Tv licence

Amp34 · 9 Sep 2011 at 13:37

Energize said:
Ethically it's the same.

No its not. You have to specifically go out of your way to be able to use that signal by buying a piece of equipment, you have to have intent to use it before having the ability to use it. A parcel on the other hand just comes through your door and its operable.

Edit: what about a mains water or gas pipe that runs under your property? Is that an unsolicited gift as well? Its in your property and all you need is a couple of bits of tubing to use it even though you are not entitled to it without paying.

Energize · 9 Sep 2011 at 13:38

Vonhelmet said:
By that rationale, copyright infringement is theft

If you mean pirating things that would otherwise have been paid for then yes it is.

Amp34 said:
No its not. You have to specifically go out of your way to be able to use that signal by buying a piece of equipment, you have to have intent to use it before having the ability to use it. A parcel on the other hand just comes through your door and its openable.

Yes it is, there is no contract or agreement for it. It's someone giving you something and then trying to make you pay for it when you use it. Whether the person intended to use it or not is irrelevant.

Edit: what about a mains water or gas pipe that runs under your property? Is that an unsolicited gift as well? Its in your property and all you need is a couple of bits of tubing to use it even though you are not entitled to it without paying.

This was all agreed when purchasing so it's not the same thing and water to your property is turned off when you don't have a contract with them.

Vonhelmet · 9 Sep 2011 at 13:46

Energize said:
If you mean pirating things that would otherwise have been paid for then yes it is.

The plot thickens. Copyright infringement is not theft. Though I admit I'm surprised you didn't get that one right.

Energize said:
Yes it is, there is no contract or agreement for it. It's someone giving you something and then trying to make you pay for it when you use it. Whether the person intended to use it or not is irrelevant.

It's given on the assumption that it is being paid for. If you're not paying for it, you shouldn't be using it.

I'm a bit stuck to understand why you can't accept that.

I'm also not sure there needs to be a contract or agreement for it, when technically it's administered and collected as a tax.

Energize · 9 Sep 2011 at 13:52

Vonhelmet said:
The plot thickens. Copyright infringement is not theft. Though I admit I'm surprised you didn't get that one right.

I never copyright infringement as a whole was or wasn't theft. Though I have no idea what this has to do with the tv licence.

It's given on the assumption that it is being paid for. If you're not paying for it, you shouldn't be using it.

I'm a bit stuck to understand why you can't accept that.

I'm also not sure there needs to be a contract or agreement for it, when technically it's administered and collected as a tax.

Business must be based on agreement, that is why the unsolicited goods clause exists.

Vonhelmet · 9 Sep 2011 at 13:55

Energize said:
Business must be based on agreement, that is why the unsolicited goods clause exists.

But the TV license is a tax, not a business agreement.

Energize · 9 Sep 2011 at 13:56

Vonhelmet said:
But the TV license is a tax, not a business agreement.

They operate in the same way here.

Vonhelmet · 9 Sep 2011 at 14:01

Energize said:
They operate in the same way here.

Where is here? The UK? Because here, in the UK, the TV license is a tax.

jas72 · 9 Sep 2011 at 14:03

gazzaa said:
Do you have to pay for a tv licence even if you dont watch bbc.

No I live in Belgium.

Basher · 9 Sep 2011 at 14:36

Energize said:
You are legally required to have a tv licence, but in reality not owning one will not result in any issues. Your analogies are thus absurd.

It's people like you that make it more expensive for the rest of us honest people. Nice one. :rolleyes:

Energize · 9 Sep 2011 at 14:39

Basher said:
It's people like you that make it more expensive for the rest of us honest people. Nice one.

Nonsense.

Basher · 9 Sep 2011 at 14:43

Energize said:
Nonsense.

How exactly is it nonsense?

Basher · 9 Sep 2011 at 14:45

Energize said:
No because the chance of being discovered is less than nothing.

So it's ok to break the law as long as no one finds out?

markweatherill · 9 Sep 2011 at 14:51

INB4 'FREEMEN ON THE LAND'!

Energize · 9 Sep 2011 at 14:52

Basher said:
How exactly is it nonsense?

Firstly you are assuming that the cost of the licence is based on the number of people paying it. Secondly you are assuming that someone who watches tv without a licence is watching tv channels funded by the licence, the op here actually said he doesn't watch bbc channels. In fact foreign channels are in demand. Thirdly you are assuming I am watching tv without a licence when I am not.

Basher said:
So it's ok to break the law as long as no one finds out?

Energize said:
As long as it's not unethical yes.

Colbaker · 9 Sep 2011 at 15:11

On a side note, can anyone tell me I have to pay my TVs license e and then also have to pay virgin media for a box? Surely it should all be in that cost esspecially as where I live the freebies signal is awful.

Vulcan · 9 Sep 2011 at 15:23

Because the money you pay Virgin Media goes to them, and not the government? To have it rolled all in one would mean an increased Virgin bill by £12 a month, so either way you're going to pay.

arknor · 9 Sep 2011 at 15:40

just dont watch live tv

you can still use all the on demand stuff on the internet which pretty much every channel has and then you never need to be paying for a license

Ahleckz · 9 Sep 2011 at 15:49

Energize said:
As long as it's not unethical yes.

Who decides what is ethical, and what is not?

aln · 9 Sep 2011 at 16:06

Basher said:
It's people like you that make it more expensive for the rest of us honest people. Nice one.

Actually if everyone was like him, we simply wouldn't need to pay any more.

Basher · 9 Sep 2011 at 16:08

aln said:
Actually if everyone was like him, we simply wouldn't need to pay any more.

So how would the BBC be funded? Adverts? I'd rather pay the £145, thanks. It's a tiny sum for what you're getting.