4

I am aware I need a TV licence to watch any live TV (including via the channel’s online catchup service), and I need a TV licence in order to watch any content on iPlayer.

In the answer here: https://law.stackexchange.com/a/53694/628, it’s suggested that some live streams would count as TV.

I am interested as to exactly what counts as live TV. Presumably, a YouTube or Twitch live stream doesn’t count. Does watching a football match on Amazon Prime, or BT Sport, count as live TV? Or if Netflix were to start live streams?

Tim
  • 1,118
  • 1
  • 12
  • 22

2 Answers2

7

The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:

  • watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel
  • watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.)
  • download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer.

This applies to any device you use, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.

And

What is live TV and when do I need a licence for it?

Live TV means any programme you watch or record as it’s being shown on TV or live on any online TV service. It’s not just live events like sport, news and music. It covers all programmes on any channel, including soaps, series, documentaries and even movies. If you’re watching live TV, you need to be covered by a TV Licence:

  • if you’re watching on TV or on an online TV service
  • for all channels, not just the BBC
  • if you record a programme and watch it later
  • if you watch a programme on a delay
  • to watch or record repeats
  • to watch or record programmes on +1, +2 and +24 channels
  • to watch live programmes on Red Button services
  • even if you already pay for cable, satellite or other TV services

From the TV Licensing body.

Basically, if its playing solely because you hit the play button, its not “live TV” and you dont need a license to view it.

If it would be playing at the same time for everyone on a schedule rather than on demand, its live TV. This includes sports on streaming services.

So, a Youtube video you can view at any time is not live TV, but a Youtube video you have to see at a certain time is. A subsequent recording of a live stream that you did not make is not live TV for the purposes of licensing.

A Twitch or Facebook livestream would also require a TV license to view.

  • 2
    Wow! It's slightly scary to realise that you may theoretically require a TV license because a friend is 'going Live' on Facebook (if it's still called that!) – Neil Tarrant Jul 30 '20 at 11:31
  • 5
    I'm in the US, and not subject to these rules. But last night on my computer I watched a live, real-time theatrical reading of a Shakespeare play as a Zoom "webinar" with the acting company scattered around the US and presenting their parts individually from their living rooms. Were I in the UK, I'd need a TV License for this. – DavidRecallsMonica Jul 30 '20 at 14:34
  • 5
    @NeilTarrant not only is it scary, it’s such an absurd feature of the law that the BBC requires I pay them money in order to consume content on YouTube... I like the content the BBC makes, but golly does there need to be some reform here. – Tim Jul 30 '20 at 17:15
  • 1
    @NeilTarrant thats the broadest interpretation of the requirements certainly - in reality, the TV Licensing authority would probably not bother chasing people for content which isn't mainstream or scheduled. If a market influencer has a scheduled livestream on Facebook, Twitch etc then that would probably be covered, but a friend doing an unscheduled livestream would almost certainly not be. –  Jul 30 '20 at 21:59
  • 1
    It's funny because the BBC purport to be an independent broadcasting company, insofar to say that they are not controlled by the government, yet the use the government and its ability to enact laws to force people by law into paying for their broadcasts. It's absolutely absurd. Even more absurd when you find out that the BBC carried out a study to find out what the effects on their revenue would be if they moved to a subscription model and found that they'd lose several tens of millions in revenue. Hence why they never did go to a subscription model. – Rstew Nov 18 '21 at 00:05
  • @Rstew "because the BBC purport to be an independent broadcasting company" where do they say that, because they are not an independent broadcasting company and are very much controlled by the government. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/01/bbc-regulation-ofcom-trust-david-clementi The BBC also doesn't "use the government and its ability to enact laws to force people by law into paying for their broadcasts" - thats the governments doing, not the BBCs. You seem to be under a misapprehension as to who controls whom in this relationship - the BBC exist at the governments behest. –  Nov 18 '21 at 00:14
  • @Moo They very much do claim to be independent when it comes to the content of their broadcasts...In fact, it would be outright terrifying if the BBC came out and said "the government controls what you watch on the BBC", even though that is exactly what actually happens. As for your last point.. The BBC exists at the governments behest because the BBC is a literal extension of said government. – Rstew Nov 18 '21 at 00:19
  • 1
    @Moo: I believe Rstew is using the term "government" in the British sense (i.e. the PM and cabinet ministers), not the American sense (i.e. the entire apparatus of the state). – Kevin Nov 18 '21 at 00:38
  • @Kevin thats the only way to use the term in regard to the British government - there is no alternative way, the current PM and cabinet control all departments directly, there is no separation between executive and legislative. –  Nov 18 '21 at 01:59
  • @Rstew well thats the thing, they aren't independent - they have been "dealt with" by the government-in-power several times over my life time when it became obvious that BBCs political correspondents were being overly critical of the government-in-power. Their budget is controlled by the government, their oversight committee is controlled by the government, the legislation which controls their make up is controlled by the government.... See where this is going? In recent years the BBC has seen its purview massively downsized, and they have been stopped from competing commercially as well. –  Nov 18 '21 at 02:02
  • @Moo: In the US, "the government" is considered to include the entire apparatus of state. Even things like the judiciary are "the government." You also have plenty of career civil servants who are not political in any meaningful sense, and the US also considers them to be part of "the government." – Kevin Nov 18 '21 at 02:05
  • @Tim How is that absurd? The BBC produces copyrighted material, and releases it under a particular license, and under that license, you have to pay to watch it. That it's on YouTube is irrelevant. If you're watching it without paying for it, you're violating their intellectual property rights. – Acccumulation Nov 18 '21 at 02:59
  • @Rstew Disney claims to be a private corporation, but they rely on the government passing laws making piracy illegal to force people to pay for their movies. Chase Bank claims to be a private corporation, but they rely on the government making bank robbery illegal. – Acccumulation Nov 18 '21 at 03:03
  • @Acccumulation the BBC controls the live viewing of all television within the U.K, including that over which they have no copyright. They also use custom criminal law to harass people into either paying them or registering that payment is not required; although that’s a little bit of a different discussion – Tim Nov 18 '21 at 09:32
  • @Acccumulation that's a straw man argument. Those pvt. corporations are not in any way directly able to change the law in their favour. Since the BBC = government, they are using the government to enforce "TV Licenses". No private commercial broadcaster sees any of this TV license money. They all HAVE to use subscription models in order to make their money. You tell me. What is the point of providing ALL content for free, both via free-to-air TV as well as online, but then retroactively make people pay for it? Why not do the same as SkyTV and use a paywall? I'll tell you why, they'd lose out. – Rstew Nov 18 '21 at 10:56
-2

According to the rules Live TV is Live TV if it's broadcast or streamed for an audience to watch at the same time. So technically if I was doing a live stream on Facebook or Youtube of me doing a barbecue for all of my friends or an audience to see as it's being streamed, then yes they would need a TV licence to watch it.

However if I recorded it and uploaded it for people to watch later then its 'on demand' and doesn't need a TV licence.

Does this simplify matters?

user41745
  • 1
  • Are you saying that if you, (who presumably is not BBC), produces a live video, people need a BBC license to view this live stream? – Acccumulation Nov 18 '21 at 05:28
  • @Acccumulation that is already the case for other TV channels. The law is non specific, so this answer feels plausible. – Tim Nov 18 '21 at 09:34