A television licence (or broadcast receiving licence) is an official licence required in many countries for the reception of television (and sometimes also radio) broadcasts. It is a form of hypothecation tax to fund public broadcasting, thus allowing public broadcasters to transmit television programmes without, or with only supplemental, funding from radio and television commercials.
The UK was the first country to adopt the compulsory public subscription model with the licence fee money going to the BBC, which was formed on 1 January 1927 by Royal Charter to produce publicly funded programming yet remain independent from government, both managerially and financially. The licence was originally known as a radio licence.
With the arrival of television some countries created a separate additional television licence, while others simply increased the radio licence fee to cover the additional cost of TV broadcasting, changing the licence's name from "radio licence" to "TV licence" or "receiver licence". Today most countries fund public radio broadcasting from the same licence fee that is used for television, although a few still have separate radio licences, or apply a lower or no fee at all for consumers who only have a radio. Some countries also have different fees for users with colour or monochrome TV. Many give discounts, or charge no fee, for elderly and/or disabled consumers.
Faced with the problem of licence fee evasion, some countries choose to fund public broadcasters directly from taxation or via other less avoidable methods such as a co-payment with electricity billing. National public broadcasters in some countries also carry supplemental advertising.
The Council of Europe created the European Convention on Transfrontier Television in 1989 that regulates among other things advertising standards, time and the format of breaks, which also has an indirect effect on the usage of licensing. In 1993, this treaty entered into force when it achieved 7 ratifications including 5 member states. It has since been acceded to by 34 countries, .
The actual cost and implementation of the television licence varies greatly from country to country. The rest of this section looks at the licence fee in a number of countries around the world.
Responsible for licence administration in Austria is GIS - Gebühren Info Service GmbH, a 100% subsidiary of the Austrian Broadcasting Company (ORF), as well as an agency of the Ministry of Finance, charged with performing functions concerning national interests. Transaction volume in 2007 amounted to EUR 682 million, 66% of which are allocated to the ORF for financing the organization and its programs, and 34% are allocated to the federal government and the local governments (taxes and funding of local cultural activities). GIS employs some 191 people and approximately 125 free lancers in field service. 3.4 million Austrian households are registered at GIS, percentage of licence dodgers in Austria amounts to 2.5%.
The main principle of GIS' communication strategy is to inform instead of control. To achieve this goal GIS uses a four-channel communication strategy:
The annual television & radio licence varies in price depending on which state one lives in. Annual fees from June 2008 are:
!State | !Television | !Radio |
Burgenland | € 253.32 | € 73.92 |
€ 279.72 | € 80.52 | |
Lower Austria | € 272.52 | € 78.72 |
Upper Austria | € 223.32 | € 65.52 |
€ 260.52 | € 76.32 | |
€ 284.52 | € 82.32 | |
€ 262.92 | € 76.32 | |
Vorarlberg | € 223.32 | € 65.52 |
Vienna | € 276.72 | € 80.16 |
The licence fee is charged to all owners of equipment capable of receiving TV and radio broadcasts. The total yearly amount of the fee is set each year as a percentage of the average net salary in the previous year, currently equal to 1.5%. This works out at about €137 per year per household with at least one radio or TV receiver.
The fee is the main source of revenue for the national broadcaster Hrvatska Radiotelevizija (HRT), and a secondary source of income for other national and local broadcasters, which receive a minority share of this money. The Statute of the Croatian Radiotelevision further divides their majority share to 66% for television and 34% for the radio, and sets out further financial rules.
According to law, advertisements and a number of other sources of income are allowed to HRT. However, the percentage of air time which may be devoted to advertising is limited by law to 9% per hour, and is lower than the one that applies to commercial broadcasters. In addition, other rules govern advertising on HRT, including a limit on a single commercial during short breaks, no breaks during films, etc.
Croatian television law was formed in compliance with the European Convention on Transfrontier Television that Croatia had joined between 1999 and 2002.
In 2000, a new constitution guaranteed everyone the right to receive messages without permission as a part of freedom of speech. The term television licence fee was therefore dropped in favour of television fee, but other than that, little has changed.
The switch to digital only transmission of TV in Finland has seen a decline in the number of households with a TV licence. The reason for this is not clear. It may be that people are recouping the mandatory cost of purchasing a digital receiver (€50-€100 for basic models) against the cost of the licence by way of protest, and others may genuinely have given up watching TV altogether.
The TV licence has been criticized for various reasons. The licence inspectors who target households that have no licence are seen as an invasion of privacy. People who have refused (as is their right) to let the inspectors enter their houses have reported that they have been ordered to pay the fee and penalty fees based on questionable evidence or no evidence at all. Yet the inspections are not effective and many people watch TV without paying the licence. With the increased popularity of commercial TV channels, pay-TV, cable, satellite and DVDs the right for YLE to receive the fees has been questioned. IPTV has led the very definition of what is a TV to become vague. Because of this alternative methods of raising the money have been proposed. A parliamentary committee tasked with evaluating the alternative methods has ruled out direct state funding because that would allegedly endanger the independence of the YLE. Scrambling the channels – not just YLE but also commercial would cause technical problems. The most likely alternative, unanimously supported by the aforementioned committee (with representation from all parties in the parliament) and also by the Minister of Communications Suvi Lindén, is to make the fee mandatory for all households and companies, regardless of whether TV is actually watched or not, and collect it as a fixed size (effectively regressive) tax. However, more recently splits have appeared and a decision has now been postponed until after the formation of the next parliament.
The licence fee is used to fund the public broadcasters ZDF, ARD, and Deutschlandradio, ARTE and the public "Third Programmes" TV channels and all public radio stations as well. Their budgets are often supplemented by limited advertisements at certain hours of the day. Germany currently has one of the largest public broadcast budgets in the world. Their annual revenue is roughly EUR 7.6 billion (which is approximately twice as much as the European and Russian space programs combined), plus EUR 500 million in commercial ads. Nevertheless the board of public broadcasters sued the German states for interference with their budgeting process, and on September 11, 2007, they achieved a total victory at the Supreme Court, rendering their institution as an independent and self-governing body.
Public broadcasters have announced that they are determined to strongly utilize all available ways to access their "customers" and as such have started a very broad Internet presence with media portals, news and TV programs. With the intention to "reach their customers" in an appropriate way, the national broadcasters have abandoned their pledge for restricting their online activities.
There has been some discussion about imposing a direct licence fee after complaints from people who do not own a television set and yet are still forced to fund ERT. An often quoted joke is that even the dead pay the licence fee (since graveyards pay electricity bills).
The licence fee does not entirely go to RTÉ. After collection costs, 5% is used for the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland's "Sound and Vision Scheme", which provides a fund for programme production and restoration of archive material which is open to applications from any quarters. 5% of what RTÉ then receive is granted to TG4, as well as a requirement to provide them with programming. The remainder of TG4's funding is direct state grants and commercial income.
The licence applies to a particular premises, so a separate licence is required for holiday homes or motor vehicles which contain a television. The licence must be paid for premises that have any equipment that can potentially decode TV signals, even those that are not RTÉ's.
It is the primary source of income for RAI, which does, however, also broadcast advertising. Italy has problems with collection of the licence, with approximately 40% of viewers not paying their licence. One of the reasons is that the maximum fine is only half that of the licence itself (plus the licence on top of that), compared to the UK where the fine is up to £1000 (about €1500.)
Viewers in South Tyrol, Italy, which has a large German-speaking minority, can also receive Austrian and German public TV and radio channels via terrestrial transmissions. However, they do not pay the German or Austrian licence fees.
However, MRT still has not found an effective mechanism for collection of the broadcast tax, so it has suffered a severe underfunding in the recent years.
Recently, the Macedonian Government decided to update the Law on Broadcasting authorizing the Public Revenue Office to be in charge of collection of the broadcast fee.
In addition to broadcast fee funding, Macedonian Radio-Television (MRT) also takes advertising and sponsorship.
The broadcasting fee is paid by: every family household in the Republic of Macedonia, hotels and motels are charged one broadcasting fee for every five rooms, legal persons and office space owners are obliged to pay one broadcasting fee to every 20 employees or other persons that use the office space, owners of catering and other public facilities possessing a radio receiver or TV set must pay one broadcasting fee for each receiver/set.
The Government of the Republic of Macedonia, upon a proposal of the Broadcasting Council, shall determine which broadcasting fee payers in populated areas that are not covered by the broadcasting signal shall be exempt from payment of the broadcasting fee. The households with a blind person whose vision is impaired over 90% or families with a person whose hearing is impaired with an intensity of over 60 decibels, as determined in compliance with the regulations on disability insurance, are exempt from the duty to pay the broadcasting fee for the household where the family of the person lives.
The Broadcasting Agency of Montenegro is in charge of collecting the fee (currently through the telephone bills, but after the privatization of state owned Telekom, the new owners - T-com, announced that they will not administer the collection of fee from July 2007).
The funds from the subscription received by the Agency belong to:
Around 60% of the fee goes to Telewizja Polska with the rest going to Polskie Radio. In return public television is not permitted to interrupt its programmes with advertisements. The TV licence is waived for those over 75. Only one licence is required for a single household irrespective of number of sets, but in case of commercial premises one licence for each set must be paid. However, public health institutions, all nurseries, educational institutions, hospices and retirement homes need to pay only single licence per building or building complex they occupy. There is a major problem with licence evasion in Poland, as the inspectors do not have right of entry to inspected premises and must get the owner’s permission to enter, because of this, it is estimated that about 45% households and 98% of businesses do not pay.
The licence fee is used to fund national broadcaster RTV Slovenija. In calendar year 2007, the licence fee raised €78.1 million, or approximately 68% of total operating revenue. The broadcaster then supplements this income with advertising, which by comparison provided revenues of €21.6 million in 2007, or about 19% of operating revenue.
The fee pays for five TV channels, 45 radio channels as well as TV and radio on the Internet. In Sweden, the term "television licence" was replaced a few years ago by "television fee", which was regarded as less ambiguous. The fee is leveraged based per household with TV service, not per TV set. Although the fee also pays for radio broadcasting, there is no fee for radios.
The licence fee in Switzerland is CHF 450.35 (€360.65) per year for TV and radio.
Viewers in South Tyrol, Italy, which has a large German-speaking minority, can also receive the Swiss German-language channels via terrestrial digital transmissions, but do not have to pay a licence fee.
No registration is required for purchasing TV receiver equipment.
A television licence must be purchased in each household that has the intention to receive broadcast television, irrespective of the signal method (terrestrial, satellite, cable or the Internet). A licence is not required, however, for a TV used only for watching pre-recorded media or playing video games. The licence fee is used almost entirely to fund the BBC's domestic radio, television and internet services. The money received from the fee represents approximately 75% of the cost of these services with most of the remainder coming from the profits of BBC Worldwide — a commercial wing of the corporation which sells programmes and runs stations overseas (such as BBC World News), as well as other business allied to broadcasting such as publishing. The BBC also receives some funding from the Scottish Government via MG Alba to finance the BBC Alba television service in Scotland. The BBC also receives a direct government grant from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to fund television and radio services broadcast to other countries such as the BBC World Service radio and BBC Arabic Television. These services run on a non-profit, non-commercial basis distinct from other BBC 'branded' overseas services provided by the commercial BBC Worldwide (see above). Hence, neither the World Service nor the commercial BBC services receive any UK licence money. The BBCs web sites are popular outside of the UK but these carry advertising when seen outside the UK. Advertising is not seen on the BBC web sites when viewed from within the UK. Advertising is seen however on BBC web sites created by the BBC Worldwide company, regardless of where they are viewed; the BBC web site clarifies (at the foot of the page) the funding source.
The BBC is not the only public service broadcasters. Channel 4 is also a public television service but is funded through advertising. The Welsh language S4C in Wales is funded through a combination of direct grant from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, advertising and receives some of is programming free of charge by the BBC (see above). These other broadcasters are all much smaller than the BBC.
In addition to the public broadcasters, the UK has a wide range of commercial television funded by a mixture of advertising and subscription. A television licence is still required by viewers who solely watch such commercial channels.
The current licence costs £145.50 (€174.99) for a colour licence and £49.00 (€58.89) for monochrome. Discounted, free or government-paid licences are available to viewers over 75, blind people and those in residential care. One licence covers multiple receivers in a 'household', with separately rented or leased rooms and apartments being considered as individual households. The cost is set annually by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport with the BBC responsible for collecting payment. As it is classified in law as a tax, evasion is a criminal offence. A small portion of the licence fee is used by the BBC to enforce payment, as well as funding Digital UK, a body established to assist in the process of Digital Switchover and a direct payment to Channel 4, to assist in its digital switchover.
A similar licence, mandated by the 1904 Wireless Telegraphy Act, existed for radio, but was abolished in 1971.
While every household in Japan with a television set is required to have a licence, it was reported in 2006 that "non-payment [had] become an epidemic" because of a series of scandals involving NHK. As reported in 2005, "there is no fine or any other form of sanction for non-payment".
The following countries have had television licences, but subsequently abolished them:
In 1964 the Australian Television Licence cost 6 pounds (pre-decimal) and the fine for not having a licence was 100 pounds. The licence was issued on a punch card (pre-computers).
As of Spring 2007 commercial units (hotels, bars etc.) have to pay television licence fees again, on a per TV set basis.
Since the Parliament decides on the amount of public broadcasters' income, during the 2009 crisis it was possible for it to decide to cut their funding by more than 30%. This move was publicly protested by the EBU.
The television licensing scheme has been a problem for Hungarian public broadcasters ever since the initial privatization changes in 1995, and the public broadcaster MTV has been stuck in a permanent financial crisis for years.
However in 1977, the licensing system was withdrawn, with both the Indian national public broadcasters, AIR and Doordarshan instead funded by both the Government of India and advertisements.
With the plan to abolish the licence fee in 2000 due to the excessive collection costs and in order to pay for public television from government funds, income tax was increased in the late 1990s and maximum run time of commercial breaks was extended to 5 and 7 minutes. The Netherlands Public Broadcasting is now funded by government subsidy and advertising. The amount of time used by commercial breaks may not exceed 15% of daily available broadcasting time and 10% of the total yearly available time.
However, since the merger between the public radio and television enterprises in Portugal, a fraction of the radio licence fee has served to fund the commercial advertising-free channel RTP2. The radio licence fee was instituted in the early 90's to fund the public radio channels which are advertising-free, and is charged through electricity bills under the name "Taxa de Contribuição Audiovisual" (Portuguese for Broadcasting Contribution Tax). The radio licence fee is approximately €20.52 per year (€1.71 per month).
The licence fee for television and radio has since been removed with immediate effect from the 1st January 2011. This was announced during Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam's budget statement on the 18th February 2011. Mr Shanmugaratnam chose to abolish the fees as they were "losing their relevance".
So in 1982, responding to a Canadian court's finding that all unscrambled radio signals are public as a matter of physical fact even if the communicator did not intend to make their content readily accessible to anyone within range, the DOC (Department of Communications) decided to require receiver licensing only in cases where it was necessary to ensure technical compatibility with the transmitter.
Subsequently, regulation SOR-89-253 (published in the 4 February 1989 issue of the Canada Gazette, pages 498-502) eliminated licence requirements for all radio and TV receivers, eliminating the possibility that licensing could be reinstated at the regulators' whim.
The branch of the Canadian Government which regulates radio spectrum affairs has been known by many names: Department of Marine [to 1935], Department of Transport—Radio Division [1935 to 1969], Department of Communications [1969 to 1996] and Industry Canada [from 1995].
The United States did eventually create the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) in 1967, which eventually led to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR); however, those are loose networks of non-commercial educational (NCE) stations owned by state and local governments, educational institutions, or non-profit organizations, more like U.S. commercial networks (though there are some differences) than European public broadcasters. The CPB and virtually all government-owned stations are funded through general taxes, and donations from individual persons (usually in the form of "memberships") and charitable organizations. Additionally, all individual programs on PBS and NPR are not sponsored by companies. While programming is not interrupted by traditional commercial breaks, underwriters typically precede and follow each program. 53% to 60% of public television's revenues come from private membership donations and grants, most stations solicit individual donations by methods including fundraising, pledge drives or telethons which can disrupt regularly scheduled programming. Some viewers find this a source of annoyance since normal programming is often replaced with specials aimed at a wider audience to solicit new members and donations.
Since the annual funding for public television in the United States is about $2 per capita, a separate tax or fee for public television would probably prove unviable.
In some rural portions of the United States, broadcast translator districts exist, which are funded by an ad valorem property tax on all property within the district, or a parcel tax on each dwelling unit within the district. Failure to pay the TV translator tax has the same repercussions as failing to pay any other property tax, including a lien placed on the property and eventual seizure. In addition, fines can be levied on viewers who watch TV from the signals from the translator without paying the fee. Depending on the jurisdiction, the tax may be charged regardless of whether the resident watches TV from the translator or instead watches it via cable TV or satellite, or the property owner may certify that they do not use the translator district's services and get a waiver.
Another substitute for TV licenses comes through cable television franchise fee agreements. A franchise fee is not a tax; it is a rental charge that stems from a community's basic right to charge for use of the property it owns. The itemized fee on customers' bills is included or added to the cable TV operator's gross income to fund public, educational, and government access (PEG) television for the municipality that granted the franchise agreement. State governments also may add their own taxes. These taxes generate controversy since these taxes sometimes go into the general fund of governmental entities or there is double taxation (e.g., a tax funds public-access television, but the cable TV operator must pay for the equipment or facilities out of its own pocket anyways, or the cable TV operator must pay for earmark projects of the local municipality that are not related to television).
There are public television programmes produced by Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK). RTHK is funded by the Hong Kong Government, but it does not have its own TV channel. Rather, it uses commercial television channels to broadcast its own programmes, and each of the traditional four terrestrial commercial TV channels in Hong Kong (TVB Jade and ATV Home, which carry Cantonese language broadcasts, and TVB Pearl and ATV World, which carry English language broadcasts), are required to broadcast 2.5 hours of public television per week. However, there is no such requirement for the newer digital channels.
Many believe that one of the main advantages of TV fully funded by a licence fee is that programming can be enjoyed without interruptions for advertisements. Although many argue that the alternative of funding TV through advertising is free of cost to the viewer, this is not quite so. TV advertising is used mostly to sell mass-market items, and the cost of mass-market goods includes the cost of TV advertising, so the viewers effectively pay for TV in their shopping bills because they are also consumers of mass-market products. It can be argued that the TV viewers effectively pay again because they lose valuable leisure time by waiting for advertisements to end in order to watch a TV program from beginning to end. TV series that are timed to run an hour on commercial channels are frequently timed to run for just 40 or 45 minutes when shown on licence-funded channels, without any loss of content. Europeans tend to watch one hour less TV per day than do North Americans, but in practice may be enjoying the same amount of television but gaining extra leisure time by not watching advertisements. However, the reason may not be so clear cut. Channels in Europe that do carry TV advertising carry about 50% less advertising per hour than their North American counterparts.
In spite of this, some negative effects of TV licensing have been pointed out: First, a licence is a regressive form of taxation, because poor people pay more for the service in relation to income. In contrast, the advertisement model implies that TV costs are covered in proportion to consumption of mass-market goods, particularly luxury goods. This implies that the poorer the viewer the more subsidized he/she is. This is factually incorrect, and the poorest in our communities pay the highest licence fee, due to their inability to afford to pay the whole licence fee upfront and therefore having to rely upon payment card options which carry a fee - sometimes having to pay nearly double the licence fee. Extremely unfair to the poorer in society; not that the Government, nor the privileged care. Second, the experience with cable TV and advertising in recent decades suggest that people don't really suffer a lot due to advertisement, because demand for commercial free channels and the use of technologies to skip commercials (like DVRs) has been weaker than previously expected. Third, advertisement is not necessarily a net cost to consumers because some products are improved by advertisement via an increase in the intensity of competition by sellers.
The third option, voluntary funding of public television via subscriptions, would require a subscription level higher than the licence fee (because not all people that currently pay the licence would vountarily pay a subscription) if quality and/or output volume were not to decline. These higher fees would deter even more people from subscribing, leading to further hikes in subscription levels. In time, if public subscription television were subject to encryption to deny access to non-subscribers, the poorest in society would be denied access to the many well funded programmes that public service providers produce today for the relatively low cost of the licence. In economic terms, the cost of producing and distributing a given TV program is independent of the number of viewers, and the average cost per view will be at its lowest when the number of viewers is maximised, as will happen if the signal is free-to-air and devoid of advertising.
The UK government's Department for Culture, Media and Sport, as part of its BBC Charter review, asked the public what they thought of various funding alternatives. Fifty-nine percent of respondents agreed with the statement "Advertising would interfere with my enjoyment of programmes", while 31 percent disagreed; 71 percent agreed with the statement "subscription funding would be unfair to those that could not pay", while 16 percent disagreed. They concluded, as had others, that the licence fee as method of funding public service broadcasting was "the least worse [sic] option".
In many countries, radio channels and broadcasters web sites are also funded by a TV licence, giving access to radio and web services free of commercial advertising, so the benefit is wider than just in the sphere of television viewing. However, in countries with a receiver licence there is a minority who oppose the system. Some of the critics dislike the very idea of a mandatory charge for using a television, they regard it as an anomaly that a person can be forced to pay the licence fee, even if they choose not to use the services it pays for. Such claims have grown stronger with the rise of multi-channel digital television funded by advertising. Critics claim that the licence fee is unjustifiable on the basis that minority interest programming can now be broadcast on specialist commercial channels.
Others argue that a fixed licence fee is a regressive tax, and thus unfair on low-income groups. Defenders of licence fees point out that, although the licence fee is a regressive tax, the same is true of many other compulsory payments such as petrol tax, vehicle tax and VAT. Furthermore, some countries attempt to make licence fees fairer to disadvantaged groups by offering discounts. However, for those wishing only to watch 'other' channels, ie. Sky Broadcasting services, this is clearly a nonsense.
Some critics of the licence fee say that their terrestrial channels can be easily received by border cities and towns of neighbouring countries without having to pay for the licence fee of the former.
Opponents point to alternatives such as commercial funding, voluntary subscription, or funding from general taxation. However, opinion polls in most countries with a TV licence have shown that an overwhelming majority prefer the current system , as it can give them access to TV that is not driven by commercial and political pressures as is sometimes seen with commercial, subscription, and taxation funded broadcasters (and thus "dare" to show "difficult" programmes). While this argument could be seen as valid for countries where the government is likely to wish to control a taxation-funded station, it can fall short in more democratic societies. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, for instance, which is funded by general taxation, shows more political satire shows than any other station. Programmes such as "The Glasshouse", and the multiple Chaser programmes ("CNNNN", "The Chaser's War on Everything"), not only make jokes out of general politics, but are often anti-government, no matter what their policies or political orientation is.
The British government described the licence fee system as "the best (and most widely supported) funding model, even though it is not perfect". That is, they believe that the disadvantages of having a licence fee are less than the disadvantages of all other methods. In fact, the disadvantages of other methods have led to some countries, especially those in the former Eastern Bloc, to consider the introduction of a TV licence; nicely confusing, as the Governmment intends it to be.
For example, both Bulgaria and Serbia have attempted to legislate to introduce a television licence. In Bulgaria, a fee is specified in the broadcasting law, but it has never been implemented in practice. Lithuania and Latvia have also long debated the introduction of a licence fee but so far made little progress on legislating for one. In the case of Latvia, many media commentators believe this is partly because the government is unwilling to relinquish the control of Latvijas Televīzija that funding from general taxation gives it. In other cases, nations with licence fees, such as the Czech Republic, have increased the proportion of funding that their public broadcaster gets from licence fee. In some cases such nations have found that the existing public service broadcasters could not compete with commercial broadcasters for advertising revenues.
Category:Licenses Category:Television terminology Category:Broadcast law
cs:Koncesionářský poplatek cy:Trwydded deledu da:Medielicens de:Rundfunkgebühr es:Canon televisivo fr:Redevance audiovisuelle gl:Canon televisivo ko:수신료 징수제 id:Lisensi televisi it:Canone televisivo he:אגרת הרדיו והטלוויזיה ms:Lesen televisyen nl:Kijk- en luistergeld ja:受信料 no:Kringkastingsavgift pl:Abonament radiowo-telewizyjny simple:Television licence fi:Televisiomaksu sv:TV-avgift zh:電視授權This text is licensed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA License. This text was originally published on Wikipedia and was developed by the Wikipedia community.
The World News (WN) Network, has created this privacy statement in order to demonstrate our firm commitment to user privacy. The following discloses our information gathering and dissemination practices for wn.com, as well as e-mail newsletters.
We do not collect personally identifiable information about you, except when you provide it to us. For example, if you submit an inquiry to us or sign up for our newsletter, you may be asked to provide certain information such as your contact details (name, e-mail address, mailing address, etc.).
When you submit your personally identifiable information through wn.com, you are giving your consent to the collection, use and disclosure of your personal information as set forth in this Privacy Policy. If you would prefer that we not collect any personally identifiable information from you, please do not provide us with any such information. We will not sell or rent your personally identifiable information to third parties without your consent, except as otherwise disclosed in this Privacy Policy.
Except as otherwise disclosed in this Privacy Policy, we will use the information you provide us only for the purpose of responding to your inquiry or in connection with the service for which you provided such information. We may forward your contact information and inquiry to our affiliates and other divisions of our company that we feel can best address your inquiry or provide you with the requested service. We may also use the information you provide in aggregate form for internal business purposes, such as generating statistics and developing marketing plans. We may share or transfer such non-personally identifiable information with or to our affiliates, licensees, agents and partners.
We may retain other companies and individuals to perform functions on our behalf. Such third parties may be provided with access to personally identifiable information needed to perform their functions, but may not use such information for any other purpose.
In addition, we may disclose any information, including personally identifiable information, we deem necessary, in our sole discretion, to comply with any applicable law, regulation, legal proceeding or governmental request.
We do not want you to receive unwanted e-mail from us. We try to make it easy to opt-out of any service you have asked to receive. If you sign-up to our e-mail newsletters we do not sell, exchange or give your e-mail address to a third party.
E-mail addresses are collected via the wn.com web site. Users have to physically opt-in to receive the wn.com newsletter and a verification e-mail is sent. wn.com is clearly and conspicuously named at the point of
collection.If you no longer wish to receive our newsletter and promotional communications, you may opt-out of receiving them by following the instructions included in each newsletter or communication or by e-mailing us at michaelw(at)wn.com
The security of your personal information is important to us. We follow generally accepted industry standards to protect the personal information submitted to us, both during registration and once we receive it. No method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage, is 100 percent secure, however. Therefore, though we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your personal information, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.
If we decide to change our e-mail practices, we will post those changes to this privacy statement, the homepage, and other places we think appropriate so that you are aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it.
If we make material changes to our e-mail practices, we will notify you here, by e-mail, and by means of a notice on our home page.
The advertising banners and other forms of advertising appearing on this Web site are sometimes delivered to you, on our behalf, by a third party. In the course of serving advertisements to this site, the third party may place or recognize a unique cookie on your browser. For more information on cookies, you can visit www.cookiecentral.com.
As we continue to develop our business, we might sell certain aspects of our entities or assets. In such transactions, user information, including personally identifiable information, generally is one of the transferred business assets, and by submitting your personal information on Wn.com you agree that your data may be transferred to such parties in these circumstances.