Re: TV licensing legality of a SlingBox ??

["Tim Hawes" <timsyahoo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Much as I'd like to disagree, the legislation seems to have been
written with such a broad brush, even a piece of wet string needs a
license :-(
(at least that's how the earlier posting from The Register seemed to
make it appear).

I guess we'll have to wait for the first test case for confirmation though.

Tim.


On 6/16/06, Mal Lansell <mal@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Well then let the BBC be  a subscription service.  You can continue to
> watch these programs uninterrupted by adverts, and those of use who
> don't watch the BBC (Truthfully the only BBC program I watch is Dr Who
-
> and the DVDs of that are less than =A3120 pa!) can choose not to.
>
> Mal
>
> Simon McCaughey wrote:
>
> > On 15/06/06, Mal Lansell <mal@xxxxxxx <mailto:mal%40lansell.org>>
> > wrote:
> > > I agree. Illegal and Wrong are definitely not the same
thing!
> > >
> > > Anyway, since the BBC counts for 4 out of hundreds of
channels, and
> > > represents a tiny fraction of my viewing, I'd be quite happy
for them=
to
> > > have adverts and for the licence fee to be scrapped.
> > >
> >
> > Personally I enjoy films and general programming from the BBC
without
> > adverts, even though I can fast forward through them if they are
> > there.
> >
> > For the small amount I pay for the licence fee I think I get good
> > value - the non-commercial local and national radio stations, and
> > there is usually one or more programs broadcast on the BBC that I
feel
> > are worth the licence fee alone - Planet Earth / Hustle
> >
> > just my 2p
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>