The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
10 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 > »    Reply to this topic

TV Licences needed for iPads and computers

Regarding the latest SVT changes ...

byke
post 5.Mar.2013, 06:32 PM
Post #91
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

The law defines it covering the use of "TV", however proprietary technology conflict with the terms in relation to data transmissions and streaming.

This is why I believe countries like Finland didnt try and interpret the law as a desperate attempt to maintain its ownership over state information, and had to implement it into a tax to ensure it could collect the absolute optimum revenue.

Whereas in the UK the license fee is based on an opt out policy to ensure that technology and information doesnt become hindered and breech the commitments to human rights etc.

3 years ago, sweden was found guilty of not protecting its citizens right to freedom of information at the Eu after a tenant was evicted for mounting a satellite dish on the outside of the building he was in. Needless to say, the law is complicated.

However the most important factor of these current times, is if "TV" does become stream based via the internet it can no longer claim the protection it was granted to in the past as it no longer uses state owned air space to transmit. And the term "TV" is erroneous in modern day technology. And attempts to link it to such via the delivery system of the internet is factually wrong.
Go to the top of the page
+
Yorkshireman
post 5.Mar.2013, 07:31 PM
Post #92
Joined: 22.Nov.2011

QUOTE (byke @ 5.Mar.2013, 06:32 PM) *
The law defines it covering the use of "TV", however proprietary technology conflict with the terms in relation to data transmissions and streaming.

The law defines a TV receiver as a technical device that can receive transmitted or retransmitted television programs.

So, as long as someone like SVT continues to produce television programs, and they are also (re)transmitted across the internet (=streaming) then the law applies and is valid, there is no conflict with old/current technology since the law is technology neutral.
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 5.Mar.2013, 07:53 PM
Post #93
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

The law may attempt to be technology neutral, but the very nature and definition of TV isnt.
A television program is still defined by the medium of of its distribution (thus a TV program)

If SVT or any other Swedish channels look to distribute their content over other mediums, it can no longer be classed as a tv program.
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 6.Mar.2013, 05:26 PM
Post #94
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

From SVD today.

SWEDISH VERSION :
http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/nyheter/sveri...fil_7972382.svd

ENGLISH TRANSLATION :
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...fil_7972382.svd
Go to the top of the page
+
Yorkshireman
post 7.Mar.2013, 08:47 AM
Post #95
Joined: 22.Nov.2011

QUOTE (byke @ 5.Mar.2013, 07:53 PM) *
The law may attempt to be technology neutral, but the very nature and definition of TV isnt.A television program is still defined by the medium of of its distribution (thus a ... (show full quote)

You still haven't quite got it have You biggrin.gif ...in Swedish law with regards TV License the definitions are clearly stated, in as technology neutral as possible, such:

17. tv-program: program som huvudsakligen består av rörliga bilder med eller utan ljud;
18. tv-sändning: en sändning av eller att sända tv-program med hjälp av elektroniska kommunikationsnät där sändningen
a) tillhandahålls av en leverantör av medietjänster,
b.) är riktad till allmänheten, och
c)är avsedd att tas emot med tekniska hjälpmedel;

You may wish to have an alternative definition of what a TV Program is, and how it should be defined as broadcast etc... But the law makers have already defined Sweden's definition that is to be used. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 7.Mar.2013, 09:34 AM
Post #96
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

Again, a description of what a TV program consists of is one thing.
But the definitions of broadcasts and technology surrounding it are not only defined by patents and licensing.
But also defined in cases relating to article 10 by the EU courts.

Technology has changed, and while terminology by producers with their own interest in self survival have attempted to brand it. The fact remains they are very different.

Take for instance skype.
Its often referred to as voice IP.
Where in the past private delivery systems (the phone line) required that anyone who wanted a phone had to pay a line rental.

But since the advent of IP based technology the right to charge for exclusive monopolies has become redundant as alternative technology has prevailed.

Its still often referred to or associated with the term "Telephone" , but thats pretty much where it ends.

Its the same for this claim of IPTV (you may wish to read that in regards to Swedish use of technology)
Specific patents and laws surrounding it make it different from the technology known as "TV" in the past.
And aiming to charge a fee for a service that doesnt even technically exist any more clearly highlights the abuse of both the government in this area and the judicial system for not stepping in.

Luckily article 10 has had numerous cases go through the European courts.
And made specific defining judgements on such.
Most recently in regards to the distribution of media and news without hindrance.
(the right to information)

So while supporters of these latest collection fee's may feel they are covered from changes in technology.
Its only a matter of time before the laws have to be seriously amended as they contradict and breach the obligations they have to Europe.

Now I am not saying that Sweden cant impose a tax instead.
But as it stands, the right to tax for ownership of a computer, tablet or even smart phone is benign.

The funny thing in the future could be adverts placed on the radio.
"Have you been wrongly sold TV insurance" laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
Yorkshireman
post 7.Mar.2013, 10:12 AM
Post #97
Joined: 22.Nov.2011

QUOTE (byke @ 7.Mar.2013, 09:34 AM) *
Again, a description of what a TV program consists of is one thing.But the definitions of broadcasts and technology surrounding it are not only defined by patents and licensin ... (show full quote)

You read the definition the wrong way around biggrin.gif ...You have a belief of what a television program is, and patents and everything could also determine certain things ...but this is law not physical. The law in Sweden states that for the purpose of the legislation around tv-avgift that uses the term television program ...for the purpose of legal interpretation ...a program that has moving pictures with or without sound ... is to be used as the interpretation of television program. It has nothing to do with what a patent, creator etc... names it, or reality for that matter, it is a legal definition.

QUOTE (byke @ 7.Mar.2013, 09:34 AM) *
And made specific defining judgements on such.. Most recently in regards to the distribution of media and news without hindrance.. (the right to information)

I must admit, I do find it quite ironic that in the rush to cry Right to Information You wish to remove Public Funded Services that provide the Information, and seem to forget that then the only providers of information are private. The internet (and it's access points, routers exchanges, routers, and especially DNS) are Private owned, and then media companies are private owned ...In your future, whilst you may have access to information, that access would be completely controlled by private companies, where at a whim they can just shut off services.

QUOTE (byke @ 7.Mar.2013, 09:34 AM) *
So while supporters of these latest collection fee's may feel they are covered from changes in technology.Its only a matter of time before the laws have to be seriously am ... (show full quote)

It would make much more sense not only to impose a tax, but to not actually specify that seperately biggrin.gif ...just levy an additional % and be done with it. Then the Gov. would be able to do whatever it liked with the money.

QUOTE (byke @ 7.Mar.2013, 09:34 AM) *
Now I am not saying that Sweden cant impose a tax instead.

That's jolly decent of You, remember to tell Mr Reinfeldt & Co. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
mångk
post 7.Mar.2013, 10:15 AM
Post #98
Joined: 27.Jul.2008

It is really quite simple, if one owns a device capable of receiving the transmission or retransmission of tv-programs as defined by the law, one is required to pay the fee.

One doesn't have to like it but it is the law in Sweden.

A loose translation to english of the relevant bits of the law on what defines television, its transmission and so forth is:

tv-program: a program that consists of moving images with or without sound.

tv-transmission: transmission of or to transmit tv-programs with the help of electronic communication networks where the transmission:
a.) is sent by a supplier of media services,
b.) is directed towards the public, and
c.) is intended to be received by technical means.

TV-receiver: is any technical device capable of receiving the transmission or retransmission of television programs, even if the equipment can be used for other purposes.

This type of fee has been supported by the European courts and as Bender kindly provided earlier:

QUOTE (Bender B Rodriquez @ 2.Feb.2013, 02:31 PM) *
As ECtHR states in Faccio v. Italy:"The licence fee represents a tax that is used for the financing of the public broadcasting service. In the Court’s view, regardless ... (show full quote)

The fee in Sweden represents the means to fund a community service. It is a responsibility that all persons in Sweden that are subject to the fee have. Even if you do not like it or Sweden! huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
oddsock
post 7.Mar.2013, 11:26 AM
Post #99
Joined: 19.Dec.2008

Yes, I am aware that it is the law.

I am also aware that I am now breaking the law.

I don't care.

breakin' the law
breakin' the law
breakin' the law
breakin' the law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyxLGSMtqtM
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 7.Mar.2013, 12:23 PM
Post #100
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

I am going to break it down into simple terms for some of you in terms of internet based media.
(Irrespective of any moral or political view)

Over the airwaves (now basically redundant)
In the old days, it would simplmy mean the state channels would create a program, broadcast it over state owned airwaves. It would reach what we then referred to as a TV which was a screen with a signal decoder and built in software which would then decode said signal and reassemble it into a tv program.

Internet Streaming and similar transfer of information .
State funded channel produces what they wish to describe as a "TV Program".
But to broadcast it, they no longer can use state owned airspace.
So it has to be encoded into a proprietary format that also has heavily patented codecs.
At this point it is no longer a TV program but simply raw data (And cannot be classed as anything else).

Now in the days of old it would reach a TV with a built in tuner.
But computers dont have this as what converts the raw data and decodes it using 3rd party licensing for codecs etc.

So in this state or raw data, it is not a program.
The change comes when proprietary software installed on to any device that allows the data to be re-assembled into its original intended format (tv program).

For instance on an iPad or iPhone I believe it requires a 3rd party app to be installed onto said device. An app that is specifically licensed from the state channels themselves.
BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY DOESNT COME PRE LOADED ON SUCH DEVICES.

Where as on a stationary PC it again needs 3rd party software (usually relating to adobe) but again, many computers dont come with such software installed.

So really what defines any attempt to claim as being hardware or technology neutral is a farce.
As its the actual proprietary decoders that is the question.
As its this piece of software that is the receiver or tuner (nothing else).

And since they are often distributed by the state channels themselves, one has to ask why they are not responsible for their own distribution of key software without license?

As it stands now, local companies representing the government seem to be over stepping their claims of how the law allows such collection of fee's. As technically its ways to enforce it would look to be breaching the very law it claims to be representing.

But further more due to the very poor writing of the law, it too could be heavily construed of breaking EU law. As by the changes looking to be enforced by its interpretation, it in its very own existence looks to break a fundamental human right.
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 7.Mar.2013, 12:41 PM
Post #101
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

More lovely behavior by radiotjanst 3rd party employers.
(who coincidentally work on commission)

http://www.thelocal.se/46596/20130307/#.UTh8VBl5HcM
Go to the top of the page
+
Yorkshireman
post 7.Mar.2013, 12:55 PM
Post #102
Joined: 22.Nov.2011

QUOTE (byke @ 7.Mar.2013, 12:23 PM) *
But further more due to the very poor writing of the law, it too could be heavily construed of breaking EU law.

Alas, it is You that doesn't understand wink.gif

In Sweden the actual law text itself is brief, and in many respects a summary, what you have to do is look at the documentation that contains the reasoning and definitions on how the summary wording is to be interpreted.

This has been raised by a number of cases in ECJ, and the ECJ in it's judgements has said very clearly each time ...that within the EU there are differing ways of defining legislation and interpretation of definitions etc... and what must be respected in each case is how the law is interpreted in that Member State.

Example, which you Epic Fail to acknowledge... it doesn't matter what You think a television program is ...the definition of television program with respect the law on tv-avgift in Sweden is ...moving pictures with or without sound biggrin.gif

Additional Example: Transmision ...help of electronic communication networks... again, a legal definition.

Radiotjänst are actually just following the law.

@byke, your arguments remind Me of a man in the UK that was charged with Dangerous Driving, he was caught doing almost 200Mph on the M1 in his Jaguar XJ220 ...in court he tried to use as his defence, how could it be dangerous driving, the car was designed to go 220Mph safely! biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 7.Mar.2013, 01:12 PM
Post #103
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

Again, if it can't be decoded.
Then its not a moving picture.
Go to the top of the page
+
mångk
post 7.Mar.2013, 01:19 PM
Post #104
Joined: 27.Jul.2008

Byke is the internet a form of electronic communication?

Can one stream tv content (can one look at STV content) via the internet using mobile phones, computers and other technical means?

Why are such practices allowed and accepted in other EU countries and not in Sweden?
Go to the top of the page
+
byke
post 7.Mar.2013, 01:42 PM
Post #105
Location: Europe
Joined: 28.Oct.2008

No many electronically devices can not view content from channels such as SVT without proprietary software add ons such as apps.

Meaning that computers themselves are not portals for TV.
Go to the top of the page
+

10 Pages V  « < 5 6 7 8 9 > » 
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: