Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2013 November 18

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 18

Black and white televisions

Earlier in the year it was reported that there were still 13,000 black and white television licences in the United Kingdom.[1] I am wondering if there was any reliable figure on the number of black and white televisions in use around the world. Hack (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if they still sell them. I've seen black and white CRT portables fairly recently, but with flat screen technology, there may no longer be any savings in black and white versus color. In theory the monochrome version should be slightly cheaper, if everybody bought it, but if the market is too small they will suffer in the economy of scale. Perhaps in 3rd world nations, where price is more critical, there's still enough of a market for them to overcome this. Then there's also sales of used TVs, some of which will be black and white.

And then there's taxes to consider. If the UK charges more for a color TV license, then I imagine a few stubborn people will stick with their old TV just to cheat the taxman. StuRat (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's only 5" but Amazon still has at least one model of black and white television. That said, it was also the only model I could find. Dismas|^(talk) 05:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess the target market for a B&W TV wouldn't be buying online. Hack (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. Dismas|^(talk) 06:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Is that "license" above and beyond the cable fee, or is it all one deal? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I gather the license fee is a tax to watch TV. Probably best to have a look at Television licensing in the United Kingdom. Hack (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a tax which funds the BBC. There are quite a number of digital channels which you can receive through an aerial on your roof called "Freeview", or you can subscribe to satellite or cable TV, but you have to pay the Licence Fee however you get your signals. Alansplodge (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hack's assumption and Alansplodge's confirmation are not quite accurate. The Licence is actually a tax on the ownership of apparatus capable of receiving broadcast TV transmissions – even if said apparatus is not actually used, or even connected (e.g. sitting in a cardboard box, or lacking a power plug).

Neither I nor my parents (in separate households) own a TV, and are annually required (by aggressively worded postal enquiries) to confirm that we do not, and thus are (still) not evading the Licence Fee.

Some years ago, I bought my parents a portable TV/Video Player to enable them to watch videos, and had to have the vendor remove a vital component from the set's tuner and provide a receipt affirming this, in order that I/they didn't incur legal liability for the Licence Fee. (Yes, they've since upgraded to DVDs as well, but they still don't have a TV receiver.)

The rules also cover programmes that are being streamed over the internet simultaneously with their airwave broadcast, so I have to be careful not to watch such live streaming on my PC (lest I incur liability for a Licence, and am fined for not having one when I should), although I can, perfectly legally, watch previously recorded programmes made available by the BBC's own iPlayer service and by similar online services from other companies. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would you call it 'cheating', StuRat? If it's perfectly legal and valid to choose to have a B/W TV, what's the issue? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm using a different sense of the word, as in "cheating death". In this sense, it's not illegal, but the party "cheated" might still feel disappointed. Note that this is similar to the original meaning of escheatment. StuRat (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The difference being that originally it referred to someone's estate legally becoming the property of the state, whereas now it means someone being illegally deprived of something they're entitled to. Interesting redirection. Thanks for the enlightenment. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's only cheating if you have a B&W licence but actually watch a colour TV. But who would stoop to such trickery? Alansplodge (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be something delightfully Orwellian about inspectors going around to people's houses with television detectors. Hack (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

People complain about government surveillance for terrorists, but they're just fine with the government spying on the use of their TV's? Something's wrong with this picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

There is a small fleet of detector vans for that purpose, with elaborate aerials sprouting from the roof, although it is a widely held belief that there is no equipment inside them - see Myth of the TV detector van? and How do TV detector vans work?. I've never seen one and allegedly nobody has ever been prosecuted on evidence obtained by one. BTW Bugs, don't the IRS investigate those who don't pay their tax in the US? Or do they just work on the principle that you're all honest folks? Alansplodge (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The IRS largely does work on the honor system. Random returns are selected for audits, especially returns with peculiarities to them. If you've got your paperwork in order, there should be no problem. It does occur to me that the TV "license" is vaguely akin to the "personal property tax" in America, which is largely about cars nowadays. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And if you have your TV Licence paperwork in order, then there's no chance of a visit from the inspector. Alansplodge (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Not being british, I've wondered about the BBC TV detector vans. I know they've always been mostly for intimidation, but detecting a CRT and determining what channel it's on is pretty easy to do, so I always assumed that they actually did something. Can flat-panel LCDs be detected the same way? APL (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Portable TV's with very small screens tended to be black and white, even in the 2000's, when I won one in a contest. I am not sure if the switch to digital and hi-def has changed this. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed a bunch of b/w portables hitting stores really cheap shortly before the digital switch-over here in USA. That was in 2009. I remember being surprised it was even legal to sell them so close to the digital switch-over. APL (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would it be illegal, as long as the goods were properly described? I could legally sell my own beard clippings, as long as there was a market for it and people knew what they were getting. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There was some rather deceptive advertising to dump the old stock of analog TVs. For example, they would say it was "HDTV capable", meaning that if you bought a converter box to change it from a digital signal to analog, this TV could display it. Of course, that was true of every analog TV, and buying a new analog TV knowing you would also need to buy a converter box made little sense. StuRat (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Making little sense for the buyers has never stopped people trying to sell unwanted stuff. That's why they say "caveat emptor". As long as the goods are appropriately described and meet all consumer protection laws (including no misleading advertising, and full disclosure where required), it's the buyer's responsibility to satisfy themselves they're buying something of value to them and the price they're paying is a reasonable reflection of that value. I certainly agree that selling an analogue TV without making it clear you'd also need to purchase a set top box seems to be veering towards unconscionable conduct, but IANAL. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Cramps video of "I Can't Find My Mind" made in 1980 at UCLA Melnitz Hall Studio One, directed by Eugene Timiraos & Bradley Friedman

i desire to make an addition to the entry for the musical band, The Cramps. I, Eugene Timiraos, directed, taped and edited a color video tape-with-sound of them lip-synching their song "I Can't Find My Mind." This video was made at the UCLA film / video school's Melnitz Hall studio one in Professor Shirley Clarke's class when I was a graduate student in the Master of Fine Arts program. This video was co-directed with Bradley Friedman. It was most recently shown at MOCA (the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles) during the "Under the Big Black Sun" series in 2011. How can this be added or edited into the entry for the ultra-groovy "psychobilly" musical band, The Cramps? Please assist. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazul reet (talk • contribs) 06:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a published source for the information it can be added. Personal knowlege is not verifiable so unfortunately we cannot accept "I was there" stories. (Perhaps the MOCA published a brochure or something similar about it?) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Restaurant in Downton Abbey, season 4 episode 8

Hi all, I just finished watching the fourth season of Downton Abbey. In the last episode, Mary has lunch with Lord Gillingham in London in a restaurant that looks like a 19th century greenhouse. I was thinking it must be Kew Gardens, but it doesn't seem to be the Orangery or any of the other houses that are used as restaurants today. Can anyone tell what place this is? Thanks a lot, Groogokk (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've not seen the episode in question, but, according to our article (which is cited to this article from the Telegraph), it may have been the Criterion Restaurant or the Saville Club. Do either of these look promising? Tevildo (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify, are you asking where it was filmed (which may or may not be an actual restaurant), or the name of the (possibly fictional) restaurant on the show ? Also note that DA is set in the early 20th century (1910's and 1920's), but I suppose, being rather traditional, they might choose to dine at an older 19th century establishment. StuRat (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Tevildo, I'm afraid it is neither of the two restaurants the articles mention.

StuRat, I don't believe they'd make up a London restaurant for the show, so I think that the one in question either existed once or does still exist. Its name was not mentioned in the episode. To clarify, I am looking for the name of the place where it was filmed.

I still suspect in Kew Gardens, because the building looks like a large Victorian greenhouse and the doors opened to what looked like a park, but I'd like to know for sure. Groogokk (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)