• Sweden edition
 
The comments below have not been moderated in advance and are not produced by The Local unless clearly stated.
Readers are responsible for the content of their own comments. Comments that breach our terms and conditions will be removed.
10 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »    Reply to this topic

TV Licences needed for iPads and computers

Regarding the latest SVT changes ...

oddsock
post 26.Jan.2013, 02:41 PM
Post #16
Joined: 19.Dec.2008

They are basing it on this law:

En TV-mottagare är en sådan teknisk utrustning som är avsedd att ta emot utsändning eller vidaresändning av TV- program, även om utrustningen också kan användas för annat ändamål. Lag (2006:798)

It all depends on the definition of the word avsedd. Avsedd means intended. Very fuzzy word to use.
Go to the top of the page
+
Bender B Rodriquez
post 26.Jan.2013, 03:22 PM
Post #17
Joined: 25.Mar.2006

A TV-tuner is definitely intended to receive TV broadcasts, which is the interpretation of the law today. For internet, the law probably has to be rewritten.
Go to the top of the page
+
intrepidfox
post 26.Jan.2013, 03:44 PM
Post #18
Location: Gothenburg
Joined: 18.Jul.2012

If you buy a DVD player or a VHS player you are still liable to pay for a licence as it is presumed that you have a TV and that is counted as a receiver. A computer today can receive TV programmes so that is also a receiver. Thus sooner or later a fee will be charged
Go to the top of the page
+
Bender B Rodriquez
post 26.Jan.2013, 03:50 PM
Post #19
Joined: 25.Mar.2006

No, only a recordable dvd-player (and obviously a VHS) goes under those rules since it contains an analog or digital TV-tuner. Today only apparatus with a tuner are counted, so a computer with a TV-card is counted, otherwise not. However, with the new internet broadcasts they will now try to charge also internet connected devices, but unless they change the law this is a bit sketchy IMO.
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 26.Jan.2013, 04:16 PM
Post #20
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

So how far does the law extend at present in regards to what is classed as a TV Broadcast that is covered by the TV fee for Sweden?

Does the broadcast have to be sent from within Sweden to qualify it as a broadcast?
Are only state funded channels officially recognised as TV broadcasts?

As up until this point, its always been stated that any TV broadcast is subject to such fee.
But at the same time we are only seeing these latest changes implemented after Swedish funded channels have made their way on line.

One thing for sure is that I find this whole situation very strange.
The law is particularly wooly on its outlines, uses terms which are undefined and not covered by dictionaries. And there is no real way for common people to question or get clarification of the law without putting them in financial jeopardy.

I have never understood what makes a TV broadcast any different from that of a web broadcast?
If I look at a live webcam to see what the weather is like in the south of france ... Its a broadcast, but does it qualify for a TV broadcast?

Since the term TV (used in combination) with broadcast usually refers to a specific piece of hardware, which has a specific design. That design is well documented and very different to a computer device which can be used in different manners and is not defined as a TV Tablet or other similar names.
Go to the top of the page
+
Yorkshireman
post 26.Jan.2013, 05:18 PM
Post #21
Joined: 22.Nov.2011

QUOTE (oddsock @ 26.Jan.2013, 02:41 PM) *
En TV-mottagare är en sådan teknisk utrustning som är avsedd att ta emot utsändning eller vidaresändning av TV- program, även om utrustningen också kan användas för a ... (show full quote)

This is clear, it does not specifically say broadcast, it says Television Program. So, not specifically restricted to tuners, it just has not been applied or further defined to specific technologies ...which is sensible in law as technology changes, leave it open for the court to decide depending upon arguments presented.

QUOTE (byke @ 26.Jan.2013, 04:16 PM) *
As up until this point, its always been stated that any TV broadcast is subject to such fee.

No, it says that the reception of tv-programs...regardless of broadcaster.
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 26.Jan.2013, 05:27 PM
Post #22
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

But there is no definition of what constitutes as a TV program.
For all we know it could simply mean media sent from stated funded channels only.
Go to the top of the page
+
Bender B Rodriquez
post 26.Jan.2013, 05:52 PM
Post #23
Joined: 25.Mar.2006

It means any TV-program, irrespective of channel or origin. If you own a device that is "intended" (i.e. built with the purpose) to receive any form of TV-programing, the fee applies. However, can be argued that a computer is "intended" for receiving TV-programs. A TV-tuner certainly is intended to receive TV, but I would say a computer or iPad is not.
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 26.Jan.2013, 06:13 PM
Post #24
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

But there is still no definition of what a TV program is.
Since the means have broadcasting has changed, would that mean a video file from youtube could be construed as a TV program?

The lines of broadcasting have merged significantly as technology has evolved.
Previously it was viewed that any media sent from a TV channel to a TV via the airwaves was regarded as a program.

But with the advent of the internet and other forms of sending information digitally, its no longer possible to define what constitutes as a "TV program" any more as people are sharing great amounts of media based data.

If I made a video diary each week and sent it out to youtube to be redistributed and viewed, would that make it a TV program? If it is, why should my work be used for free to justify what is essentially enforcing a fee based on my work (without my consent) that in itself is theft. As I havent agreed to be part of that, my content exists technically outside the borders of swedish law and I dont get to see any the profit relating to it.
Go to the top of the page
+
oddsock
post 26.Jan.2013, 06:25 PM
Post #25
Joined: 19.Dec.2008

Yeah, is YouTube a TV program? Do I have to fund SVT if I watch Youtube?

Surely a TV program is a program broadcast to a TV, i.e. to a television.

Internet streams are not TV programs.

A lawyer could have good fun with this.
Go to the top of the page
+
Yorkshireman
post 26.Jan.2013, 06:37 PM
Post #26
Joined: 22.Nov.2011

QUOTE (byke @ 26.Jan.2013, 06:13 PM) *
But there is still no definition of what a TV program is.. Since the means have broadcasting has changed, would that mean a video file from youtube could be construed as a TV program?

They dont need to have a precise definition of what a TV program is ...when creating law You can always take your chances ...law is about argument and interpretation, you could bring test cases with the law wide open and see what arguments and interpretation the judge accepts.

QUOTE (oddsock @ 26.Jan.2013, 06:25 PM) *
Yeah, is YouTube a TV program? Do I have to fund SVT if I watch Youtube?

In theory if YouTube can be received on todays television and you only watch that, you are paying for the TV license. Not SVT. The license goes to pay for much more including the waste-of-money Radiotjänste. But then again, what other jobs would they be able to create in Kiruna?
Go to the top of the page
+
Bender B Rodriquez
post 26.Jan.2013, 07:00 PM
Post #27
Joined: 25.Mar.2006

QUOTE (byke @ 26.Jan.2013, 07:13 PM) *
But there is still no definition of what a TV program is.. Since the means have broadcasting has changed, would that mean a video file from youtube could be construed as a TV program?

I believe the current interpretation means any TV broadcast from a company that holds a Swedish broadcasting license. That is why SVT claims that technically internet devices became TV devices already when TV4 started their live online broadcasts. Youtube is thus not TV.
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 26.Jan.2013, 08:38 PM
Post #28
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

I think you may be right on that at the moment in regards to perceived interpretations.
But if that is true, it would mean that it goes against past statements in regards to definitions put out by the collection agencies and government. As previously, the law accounted for all TV signals deemed by a signal that is undefined.

Which means the law and its collection agency has mis sold a service.
Which in my opinion is fraudulent.

But that aside, this is what I am trying to get across.
If those who work in such an environment (SVT, Radiotjanst etc) cant even define accurately what they think is right without contradicting each other and using an over abundance of interpretations, then this law in itself is not worth the paper it is written on. It also highlights that this issue should have been dealt with a very long time ago as the way its been used and enforced is very wrong and has operated in a contradictory manner.

Another thing to also consider is , that previously TV and the state channels broadcast over a frequency spectrum (air waves) that belonged to the state. Since this has been greatly reduced through advances in technology, a large part of the spectrum is not used and instead is passed over the internet. And the internet space is not considered state space as far as I am aware as internet is not owned by the state (or any state for that matter). Otherwise, Sweden would operate exclusively on an intranet or similar closed network.

It is my view, that even though SVT is looking to broadcast over the internet - it shouldn't be allowed to claim a blanket fee across the board based on its operating in a space that doesn't belong to them. Had it been a private intranet then it would have been a different issue.

If film companies started uploading their content on to the web for free, and then claiming that it has to be paid for by a subscription fee with no opt out because their is no security or way to prove you haven't looked at it, it would be laughed at and deemed illegal. Yet this law seems to get away with virtually anything based on interpretations that are very questionable.

I really do hope they define the law better in the future regarding this as while some laws may be questionable, this one seems to be like an old leaky bucket.
Go to the top of the page
+
what would thomas paine d...
post 27.Jan.2013, 03:06 PM
Post #29
Joined: 15.Oct.2012

# 12 "...you pay for the right to have something..."

Talk about doublethink. The Swedish state creates "rights" when it wants to enforce (and/or tax) certain behavior.

I would contribute money to a lawsuit to fight against radiotjänst, if anyone hears of such a campaign.

You can't blow your nose in this country without the state dictating the precise method to be used, as well as enforcing your tax-financed "right" to nose-blowing education, liscensure, and access to state-approved tissue paper.

.
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 27.Jan.2013, 03:14 PM
Post #30
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

I wonder how groups like anonymous will see these changes?
As essentially what is being planned to be enforced is a Internet tax.

Can the state tax something they dont own?
As the internet was never designed to be owned by anyone, but by its own actions - it would appear that this tax is being levied to help pay for companies like SVT without consent.
Go to the top of the page
+

10 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Swedish Down Town Consulting & Productions
Swedish Down Town Consulting & Productions is an innovative business company which provides valuable assistance with the Swedish Authorities, Swedish language practice and general communications. Call 073-100 47 81 or visit:
www.swedishdowntown.com
PSD Media
PSD Media is marketing company that offers innovative solutions for online retailers. We provide modern solutions that help increase traffic and raise conversion. Visit our site at:
http://psdmedia.se