TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
no they arent similar, so your saying just bvecause they are both called a license they are similar. lol. even the way you used them in your original post is wrong. tv license can actually get a warrant to get into your house. Microsoft cant. they arnet similar even in the way you used it, just lol at you keep trying to defend it.

and yes i am bored.
I was under the impression Microsoft can also get a warrant and issue a fine if they have enough evidence you are using the product without a licence. Anyway you are still wrong as I can treat both the same with the same outcome for both. Hence similar. You use them both in a similar ways with some MS products require a yearly licence just like the TV.

Both have fines if you use the product without a licences. Both can be treated the same by someone who isn't breaking the law. Hence why I said they are similar. So Similar I treat both exactly the same and no harm well come of it. Yes there are differences but there are also areas you can treat the same.
 
Last edited:
it would be a civil matter, no warrant. where tv license is criminal as its a tax backed up be law. again not remotely similar.

no micriosft can not issue fines. the most they can do in the uk is seek a civil case, where they will only get money back they can prove they lost. cant even get punative money and certainly not any form of fine.

which is also why you here far less copyright cases in the uk compared to america, where punitive charges can be sought after.
 
Last edited:
it would be a civil matter, no warrant. where tv license is criminal as its a tax backed up be law. again not remotely similar.

no micriosft can not issue fines. the most they can do in the uk is seek a civil case, where they will only get money back they can prove they lost. cant even get punative money and certainly not any form of fine.

which is also why you here far less copyright cases in the uk compared to america, where punitive charges can be sought after.

Then why do company's and schools get fines for using unlicensed software? Anyway I was talking about those who are not breaking the law. Not what happens when you break the law. As I said before when you are following the law as an end user you can treat both the same. There is no real difference between them for someone like me hence why they are similar. I treat the TV licence just the same as the windows licence that's how similar they are.
 
My mate doesn't have a license as he doesn't watch TV live. I was there when they paid him a visit and he just looked at the TV saw it was connected to a laptop and ps4 only and asked if he watched iplayer live, mate says no. Tv license guy says well we will know if you do so no worries and then gave him a document to sign and off he went.

I'm calling bull on the we will know bit but I guess it's possible.

Not sure why he would sign anything. My rules of thumb is to only sign something if it's to my benefit in case it comes back to bite me later. Genuinely interested in what they would do if he refused to sign it. The onus of proof is always on them.
 
Who says 1 or 2 letters a year? Ha!

I get 1 every month addressed to "The Legal Occupier" although the letters seem to go round in circles by getting more threatening and scary until about the 5th one then it starts over again.
 
Who says 1 or 2 letters a year? Ha!

I get 1 every month addressed to "The Legal Occupier" although the letters seem to go round in circles by getting more threatening and scary until about the 5th one then it starts over again.

Exactly this. I've kept them all. A couple of my favourites had headings of "We've authorised a visit to your post code".. and "What to expect in court"..
 
Who says 1 or 2 letters a year? Ha!

I get 1 every month addressed to "The Legal Occupier" although the letters seem to go round in circles by getting more threatening and scary until about the 5th one then it starts over again.
Same here, its mostly once a month but every so often they go weekly then back to 1 a month. According to the letters they must have done a dozen investigations on me.
 
This is the pile threatening and harassing letters I got over 2, or 3 years up to July 2013

nsw8LHI.jpg

And in three years of 'one or two a year' :rolleyes: it has grown into:

KxGNJlN.jpg


So they are clearly not harassing me in any way, at least they've apparently stopped trying to visit now :cool: I only keep them for evidence. ;)
 
I was under the impression Microsoft can also get a warrant and issue a fine if they have enough evidence you are using the product without a licence. Anyway you are still wrong as I can treat both the same with the same outcome for both. Hence similar. You use them both in a similar ways with some MS products require a yearly licence just like the TV.

Both have fines if you use the product without a licences. Both can be treated the same by someone who isn't breaking the law. Hence why I said they are similar. So Similar I treat both exactly the same and no harm well come of it. Yes there are differences but there are also areas you can treat the same.
Tell me more about these Microsoft fines.
 
Tell me more about these Microsoft fines.
I know a few local places that got fined for using unlicensed software.A label company got a fine of £24,800 after getting caught using unlicensed copies of Microsoft Office. A few schools had been fined. Its not just MS as Adobe are pretty strict as well among a few others. Then there was the famous letters that went out on mass to home users who had downloaded software without a license. A lot of +£800 fines went out to home users that year.

The person who had my job before me had the nerve to ask to borrowed our licenses to cover up being short in an upcoming audit at their new job.
 
Last edited:
I know a few local places that got fined for using unlicensed software.A label company got a fine of £24,800 after getting caught using unlicensed copies of Microsoft Office. A few schools had been fined. Its not just MS as Adobe are pretty strict as well among a few others. Then there was the famous letters that went out on mass to home users who had downloaded software without a license. A lot of +£800 fines went out to home users that year.

The person who had my job before me had the nerve to ask to borrowed our licenses to cover up being short in an upcoming audit at their new job.

These aren't examples of private companies levying fines against people, they do not have the right or authority to do that.

As for the home users comment, they most definitely were not fines but rather speculative invoices with the empty threat of litigation if the recipients didn't pay up.
 
That picture above is crazy. How can that be an efficient use of tax payers resources? I don't understand how they can justify sending out that many letters ?
What's worse is they send that many letters to people they know don't need a licence. Complete waste of money.
 
just unplug the aerial and put it away.

I dont have the cable out as i normally just watch netflix or No reference to pirated material - thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the pile threatening and harassing letters I got over 2, or 3 years up to July 2013

nsw8LHI.jpg

And in three years of 'one or two a year' :rolleyes: it has grown into:

KxGNJlN.jpg


So they are clearly not harassing me in any way, at least they've apparently stopped trying to visit now :cool: I only keep them for evidence. ;)

Wow, just seeing your post just made me laugh...i guess when they was sending that out to you, they was not thinking about saving the trees, more about how to make more money in there pocket....at the end of the year I am off tv license also, dont believe i have watch the tv for months...
 
Back
Top Bottom