3 ms·

Currently, it's based on live vs. on demand, rather than dependant on company: > "You don’t need a TV Licence to watch videos or clips on demand on YouTube. >

by swores 2y ago

Currently, it's based on live vs. on demand, rather than dependant on company: > "You don’t need a TV Licence to watch videos or clips on demand on YouTube. > But you do need a TV Licence if you watch live TV on YouTube." And the same list of FAQs already says the same about Netflix, too, that license is required to watch "live tv" on it. So if they change the rules to cover non-live, it will surely affect YouTube (and other streaming companies), not be a Netflix carve-out. What confuses me is what counts as "live TV"? Does a professional Twitch streamer count? What about if a friend of mine streams to just me on YouTube? All they say about it is: > "Online-only TV channels still count as live TV, so you need a TV Licence if you’re watching or recording their programmes" On the one hand, nobody in their right mind would consider one person streaming their gaming session to one friend to be "live TV", but since they don't define what does count as live TV... it surely can't be just based on whether or not the people running the stream call themselves a TV show or not? The FAQ page I took the above quotes from (and there's lots of other questions, just none that answer "what counts as live TV?": https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/watching-live-online-and-on-mobile https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/w...

crvdgc 2y ago
That private enforcing company has zero motivation to make the rule clear and easy to understand. Their letter soliciting license fees or a declaration of not needing a license is very obnoxious and threatening. Part of the strategy is that "you won't know whether you need a license, but if we caught you violating this arbitrary opaque rule, you're screwed. So you better pay that money."
- floydnoel 2y ago
  how absolutely disgusting that set of incentives and behaviors are! seems like it would erode trust in institutions and law.

by swores 2y ago

crvdgc 2y ago

That private enforcing company has zero motivation to make the rule clear and easy to understand. Their letter soliciting license fees or a declaration of not needing a license is very obnoxious and threatening. Part of the strategy is that "you won't know whether you need a license, but if we caught you violating this arbitrary opaque rule, you're screwed. So you better pay that money."

floydnoel 2y ago
how absolutely disgusting that set of incentives and behaviors are! seems like it would erode trust in institutions and law.