Applying for a search warrant... what do they need?

[MontyVeda]

...

it doesn't clarify if merely having a device such as a PC/tablet with an internet connection installed (as with a TV set) constitutes the need for a licence.


GC

It does, by stating 'to watch or record live TV' and 'to download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer'.

 

[EnPassant]

The stuff TVL keep sending doesn't say anything about possessing equipment capable of blah blah, only using equipment to watch or record blah blah.

Reg's wording suggests i need a TV licence for my phone, PC and laptop. The 'official' blurb suggests i need a licence if I'm watching or recording via any device.

Well quite.
If possession is the offence I'd say it's a fair bet that pretty much everyone could be guilty (barring a few luddites with no mobile or internet). If using is the offence, then not.
But from what @User is saying they don't have to prove this.
So you are left with the situation that you are breaking the law if they say you are?

 

[MontyVeda]

Well quite.
If possession is the offence I'd say it's a fair bet that pretty much everyone could be guilty (barring a few luddites with no mobile or internet). If using is the offence, then not.
But from what @User is saying they don't have to prove this.
So you are left with the situation that you are breaking the law if they say you are?

Possibly, but probably not. If possession was the offence, don't you think TVL would state this quite clearly in their letters?

 

[jonny jeez]

Why should he?

Why shouldn't he?

 

[MontyVeda]

I should say it's not my wording...

The legislation says "installed or used" - not "installed and used". There is some case law around what constitutes 'installed'.

Does 'installed' mean connected to an aerial, or dish?

When it comes to my phone, there'll be cookies or some such history showing that it has or hasn't been connected to the iPlayer... i doubt simply having an internet browser constitutes 'installed'. I can't see it standing up in court without additional evidence.

 

[EnPassant]

I think the recent amendments to the 2004 Regulations are so widely worded that it could be argued they include mobile phones. It'll take a few prosecutions to establish the interpretation I think.

So in the meantime, those who don't have a licence but do have an internet connection or a mobile phone might be breaking the law?
Nice.

 

[MontyVeda]

My phone is capable of doing a million and one things, but i only really use it for speaking to people and texting people. If a case was brought against me, they'd have to prove something, not just say 'yeah but you could'.

 

[EnPassant]

My phone is capable of doing a million and one things, but i only really use it for speaking to people and texting people. If a case was brought against me, they'd have to prove something, not just say 'yeah but you could'.

The legislation says "installed or used" - not "installed and used". There is some case law around what constitutes 'installed'.

So now, in order to be certain you are not breaking the law, you have to be cognizant of the relevant case law?
Hard to argue that a mobile phone is 'installed' I suppose. But an internet connection?
Meh.

 

[MontyVeda]

So now, in order to be certain you are not breaking the law, you have to be cognizant of the relevant case law?
Hard to argue that a mobile phone is 'installed' I suppose. But an internet connection?
Meh.

Nah. I could use my phone/pc/laptop to look at paedophilia, or to contact ISIS and try to join up... but they'd have to prove it. Simply having a device capable of something wouldn't stand up in court without additional evidence.

 

[classic33]

So now, in order to be certain you are not breaking the law, you have to be cognizant of the relevant case law?
Hard to argue that a mobile phone is 'installed' I suppose. But an internet connection?
Meh.

See the earlier post about your WiFi. Systems are being updated to see what you're doing.

 

[classic33]

Nah. I could use my phone/pc/laptop to look at paedophilia, or to contact ISIS and try to join up... but they'd have to prove it. Simply having a device capable of something wouldn't stand up in court without additional evidence.

That's one of them there words they look for!

Two Googlebots watching the thread!!

 

[Profpointy]

Nah. I could use my phone/pc/laptop to look at paedophilia, or to contact ISIS and try to join up... but they'd have to prove it. Simply having a device capable of something wouldn't stand up in court without additional evidence.

I understand the law is "ownership of a device capable of", which is easier to prove that "using said device for"

 

[MontyVeda]

I understand the law is "ownership of a device capable of", which is easier to prove that "using said device for"

We're going round in circles now... if the law is 'ownership of' why doesn't it state this in TVL blurb? All it says is 'to watch, record or download'.

 

[Bazzer]

Apologies that this is getting away from the OP's original question, but there was an article in the Daily Telegraph earlier this year
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/bills-and-utilities/tv/the-legal-way-to-avoid-paying-the-tv-licence-fee/

Obviously the DT's take on matters. Ultimately it would be a judge who decided.

 

[MontyVeda]

Because the TVL website is their interpretation of the law. ...

TVL interpret it as 'use' rather than 'possession', so i doubt they'd try to take someone to court for 'possession' unless they can also prove 'use'. it's their interpretation after all