:53 pm
21095 spacer
>>21094
Where are you getting this shite from?
>> No. 21096 Anonymous
4th August 2016
Thursday 11:57 pm
21096 spacer
>>21095
Your own posts.
>> No. 21097 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 12:05 am
21097 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 21098 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 12:37 am
21098 spacer
>>21097

>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.
>> No. 21099 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 1:00 am
21099 spacer
>>21097
Let's try this again.

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.
>> No. 21100 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 1:29 am
21100 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 21101 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 1:37 am
21101 spacer
>>21100
That your entire mental model of the relationship between the BBC's services and holding (or not) of a TV licence is completely wrong.
>> No. 21102 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 2:04 am
21102 spacer
>>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?
>> No. 21103 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 2:20 am
21103 spacer
>>21102
Yeah, no. You might as well be saying "living within our means" or "student loan debt" and your understanding would be no less wrong.
>> No. 21104 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 4:22 am
21104 spacer
>>21103
>"living within our means" or "student loan debt"
Are you trying to start a war here?
>> No. 21105 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 12:43 pm
21105 spacer
>>21104
At the GAY
BAR
GAY
BAR
GAY BAR
>> No. 21106 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 2:30 pm
21106 spacer
>>21105
Careful there, lad. He might have something to put in you.
>> No. 21107 Anonymous
15th August 2016
Monday 4:58 pm
21107 spacer
>>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.
>> No. 21108 Anonymous
16th August 2016
Tuesday 1:44 pm
21108 spacer
>>21107
Couldn't be any worse than 4chan's, let's do it.

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password