Attached Link: http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28338

Well some words say it all ... US ... The US land of the free run by the Morons. Just my 2 Euro cents

mmm maybe i should have titled this will this effect us all

What's the exchange rate on that 2 euro cents of yours?

Attached Link: http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/klaxon.htm

Better dig a hole in the ground quick......hide while you still can! We are DO-O-O-O-O-O-O-MED!!!!!

2 Euro cents, eh?

With rasping tone, and voice of tin --
He always throws his two cents in......
And based on what we hear him say --
We can tell that 2 cents don't buy much to-day.....!

It'll never happen, the internet is too big, and its been too free for far too long for people to bow down to be charged for every little movement. Don't screw with our enjoyment, or we'll riot if we have to. ;o)

hands out rubber chickens this way men

Yea..us USA'ians always suck the fun right outta everything...~rolls eyes~ I agree with AS

well i can't actually see it happening just thought it was interesting and everyone might want to read it

and yes did mean affect xeno always making typos lol

Message edited on: 03/03/2006 23:40

I'll start my own internet, lol. Wireless... Outside of USA... But, everybody has to vote my images into the Hot20 everytime I upload, lol. =o} AS

I'd really like to see 'em try to implement it. I could do with a laugh. Just about every site in the world would relocate to some unregulated country, where nobody gives much of a damn what happens.

Some third world nation where eventually it would make it a small world power, lol.

shrug There are a couple of countries which allow pretty much anything online. So websites that carry material which would be illegal in 98% of the rest of the world are carried on servers which are located in those uh......permissive......nations.

I tend to think that the majority of us would NOT like to see such material made legal elsewhere.

So-called 'freedom' without ANY restraint ain't what it's cracked up to be.

Under such conditions: copyright violations would be the least of our problems, I'm thinking..........

So-called 'freedom' without ANY restraint ain't what it's cracked up to be. Exactly! I shudder to think what this place would be like with nothing restrained....

Fun?

Seems that US are starting to carry an uncanny resemblance to, let's say, Communist China... That heavily regulates WHAT you can see on the 'net... All for the people security, for sure... ;) Sorry to see as a beautiful country is going down the drain... in Europe we had a fair share of dictators and tyrannies, so we can easily recognize one as we see him.

At least we'll have a new one next turn-around, lol. "meet the new boss...same as the old boss..." (hope not, actually) (hope for the best, always)

We'll be fine, our leaders don't start wars after hearing voices from non-existent beings :)

"Just about every site in the world would relocate to some unregulated country, where nobody gives much of a damn what happens. " In order to have a pipeline the hosting country must sign an agreement with InterNic (A exclusive US non-profit monoploy). And they do have morality clauses. So no, move to some islamic countrys ISP won't work. So-called 'freedom' without ANY restraint ain't what it's cracked up to be. Yup, Fun, ..and usefull.. "Sectarian" --Those who hold a specific belief and will defend your right to believe it also.

Fun?

Yup, Fun, ..and usefull..

Yep.....try living for a while in one of those countries where nothing is restricted online.....you'll be having FUN, alright.......

shrug On the other hand, you might be OK -- so long as you had enough money to give to the right people. Then they'd allow website servers with ANY type of material on them.....anything.

Yep. Now THAT type of environment is what I call Freedom (with a capital "F"!)!

in Europe we had a fair share of dictators and tyrannies, so we can easily recognize one as we see him.

Apparently not, because y'all give a pass to true dictators -- while you attack those who are actually trying to keep the West free.......

** We'll be fine, our leaders don't start wars after hearing voices from non-existent beings :)** Just because you can't see something...doesn't mean its not 'really' there....;)

the two-tier internet system is currently under review by some U.S. agency, don't recall which, but it was discussed in a past issue of "the economist". it means that the fastest, most unthrottled traffic in the states goes to the highest bidders, whilst the sort of traffic we have now in the states will remain in place for the rest of us. by "fastest" I mean the T3 connexions they have in some asian countries, e.g. 30mbps, which will relegate the rest of us to throttled traffic below 6 mbps. the latter figure is further reduced by the fragility of popular servers and their limited throughput capacity, hence the common user is usually limited to much slower speeds.

"while you attack those who are actually trying to keep the West free....... " Sure. ;)

Sure. ;)

Good. You agree, then.

;)

Here in the UK the BBC is quietly lobbying for a broadband licence; or more accurately they are lobbying for broadband to be covered by the current TV licence. The reasoning being that having broadband equipment will be the same as having equipment installed for the reception of live TV broadcasts - for which UK 'citizens' must already pay over 125 ($220 US) per year to the state for permission.

The state TV corporation will get its way and there will be no substantial rebellion; people will pay up the same as they already pay for government permission to watch television (the constitutional status of the TV Licence is a legal permission to install and use television reception equipment). The state tv/licence is in place across most of Europe.

Yet somehow, having this yoke around their throats doesn't stop lots of Euros managing to squeal about George W McHitlerBurton and the United Terrorist States of AmeriKKKa. Once again state supression descends on the USA but lands somewhere else.

And in case you think I'm some sort of Mr Klaxon just making shit up:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4708170.stm

What?? Good grief!! Are they going to come into your house to check to see if you have a license, PJF??

TV Licensing (a wholly owned company of the BBC - which is the true state licensing authority) already know whether properties are licensed or not. It has a database of all addresses in the UK. What it doesn't know is if unlicensed addresses have television reception equipment installed. Retailers are legally obliged to take names and addresses of anyone buying televisions, video recorders and certain mobile phones (etc, etc) and pass this information to the BBC. So it can get an idea of suspect addresses.

It does send out "enquiry officers" (actually just private citizens working for Capita PLC, the private company the BBC pays to run TV Licensing), on millions of visits per year. These people don't have any more right of entry than a milkman. The BBC can, however, apply for a search warrant from a magistrate if it can show evidence of a crime (watching television without permission from the government is a criminal offense in the UK). This is quite rare.

The BBC also claim to use unmarked vehicles with electronic detection equipment to see if a TV set is in use in a private home. This may be true, but no conviction has ever been based on detection evidence...

Virtually all convictions (more than 100,000 per year) are based on confession. People simply don't know their rights and so let the "enquiry officers" in. They let them examine their home and any equipment in it that might be used for television reception. Then they make a statement and sign it - this is the evidence used in court ('rubber stamped') to convict. Most of those convicted are poor, with one of the biggest groups being single mothers on benefits.

Repeat offenders are sent to prison.

Soon the BBC will have its own fixed penalty system, convicting people by itself and bypassing the courts altogether.

Wonderful! sarcasm mode on

Yet somehow, having this yoke around their throats doesn't stop lots of Euros managing to squeal about George W McHitlerBurton and the United Terrorist States of AmeriKKKa. Once again state supression descends on the USA but lands somewhere else. Altho a license to watch TV is very bizzaro...could you clarify that statement you made above? Are you blaming the USA for something the UK government is doing? Also, from that article, "Most who watch TV on a mobile phone or computer also own a TV and are already covered by an existing licence." {So I see no 'extra charge' if it was implied..} "But those who only use their computer, for example, to watch TV broadcasts will need to ensure they are properly licensed." --------- However, viewers do not require a TV licence if they only use mobile phones or computers to watch shows which aren't being broadcast "live", such as video-on-demand. Still...this is all bizzaro in my book.

The problem stated in the report (the second link in the message the first post refers to) is quite valid. What to do if a copyright holder can't be found? On the other hand, the proposed rules could easily lead to ripping of copyright holders. The committee and the senators were only concerned with the US, disregarding the fact that the world is larger than the US alone. It only takes a little twisting to read their recommendations as "you can do anything you want, as long as the copyright holder is not a US citizen." In this regard I agree with the moron statement by BARTWORX.

"Repeat offenders are sent to prison."..... There has to be a bright side to this...do you at least get to watch TV for free in prison?

"Altho a license to watch TV is very bizzaro.." Better that than having your viewing interrupted by adverts every five minutes. The link PJF gave merely states that watching live TV on your puter/phone or whatever is covered by the standard licence. The licence pays for BBC radio as well as TV, also advert-free and very good (you can listen online if you want -- check it out). There are pros and cons with this licence thing, but looking at ALL the alternatives to the BBC (Sky, ITV, Channel 4, Cable etc), the choice comes to either watching populist shit designed to harvest eyeballs for adverts, or watching the BBC. All the subscription services cost way more annualy than the TV licence.

"Most of those convicted are poor.."

Oddly enough, it's the poorest neighbourhoods here that are festooned with subscription-service satellite dishes.

I suppose a compulsory licence fee is a touch hard on those who don't mind having their intelligence insulted (or haven't any to be insulted in the first place) by crap TV, but it's still only a couple of quid a week.

yes I agree with Pearce. The BBC is the best value TV in the world and certainly the best for quality content.

jumpstartme2:
"...could you clarify that statement you made above? Are you blaming the USA for something the UK government is doing?"

No, absolutely not. I'm pointing out the irony of those already under real state supression shrieking about imaginary suppression happening in America. The USA has the First Amendment to prevent the government from interfering with TV or broadband, etc.

On the other hand, the proposed rules could easily lead to ripping of copyright holders. The committee and the senators were only concerned with the US, disregarding the fact that the world is larger than the US alone. It only takes a little twisting to read their recommendations as "you can do anything you want, as long as the copyright holder is not a US citizen."

This is the view that most countries in the world hold towards copyrighted material from other countries. So-called international copyright laws are basically ignored throughout southeast Asia, for example. In places like Africa copyright laws might as well not even exist.

Ideas about "international copyright law" basically apply to Western nations. And even there: it's iffy at best. An awful lot of movies and music which haven't been specifically (officially) imported & licensed in other countries are often regarded as fair game for duplication & marketing without permission. There are some very popular video distribution companies in the US which have operated legally for years -- selling video copies of unreleased European & Asian movies.

But the favor is more than returned to us -- in spades. Many major-release US movies aren't even in the theatres before bootleg copies of them can be found all over the world -- and for download on the internet. And don't even mention our music industry; and what's done to them on a regular basis.

So the concept is not at all out of the ordinary. It's already happening that way: and it has been happening that way for a very long time. All that the politicians are doing is thinking about making it official: by clarifying the law.

Then they can probably follow this by figuring out a better way to impose tariff fees or some such on what are actually pirated materials.

I'm not saying that any of this is right; nor am I advocating such behavior. But I AM saying that what's fair is fair.

Take a trip to southeast Asia. You can buy any American film that you like on the streetcorners. Dirt cheap. And while you are at it, you can pick up a Chinese-made copy of Microsoft Windows XP, too........

In this regard I agree with the moron statement by BARTWORX

So do I. Because we have government officials who have taken far too long to address what is obviously an untenable situation vis-a-vis the often farcical (and utterly unenforceable) international copyright laws.

@PJF ---

I'd never dream of calling you a 'Mr. Klaxon' for pointing out what is clearly a government rip-off like the TV tax.

We could get into a drawn-out argument about why European nations enjoy such fancy unfairnesses........but the open debate of politics is a forum no-no.

I'll just say this much: over the years, I've had the pleasure of working closely with Europeans from many countries -- as well as people from other parts of the world. I have some very close German friends as a result.

Almost without exception -- after the Germans whcih I've known had an opportunity to live & work in the US for over a year (or for several years in some cases) -- then the VERY LAST thing that they wanted to do was to go back to Germany......they weren't happy about having to leave the US, let me tell you. They wanted to stay here in the worst way. But, international law being what it is -- and they being law-abiding -- they had to go back.

I was very sorry to see them go. But some of them are trying to get back over here to the US -- and I hope that they make it.

There's something addicting about freedom -- TRUE freedom. Although we've got more than our share of bureaucratic nonsense going on over here, too. Unfortunately. Message edited on: 03/06/2006 14:00

@PJF, ~whew~ ok, thanks for that :) Now...what's this I hear about no advertisements on tv in the UK? That just ain't right..nope, nope, nope..we here in the US are swamped with it >:( TRUE freedom. Although we've got more than our share of bureaucratic nonsense going on over here, too. Unfortunately. No doubt. I have made quite a few friends around the globe..and sometimes it makes my blood boil about what goes on in other places..because I compare it to what we have over here..and its not right that others have to go thru crap like that >:( We dont have it perfect here by a long shot...*grumble, growl} but we have it alot better than some places, and its sad :( Oh now look, I've gone all weepy and wimpy....gotta get back to being my waspish self :D

pearce:
" 'Altho a license to watch TV is very bizzaro..'
Better that than having your viewing interrupted by adverts every five minutes."

They who would give up an essential liberty for TV, deserve neither liberty or TV.

"The link PJF gave merely states that watching live TV on your puter/phone or whatever is covered by the standard licence."

Perhaps it was being overwhelmed by uninterrupted TV that caused you to miss the first paragraph in bold:
People who watch TV on mobile phones or computers could face a 1,000 fine unless they have a 126.50 TV licence.

It clearly states that watching live broadcasts on devices and services other than television requires a licence from the state TV company.

That is very relevant to this thread because of the way the law is interpreted. You do not need a licence to own a TV. Conversely, you do not have to actually watch a television in order to be required to licence it.

You can buy a TV and keep it sealed in its retail box. You can buy a TV, detune it from TV signals and use it as a monitor for watching movies on DVD, or for playing computer games. Neither of these circumstances requires a licence.

Yet - if you have a TV set tuned in and plugged into the mains but never switch it on, then you need a licence. This is because (despite what the BBC propaganda says) the licence is for having equipment capable of receiving live broadcasts, not for actually watching the broadcasts. For example, if you buy a computer from PC World that happens to have a TV card in it as part of the package, then you require a licence even if you never watch TV on it. People have already been prosecuted for this criminal offense of having a TV card in their computer.

So, if the BBC can convince the other parts of government that broadband internet services inevitably provide the ability to watch live TV streams (as they do) and so should require a licence - then anyone using the internet on broadband will be required to pay a licence even if they don't ever watch TV on it. They've already done so with mobile phones. Broadband is next.

Lampy:
"The BBC is the best value TV in the world and certainly the best for quality content."

It's such good quality and such good value that they have to force people to pay for it. They even have to force people who never watch it to pay for it.

Ahh yes, Eastenders; Fame Academy; Strictly Ballroom; The Weakest Link. What intellectual stimulation; the antidote to "populist shit".

Oddly enough, most people are unappreciative and desire the licence to go. Even the BBC acknowledges this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3537567.stm

Luckily for you in the minority, nanny state knows what's good for us.

We get many BBC shows over here via digital cable TV, on the BBC America channel. I've seen an episode or two of Eastenders. The Weakest Link had a brief (and much ballyhooed) American run a few years back -- but it didn't fly well enough to stay on the tube.

There is a brewing conflict coming up in the US between the cable TV industry and various consumer groups, etc.. Many people over here have expressed the desire to be allowed to select the cable channels which they wish to receive: and to leave out the rest. It would be personally tailored TV. Well -- the cable industry is fighting that particular idea tooth & nail: because they know that a good number of currently-run-but-never-watched-by-anyone channels would be left out in the cold under such an arrangement. Nobody would order those not-watched channels. And certain other channels would lose a lot of their market share. The cable industry sees all of this as being a danger to their own bottom line. As matters stand now - the cable companies can charge us for all of those extra channels -- even though we never watch them. By contrast, under an individually selective channel system the cable industry couldn't charge for what we didn't take.

But there is hope: we Americans like to have the freedom to make individual choices about such matters -- without either cable companies or the government telling us what we HAVE to do. And the American public normally gets what it wants.

At least we don't have to obtain a license to watch TV in our own homes. Yet.

Better not talk about this subject too loudly........some left-of-center Washington type might be reading this thread. They might start gettin' ideas.

Message edited on: 03/06/2006 17:05

Khai:
"incorrect. the law states that if it has a TV Tuner it requires a license."

Unless you can point me to the law that makes such a statement, I shall continue to regard your input as typical of the misinformation floating around about this issue.

"(this is the current law)"

No, that is your current opinion.

This is the current law:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30021--l.htm

and under that law the current definition of a television receiver is:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2004/20040692.htm
(section 9)

Isn't Coronation Street the biggie in England.....excuse me......I mean in the UK? ;)

XENOPHONZ:
"There is a brewing conflict coming up in the US between the cable TV industry and various consumer groups, etc.."

That'll be sorted out by the emergence of on-demand internet provision. The age of 'push' broadcasting as the mainstream is rapidly coming to an end.

"...some left-of-center Washington type..."

Some of your tax dollars are already spent on PBS. Just like any other arena (such as the BBC) where people and ideas don't have to compete - it's dominated by lefties. Write to your representative now. ;-)

Some of your tax dollars are already spent on PBS. Just like any other arena (such as the BBC) where people and ideas don't have to compete - it's dominated by lefties. Write to your representative now. ;-)

Oh.....believe me -- I'm well aware of all that. It's just that the power of PBS is small potatoes in the US when it's compared to the near-dictatorial power of the BBC in the UK.

Although PBS is bad enough on it's own. PBS sincerely wishes that it had clout comparable to that of the BBC. But over here, Rush Limbaugh has a gazillion times the audience that PBS does. Much to the irritation of some.

I recall the flap during the initial stages of the Iraq war over British troops not wanting to be fed satellite BBC broadcasts -- because of the BBC's stance on the situation -- and, by reflection, on the soldiers. IIRC, the British troops wanted Sky News (the European sister of Fox). ((Edited for a typo.)) Message edited on: 03/06/2006 17:41

Just remember -- it ain't nothin' but a forum. ;)

statements withdrawn (not becuase I think I'm wrong) but because I remembered - debating PJF is like trying to cut down a tree with a haddock - a waste of time. I therefore bug out and leave him to it...

Khai
"if you want to call me a liar again, don't"

I'm afraid I have to conclude that your interpretation of the law is as flawed as your interpretation of what I have said in this thread.

That'll be sorted out by the emergence of on-demand internet provision. The age of 'push' broadcasting as the mainstream is rapidly coming to an end.

You've got a point with this -- although I expect that the change-over will be a gradual one, and not happen overnight. There are still a lot of people out there who don't even use the internet: or who use it only rarely.

But I expect that'll change with time, too.

In any case, a dial-up connection wouldn't do for carrying TV shows.

"..what is clearly a government rip-off like the TV tax."

The BBC isn't the government. It's a corporation with its own management and board of governors. The licence fee is a flat fee that pays for all BBC broadcasts (including the World Service -- much valued in countries whose own broadcasters actually are arms of government). It isn't a tax in the sense of money that goes into general govt expenditure -- it pays solely for BBC output.

Of course if someone's ideologically anti-taxation it's a waste of time arguing, since anything other than point-of-sale payment is anathema to them.

Another point (directed at anti-licence agitators generally): If you don't own a TV, you don't have to pay for BBC output (and you can still listen to radio broadcasts). However, whether you own a TV or not, you still have to pay for advert-funded TV, since advertisers recoup their promotional expenditure by passing on the cost to the people who buy their products (do I really have to explain such an obvious fact?). So such TV isn't "free" at all, and you don't have any way of knowing how much you're paying, do you?

There are plenty of (privately-owned) media people who dislike the BBC licence, and the BBC in general, because they see its size, range and popularity as a threat to their own money-making plans (Rupert Murdoch regularly uses his Brit newspapers to attack the BBC), and I can't help wondering if such an agenda has found a voice here.

`Ahh yes, Eastenders; Fame Academy; Strictly Ballroom; The Weakest Link. What intellectual stimulation; the antidote to "populist shit".' Even dimbulb TV-owners have to pay the licence fee, so are entitled to have some programming aimed at them. THe BBC is a national service. :D

Subscribing to individual channels, or maybe very small packages of channels, that's what I'd like to see. It won't happen with the cable companies. They will sell large and expensive packages - and most of it will not be viewed by the cable subscriber. Subscription channels over the Internet is slowly happening in Europe. Unfortunately most of those channels are about subjects that don't interest me - most of them are sports, the others are fashion and porn. So for the time being I'm stuck with my cable provider, whose base package contains 30 or so channels, 25 of which I never look at. Advert-funded TV: the viewer pays twice. First the advertizers recoup their expenses by increasing the price of their products, as already pointed out, second the viewer will most probably view adverts interspersed with fragments of programs aimed at the broadest possible audience. Which describes US TV as I experienced it when I was in the states.