Television Licenses - The Truth Revealed

Drunkard #1

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,668
As mentioned, I am not a proponent of the law itself. I merely get annoyed when people apply flawed logic in order to make themselves feel better about their choice to not comply with a given law.

So, care to plug a set of R50 bunny ears into your monitor/tuner combination? Voila - TV ;)

I've made my stance clear insofar your ability as an individual to disobey a given law but then it can also be expected that you accept the possible repercussions of your actions.

Until such time as those R50 bunny ears are actually plugged into the monitor, it's most definitely NOT a TV.

The whole point here is that the law is out of touch with the modern reality of TV on your PC, movies stored your on PC and viewed on your TV, cellphones capable of receiving TV signals and so on and on.

People are, as far as I can tell, not shirking responsibility for their actions. They are saying that the SABC seems intent on persecuting the public based on a law that the public does not support. They abuse state funds by hiring lawyers to force settlements from their victims. They are obviously just milking the last drops of money out of this law before a public outcry gets that section of the act repealed. If they really wanted to collect money in terms of the act, they would test their legal interpretation in the courts, rather than extorting money by using scare tactics.
 

reederbok

Banned
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
30
As mentioned, I am not a proponent of the law itself. I merely get annoyed when people apply flawed logic in order to make themselves feel better about their choice to not comply with a given law.

So, care to plug a set of R50 bunny ears into your monitor/tuner combination? Voila - TV ;)

I've made my stance clear insofar your ability as an individual to disobey a given law but then it can also be expected that you accept the possible repercussions of your actions.

Is it more moral to obey an unjust law or to disobey it?
 

ToxicBunny

Oi! Leave me out of this...
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
113,498
Well actually just as a BTW....

Here's is the section of the actual ACT that applies to the television license.

27. Television licenses




1) …

a) No person may use any television set unless such person is in possession of -

i) a television licence issued by the Corporation against payment of the prescribed fee for each television set so used, unless exempted by regulation; or

ii) a written exemption pursuant to the regulations; or

iii) written confirmation, issued by the lessor of the television set in question that such person is a person to whom that television set has been rented, or otherwise made available in accordance with this Act.

b) No business, dealer or lessor may use any television set unless-

i) such business, dealer or lessor is in possession of a television licence issued against payment of a prescribed fee in terms of this Act for each television set so used, unless exempted by regulation;

ii) such television set is used in accordance with such licence; and

iii) such business, dealer or lessor is able to produce such licence on demand.

c) A user who is required to be in possession of a television licence must possess all the categories of television licences as prescribed, which pertain to such use.



2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person who manufactures or repairs television sets, or who acts in the execution of his or her duties in the service of such a person, in so far as he or she uses any television set manufactured or repaired by him or her, in or on the premises where it was manufactured or repaired or on any other premises approved by the Corporation, for the purposes of testing such a television set.



3) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) is, in addition to payment of the prescribed licence fee, liable-

a) to pay to the Corporation by way of a penalty an amount equal to double the amount of the applicable prescribed licence fee; or

b) in the event of a user proving that he or she had used the television set for a period of less than one year, to pay to the Corporation, by way of a penalty, in respect of every month or part of a month during which such a person had failed to take out such television licence, an amount equal to 10% of the applicable prescribed television licence fee provided that the total amount of the penalty may not exceed the amount of such television licence fee, unless otherwise prescribed.



4) A dealer who sells or alienates a television set to a person who is not in possession of a television licence and who is not exempted from the obligation to be in possession of a television licence, is liable to pay a penalty of R3 000 or such higher amount as may be prescribed, but such penalty may not exceed R10 000 in respect of each television set sold or alienated to such person.



5) notwithstanding subsections (3) and (4), any person who -

a) contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this section or any regulations pertaining to television licence matters; or

b) after an authorised inspector, referred to in subsection (6), has produced his or her written authority to such person fails, without good reason, to comply with any lawful demand made by that authorised inspector, is guilty of an offence in relation to each television set in respect of which the offence is committed and is liable upon conviction to a fine not exceeding R500 in relation to each such offence or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.



6) …

a) The Corporation may appoint any person as an authorised inspector.

b) An authorised inspector may –

i) require a person who is required in terms of subsection (1) to be in possession of a television licence to produce such television licence for inspection;

ii) require a person who uses a television set, or a person who is the owner or occupier of any premises on which a television set is used, to produce such television set for examination, in order to determine whether the provisions of this Act have been complied with;

iii) require a person who uses a television set to furnish his or her identity document or licence registration number, whichever is applicable;

iv) require a person who uses a television set, or a person who is the owner or occupier of any premises on which a television set is used, to furnish such information as may be prescribed or necessary in order to determine whether this Act has been complied with;

v) require a business, dealer or lessor to produce records relating to transactions involving television sets for inspection, and make extracts there from or copies thereof;

vi) enter upon any land, in so far as this may be necessary, in order to exercise a power conferred on him or her by this Act: Provided that entry may not be gained to a residence after dark without a warrant or the occupier's permission.



7) A television licence is not transferable, save as may be prescribed.



8) All television licence fees collected by the Corporation must be used by the Corporation solely for the public service to be provided by the Corporation.



9) To enable the Corporation to establish and maintain a national database register listing all sales of new television sets in the Republic, dealers, lessors and businesses must provide the Corporation with all information prescribed in respect of sales of new television sets.

Notice they mention a TELEVISION set.. they mention NOTHING about an appliance that is capable of receiving a broadcast signal. Therefore ALL of your logic regarding DSTV etc etc etc is wrong and the SABC is trying to write laws that don't exist.
 
Last edited:

LabAnimal

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,187
Until such time as those R50 bunny ears are actually plugged into the monitor, it's most definitely NOT a TV.

The whole point here is that the law is out of touch with the modern reality of TV on your PC, movies stored your on PC and viewed on your TV, cellphones capable of receiving TV signals and so on and on.

People are, as far as I can tell, not shirking responsibility for their actions. They are saying that the SABC seems intent on persecuting the public based on a law that the public does not support. They abuse state funds by hiring lawyers to force settlements from their victims. They are obviously just milking the last drops of money out of this law before a public outcry gets that section of the act repealed. If they really wanted to collect money in terms of the act, they would test their legal interpretation in the courts, rather than extorting money by using scare tactics.

+1 So Enigma243 - I'm sure your intentions to clarify anything SABC is done with good intentions, but really, you've wasted your time!

Its just a matter of time before i chuck out my old CRT TV and get myself 2 very large LCD Monitors (Not TV's) for just what i want them for!. I will never pay the SABC! Not EVER!
 

Quest10n

Expert Member
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
2,058
As mentioned, I am not a proponent of the law itself. I merely get annoyed when people apply flawed logic in order to make themselves feel better about their choice to not comply with a given law.

So, care to plug a set of R50 bunny ears into your monitor/tuner combination? Voila - TV ;)

I've made my stance clear insofar your ability as an individual to disobey a given law but then it can also be expected that you accept the possible repercussions of your actions.

One thing is clear, all these people that argue why they don't or won't pay TV licence fees will eventually have to pay once found out and then you will see their tales between their legs :D. They think they clever but they are actually dom even though they free for now.
 

ToxicBunny

Oi! Leave me out of this...
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
113,498
Prey tell WHY I will have to pay when I do NOT own a Television set...
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
105,603
Well actually just as a BTW....

Here's is the section of the actual ACT that applies to the television license.

Notice they mention a TELEVISION set.. they mention NOTHING about an appliance that is capable of receiving a broadcast signal. Therefore ALL of your logic regarding DSTV etc etc etc is wrong and the SABC is trying to write laws that don't exist.

same thing... "television receiver: an electronic device that receives television signals and displays them on a screen"

The court is not going to be very sympathetic with you if you try to wrangle out of a license by playing around with that definition. :D
 

ToxicBunny

Oi! Leave me out of this...
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
113,498
Unfortunately Gary, a court has to be sympathetic if I play with that definition, since we're dealing with legal terms here....

You have to be SPECIFIC in what you mean, or you have to define what your term means in terms of the law it is being applied to.
 

demon angel

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
1,930
If SABC want to make alot of money they could increase ad revenue by screening soft porn!
Laugh all you want,but imagine if sabc targeted this market after 12am with ethnic,local soft porn.
Etv is doing very well and ask yourself why?
Forget the ethics code!
Money is money and leave the poor consumer alone!
 

HapticSimian

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
15,950
Well actually just as a BTW....

Here's is the section of the actual ACT that applies to the television license.



Notice they mention a TELEVISION set.. they mention NOTHING about an appliance that is capable of receiving a broadcast signal. Therefore ALL of your logic regarding DSTV etc etc etc is wrong and the SABC is trying to write laws that don't exist.

Really now?

“television set” means any apparatus designed or adapted to be
capable of receiving transmissions broadcast in the course of a
television broadcasting service;

As defined by the INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY ACT
NO. 153 OF 1993 - care to try again?
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
105,603
Unfortunately Gary, a court has to be sympathetic if I play with that definition, since we're dealing with legal terms here....

You have to be SPECIFIC in what you mean, or you have to define what your term means in terms of the law it is being applied to.

but the definition is specific already. They are not going to redefine it for you alone.

The court is going to ask... can the device receive a television signal? Does it display the signal on the screen? Answer, Yes, Yes. Therefore the device fits the definition of a TV.

What makes you think you are so special that you are going to get off where thousands of others have been fined?
 

HapticSimian

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
15,950
How much of the original IBA Act still applies? Hasn't it mostly been replaced by ICASA Act & ECA?

As where sections have been specifically repealed, yes. But legal definitions such as this stand unless they are explicitly redefined.
 

ToxicBunny

Oi! Leave me out of this...
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
113,498
Actually from the Definitions section of the "Broadcasting Act"...

In this Act, unless the context otherwise indicates, radio, sound broadcasting service and television set have the meaning assigned thereto in the Electronic Communications Act,

I will dig through the ECA to find the definition of a Television Set.
 

ToxicBunny

Oi! Leave me out of this...
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
113,498
Well they were redefined explicitly, and i will concede this point to Gary....

‘‘subscriber equipment’’ seems to be the definition, BUT it is very VERY open ended, and would probably not stand up to a court challenge if you ask me, because it covers pretty much anything and everything really.
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
105,603
Well they were redefined explicitly, and i will concede this point to Gary....

‘‘subscriber equipment’’ seems to be the definition, BUT it is very VERY open ended, and would probably not stand up to a court challenge if you ask me, because it covers pretty much anything and everything really.

I agree with you that it is not fair... but we are on the losing end here. The government can and does vigorously protect the SABC and their licenses. They basically let them draw up all the legislation anyway. I dunno.

But if you think you can fight them, you are in for a surprise. Just like with Telkom they have all the loopholes covered.
 

Drunkard #1

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
3,668
Really now?


Quote:
“television set” means any apparatus designed or adapted to be
capable of receiving transmissions broadcast in the course of a
television broadcasting service;


As defined by the INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY ACT
NO. 153 OF 1993 - care to try again?

Well, they shot themselves in the foot with that one, didn't they. It's one of the worst written definitions in the history of definitions. It includes just about every item known to man, because, while a rock may not be able to process the signal received, it does "receive" it, and even (imperceptibly) alters it's state due to the signal. Just put a rock next to a 5 MW transmitter and watch the temp rise.

So if a rock is capable of receiving their signal, and therefore requires a licence in terms of that definition, why doesn't my M-Net decoder?

Of course, what they meant to say was "receives, processes and displays". But they didn't say that. They tried to be a broad as possible, and in doing so gave any defendant a free box of ammo. That definition wouldn't last five minutes in court. The SABC knows this, which is why they don't take borderline cases to court. They prefer the law to be ambiguous because it help them with their extortion.

So what is a "TV" as defined. We'll have to wait for the courts to decide that one, and until they do, I'll let the ambiguity in my favor, not the SABC's.

By the way, you haven't even scratched the surface of the Broadcasting Act of 1993. That act is sooooo badly written that it would be pure luck if ANY of its provisions stand up in court. Trust me, I've had a very close look at that act, and it's not pretty. Makes sense that the SABC promotes their interpretation of the Act, rather than pointing curious people to that utter disaster.
 
Last edited:

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
105,603
Well, they shot themselves in the foot with that one, didn't they......

who are you trying to argue with here? This is the definition that has seen thousands of people fined for not having a TV license. If you want to argue with it... wait your turn in court.
 

HapticSimian

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
15,950
So if a rock is capable of receiving their signal, and therefore requires a licence in terms of that definition, why doesn't my M-Net decoder?

And the courts entertain all kinds of doobie-fueled attempts at interpretation from the defendant? Where ambiguity exists, the court will settle on the most obvious & reasonable definition.

Your "but now my pet rock needs a licence" explanation will get nailed to the wall. ;)
 
Top