Surely any channel that doesn't benefit from the licence fee shouldn't require a licence? The whole law on TV Licencing needs to be reviewed. It may have been fit for purpose back when we had 3 channels, but in today's crowded market it doesn't make any sense. For example, if I needed a TV licence to watch your channel, it seems only fair that you would get a percentage of the licence fee.

I honestly don't believe this will ever be tested in court. The last thing that TV licensing wants is to risk setting a legal precedent certain cases do not need a license.

The other aspect of this is the fact that the TV Licensing organisation insists on you confirming for definite in the negative that you do not require a licence. I have challenged them about this. I have compared them to other licensing authorities. Someone who does not have a driving licence is not continually bombarded by DVLA with threatening letters that IF they are driving a car without a licence, they are breaking the law. Nor do I get bombarded with letters from the weapon licensing authorities threatening me that I better not be using a weapon without a licence. I have repeatedly told the TV Licensing that I do not wish to receive offers of contract from them and to remove my address from their marketing database. I informed them that any future correspondence would attract a £50 processing fee - to which I received a reply stating that they would not enter into any contract with me (thereby telling me that I could equally opt not to enter into a contract with them). I subsequently received a letter asking me if I would be in on a certain date (though indicating that their inspector might call on that date though it could be another date). I replied to ask them to confirm the exact date they were intending to visit so that I could ensure that I had cake (or at least biscuits) available to offer the inspector while we sat down to watch a TV that I don't have. My view is that I do not need to go to the DVLA site to confirm I do not have a car, so why should I have to go to the TVLA to confirm I do not have a TV!!

"...simply isn't possible for TV licensing to do this...."" I personally think that's BS, I think they like to keep it as ambiguous as possible, to give more credence to the threatening letters they send out and have everyone believing they need a license

Very simple, don't invite TV licence goons in, don't speak to them or give them any information. Treat them like the cold caller salesmen they are.

I would not watch TV if they paid me. The news is beyond a joke.

We need a Trial by Jury under common law and get rid of this legislation as its not fit for purpose, unclear and basically a costly nuisance to many.

They're collecting money for "me" to watch content from another country? At this point it sounds like a scam.

Thanks Black belt! That was illuminating. I read somewhere online that the harrasing letters these collection agencies send are indeed in breach of law by trying to obtain money by a threat of court proceedings

At the end of the day, regardless of the law and legislation, it still remains that the only way the BBC/Capita know what you watch is if you tell them. Ignore the letters, Just say "no thank you" if they come to your door and you will be fine and not fined

In Sweden so many people opted out of paying the TV-license they started taxing everyone instead :(

Its clear they keep the definition as wishy washy as possible so they can extract more licence fees out of people. If they made the definition crystal clear they know even more people would conclude they don't need one and would stop paying meaning even less money for them, they are never going to do this willingly, especially when they waste as much money as they do harassing and threatening people to get them to buy one.

I don't pay, stand by the requirements that are involved and don't engage. It's clear to me that letting them in will create issues.

Ok, I might send this in response to the TV licence threat letters.. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Thankyou for your letter. I'm eager to give you the information you requested regarding my possible need of a TV licence, however I'm unable to clearly define what a 'TV broadcasting company' is, or what 'Television program services' are. Please provide me with your clear legal definitions of these terms, and when I have this information, I'll be able to inform you wether I need a license or not.

Surely the continual bombardment of people with unwanted letters, emails, threats of visits, threats of prosection etc must fall under the 1997 Protection from Harassment Act?

Yes the law is clearly flawed, the more cynical side of me says it's intentionally vague to get you to pay for a license just in case. But another way to err on the side of caution without having to pay the license fee is to watch only on demand content excluding BBC iPlayer, and to avoid any kind of live broadcast or live stream. All on demand content is currently legal to watch without a license regardless of whether it is provided by an independent creator or a TV broadcasting company, with the exception of content on BBC iPlayer.

So glad you have finallly done this video as a non tv license holder AND also a not tv user. For entertainment in my retirement I will of course stick to KZfaq.

Thanks for a really great video illustrating the complexities within the law. I'm now pretty sure I don't need a licence to watch the BlackBeltBarrister. I do hope the same applies to my Rumpole Of The Bailey collection. 🤔

Why has this never been tested in court ? Maybe it,s too big a financial risk ? Someone one day will do this i hope 🤞

The law is no longer fit for purpose, totally needs to be overhauled with the advent of KZfaq, Twitch etc that are in some sort of grey area. Better still it should be removed totally.

Another way to look at the issue with the law as it stands - the only way for an individual to fully assess if a live stream is possibly a TV broadcast under the law is for them to watch the broadcast at which point they have already broken the law if it is. Imagine if there was a shelf in a shop with a sign that said "some things on this shelf are free, please take one. We will prosecute all shoplifters for stealing non free items" and there was no indication of which items fall into what category except when they had you arrested after you leave the shop.

Isn't a "TV programme service" regulated by Ofcom? Regular people broadcasting would not fall under this, thus viewing their broadcasts live wouldn't require a TV licence.

If a TV license is required to watch any live TV broadcast from any TV company, then the fee for such a license should be split between ALL TV broadcasting companies. If the BBC still wish to retain their fee, then the license should only be required to watch BBC transmitted content and BBC iPlayer content - all other live broadcast channels should NOT require a license. That is the only fair way for the BBC to retain their license fee.

I suspect it is flawed by design, not perhaps from its implementation, but as time has gone by and media and broadcasting has evolved. The "design" part pertains to reluctance/refusal to update it to the current situation as a lot more people would be comfortable in not paying for a service they can clearly identify they do not use. I suspect there is substantial revenue in the form of people who are "programmed" to pay a TV licence and cannot be bothered with the uncertainty of whether they can be prosecuted or not. The "Is this a hill I want to die on?" principle

I was under the impression that in order to operate a 'Television Service' a license needs to be issued? Historically, this was via the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA)? Clearly this was some time ago...was everything deregulated and thus no license is required?

For 5.5 years they've been sending me letters to "the homeowner" but I will not pay them and I will not give them our name EVER! it's quite amazing how persistent they are and how the letters start then get more and more threatening as they send them until eventually the cycle goes back to the original letter....they've probably spent more on letters at this point than my fee would be? 🙄

A television license for a public company who cannot identify companies who produce television programs, is a joke. Seems to be very little effort made by the BBC to provide information for their customers, whilst the people have been under this enforced system of licensing for decades, a license that they do not want. BBC should be left to compete with other television program providers without forced public investment.

Does the BBC now have responsibility for interpreting legislation? I always thought that was the role of the courts and judges. Isn't there a conflict of interests with the BBC interpreting the TV licence legislation as they have a financial interest to interpret the law one way rather than another?

It is physically sickening to hear the BBC talk about 'values.' The 'laws' around requiring a licence to watch TV are archaic and indefensible, bullying and hostile behaviour to any pushback is so predictable and banal it's almost boring. THANK YOU for adding your _personal take_ in this video, that is appreciated. Some laws do not make sense and must be repealed.

Yep, I have a TV License and I'm certain our household does not need one. I have no devices connected to broadcast TV services, don't watch live tv and none of us have a BBC account so no iPlayer... but the threat of trumped up charges and capita employees at the door waving warrants keeps me paying for services we just don't use.

What's really annoying is there dishonest. I remember in my younger days, they used to go abt in vans saying they can tell if ur watching live TV, so that was obviously a total lie to trick u into buying a license.

I've lost count of the number of times I've explained to serving and retired Police Constables that people do not have to talk to TVL or let them in your home.. or even answer the door.. including if the Police are knocking.

In an age where they could encrypt their broadcast very easily to become a paid to view. Them choosing to openly broadcast and charge you no matter if you want to receive it or not just shows how messed up things are. It's the only publicly supported private company i know of if they had to compete on a fair and level playing field with all the other broadcasters they'd be done.

If you are a UK TV broadcaster you have to have a license issued by ofcom the list of current license holders is available on their website. I can't post the link to the page here as it gets blocked

I would argue that the BBC does have a list of TV companies that are counted as needing a licence to view, it’s called the Radio Times!

If the money isn't paying the creator why should their viewers have to pay the BBC.

Why doesn’t someone challenge this law? It is unjust , unfair , nonsensical and contravenes other laws . A good legal challenge will dismantle this unfair tax . Why don’t you use your skills to legally challenge it. I’m sure a lot of people would crowdfund you to take on the BBC 👍

I also think 'uploading' is a different thing to 'transmitting'.

I feel the Law around this should be completely scrapped, because frankly its only still being paid is because of scare tactic used in how vague this written..

As I am listening to you explain this, I called the licencing dept and briefly explaining that I ONLY watch KZfaq on the tv, my subscript was cancelled fortwith... Took less than 5 mins.. As an added bonus, as I had paid 6 months in advance, they are going to refund me. The lesson here? To hell with forms, CALL

I've asked tv licensing this question regarding KZfaq and the best answer I got was: you do NOT need a licence to watch "user-generated content that is unique to the platform or belonging to a broadcaster". However, if a user is broadcasting something that CONTAINS material that would otherwise require a tv licence, you would then need a licence to watch.

Takes me back to the early 1970's and the new DOT 1972 (?) Motor Vehicle Comstruction and Use Regs incorperating EEC regs. Some were at variance to the EEC regs, so I wrote to the DOT for their interpretation. The responce ... we only write the regulations, it is the job of the Courts to interpret the regulations. But the DOT were the body testing and issuing type approval to the regulations, for which they could not interpret. Brian

It should be enough to say that you are not allowed to view live TV programmes without a licence no matter how you view them. You shouldn't need to make a list of methods of watching, it's as daft as standing up in court and saying you shouldn't be prosecuted for speeding because you are using an electric car, or because the law doesn't say anything about the sports decals you added to the car. I can see that they are trying to force their way into other media as television becomes less relevant

The law states to not watch or record live broadcasts. End of. So, if TV Licencing uses a warrant for premises entry, it states on the warrant that the occupant must assist in a 'test' of the equipment. Then the TV will show a live broadcast and presumably the occupant is taken to court. My question is, how can the occupant be fined in court when it is TV Licencing that is using the TV to obtain live broadcasting, and to me, this does not prove that the occupant watches live broadcast? Can this augment be used in court? If someone is watching live broadcasting on entry then that's a 'fair cop', but if they find the TV switched-off, I cannot see how they can prove anything.

Actually you gave a lot of style(meaning the way you presented and conducted yourself) and law information...above the norm... It was very good... Full credit... really Thanks

Although I agree with the conclusion of this video, I would point out that the BBC do not get to write the law or decide what constitutes a TV programme - shouldn't we be looking at the wording of the ACTUAL legislation/laws, rather than the BBC's interpretation of them?

I Don’t know who needs to hear this… If you ignore the letters and Don’t answer your door… what are they going to do? I’ve never had one and never contacted them, still receive letters but no one ever showed up to check. I Don’t actually need one anyway (I’m not paying the BBC, for me using KZfaq 🤣)

Thank you for your amazing work. I would ask a question. Is the TV licence breaching jurisdiction, as they're changing a fee for services they are not providing? Is this not just totally incompatible with trading standards and the rights of consumers? Thank you again.

Your Honor, it is the argument of the undersigned that the requirement of a TV license as imposed by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is arbitrary and unreasonable. In today's world, numerous other providers such as Netflix, Amazon, and Disney have shifted to a subscription-based model, and it is submitted that the BBC should follow suit. Moreover, it is uncertain for non-subscribers of the BBC as to whether a TV license is necessary to watch a KZfaq livestream. Such confusion calls for a mass inquiry from subscribers to the BBC, seeking clarification on the matter. In light of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the requirement of a TV license by the BBC is absurd and should be reconsidered in favour of a subscription-based model. Thank you, Your Honor.

Biggest legal scam going, and the law/the BBC 'guidance' is deliberately kept on the vague side to maintain that "what if" fear element. Currently, you don't need a licence to use the (non-iPlayer) catch-up services, but those apps let you watch live TV. It's only a matter of time until BBC push for the licence to cover them because you "might" use them for that purpose. I'd like to think they'd never swing that one, but then once upon a time I didn't think they'd manage to get it to cover any and all non-BBC channels... but they did. So they're profiting from any and every broadcast programme, despite having no input in its creation. For example, when Amazon Prime show a football or tennis match live, you need a licence if you want to watch it, even if it's the only thing you watch that year; why the hell should you have to pay BBC £159 for that, when they have zero involvement in bringing it to your screen? As I've said before, it's like Tesco being allowed to charge you a delivery fee if you shop online at Morrisons. Nobody would stand for that, and it shouldn't be legal for BBC to do it either. With the digital TV technology we have, I think it would be a relatively simple task to force BBC to effectively become a subscription service if they don't want to do it themselves. TV licencing is based on the address, not the individual living there, and there is a database. Give all the TV service providers access to that database, and then they can enable or disable BBC channels on the box depending on whether the customer's address is present on the licence database; then change the laws accordingly. That way, BBC can be assured that only those who have paid can watch their content, and everyone else can watch any other channels freely - and BBC doesn't get paid for content and output they have nothing to do with.

The TV license is an anachronism and a breach of human rights by taxing people for receiving broadcast tv programmes and donating all those taxes to one broadcaster even if you don't wish watch that broadcaster's input. Just plain wrong.

You asked the BBC ... was there a reason? The government forced them to collect the TV licence, they didn't want to - they outsource it to an external company, know next to nothing Why didn't you ask Ofcom who regulate it, Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport who wrote the legislation? It's like asking a KZfaqr about KZfaq's advertising policies ... they obviously know a bit but they are do not or need to be experts on it

Have there been any test cases where a Court has defined whether a viewer was watching a TV programme that falls within the purview of the Law or not?

Thank you for your efforts in unravelling or attempting to unravel this mess. I don’t think the BBC is the authority regarding licensing but merely the recipient of the revenue collected. In one sense TV companies have created the situation by streaming their broadcast content. The BBC’s response conflates the terms “transmitted”, “streamed” and “broadcast” which are actually distinct attributes. The BBC could protect their revenue with a pay wall like some newspapers. Equally ITV funded through advertising can stream adverts along with programme content. At the end of the day the universal license for the benefit of one content provider is anachronistic in a era with a plethora of content providers.

Doesn't the law have to be clear cut? I constantly get letters every couple of months I now ignore them after a bunch of calls over the year telling them I dont need. I've closed the door in the face of them twice. But still feel uneasy because I watch Netflix Amazon and KZfaq.

if we are being charged via a TV licence to watch you live then surely they should be paying you a percentage of this money for providing the service.

As it is criminal is the onus on them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one has watched live TV from a TV company? How can they do that if what one has watched is not listed as being provided by a TV company ?

Would it then be reasonable to argue that not having a license is more reasonable than having one as you cannot prove what you paying it for? In the same way as going into the supermarket, paying money, then hopefully getting the groceries you wanted... If you get any groceries at all 🤔

I just tried to do the TV questionnaire last week and it is totally misleading and you are quite correct. You would have to say no to all questions. Ludicrous TV licensing 😅

This is just hilarious, because of the quality of the BBC that I've seen, I'm not sure many would regard it as "forming part of a television programme service"

They are looking at creators like yourself to see if it's viable to make you register as a Media Creator and comply like a real TV company so we have to have a TV licence to watch. I think that's why they are not committing to anything right now.

Why should the BBC be able to charge for watching KZfaq, channel4, ITV, SKY, Talk TV, ? The licence fee idea is a busted flush, not fit for todays audience.

As long as you don't watch any TV channel as being broadcast or use BBC iPlayer then you don't need to pay for a TV licence!

There's a lot of laws written at a time that didn't anticipate advances in technology into a digital age. This certainly appears to be one of those. I still think it's fundamentally wrong to use (as a measure) content other than anything owned/transmitted by the BBC given that other content dosen't benefit from the licence fee. The quality measures are entirely subjective. Great video on the topic.

TV licence law has always been flawed. Anyone who is not registered as a TV broadcasting service or does not need to be registered can send live streams and people can watch those live streams without a licence. Tell me I am wrong lol.

If a company has to apply to its native government for a license to broadcast then that should be classified as a TV company.

As I understand it, KZfaq has some editorial control and will exert that if it believes its values are being compromised.

It's possible that the BBC is keeping the description vague on purpose so there's more ways that they can prosecute you if they catch someone without a licence

Could you cover the Wild Camping debacle please? I would be very interested to learn what modern laws impose themselves over tort laws? And why etc. Thanking you kindly.

As this whole thing needs testing in a court, why don't you offer to take somebody's case on for free, and see where it goes?

Thanks for your excellent inputs.

The TV licence is there to help pay the massive salary for the cast of eastenders and the likes of Graham Norton. 'nuf said.

Simple answer..scrap the license

So, the TV licence is not just for BBC then? Pretty much every channel is either advert funded or a subscription service or both. Yet here we are, having to pay because the BBC is technically publicly funded.

Just scrap the TV licence, that will instantly stop all this confusion.

If there is no such list how can they prosecute you for not having a license?

I watch live zoom broadcasts as part of a Patreon subscription, so is that also included. This is the case of the law being outdated and requires a total review, or easier is just to scrap much of it and be done with it, as was promised before elections, and then quietly dropped.

TV Licensing needs to be abolished. BBC need to advertise like everyone else. They shouldn't get give special privileges just because it used to be owned by the state. I also think that the reach of the legislation should stop at the BBC and not including every other company.

TV licence is just a Tax, taxing foreign transmissions is wrong apart from potentially import duties / vat .

Sounds like you need a TV license to even use video conferencing if the letter of the law is given full latitude. This would seem absurd.

IMHO: you have perfectly hit the nail on the head as to why the current law is wrong. If a KZfaq channel is of sufficient quality, the current legislation my suddenly require the viewers to start paying a license fee and for no benefit to anyone. It could even be a cause for a loss of views and to many, a loss in income. How I think it should work in an ideal world, there should be a register of the services (not companies) that the providers must register to. Getting onto the register and renewing your position on the register should involve some method of proving or documenting why the service is eligible. This puts the requirement on all the providers to define themselves as appropriate. The benefit to the providers would be income from the TV licensing which is kind of the whole point of it. This takes away any ambiguity and allows for all parties to know when a TV license is required or not.

thanks for your time.

I,m a 70 year old pensioner. I went online to cancel my licence as i don,t watch live tv.but it said on the form .you need a tv licence to watch tv. I had to sign this, but it did not give me any option to correct this live left out option.! Nor leave any note. Their a protection scamm.i tried i padt to cancel. They hung up on me.!

This law sounds like it was written before the era of Social Media and online viewing (KZfaq, Twitch, etc.). It needs a complete overhaul or removal (as its an archaic law to begin with).

Having seen this vid, 1st: Thank for some more info on TV licensing, 2nd: Your channel has no doubt been helpful to many viewers, 3rd: I wonder why there is no definitive 'List' and I could be wrong but perhaps there is a catch for the BBC and you maybe right, a flaw somewhere that they know that could change their control on licensing? I wouldn't in a month of Sundays expect you to be our singular matyr who resolves the matter of 'not having to have a licence' however your info may lead to a loophole. It might, if viewers are interested in, investigating this rather grey area, hold some clarity as to how much the BBC does in fact know and can or can not, enforce their standing on the TV license! Q: could the lack of [ List ] be that the actual program material is different Every Day, ie: whilst the 'Channel/view times/staff/ equipment/ editorial crew/ etc, be the same, BUT, that the information in the show be constantly be different each showing? It is pure speculation, perhaps the only reason why the BBC 'could not' comment but only give guidance is that they don't want to leave any 'bread crumbs' to the 'possible' loophole, call it( misdirection), is what you see frequently in the style of these types of business!? Pause for thought: Is there something about a 'Live' program not being 'Dead' such as on demand shows, as I've previously mentioned, something about the signal?🤔🤨😏🤓

Given the wide scope and ambiguity that the enforcement of the UK TV licensing law and its authorities gives themselves , in regards to what defines a “TV broadcast” (in terms of source)

Does the UK TV licensing law put foreign nationals or tourists visiting the UK at undue risk of a TV license breach fine, if said person enters the UK with devices (such as smart phones, tablets , laptops etc) if said devices have app’s installed on that could be construed as “TV channels” under UK’s undefined definition?

Could passing through UK customs without declaring such installed apps on said device also constitute a fine if undeclared ?

What if a foreign national enters the UK with a device that they pay a similar license fee for in their home country. Are they required to pay an additional UK TV license fee for them to watch said broadcast while in the UK ?

I would question as to whether KZfaq does not have some level of editorial control. KZfaq does demand that your content fits in with their terms of service, and a number of KZfaq content providers have complained about KZfaq applying sanctions against them because the programme they have uploaded has been (in KZfaq's opinion) in breach of the terms of service provided by KZfaq. That does to me seem like some sort of editorial control, even if only a loose editorial control.

Personally I'm absolutely amazed the BBC came back with that reply. It could cost them a lot of money. Perhaps a test case needs crowd funding to establish the identify which channels/broadcasters require a licence to receive. Even the routes of footpaths have a definitive map, all of them.

I can get where they're coming from regarding being unable to provide a list. The list would have to encompass foreign 'broadcasters' too, and that would make it a nightmare.

Fundamentally, the way this now works, is you can no longer enjoy things as they once worked, such as by leaving a favourite TV Channel on during the day, and letting programs flow in, some of which may catch your eye such as the News. That enjoyment is now heavily politicised, for which they also want you to pay for this bias via a TV Licence. However, like many, I now detest the BBC and all MSM with a passion, so refuse to pay just to be indoctrinated. However, it would be nice to opt for an alternative such as, say, GB News Live. But, that's not allowed either, at least not when viewed Live. This means we are relegated to the chore of picking downloaded content if we are to avoid the bias, which does take a lot more effort. That's unless you just give in to the mindless USA based pap via a USB Device, and let them feed their disturbing agenda dressed up as entertainment. Then the bias is free to watch, but defeats the aim of not paying for a TV Licence. The core complaint is the TV Licence funds go to fund the BBC, and that is what most object to.

The question I would have asked regarding enforcement is, if TV Licensing have NO authority to enter a person's home, NO authority to question a person, and that no person is even legally required to even utter a word to them, HOW CAN THEY POSSIBLY PROVE A LEGAL CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT???

Quick Question: what is the standard of certainty one needs in order to succeed in prosecuting an alleged criminal offense of watching tv without a license? Does it have to be beyond reasonable doubt? Without clear definition, there appears to be a lot of reasonable doubt here ...

The reason the BBC don't want to make a statement/comment on your questions is because it's in their favour to keep the legislation murky and not definitive so that they keep the revenue coming in

It always amazed me that the BBC requires you to pay even if you never watch any of their programs. Maybe the BBC should become a subscription service, if you want the BBC you pay for it, if not you don't. Simple. It works for Sky, Netflix, Amazon etc etc.

Excellent information, thank you

Wait. I thought the licence was strictly for BBC content. How can the "law" collect money for videos provided by random KZfaqrs?

Seems to be it's a mess because the goal has been to try and safeguard BBC funding with no regard to the changing media landscape and what any of it actually means in practical terms. The law is a joke, as is its raison d'etre.

I registered online with TV Licencing conpleted the declaration form that i dont watch broadcast TV or Live stream BBC content. Ive not heard from them since. My TV doesnt even have channels set up on it, isnt connected to and aerial or satellite dish. I only watch KZfaq or Amazon Prime. They might have a hard job forcing a case to pay on me.

I think for the purposes of TV licensing a TV company should be defined as a content provider who has funding or partial funding through TV licensing. Any content provider which would require you to have a TV licence should display a TV Licencing logo so that users can clearly see what they can and cannot watch

Why does the BBC get money for people to watch other channels/ content makers. They should only get paid for their own work/ content.