Options
Would you need a TV Licence to watch the live channel on the WWE Network
EELover
Posts: 1,146 Forum Member
✭✭✭
I pay for the TV licence so this is just a wonder than anything practical. On the WWE network there is a live streamed channel features both live content and shows from the on-demand section.
So I was wondering do you actually need a TV Licence to view the channel on the network. On the one hand it is live content, on the other it's not really broadcast, it's streamed over the internet (but at the same time the Pay-Per-Views are still broadcast on Sky I believe,Also does live streaming count as broadcasting? I'm not sure myself on any of this.
What are people's opinion on this (apart from the "I don't see why you should have to pay the BBC to view someone else's shows" argument - which I fully appreciate)?
So I was wondering do you actually need a TV Licence to view the channel on the network. On the one hand it is live content, on the other it's not really broadcast, it's streamed over the internet (but at the same time the Pay-Per-Views are still broadcast on Sky I believe,Also does live streaming count as broadcasting? I'm not sure myself on any of this.
What are people's opinion on this (apart from the "I don't see why you should have to pay the BBC to view someone else's shows" argument - which I fully appreciate)?
0
Comments
It has to be both 'live' and 'television' for a licence to be required. And not otherwise.
Using this argument, I would thought then that the answer would be no for the most part, except the live PPVs which you would need a licence for because they are also live on Sky.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology--devices-and-online-top8
And more succinctly:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/watching-online-and-on-mobile-devices-TOP14
Wow, that much more harsh than I thought, the way I'd interpret that that basically means watching anything live on YouTube or Twitch requires a licence, even something like a presentation at E3 by a games company. Or is that not "TV"? If so when is content defined as "TV" or not "TV"?
If I set up a webcam pointed at my houseplants, you seem to think that's an online TV service and therefore needs a licence. It does not, because my houseplants are not being broadcast on television.
No licence is required if you are not watching actual television channels live. It is quite simple.
That page is clearly and obviously wrong. It claims that a licence is required for 'Amazon Instant Video', a service which contains no live television channels whatsoever.
It's just meant to scare you. The law is on your side - you do not need a TV licence unless you watch live television channels.
The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004
That should make it clear!!
I don't seem to think anything, as up till now I have not posted an opinion. However, two opinions now follow:
Opinion 1: The official TV Licensing site states that it must be "an online live TV service". I doubt that a closed video stream of your houseplants counts as a TV service.
Opinion 2: However, if an event carries a live streamed service available publicly (i.e. generally available to the public) over the internet (i.e. not simply a closed, internal service via an internal network or intranet), then it does look as if it could be treated as "an online TV service".
If anyone is in doubt, then I would suggest asking TV Licensing directly rather than chancing it and relying upon interpretations on an internet forum
Which works by TV service....
Note that the TV service is not dependent on emission
Obviously not, if they're saying that you need a television licence to watch a service which consists solely and exclusively of on-demand content (Amazon Instant Video), or if you use 'Apple TV' or 'Roku' which are also not live TV channels or online TV services, they're set top boxes. It mentions needing a licence for 'YouTube', but again that service is almost entirely on-demand content. You would certainly need a licence to watch a TV channel that also happened to stream live on YouTube, but not if you just wanted to watch the millions of ordinary videos.
A TV Licence is only required to receive live TV. Nothing else.
As Hieronymous points out, the relevant act contains the definitive statement of the law - they are the last word, the authoritative and definitive statement of fact - rather than whatever marketing materials may be produced by TV Licensing.
As fort the YouTube dimension, no part of what I have quoted, no opinion that I have posted looks to include the ordinary videos and complete programmes that are available on demand on YT.
But I'll leave you to it, People are free to take your interpretation/advice, or the advice from the official site. I'm not going to argue the toss.
The licence obligation follows what you do, not what you own.
Any TV with a tuner will facilitate the reception of live TV. But if you don't use it for that purpose, you don't need a licence.
Roku/Amazon Fire etc (or even a mobile phone) can also be used to view live TV, but if you don't use them for that purpose you don't need a licence.
The two devices you have mentioned are on the list that you are allowed to operate providing you do not watch live TV on them.
Do I need a TV Licence if I only ever watch on demand or catch-up TV online?
No you don’t. If you only ever watch on demand services or catch-up TV and don’t watch or record live TV, you don’t need a licence. On demand includes catch-up TV, streaming or downloading programmes after they’ve been shown on live TV, or programmes available online before being shown on live TV.
Services that provide on demand or catch-up include: BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, Channel 4 All 4, Sky Go, Virgin Media, BT Vision, Apple TV, Now TV, YouTube, Roku and Amazon Instant Video.
Remember, if you watch any live TV through these services, you need to be covered by a TV Licence.
Live TV*means any programme you watch or record at the same time as it’s being shown on TV or an online TV service.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology--devices-and-online-top8
quote :
Do I need a TV Licence to watch live TV programmes from outside the UK or Channel Islands?
Yes, you need a TV Licence if you watch or record live TV online, no matter where the programme is broadcast from.
The UK government expecting us to pay them to watch channels from another country on a computer has got to be the most outrageous thing I've read today. Anyone remember MP Jacqui Smith claiming her husband's porn vids on expenses ?
The live WWE Network stream is used as a TV channel in Canada, so to use that definition it would cover both.
The implication in the full context of my earlier reply was that those devices are mentioned and come under the requirements of a TVL if such apps are downloaded (and presumably therefore used).
But never mind. Posters may (and will) interpret as they wish.
Thank you.
As far as I am aware no one has been taken to court by TV Licening over watching IPTV services (although if any of you know if this has happened then please post a link as it would be interesting) so until this does go to court and a judge passes a decision then everything that everybody has said so far is correct, and also paradoxical wrong.
For on demand streaming (such as Netflix, Amazon Prime, Youtube - excluding live feeds/streams) then the letter of the law is clear and requires no court case to settle the matter. These services do not require a TV Licence.
With regards to live services then until a judge make a precident then it is open to interpretation by everyone, include TV Licencing who have a vested interest in reading the applicable Communications Act(s) in such a way as to maximise the number of required TV Licences. What is know for certain is that IPTV services that provide access to a online stream of a linear TV Channel/channels (BBC Iplayer, ITVplayer, All4, 5ondemand, Sky Go and anyother IPTV service that provides a live stream of a TV channel broadcast anywhere in the world) do require a TV Licence. For anything else it would come down to the interpretation of a Judge to decide on live stream, such as those provided by WWE Network or live streams provided via Youtube, are counted as TV Channels or not.
However in reality this wouldn't really matter as I doubt that TV Licencing would ever take a case of someone watching a live online stream of a non UK TV Channel to court as no precident means they can continue to print their interpretation of the Communication Act(s).
They like to pretend they're the UK's answer to the NSA...
[highlight]Example...[/highlight]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq7luWzbouo
However it seems that it may be open to interpretation and I wonder whether a case has ever gone to Court over it?
I'm not talking about the the numerous routine cases - but where someone has tried to claim they are not watching live TV and the prosecution has argued that they are.
As someone said above, what ultimately matters is the precise wording of the Act of Parliament - not any Q&As on the TVL website.
But even the Act of Parliament may be open to interpretation by the Courts - eg how is "TV" defined? When the legislation was written that may not have been an issue that the Parliamentary draftsmen even thought about. Whereas now, with the proliferation of devices and communication methods, it may be that ultimately it will be necessary for the Courts to rule how it is to be defined.
So has any such case gone to Court?
EDIT: Post 21 largely answers my post - apologies!
Do you even know what the NSA is and how a comparison between them and TVL is beyond stupidity?
Now look and listen very carefully at this official TV Licensing video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGNmE4GE_Ss
and see how they claim they are scanning peoples houses, invading their privacy and recording what rooms people are in and what they are doing.
You are telling me you can't see any parallels to what Edward Snowden describes at the NSA.
I think the point really is that they aren't.
On from that do you know why the NSA listened to phone calls and read emails. Theres a big difference between the NSA and its surveillance and TV Licensing.