It's an offense to watch or record transmitted television stations in your home without a TV license.
But it's perfectly legal to own a TV and use the on-demand portions of iPlayer (everything apart from viewing the currently-being-broadcast channel streams), Netflix, Google Play, 4od, Demand 5, DVDs, Blurays, etc etc.
This is what I do. The TV Licensing website has a page where you can provide them with your reasons for not owning a TV license. This page explains (implicitly) all the things you can do sans license. And, hopefully, filling this in makes them less likely to pester you (I haven't had any contact from the licensing people).
Here is the text from TV Licensing:
You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.
Note how the second sentence arguably introduces confusion. You don't need a license if you use a computer but don't "Watch or record TV as it's being broadcast".
(for 'tomp') yes it's legal to use iPlayer with no license, apart from that part of iPlayer where you can watch what's showing right now on for example BBC1.
Netflix has no equivalent of a broadcast channel so all of it is usable without a license.
Wait, I can't quite parse your last statement... is it legal to watch BBC on demand and Netflix/DVDs without a licence, or not? (I suspect the former, but then I know nothing about this law.)
It is legal. The only time a license is required is when you're streaming 'live' television by any means.
Effectively what this means is you can't dodge a license to watch television by watching live (By live I mean stuff that would be on the TV if you turned it on at that moment) TV through your iplayer. In Britain (not sure about other places), the iPlayer has a button to allow you to tune in to live TV. It's when you click that button you are in breach of licensing law.
The whole thing is stupid and archaic, but that's the price we pay for ad-free state TV.
There seems to have been some progress here, last time I read the relevant Act I'd swear that it referred to the legality of having "receiving means" (not sure on that wording, I do have bad memory!!). So you were technically in breach if you had a TV with an aerial, it wasn't necessary to show you watched it?
Am I misremembering?
This change is actual encouraging for me as the new box I got to use for catch up services I think allows live TV (as a paid extra) and so I was concerned I might be accused of being in breach of the Act, but it seems not. Always nice to know.
IANAL, but it seems a little bit of a silly idea to criminalize owning a TV. For that matter, 'receiving means' surely also includes having a laptop or tablet in the house, as that's a means of receiving live TV.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I know that I had to buy a TV license when I moved in with my SO, but I'm not sure if that's because we bought a TV (we never watch it) or if my SO just did the necessary paperwork out of habit.
Also not a lawyer, but I believe similar to other criminal cases, the investigator, then the prosecutor, then the judge and/or jury would need to make subjective judgement calls to decide whether or not to move ahead with prosecution, based on the specific situation.
For example a TV with built-in tuner and no other equipment (no DVD player, no console, etc etc) they would likely be able to argue that you do watch live TV even if you weren't witnessed doing it, whereas a TV that isn't connected to any aerial but is connected to an Xbox you could probably convince them otherwise without even leaving your own home.
I suspect that they would also lean towards giving the benefit of the doubt, because it's such a minor crime that if there's a chance you'd be found innocent in court, or that they'd have to spend time investigating further, it's a much better use of their time to move on to the next person.
>having a laptop or tablet in the house, as that's a means of receiving live TV. //
Well that's probably why the law was updated (if indeed it was) - the same rules used to apply to PC TV-tuner cards too though, having a tuner card was considered "receiving means" and meant license was needed for any premises where that computer was plugged in.
We have a TV but haven't had broadcast TV for many years, since our aerial blew down and we had no money to get it fixed - we stopped paying the license then as we no longer had receiving means. Just watch DVDs, iPlayer and the like (and use it for Wii).
As an aside, you can use a laptop to watch live TV anywhere (in UK), as long as you have a license for your "home"; but if you plug it in (eg to charge) then the premises you're at need a license!
So even if you don't plug in, say you're on a train or in a park, you can't legally watch live TV without a license for your home? I remember 15 years ago people (not many admittedly) having battery-powered handheld TVs - if a homeless person were to use one of those on the street would he be breaking the law?
Can confirm that the law changed from "owning equipment capable of viewing" to the actual act of viewing in 2003. You can fill in a form online to confirm that your TV is not used to watch lice broadcast. When I did that at a previous address with flatmates, they did send an inspector around a few months later to confirm. After a polite encounter to basically simply confirm that "we don't watch broadcasted signals" we were told that all was fine and that we wouldn't be bothered again.
It is legal to watch shows that have already been broadcast without a license, and it's legal to watch netflix/DVDs without a license.
It is only illegal to watch or record live TV broadcast without a license. This applies regardless of whether you use a TV or BBC iPlayer to receive the broadcast. IANAL etc.
Well the definition of a crime is whatever the law states, so yes it does fit, the same as not paying required income tax does.
You're welcome to argue it shouldn't be - either that license fees shouldn't be charged at all, or that it should be changed from a criminal to a civil matter (as another comment said is happening) - but argue one of those rather than just saying it isn't a crime.
It also helps not arguing it's bad because some groups are in favour of it (though you're not the one who raised this)
I'm against paying for a license to watch TV, that's my stance, for the simple reason you can have a TV for more reasons than just watching broadcast TV.
There is legislation moving through parliament to make this a civil offense as magistrate courts are swamped with these cases.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/24/in-court-non-...