# Another Nail?? SKY+ £10 FEE DROPPED



## 6022tivo (Oct 29, 2002)

http://www.hotukdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68982

Sky are dropping the Sky+ £10 fee.

If you signed up to two premium it was dropped anyway.

Now you could just have the basic channels and you will still have full Sky + Functions.

Sorry if it has been posted before.

As of July 1st I understand.

Sky HD customers are not affected.. lol Still have to pay £10 to watch fish on BBC HD


----------



## Tivo_noob (Jan 28, 2006)

And $KY is still rubbish, they are fighting a losing corner and they know it


----------



## Andy Leitch (Apr 30, 2005)

Tivo_noob said:


> And $KY is still rubbish, they are fighting a losing corner and they know it


Let me see....

Sky+...over 2 million customers

TiVo... circa 20-30,000 customers

I'd like to see your definition of winning then.


----------



## Tivo_noob (Jan 28, 2006)

Andy Leitch said:


> Let me see....
> 
> Sky+...over 2 million customers
> 
> ...


Who said anything about Tivo?

Of course $ky are only dropping their prices to repay all their loyal customers


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

6022tivo said:


> http://www.hotukdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68982
> 
> Sky are dropping the Sky+ £10 fee.
> 
> ...


This was bound to happen with Freeview Playback boxes with Series Link about to appear. The disgrace is that Sky waited for this long to make Sky+ available to their basic channel package subscribers.

More importantly even the base Sky subscription still costs £180 per annum while a Freeview Playback box with Series Link costs zero pounds per year to maintain once you have bought it.

However this news will be of use to my sister and brother in law who run a basic Sky box with just a couple of the Mixes to get the kids channels.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Why? 

Surely you have already persuaded them to get a TiVo haven't you?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> Why?
> 
> Surely you have already persuaded them to get a TiVo haven't you?


No they have kids who don't like the channel being changed from CBeebies, Nick Junior or Pop Tv when they are in the middle of their favourite program.

Tivo does not work too well in a multi viewer environment on a single tv.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> No they have kids who don't like the channel being changed from CBeebies, Nick Junior or Pop Tv when they are in the middle of their favourite program.


But that's why they need a TiVo 

The problem is they're used to watching Live TV (yuk!) rather than recordings. However, TiVo works very well for kids as the default suggestions if enabled start off by recording lots of childrens' programmes. There is a lot more stuff on than can be watched in a couple of hours per day, so with a decent sized drive there should always be a good selection of unwatched recordings for them to choose from.

I can't believe you trotted out that stale old excuse Pete  Nevertheless, it sounds like you have some serious educating to do when you next see your relatives - and I look forward to seeing you report back here in a couple of months that you have persuaded them to buy a TiVo...


----------



## verses (Nov 6, 2002)

blindlemon said:


> I look forward to seeing you report back here in a couple of months that you have persuaded them to buy a TiVo...


I believe that there's some bargains to be had on Ebay...


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> No they have kids who don't like the channel being changed from CBeebies, Nick Junior or Pop Tv when they are in the middle of their favourite program.
> 
> Tivo does not work too well in a multi viewer environment on a single tv.


The disaster it would be if my kids watched live TV - I can always say to them "bed when this ends" and there is never any doubt whene it has ended!


----------



## cleudo (Apr 7, 2002)

It's not enough. When the box is out of contract (and belongs to you), the full feature set should be enabled. Freesat customers shouldn't be denied the functionality of the box.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

cleudo said:


> It's not enough. When the box is out of contract (and belongs to you), the full feature set should be enabled. Freesat customers shouldn't be denied the functionality of the box.


Like your mobile phone still works when it's out of contract?

Sky are making this move because they are getting near saturation on Sky+ with the majority of their customers who have premium channels (at leat some of which have premium channels in order to get "free" Sky+), and now need to make inroads into those on the mixes.


----------



## cleudo (Apr 7, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> Like your mobile phone still works when it's out of contract?


Wow - someone on here defending Sky! 

Not really the same thing. All they're providing as a service is the EPG - and Freesat customers get that at the moment anyway.

I'll concede that Series links shouldn't be included in the free service, but otherwise, how is the Sky+ box any different to the many free PVR's out there?

To use your phone analogy, many phone providers convert your phone to PAYG when you end your contract and your phone continues to work. A free Sky+ box could still charge for box office movies etc, so PAYG as well....


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Obviously everyone would prefer that, but it's unrealistic to expect Sky not to try to lock you in to their service.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Like your mobile phone still works when it's out of contract?
> 
> Sky are making this move because they are getting near saturation on Sky+ with the majority of their customers who have premium channels (at leat some of which have premium channels in order to get "free" Sky+), and now need to make inroads into those on the mixes.


As indeed your Vodafone and O2 mobile does work out of contract with any Pay As You Go SIM card at all from any network or indeed during the contract period if you don't care to continue using the Vodafone or O2 airtime you have paid for.

With Pay As You you are locked to using SIMs from the network provider you bought the phone from for the first year but then you can get it unlocked for a small fee with some network providers or free with Vodafone who are nice to their PAYG customers in this one particular respect.

It is an utter disgrace that the useless Ofcom allows a recording function which is a built in feature of the box and not dependent on royalties to program makers to only be active if paying Sky at least £180 per annum. British Airways are potentially going to be find £350 million for commercial arrangements which are barely more anticompetitive. So how is Sky allowed to discriminate against Freesat customers in this way?

The difference is that BA are regulated by the OFT while Sky is regulated by corporate lapdog Ofcom which is a totally failed regulator in terms of protecting the consumer or ensuring properly competitive markets. And note who has just become Ofcom's Communications Director and where he previously worked.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

cleudo said:


> Wow - someone on here defending Sky!


Take no notice of TCM.

As he works in a very well paid job and has more money than he knows how to waste on the latest plasma screens and full Sky subscription package he has always shown a totally lack of empathy with anyone who might be trying to use a Tivo or watch television in general on a budget.


----------



## 6022tivo (Oct 29, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Take no notice of TCM.
> 
> As he works in a very well paid job and has more money than he knows how to waste on the latest plasma screens and full Sky subscription package he has always shown a totally lack of empathy with anyone who might be trying to use a Tivo or watch television in general on a budget.


MEOW...


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

6022tivo said:


> MEOW...


Only giving as good as so one often gets from TCM I feel.

Also his constant standing up for Sky and their over priced ripoff services, which almost no one else here ever seems to do, is just too much to take.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Take no notice of TCM.
> 
> As he works in a very well paid job and has more money than he knows how to waste on the latest plasma screens and full Sky subscription package he has always shown a totally lack of empathy with anyone who might be trying to use a Tivo or watch television in general on a budget.


I do not have a plasma screen, nor do I subscribe to the top package anymore.

You, Pete, are just plain insulting and rude, regardless of how much you earn.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I do not have a plasma screen, nor do I subscribe to the top package anymore.


Oh so you have a massive LCD screen instead of a Plasma screen (and probably a highly expensive Scaler for it too) and then the Sky package that costs perhaps £3 less than their most expensive HD one then.

So splitting hairs once again I see.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> It is an utter disgrace that the useless Ofcom allows a recording function which is a built in feature of the box and not dependent on royalties to program makers to only be active if paying Sky at least £180 per annum. British Airways are potentially going to be find £350 million for commercial arrangements which are barely more anticompetitive. So how is Sky allowed to discriminate against Freesat customers in this way?
> 
> The difference is that BA are regulated by the OFT while Sky is regulated by corporate lapdog Ofcom which is a totally failed regulator in terms of protecting the consumer or ensuring properly competitive markets. And note who has just become Ofcom's Communications Director and where he previously worked.


It's £120 not £180, but what are mere facts, eh?

Ofcom just killed off the Sky-on-Freeview project; you laid into them when that was announced for not taking action and being corrupt - I haven't noticed you giving them any credit for that?

The BA fine is for colluding with other airlines to price fix - an entirely different matter to charging what they can squeeze out of the customer, which is what Sky are doing. One is illegal, the other an annoying but legitimate business decision.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Oh so you have a massive LCD screen instead of a Plasma screen (and probably a highly expensive Scaler for it too) and then the Sky package that costs perhaps £3 less than their most expensive HD one then.
> .


Wrong on all three counts. At least you're consistent.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Also his constant standing up for Sky and their over priced ripoff services, which almost no one else here ever seems to do, is just too much to take.


I object to knee-jerk "Sky are bad", "Microsoft are bad", "The government is corrupt" positions. It's lazy and requires no thinking.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I object to knee-jerk "Sky are bad", "Microsoft are bad", "The government is corrupt" positions. It's lazy and requires no thinking.


I think Microsoft actually somewhat redeemed themselves by (a) Windows XP being a resonably stable operating system that worked and (b) supporting upgrades to it for 6 years free of charge unlike greedy Symantec and their various anti-virus and security products who not only make you buy a new annual virus subscription but also make their old software package obsolete once a year.

However Micrsoft's Windows Vista upgrade pricing completely sucks. Only a moron would pay the Windows Vista software upgrade price instead of buying a whole new computer with it pre-installed.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

I take it you haven't looked into the DRM issues surrounding Vista then Pete?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> It's £120 not £180, but what are mere facts, eh?


£180 for 2 Mixes to get Sky+ free compared to no monthly sub for Freeview Playback was the point I was making. I wasn't talking about the now deleted £10 per month charge for Sky+ on top of this.



> Ofcom just killed off the Sky-on-Freeview project; you laid into them when that was announced for not taking action and being corrupt - I haven't noticed you giving them any credit for that?


I hadn't heard that was the decision they had reached. If so all credit to them for this. Although I presume you mean the Pay Sky Tv on Freeview project given that we already have FTA Sky on Freeview.



> The BA fine is for colluding with other airlines to price fix - an entirely different matter to charging what they can squeeze out of the customer, which is what Sky are doing. One is illegal, the other an annoying but legitimate business decision.


But what Sky is trying to do Virgin Media is thoroughly anticompetitive and illegal as are Sky's ads then trying to make customers leave Virgin as a result of that deliberately anticompetitive behaviour. I would hope but am not confident that Sky will ultimately be fined a large amount for that behaviour as it is far worse then the fuel surcharge price fixing by BA. Also the price of Sky channel packages is supported by a raft of previous highly suspect anticompetitive deals they have signed to secure exlusive tv rights for various crucial events.

Fuel surcharges should IMHO be made illegal as most airlines usually already hedge the cost of airline fuel by buying it ahead on the futures market during the period for which they have already pre-sold tickets. Its an obvious scam and you will note there was never ever a Fuel Discount refund when the price of airline fuel went down in real terms for years.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> I take it you haven't looked into the DRM issues surrounding Vista then Pete?


Well due to a Yahoo discussion Group I belong to I always think of DRM as being a new form of digital radio transmission on the LW, MW and SW bands (see www.drm.org).

However my praise was confined to Windows XP and not Windows Vista. I never said that Windows Vista was either necessary or any good and I have no current plans to upgrade to it, although I may be forced to when this crappily made HP DV1000 series Notebook kicks the bucket (due to another motherboard burnout) despite being only just over 2 years old. Unless of course I use my Windows XP license from this machine to downgrade. But as you know Microsoft are sure to pull active support for Windows XP in about 3 years time.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> £180 for 2 Mixes to get Sky+ free compared to no monthly sub for Freeview Playback was the point I was making. I wasn't talking about the now deleted £10 per month charge for Sky+ on top of this.


The minimum to get Sky+ functionality is £10 a month and no mixes.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> The minimum to get Sky+ functionality is £10 a month and no mixes.


Hardly worth it is it though when you get some channels worth having for £15 per month and Freeview Playback will be zero pounds per month and very interesting once they get the Series Link part working.


----------



## britcub (Jan 19, 2004)

Pete77 said:


> Hardly worth it is it though when you get some channels worth having for £15 per month and Freeview Playback will be zero pounds per month and very interesting once they get the Series Link part working.


The perceived value was not the point. The point was your ignorance of the facts, and your rudeness in expressing your incorrect opinion.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

britcub said:


> The perceived value was not the point. The point was your ignorance of the facts, and your rudeness in expressing your incorrect opinion.


I was entirely correct on my facts. Its just that TCM chose to talk about having Sky+ on a box with no pay Sky channels at all so as to get the price down and make having a Sky box with Sky+ look cheaper than it normally is for most people who have and use one.

Some of you claim you don't like me or some of my comments but notice how this forum immediately begins to die a death the moment that I stop contributing to it.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> The problem is they're used to watching Live TV (yuk!) rather than recordings. However, TiVo works very well for kids as the default suggestions if enabled start off by recording lots of childrens' programmes. There is a lot more stuff on than can be watched in a couple of hours per day, so with a decent sized drive there should always be a good selection of unwatched recordings for them to choose from.


Yes but my sister is something of an unreasonable control freak (her husband is a very atypical individual who lets her organise most aspects of the household a normal male takes responsibilty for) and thinks she knows what she likes and it is very hard indeed to persuade her to adopt new ways of doing things she didn't think of first.

You have to bear in mind she still has the Amstrad Sky Digibox outputting to their 9 month old 32" Panasonic widescreen CRT via RF on Channel 4 and I have been screamed at when I told her she should be watching via the SCART lead and/or rather changed the cabling without her permission. She then changed it back by the time of my next visit. The only thing I got away with and she didn't notice was me changing the Sky Digibox menus so it was outputting a widescreen picture rather than a 4:3 picture the Panasonic telly Auto mode was stretching to fit.

I think you are being blinkered though if you won't accept that some people like watching Live Tv and the only way round that is to have two or more tuners that let those who want to watch Live Tv do so while recordings are made in the background. That is why many Tivo users keep switch to Sky+, Sky HD and V+ every week and why Tivo S1 is best suited only to single person households.


----------



## RichardJH (Oct 7, 2002)

> Some of you claim you don't like me or some of my comments but notice how this forum immediately begins to die a death the moment that I stop contributing to it.


*Posted by Pete77*

Thats not true there is a thread about a dodgy Ebay purchase that hasn't died because of your absence. Perhaps you would care to re-post in that thread, I'm sure you are ware of it.


----------



## britcub (Jan 19, 2004)

Pete77 said:


> I was entirely correct on my facts. Its just that TCM chose to talk about having Sky+ on a box with no pay Sky channels at all so as to get the price down and make having a Sky box with Sky+ look cheaper than it normally is for most people who have and use one.


Pete, you were comparing the as yet properly unreleased Freeview Playback standard with a subbed Sky+ box. TCM was trying to get you to try to compare like with like, i.e a recording system for *FTA* channels.

It is hilarious that in another thread today you accuse TCM of having an 'always right' attitude... perhaps you should look a little closer to home.



Pete77 said:


> Some of you claim you don't like me or some of my comments but notice how this forum immediately begins to die a death the moment that I stop contributing to it.


The forum has certainly become a less friendly place since you appeared, yes.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

RichardJH said:


> *Posted by Pete77*
> 
> Thats not true there is a thread about a dodgy Ebay purchase that hasn't died because of your absence. Perhaps you would care to re-post in that thread, I'm sure you are ware of it.


But who started and chose the subject matter for that thread which is one of the most popular of the last year or so in this section.

It was me of course. And without me there would have been no such long running thread.


----------



## RichardJH (Oct 7, 2002)

But Pete your fans want you back in that thread to tell us the final chapter, then we will all be happy


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

RichardJH said:


> But Pete your fans want you back in that thread to tell us the final chapter, then we will all be happy


The final chapter has yet to be written.


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

Pete77 said:


> ... notice how this forum immediately begins to die a death the moment that I stop contributing to it.


Only the antagonistic and inaccurate contributions to the posts will die, the absence of which previously made this forum unusually helpful and friendly. It's attitudes like yours that scare off other posters, and just makes forums into a mixture of trolling and flaming, rather than the friendly support of other users and the meeting of minds.


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

*Suggestion*: If you want to make a post without Pete77 contributing to it, try posting it as off-topic in a certain other thread.


----------



## TivoTown (Mar 21, 2003)

iankb said:


> Only the antagonistic and inaccurate contributions to the posts will die, the absence of which previously made this forum unusually helpful and friendly. It's attitudes like yours that scare off other posters, and just makes forums into a mixture of trolling and flaming, rather than the friendly support of other users and the meeting of minds.


Amen! I've been wondering where Pete77 gets his energy from !?

I thought perhaps more than one person was using his ID.

Now I think it is more likely he is a relentless sociopath.


----------



## martink0646 (Feb 8, 2005)

It has just struck as I am going through the threads from the last two days that over half of all threads have ended up in a slanging match between various posters, principally Pete77, TCM & Blindlemon. Looking upon this as neutraly as possible, Pete77 seems to be antagonising everybody he comes across. I used to enjoy the fact that this was one of the only 'friendly' forums where you could ask a 'stupid' or genuine 'newbie' questions. This forum is fast becoming a chore to read which is immensely sad. Without the work & advice of TCM & Blindlemon I doubt my TiVo would be (a) working or (b) so useful whereas Pete77 has enhanced my TiVo experience by the sumtotal of sweet FA.

So this is an open plea to TCM, Blindlemon, Paul Wilkins etc. (please ignore him, he might go away) to Pete77 (please realise that "communication is the response you get") or the moderators (please do something!)

I think Britcub summed it up best


> The forum has certainly become a less friendly place since you appeared, yes.


I suppose I'd better duck my head back into the trenches now. I'm sorry but it is all so frustrating.

Martin


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Martin, you're just another forum member in disguise... do you have a penchant for citrus perhaps...? 

Seriously though, I always try to keep out of the slanging matches, but occasionally it all just gets too much  Sorry!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

martink0646 said:


> I suppose I'd better duck my head back into the trenches now. I'm sorry but it is all so frustrating.


It seems to me that your post actually engages in what you actually complain about and amounts to nothing more than an attempt to character assasinate one member of the forum. Which is a matter strongly disapproved of under the forum rules.

It seems to me unlikely that anyone interested in reading the forum only for information would suddenly make such a provocative communication.


----------



## martink0646 (Feb 8, 2005)

Oh for goodness sake. I give up. That was a heartfelt plea & you decided to ignore it. Thanks for ruining this forum for me.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

martink0646 said:


> Oh for goodness sake. I give up. That was a heartfelt plea & you decided to ignore it. Thanks for ruining this forum for me.


Why do you expect everything to be sweetness & light in life.

Robust discussion is often useful in getting to the truth of the matter.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> It seems to me unlikely that anyone interested in reading the forum only for information would suddenly make such a provocative communication.


Pete, 
I think Martin's point is that *he is* interested in reading the forum for information and is getting tired of your feuds with various members. I'm sure they amuse you (and maybe some of your antagonists) greatly, but I can see how it would get a bit wearing for a disinterested party.

Martin, 
Have you tried adding Pete to your ignore list?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> Pete,
> I think Martin's point is that *he is* interested in reading the forum for information and is getting tired of your feuds with various members. I'm sure they amuse you (and maybe some of your antagonists) greatly, but I can see how it would get a bit wearing for a disinterested party.


And how much has Martin contributed to the forum. All of 54 posts.

Should we worry about the members who rarely contribute and don't like robust debate?


----------



## martink0646 (Feb 8, 2005)

Thanks Blindlemon. I must admit, rather shamefacedly, that I didn't know that even existed. How does it work? Does it block out threads that the individual user has contributed to? Obviously that would be no good as Pete77 posts in every single thread, or does it block the individuals posts so you only see the other peoples comments.

Martin


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

martink0646 said:


> So this is an open plea to TCM, Blindlemon, Paul Wilkins etc. (please ignore him, he might go away) to Pete77 (please realise that "communication is the response you get") or the moderators (please do something!)


Fair point well made Martin, I will try!


----------



## britcub (Jan 19, 2004)

Pete77 said:


> And how much has Martin contributed to the forum. All of 54 posts.
> 
> Should we worry about the members who rarely contribute and don't like robust debate?


I think we should worry more about members who have thousands of posts, most of which have the sole purpose of antagonising other forum members.

So, apologies to Martin, I too will try harder!


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Should we worry about the members who rarely contribute


I think we should be more worried about members who attempt to dominate every thread with their own personal opinions and launch into invective-filled attacks against anybody who dares disagree with them.

Not mentioning any names, of course...


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

martink0646 said:


> does it block the individuals posts so you only see the other peoples comments.


Yes - and you'd be amazed how short some of these threads look if you add a certain member to your list too


----------



## martink0646 (Feb 8, 2005)

Pete77 said:


> Why do you expect everything to be sweetness & light in life.
> 
> Robust discussion is often useful in getting to the truth of the matter.


I know I'm going to regret rising to the bait, but here goes.

Once again your myopic world view only sees what you want to see. I didn't ask for sweetness & light, I did ask useful info about TiVo. Surely the simple thing to do is when you want to tell everyone about one of your incorrect/arrogant/naive/petty/pedantic theories (strike out as applicable) post it in the Off Topic forum. That what it is for!!!!

And as for getting to the 'truth of the matter', when has the 'truth' or more realistically the facts ever mattered to you. Just because you say something loudly & over & over, that sir, does not make it the truth or even a fact. Please do not waste your time replying to this, I WON'T be reading.

Martin


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

martink0646 said:


> So this is an open plea to TCM, Blindlemon, Paul Wilkins etc. (please ignore him, he might go away)


I will try to behave too


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> Yes - and you'd be amazed how short some of these threads look if you add a certain member to your list too


Well clearly you very quickly deactivated that feature though.  

In fact if one added blindlemon, TCM2007, iankb, Automan and one or two others there would probably be no activity for days on end.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

I'm a sucker for punishment 

But not everybody is, so I sympathise with Martin's dismay at the way some of these threads end up.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

martink0646 said:


> And as for getting to the 'truth of the matter', when has the 'truth' or more realistically the facts ever mattered to you. Just because you say something loudly & over & over, that sir, does not make it the truth or even a fact. Please do not waste your time replying to this, I WON'T be reading.


Are you one of those who does not trust Politicians and never votes in elections I wonder?

The amazingly arrogant thing about those of you who don't like contrary opinions or debate is that you are always convinced you are correct for some reason. A consequence of wearing blinkers I suppose?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> I'm a sucker for punishment
> 
> But not everybody is, so I sympathise with Martin's dismay at the way some of these threads end up.


Perhaps I should add martin to my Ignore list.

But then he hardly ever posts so not worth it. And one always needs to keep an eye on what the opposition is up to.


----------



## martink0646 (Feb 8, 2005)

Pete77 said:


> And how much has Martin contributed to the forum. All of 54 posts.
> 
> Should we worry about the members who rarely contribute and don't like robust debate?


If I cared about your opinion I would be deeply offended by this. This proves my earlier point. This is/was a forum that encouraged newbies & there was never any problems with any members. What possible relevance is my number of posts! The only qualification is surely a TiVo & a desire to learn & improve it. I could do exactly what you do, post the same info over & over again but maybe you should leave it to the real experts. Show me some original thinking that you have done on the subject of TiVo. How many of your TiVoweb modules do I run? In fact what exactly have YOU contributed to this forum. All you do is hang on other peoples coat tails & then slag them off or try to damage thier livelihoods through insinuation. If I was Blindlemon or TCM (if he is who I think he is) I would be apoplectic.


----------



## verses (Nov 6, 2002)

blindlemon said:


> Yes - and you'd be amazed how short some of these threads look if you add a certain member to your list too


Does this also block other peoples responses to the "certain" member? If not then I imagine it's of limited use.

Ian


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

martink0646 said:


> If I was Blindlemon or TCM (if he is who I think he is) I would be apoplectic.


Do you suffer frequently with apoplexy?  

And I thought you weren't going to be reading my response as you were going to Ignore me? Of course I knew that wouldn't happen, at least in that timescale.


----------



## SilkMan (Feb 13, 2007)

blindlemon said:


> Pete,
> I think Martin's point is that *he is* interested in reading the forum for information and is getting tired of your feuds with various members. I'm sure they amuse you (and maybe some of your antagonists) greatly, but I can see how it would get a bit wearing for a disinterested party.
> 
> Martin,
> Have you tried adding Pete to your ignore list?


Gosh, I didn't even know that existed. I'm definitely going to give that a go.

As for Pete, I agree that he is ruining what used to be a very friendly and useful forum, but I can only try and bite my lip in future and simply ignore all his posts in the hope that he gets bored and goes away. Easier said than done 

So, is this the last time anyone will respond to Pete's invective? Let's see, shall we


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

SilkMan said:


> As for Pete, I agree that he is ruining what used to be a very friendly and useful forum, but I can only try and bite my lip in future and simply ignore all his posts in the hope that he gets bored and goes away. Easier said than done
> 
> So, is this the last time anyone will respond to Pete's invective? Let's see, shall we


I tell you what I could offer to quit voluntarily and go cold turkey for a couple of weeks or even a month as I need to in order to get some things done.

Then when blindemon and TCM are short of their usual sparring partners and forum thread traffic declines to near zilch we can see how much happier everyone really is or isn't as a result.


----------



## martink0646 (Feb 8, 2005)

I know I said I wouldn't read read on..................but hallelujah!!!


----------



## Pugwash (May 23, 2003)

When I canceled my Sky sub, it was because I realised that almost every programme I watched on non-freeview channels was american, and I can download them 6 months in advance on bittorrent.
I went for the 23 quid freeview box with naff software, because TiVo controls it for me nicely. I get excellent reception in this area too. Of course I later found out that a canceled sky card acts as a freesat card. Doh!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Pugwash said:


> Of course I later found out that a canceled sky card acts as a freesat card. Doh!


Doh indeed. It is a testament to Sky's deliberately misleading tactics on cancellations that so few people seem to realise this.

Apart from anything else Sky boxes seem to handle software updates and the channel addition and deletion process so much more elegantly than any Freeview box out there.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

martink0646 said:


> I know I said I wouldn't read read on..................


I knew you would read on though. You clearly enjoy being hurt, offended and outraged.  

However so far there has been a deathly hush in the regulars camp from any of them begging me to implement my offer.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Then when blindemon and TCM are short of their usual sparring partners [...]


If you see me as 'sparring partner' then I'm sorry as that is not my intention.

As I mentioned earlier, I normally try to stay out of the most heated exchanges and confine my posts to issues that may be of interest to more than one person. However, Martin's plea earlier in this thread and your response to it caused me to abandon my usual detachment somewhat and for that I apologise.



Pete77 said:


> so far there has been a deathly hush in the regulars camp from any of them begging me to implement my offer.


Nobody's asking you to quit - at least I don't think they are - but it would be nice to get a breather from the name-calling for a while


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Pugwash said:


> When I canceled my Sky sub, it was because I realised that almost every programme I watched on non-freeview channels was american, and I can download them 6 months in advance on bittorrent.


Why is it that people are so open about what is essentially and illegal act? I guess it's just that so many people are doing it. Doesn't make it right though


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Why is it that people are so open about what is essentially and illegal act? I guess it's just that so many people are doing it. Doesn't make it right though


I see that Hayden Panitierre (sp?) is in FHM's top 10 sexiest women, and I don't think that's from a couple of showings of Heroes on the SciFi channel. Bizarrely the only person I know who is not watching as it's broadcast in the US vit BT is the editor of SFX; go figure.

It's beyond widespread, it's near universal. Just as Napster forced the creation of iTunes, so BitTorrent needs to create the video equivalent.

You have a commendably purist attitude to it Carl, but I'd still rather watch Heroes in HD tonight!


----------



## cleudo (Apr 7, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> I see that Hayden Panitierre (sp?) is in FHM's top 10 sexiest women


I'm guessing that's the cheerleader? 

Save the Cheerleader, Save the World!


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

cleudo said:


> I'm guessing that's the cheerleader?
> 
> Save the Cheerleader, Save the World!


Indeed. 17 though, so that's nearly as bad as downloading in the morality stakes.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> Bizarrely the only person I know who is not watching as it's broadcast in the US vit BT is the editor of SFX; go figure.


...and me 



> You have a commendably purist attitude to it Carl, but I'd still rather watch Heroes in HD tonight!


Hmmm. Now I don't know whether to be jealous or annoyed 



TCM2007 said:


> I see that Hayden Panitierre (sp?) is in FHM's top 10 sexiest women,





cleudo said:


> I'm guessing that's the cheerleader?





TCM2007 said:


> Indeed. 17 though, so that's nearly as bad as downloading in the morality stakes.


Yeah, but... wow 
http://www.blazinbeauties.com/pages4/hayden_panettiere/
http://www.bartcop.com/hayden-panettiere-17.jpg
http://www.adrants.com/images/haydenpanettiere4.jpg
http://purelymag.com/temp/free/Hayden Panettiere - 33rd Annual People's Choice Awards 04.jpg
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q...f&rlz=1T4SKPB_enGB217GB217&sa=N&imgsz=xxlarge


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

cwaring said:


> ...and me
> 
> Hmmm. Now I don't know whether to be jealous or annoyed


Season finale downloading now, all 1.1 gigabytes of it!


----------



## cleudo (Apr 7, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> Season finale downloading now, all 1.1 gigabytes of it!


What do you use to play that back with?


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

cleudo said:


> What do you use to play that back with?


I tried using VideoLAN's VLC player with one of the full-resolution HD files, but it wasn't that happy.


----------



## terryeden (Nov 2, 2002)

cwaring said:


> Why is it that people are so open about what is essentially and illegal act? I guess it's just that so many people are doing it. Doesn't make it right though


I guess because I neither see it as illegal nor immoral.

I'm happy to pay my license fee - so if Heroes was being shown on BBC 2, I haven't taken anything from them.

If it was on a commercial channel, I'd fast forward through the adverts or go make some food.

As I've said before, I can sort of understand why the first series of, say, House isn't broadcast internationally at the same time as domestically; no one wants the risk.

There is no reason for subsequent series not to be broadcast within a much shortened timeframe.

I'd be quite happy to pay, say, £0.50 per episode to download it directly (rather than relying on the vaugeries of independent releases).

But, while they don't offer the customer what they want, this customer will take matters into his own hands.

T


----------



## terryeden (Nov 2, 2002)

iankb said:


> I tried using VideoLAN's VLC player with one of the full-resolution HD files, but it wasn't that happy.


mplayer is very good for HD playback.

T


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

terryeden said:


> I guess because I neither see it as illegal nor immoral.


Well while the latter is debatable, it most certainly is the former  It's copyright theft, I think. Again, which law it breaks is possibly debatable


----------



## Simon George (Oct 21, 2003)

cwaring said:



> Well while the latter is debatable, it most certainly is the former  It's copyright theft, I think. Again, which law it breaks is possibly debatable


If you had to pay to create the content in the first place you would certainly know the morality of it as well as the legaility. Shelling out a $100m to make a film makes you think real careful about who owns it! To download without permission is theft pure and simple. (Yes, it is a form of copyright theft)

Nor is it a victimless crime. The media and creative industries are one of the largest in the UK these days. A lot of people are employed in it. Large scale copyright theft is a serious and current threat to them.

Having said that if a crime easy to commit and evade any consequences, then do not be surprised when it is common place. Solving that conundrum is not easy to do to say the least.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Yes. 

I think it's more likely that creative people (whether that be musicians or film/programme creators) are more likely to understand the problem than your average consumer who just sits and watches a film/tv show. 

They are less likely to understand exactly what goes into making it and therefore not understand why people object to their stealing it. If you see what I mean


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

cleudo said:


> What do you use to play that back with?


CoreAVC.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Yes.
> 
> I think it's more likely that creative people (whether that be musicians or film/programme creators) are more likely to understand the problem than your average consumer who just sits and watches a film/tv show.
> 
> They are less likely to understand exactly what goes into making it and therefore not understand why people object to their stealing it. If you see what I mean


Semantics first. It's not "copyright theft" as you can't steal a copyright. It's not "stealing" at all, it's a breach of copyright law. "Stealing" in law is depriving someone of their enjoyment of something illegally; in making a copy of a TV show you have not deprived the owner of the TV show of it. It's illegal, but it isn't stealing, just like it isn't arson or drug smuggling.

With music and films its entirely clear cut; if you download a commercially available album or DVD it's clearly depriving the artist (and attendant hangers on) of money. I would never condone (or do) that.

With TV shows its a bit more of a grey area. If you cancel your Sky subs and torrent all your favourite Sky shows, that's clearly depriving someone of cash.

But what if you keep your Sky sub, and just use torrent to either get shows earlier, or to get them in higher quality than Sky/SciFi deign to use?

Who is out of pocket then?

Sky get the sub just the same. The programme maker gets paid just the same. The writers, actors and actresses get paid the same.

I TiVo or Sky+ the shows when they are broadcast so don't watch the adverts whether I watch via broadcast or torrent, so no difference there.

My view is that what I should get by subscribing to Sky is a license to watch that set of programmes in whatever context and by whatever medium. I's no different in my mind to buying a CD and then ripping it to my iPod - I paid for the right to listen to the music, so I'll listen to it in any way technology allows.

This is an area where the law has yet to catch up with reality. Just as it eventually did with timeshifting via videotape 9which was also against copyright law at one time) and with ripping CDs (which still might be, no-one seems sure), eventually there will be a legitimate way of downloading video.

Meanwhile, so long as I pay the UK owner of the TV series their dues, I have no moral problem with watching it a few weeks before it's broadcast and in HD.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Semantics first. It's not "copyright theft" as you can't steal a copyright. It's not "stealing" at all, it's a breach of copyright law. "Stealing" in law is depriving someone of their enjoyment of something illegally; in making a copy of a TV show you have not deprived the owner of the TV show of it. It's illegal, but it isn't stealing, just like it isn't arson or drug smuggling.
> 
> With music and films its entirely clear cut; if you download a commercially available album or DVD it's clearly depriving the artist (and attendant hangers on) of money. I would never condone (or do) that.
> 
> ...


I can tell you who is out of pocket. Its the maker of the program who someone like you should have had to pay extra to for having an instant download of the series as soon as it is released in the USA rather than being prepared to wait until it becomes available on Sky in the UK officially via the usual channels.

It seems obvious to me that the US producers of the show would be prepared to release the show in the UK earlier if Sky and the BBC etc paid them more money. So by torrenting you are eliminating the potential market for full priced DVDs in the UK at the same time the makers release the show in the USA or the possiblity that Sky will pay double the money to get the rights to release the show in the UK at the same time as in the USA.

Sorry but its just the same thing as downloading music you have not paid for but you just choose not to see it that way as you consider that your right to see the program at the same time as the USA means you don't to have observe normal copyright and royalty laws.  :down: :down: :down:


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> I can tell you who is out of pocket. Its the maker of the program who someone like you should have had to pay extra to for having an instant download of the series as soon as it is released in the USA rather than being prepared to wait until it becomes available on Sky in the UK officially via the usual channels.


Eh? Be specific here, if I download Heroes, and I pay my license fee and have my Sky sub, precisely who is out of pocket? Name names. NBC does not offer a paid download service to people in the UK; if they did, you'd be right. But they don't. So, er, your not.



> It seems obvious to me that the US producers of the show would be prepared to release the show in the UK earlier if Sky and the BBC etc paid them more money.


I see no evidence of that. Please provide an example.

But even if that were true, it still makes no sense. They don't pay extra to get it earlier, so what's your point?



> So by torrenting you are eliminating the potential market for full priced DVDs in the UK at the same time the makers release the show in the USA


Please quote me one example when DVDs of a TV show are released in the UK before their UK broadcast.



> or the possiblity that Sky will pay double the money to get the rights to release the show in the UK at the same time as in the USA.


Now you're making my head hurt with these doubly hypothetical examples. They would have lost out if they did something which they don't do. 



> Sorry but its just the same thing as downloading music you have not paid for but you just choose not to see it that way as you consider that your right to see the program at the same time as the USA means you don't to have observe normal copyright and royalty laws.  :down: :down: :down:


Legally, it is the same. Morally, I don't believe it is. I think it's the equivalent of downloading the MP3 of an album I've already bought on CD from Amazon while I'm waiting for the CD to arrive.


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

TCM2007 said:


> But what if you keep your Sky sub, and just use torrent to either get shows earlier, or to get them in higher quality than Sky/SciFi deign to use?
> 
> Who is out of pocket then?


Devils advocate... The channel in the UK who is showing them does potentially lose out - if _enough _people do it. If as a result the viewing figures are _substantially _lower they will get lower revenue in advertising. But that would take a heck of a lot of people to have an impact.


----------



## cleudo (Apr 7, 2002)

kitschcamp said:


> Devils advocate... The channel in the UK who is showing them does potentially lose out - if _enough _people do it. If as a result the viewing figures are _substantially _lower they will get lower revenue in advertising. But that would take a heck of a lot of people to have an impact.


Yep it would have to be a substantial number (which might happen one day when the masses catch up with our technical prowess ;-)

The effect then would be for the buying broadcaster to pay substantially less for the programme because the target audience would be reduced leading to less revenue from spot advertising.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

kitschcamp said:


> Devils advocate... The channel in the UK who is showing them does potentially lose out - if _enough _people do it. If as a result the viewing figures are _substantially _lower they will get lower revenue in advertising. But that would take a heck of a lot of people to have an impact.


Precisely kitschcamp,

Due to Bit Torrent Sky viewer figures will fall when they broadcast that program and so their advertising revenues will fall, ergo they will lose money directly due to TCM and other's Bit Torrenting activity.

TCM's argument is like me saying I can drive my car safely at 125mph at 2am on the local high spec dual carriageway because I know no Bobbies hang out on that darkened stretch of country road at that time of day.

But it doesn't make it legal does it. And there will be 1,000 letter of the law merchants and anti car NIMBY's out there to tell me I should not be doing it........

Not of course that I ever would.


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

If TCM2007 tells his friends on TivoCommunity and in real life that the upcoming series "Heroes" is really good and they should watch it then more people will watch it.
Sky's revenue from advertising would only actually fall if TCM2007 was one of the tiny minority of homes used to collect viewing ratings which I'm guessing it isn't.

And as for your ridiculous comparison of bittorrenting a programme to doing 55mph over the legal speed limit . You can't drive a road car safely at 125mph anywhere on the public road - neither the roads nor 99.99% of cars are designed to operate safely at those speeds. For example if a fox was crossing you would be unable to safely brake or definitely avoid it and it would sheer luck if you didn't crash. Then of course you'd deprive your local tax payer of the money used to scrape you off the hardshoulder. You can only safely do that kind of speed on a track under controlled conditions with marshalls, fire equipment and medical help standing by and even under race or test conditions there are substanial risks involved - ask that bloke from Top Gear.


----------



## Simon George (Oct 21, 2003)

It is a fascinating debate going on now. 

However, so that people are in no doubt.

Downloading without permission is illegal. The law makes no distinction as to the wrongdoers personal morality and uneducated views on the economics of the industry/individuals being deprived.

(BTW I use the word uneducated I no way insultingly, it is just that most people who offer opinion on the economics of the creative industries are as best consumers of it and nothing else)

You can make whatever stand you like about what should be the case, but justifying to yourself that it is not really theft because, by, for example, saying "I am already paying for sky so who loses out" is simply factually wrong. You are breaking the law. End of story.

After all, if "I am already paying for sky" then why not get a counterfeit DVD version as well? Why not get into the cinema without paying as well?

When you pay for your Sky sub you are paying for to be exact;

The right to enjoy in a personal capacity only the private use of satellite television transmissions to a particular box in a particular location. AND THAT IS ALL. The subscription entitles you to nothing else, it does NOT entitle you to any rights in the further distribution or exploitation of transmitted programmes, nor does it entitle you to any other form ownership or use. The right to download (or any other right) is not imputed from having a Sky sub.

Recording: If you "tape" a programme off the TV then you are (just about) OK to do this if it is for private consumption only. If you give the tape to a friend you, and your friend are breaking the law. 

This is the essence of illegal downloading, it is exactly the same- but technology has made it possible for almost flawless reproduction and massive distribution at little or no marginal cost to the copier and downloaders.

Every one of the downloaders, if they think about it at all, thinks the same "who am I harming", "I won't get caught" etc. But multiply the marginal harm caused by tens, nay, hundreds of millions who illegally download, then it is easy to see the accumulated harm.

I am quite interested to discuss alternate ownership and exploitation models for intellectual property, but please, let it be on the basis we all accept what the law actually is. I.e. that a created product belongs to the creator, no one else, for him/her/it to exploit how they want, 
The question for me is given the technology that currently exists and is likely to exist, how can IP rights holders properly protect and exploit those rights, especially where the cost of creation is very large (TV, Film, Video Games, Software etc)


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Couldn't have put it better myself, which might explain why I didn't try to 



Simon George said:


> The question for me is given the technology that currently exists and is likely to exist, how can IP rights holders properly protect and exploit those rights, especially where the cost of creation is very large (TV, Film, Video Games, Software etc)


I would assume that the answer to this would be some form of DRM but, of course, people are against DRM for _exactly_ that reason; ie it makes it difficult for them to (illegally) copy and re-distribute anything. There is no other reason to be against DRM.

Of course, people will then crack the DRM anyway, which simply defeats the purpose and puts us back to square one!


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Simon George said:


> Every one of the downloaders, if they think about it at all, thinks the same "who am I harming", "I won't get caught" etc. But multiply the marginal harm caused by tens, nay, hundreds of millions who illegally download, then it is easy to see the accumulated harm.


You are talking about 'illegal downloading' - ie. downloading a piece of work for which you have not paid any money, and in that case you are entirely correct.

However, TCM is only talking about obtaining by download a piece of work which he has already paid money to Sky to watch _- except he chooses to do so by another method_ than via their transmission.

The episodes of Heroes will be shown on Sky as part of the package to which he subscribes - it is advertised as part of the package, and his decision to subscribe to that package may for all we know have been based solely on the fact that doing so would allow him to watch the programme. So although Sky may say he's only paying to 'receive transmissions', if all the transmissions consisted of nothing but a still photo of Rupert Murdoch, not many people would subscribe to the packages! Therefore, Sky is making an offer in their package advertising which says "buy this package and we will let you watch Heroes" - TCM takes them up on that offer but chooses to obtain Heroes by some method other than via their transmission. I would not call this theft.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> However, TCM is only talking about obtaining by download a piece of work which he has already paid money to Sky to watch _- except he chooses to do so by another method_ than via their transmission.


I don't agree as films etc have a time related value and this is why DVDs of old films are far cheaper than the latest blockbuster.

The argument that it will come on to Sky one day is like saying its OK to go and steal the manuscript of a book from a book printer's computer system online 4 months before it is published because you will buy the book when it comes out. I'm sorry but its still illegal to obtain it before it is legally published in the UK marketplace.

Of course when people don't respect a law en masse the law often loses credibility and the law has to be changed to reflect patterns of behaviour the public are willing to respect.

Digital Rights Management is the only way the distributors can stop people who have not paid for copies of the program via that means from obtaining and watching them illegally.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

AMc said:


> And as for your ridiculous comparison of bittorrenting a programme to doing 55mph over the legal speed limit . You can't drive a road car safely at 125mph anywhere on the public road - neither the roads nor 99.99% of cars are designed to operate safely at those speeds. For example if a fox was crossing you would be unable to safely brake or definitely avoid it and it would sheer luck if you didn't crash. Then of course you'd deprive your local tax payer of the money used to scrape you off the hardshoulder. You can only safely do that kind of speed on a track under controlled conditions with marshalls, fire equipment and medical help standing by and even under race or test conditions there are substanial risks involved - ask that bloke from Top Gear.


Strangely people drive at the speeds you talk about without crashing on the whole on some sections of the German Autobahn system quite legally each day of the week.

For you to maintan these speeds cannot be safely driven on modern 3 lane motorway stretches in clear traffic conditions shows an extreme narrow mindedness that clearly puts you firmly in the 20mph Home Zones camp.

The Richard Hammond Rocket Car was indeed a death trap waiting to happen and cannot be compared with a normal petrol driven road car accelerating via normal means.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> The argument that it will come on to Sky one day is like saying its OK to go and steal the manuscript of a book from a book printer's computer system online 4 months before it is published because you will buy the book when it comes out.


Another extreme example from you Pete? Why am I not surprised?

Personally, I don't watch Heroes, but as I understand it TCM is talking about watching the episodes _a few days _before they are broadcast on Sky as part of his subscribed package.

This morning I have been watching clips of the American Idol finale (which was broadcast live in the US last night) on YouTube - but it won't be broadcast here in the UK until tomorrow evening - does that make me a thief as well?

The problem (and I accept it is a problem) is that we are talking about an blurry scale of shades of grey here. At one end you have absolute legality and at the other obvious theft. However, the point at which one transforms into the other is not easily defined and, like so many things, it's therefore, at the end of the day, up to each individual's own judgement to determine what he/she feels comfortable with doing.


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

[quote="Pete77]For you to maintan these speeds cannot be safely driven on modern 3 lane motorway stretches in clear traffic conditions shows an extreme narrow mindedness that clearly puts you firmly in the 20mph Home Zones camp.[/quote] Having driven on the Autobahn I can assure you that almost no one drives at that speed. I was comfortably overtaking most traffic at 80mph.
There are places were 70mph is an appropriate speed and places where 20mph is an appropriate speed. According to the letter of the law (which you are such an advocate of) there are no places in the UK where 125mph is an appropriate speed except private track.

None of which has any bearing on how stupid and ill concieved your comparison was. Driving at any speed has the potential to cause injury and death downloading a bittorrent of a TV programme doesn't.


----------



## Simon George (Oct 21, 2003)

blindlemon said:


> You are talking about 'illegal downloading' - ie. downloading a piece of work for which you have not paid any money, and in that case you are entirely correct.
> 
> However, TCM is only talking about obtaining by download a piece of work which he has already paid money to Sky to watch _- except he chooses to do so by another method_ than via their transmission.
> 
> The episodes of Heroes will be shown on Sky as part of the package to which he subscribes - it is advertised as part of the package, and his decision to subscribe to that package may for all we know have been based solely on the fact that doing so would allow him to watch the programme. So although Sky may say he's only paying to 'receive transmissions', if all the transmissions consisted of nothing but a still photo of Rupert Murdoch, not many people would subscribe to the packages! Therefore, Sky is making an offer in their package advertising which says "buy this package and we will let you watch Heroes" - TCM takes them up on that offer but chooses to obtain Heroes by some method other than via their transmission. I would not call this theft.


You are repeating a firmly held, common and incorrect understanding of what you pay for when you buy a subscription from Sky.

All you are buying is the right to watch a programme when it is transmitted, or if you have a Sky + box, whenever you want to from the Sky+ HDD (itself a difficult area). You are buying nothing else. Sky itself will have bought the rights to the show, and will have sometimes severe limitations on it. I.e. typically it will have the right to transmit the programme X number of times over Y years and no more. Clearly it has a commercial interest in maximising its audience as well as its subscriptions. I assure you it does not consider it as OK for someone to download a show so long as the downloader has paid their Sky subs.

I repeat (sorry), you cannot derive some sort of implied right to consume the show by another method just because it is the same show as you get by another. It does not matter why you have a Sky sub. Just because you only have Sky because you want to watch one show does not mean you have bought that show. It only means you have bought the right to watch the show when sky has decided to transmit it. Another way to view it is that you do not have that right because Sky itself does not have that right to sell it to you.

(BTW if the Sky sub includes the right to download from Sky or its authorised distributors then yes you would be within your rights. But that is not the case you are describing)


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

In case anyone isn't aware this is what Sky offer...
http://anytime.sky.com/about/
The PC version is a DRMed Windows Media. The Sky+ version is background recording from the satellite. The mobile version I don't know much about.
The interesting thing is that Sky (along with the BBC and C4 and Virgin) all recognise that on demand viewing has a place next to broadcasting.

Timeshifting by video recording was legally untested for a long time while VCRs were being sold in the shops and eventually in the Sony case it was found that timeshifting broadcast TV was a fair use. Back before Sony became one of the worlds largest content owners.

Timeshifting by downloading is in its infancy as far as the mass market is concerned.

I won't argue the legality of it - getting your TV from the internet is in most cases a breach of the owner's copyright but AFAIK the basic tennants of it are largely untested in court. Crucially I believe that making copyright works available is prosecutable, I'm not sure 'receiving them' is. Either way there could be an argument that this is an extension of timeshifting it would need to be tested and that's something neither the audience nor the content producers are likely to do in a hurry as the risks are too great on one side and the costs too high on the other.

I firmly believe that in the way Napster has been superceded by iTunes Music Store the 'illegal' bittorrent early adopters will be replaced by a legal mass market.

[edit] FWIW I don't download TV as I have neither the time to watch more telly nor the inclination to buy yet another PC (or Xbox) for the front room and negotiate the intricacies of how it all works. When the iTelevision Store opens I expect I'll get involved[/edit]


----------



## davisa (Feb 19, 2002)

cwaring said:


> I would assume that the answer to this would be some form of DRM but, of course, people are against DRM for _exactly_ that reason; ie it makes it difficult for them to (illegally) copy and re-distribute anything. There is no other reason to be against DRM.


There is the huge issue of interoperability (if that's the word I'm looking for) of media. For example, I recently bought a couple of music albums from iTunes, which of course come in AAC DRM format. I wanted to listen to the tracks on my car CD/MP3 player, which can play both AAC and MP3, but of course not DRM AAC. I found myself in the ridiculous situation of having to download an 'illegal' MP3 version for the car.


----------



## davisa (Feb 19, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> Strangely people drive at the speeds you talk about without crashing on the whole on some sections of the German Autobahn system quite legally each day of the week.
> 
> For you to maintan these speeds cannot be safely driven on modern 3 lane motorway stretches in clear traffic conditions shows an extreme narrow mindedness that clearly puts you firmly in the 20mph Home Zones camp.
> 
> The Richard Hammond Rocket Car was indeed a death trap waiting to happen and cannot be compared with a normal petrol driven road car accelerating via normal means.


I'm in total agreement with Pete77 on this. Did I just say that out loud?


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

None of which has any bearing on how stupid and ill conceived [the] comparison was. Driving at any speed has the potential to cause injury and death downloading a bittorrent of a TV programme doesn't.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Simon George said:


> All you are buying is the right to watch a programme when it is transmitted [...] you cannot derive some sort of implied right to consume the show by another method just because it is the same show


Sorry, but I do 

As I see it, I've paid for it and I will watch it how and when I choose. You can argue the legal-nit-picking-niceties all you like, but my conscience is clear because I have paid.

If I hadn't paid, then that would be an entirely different matter.

BTW, when *you* record a show from Sky on your TiVo, do you only ever watch it one and once only and then immediately delete it? What if somebody else in your family wants to watch it too but can't be in the room when you're watching it? Do you just say "hard luck, that would be copyright theft" and delete it anyway?

I somehow suspect not...


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

blindlemon said:


> Sorry, but I do
> 
> As I see it, I've paid for it and I will watch it how and when I choose. You can argue the legal-nit-picking-niceties all you like, but my conscience is clear because I have paid.
> 
> ...


If all we are talking about is people watching episodes of programs 2 days before they come out in the UK then that is what I would call timeshifting but if people want to watch it 6 months before it is released in the UK that is copyright theft in my book. You will note the BBC has set the download limit for its Listen Again and forthcoming Watch Again service at 7 days.

But coming back to people watching stuff they can get from the USA 3 days before it is broadcast in the UK as its not live sport and only fiction then I would have thought frankly they would have had more patience.

By the way I wonder if TCM is suddenly going to feel like deleting all his old posts in this thread at some point given the apparently responsible position others allege that he holds.


----------



## Simon George (Oct 21, 2003)

blindlemon said:


> Sorry, but I do
> 
> As I see it, I've paid for it and I will watch it how and when I choose. You can argue the legal-nit-picking-niceties all you like, but my consience is clear because I have paid.
> 
> If I hadn't paid, then that would be an entirely different matter.


It is not a case of legal nit-picking. There has to be a common standard by which these things are judged. That is why we have the law. It is not for you or I to choose which law to ignore; you and I are supposed to obey them all!

(Do not bother with arguments about civil disobedience - this is simply about property ownership, not social justice or the like)

If it is your contention that because you do not agree with the law, you are going to ignore it with a clear consience, then am I free to steal your car (assuming you have one) so long as I can reconcile it with my own consience?

Or since I "paid" to see XYZ at the cinema, am I then free to get an illegal DVD copy?

- Answering my own questions - obviously not - then why do you feel able to break one law just because it is easy to do, you do not like it and find it hard to see a victim?


----------



## Simon George (Oct 21, 2003)

blindlemon said:


> BTW, when *you* record a show from Sky on your TiVo, do you only ever watch it one and once only and then immediately delete it? What if somebody else in your family wants to watch it too but can't be in the room when you're watching it? Do you just say "hard luck, that would be copyright theft" and delete it anyway?
> 
> I somehow suspect not...


That comes under fair use rules 

However if I got my mates round, put it on the big screen, and charged them a fee, then yes that absolutely would be illegal!

It is also a question of scale. Such grey areas have always existed (since the VCR became common place), but have been ignored in the past because swapping tapes between friends and family is far to small scale to warrant attention.

10's of billions of downloads of films, music, software however, that is something else.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Pete77 said:


> If all we are talking about is people watching episodes of programs 2 days before they come out in the UK then that is what I would call timeshifting but if people want to watch it 6 months before it is released in the UK that is copyright theft in my book.


Which exactly confirms my previous point that it's a grey area.

You've set the 'crossover point' somwehere between 2 days and 6 months - would you care to be more specific? Don't worry, that's a rhetorical question 

The whole notion of 'releasing' copyrighted material on different dates in different parts of the world and in different formats is doomed anyway. The internet, bittorrents, YouTube etc. etc. have seen to that, and no bad thing either IMHO. Why the heck should we have to wait six months to see something that somebody in the US can see today?


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Simon George said:


> 10's of billions of downloads of films, music, software however, that is something else.


And in most cases the people doing the downloading never have any intention of buying a legal copy.

However If TCM and co don't like waiting 3 months or whatever for a series to arrive from the USA then they should take up the distribution policy with the creators of the material and not obtain a pirate copy.

I wonder how he would feel if people in other countries started downloading and printing copies of his magazines in those countries because they didn't want to wait a week for the magazine to arrive by post using a legitimate subscription.

Talking of which you will note how most paying magazine customers do not make available their full publications for online downloading.


----------



## Simon George (Oct 21, 2003)

blindlemon said:


> Which exactly confirms my previous point that it's a grey area.
> 
> You've set the 'crossover point' somwehere between 2 days and 6 months - would you care to be more specific? Don't worry, that's a rhetorical question
> 
> The whole notion of 'releasing' copyrighted material on different dates in different parts of the world and in different formats is doomed anyway. The internet, bittorrents, YouTube etc. etc. have seen to that, and no bad thing either IMHO. Why the heck should we have to wait six months to see something that somebody in the US can see today?


Already happening in films. So called "DAY AND DATE" releases try to get round the problem by doing exactly as you suggest. However it is actually quite difficult to logistically, for TV, Film and Software


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

Simon - I'm now confused by your argument.

You quite correctly state that in law, black is black, white is white.

However now you're saying effectively that "it's OK if only on a small scale". To take it to an extreme, Pete's argument of "I'm OK to do stupid driving if no-one is there" is valid by your new point because he's the only one doing it.

So in short, you lost me (& the argument?) when you brought in scale.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

Simon George said:


> It is not for you or I to choose which law to ignore; you and I are supposed to obey them all!


And you do? You have never broken a pointless law you disagreed with, never driven 1mph over the speed limit on a deserted road, ever?



Simon George said:


> am I free to steal your car (assuming you have one) so long as I can reconcile it with my own consience?


No - because you haven't paid for it (although if you want it I do have a broken-down old Mazda in my garage you can have and I'll be happy to turn a blind eye)



Simon George said:


> Or since I "paid" to see XYZ at the cinema, am I then free to get an illegal DVD copy?


No - because you paid to see the move at the cinema, not to obtain a DVD of it.

However, if you had *bought *a DVD that developed a fault and became unplayable and you couldn't get a refund or replacement for some reason, how would you feel about downloading a copy then...?

It's all shades of grey... which is why at the end of the day, your own conscience, not the letter of the law has to be the deciding factor.


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

I think we've got an irreconcilable argument here. Simon is correctly arguing that the law doesn't take into account shades of grey.

The rest of us (and Simon in his last post) are correctly arguing that there are shades of grey - and that court action is unlikely.

At the end of the day, we're having an exercise in pedantry. As a signed up pedant, I know these arguments end up nowhere.


----------



## Simon George (Oct 21, 2003)

ColinYounger said:


> Simon - I'm now confused by your argument.
> 
> You quite correctly state that in law, black is black, white is white.
> 
> ...


Two separate points

A) Scale & Technology

It has always been the case that (although largely untested) that if you tape something off the TV, and give it to a friend then that is black and white illegal.

However

1) The technological and practical constraints on the practice limited the scale of activity

2) The cost and practicality of going to court and prosecuting Granny George for one tape

3) The ignomy of said prosecution

In practice such small scale activity has been ignored by copyright holders. BUT Yes is is techically illegal.

This "benign neglect" however is no longer feasible as the scale of the copyright offences have grown massively.

It is routine for children and younger folk generally to have THOUSANDS of mp3 files downloaded. Now that is spreading to films.

That means prosecuting little Jimmy for downloading several thousand files becomes something that copyright holders are now far more willing to consider.

B) Fair use

The law specifically allows for me for my private use to make copies of CD's, tape off the TV etc. "Me" in this case would generally be interpreted as the household rather than just the person who pays the bill.

However, If I routinely copied films on Sky to DVD then this would not constitute fair use as I understand it. I.e. copying from the TV is not a general right, it depends on the position of the copyright holder. (Sony would prefer me to buy a DVD, not make my own from a Sky broadcast)


----------



## Simon George (Oct 21, 2003)

ColinYounger said:


> I think we've got an irreconcilable argument here. Simon is correctly arguing that the law doesn't take into account shades of grey.
> 
> The rest of us (and Simon in his last post) are correctly arguing that there are shades of grey - and that court action is unlikely.
> 
> At the end of the day, we're having an exercise in pedantry. As a signed up pedant, I know these arguments end up nowhere.


Again that is why scale does matter here.

One person with one tape does not matter
10 million people with 1 tape each does not really matter
100 million people with 1000 mp3 files, and 100 movie files...


----------



## verses (Nov 6, 2002)

Simon George said:


> The law specifically allows for me for my private use to make copies of CD's


Ignoring the rest of the argument for a second, but I believe that that statement's not true. The US has a "fair use" policy with copying CDs for personal use, but the UK doesn't.

Ian

Edit: Just found this link; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6095612.stm


----------



## Simon George (Oct 21, 2003)

verses said:


> Ignoring the rest of the argument for a second, but I believe that that statement's not true. The US has a "fair use" policy with copying CDs for personal use, but the UK doesn't.
> 
> Ian
> 
> Edit: Just found this link; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6095612.stm


Yes you are right it is a US concept, however in practice and by practice the UK recognises the (more or less) same principles. Though I understand the EU is trying to bring in an EU fair use law


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

Simon George said:


> 100 million people with 1000 mp3 files, and 100 movie files...


OK - go with me here because I'm having difficulty describing my confusion. Sorry about that. 

Your argument is becoming less specific which is making it harder to 'sign up' to a position.

The initial general (not just your) position was that downloading is wrong. Period. Do not do it.

We're now debating based on the QUANTITY (scale) you download. That's not the same argument, IMO.

As you can see I'm confused about the *point* of this discussion - what we're actually debating.

Describe how Larry User who occasionally downloads a missed episode of Lost is likely to be persuaded that it's wrong, against Bobby Teenfan who downloads all the latest CDs as that's what I see we're talking about.

PS. Great discussion. :up:


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Simon George said:


> If it is your contention that because you do not agree with the law, you are going to ignore it with a clear consience, then am I free to steal your car (assuming you have one) so long as I can reconcile it with my own consience?





blindlemon said:


> No - because you haven't paid for it.


Just as you haven't paid for (for example) a legal, retail copy of "Heroes" in HD. You have, as Simon previously mentioned, paid to watch and SD version when Sci-Fi UK schedule it. (Use of certain PVRs not-withstanding )


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

ColinYounger said:


> OK - go with me here because I'm having difficulty describing my confusion. Sorry about that.
> 
> Your argument is becoming less specific which is making it harder to 'sign up' to a position.
> 
> ...


Colin,

Simon's point is that these downloads apart from any agreed fair use exceptions are always illegal no matter how apparently trivial in nature. But it only becomes worth going after them and trying to stop them in terms of the legal battle and adverse publicity when their scale becomes so large that they are doing enormous commercial damage.

Of course at that point its unlikely they would take loads of individuals to court but what they would do is seek to threaten ISPs with legal action against them or their clients if they don't block downloads from sites where this activity is taking place in any quantity.

Thus in reality stopping you giving your friend a copy of your video via your own FTP area is very difficult to trace or police but stopping the BitTorrent equivalents of napster is far, far easier. Also every ISP will only have certain clients who are very heavy downloaders. If the legal action gets bad enough they may demand that all heavy download clients sign up to terms & conditions saying they are aware sharing of copyright video material etc is illegal and that if they do so they can expect their details to be passed to the copyright owner and may face prosecution. So scaring the heavy downloaders and closing down the main big sites offering them becomes the focus.

Plus they will focus on the people who write BitTorrent software and threaten them with legal action if they don't put controls in their software to only allow sharing of items which are not copyright material etc, etc.

So yes it is all illegal apart from just videoing what your household could have watched on a service it pays for but in economic terms legal action will focus only on the biggest financial problems for the record and video companies.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

cwaring said:


> Just as you haven't paid for (for example) a legal, retail copy of "Heroes" in HD. You have, as Simon previously mentioned, paid to watch and SD version when Sci-Fi UK schedule it. (Use of certain PVRs not-withstanding )


Sorry, I was only talking about downloading like for like. I was not aware that Heroes isn't shown in HD on Sky.


----------



## Simon George (Oct 21, 2003)

ColinYounger said:


> OK - go with me here because I'm having difficulty describing my confusion. Sorry about that.
> 
> :up:


Right, here goes:

1) I am not arguing for or against the "grey" here, I am merely pointing out that in practice, it has been the copyright holders themselves who ignored the small scale activity of "giving a tape to a friend" for the reasons mentioned above. However they absolutely would and do go after those who do it on an industrial scale - i.e. "video pirates"

2) However as the scale of the offence mounts with new technology then the effects of individual abuse of copyright become harder and harder to ignore.

The "grey area" is not a grey area legally, it is rather a practical issue of the cost-benefit for the copyright holders to enforce their rights.

To take it one step further, it could be argued that this neglect in the past has created the social attitudes to downloading that currently exist (if it was OK for the occassional tape swap, then why not 2,20,400,4000 downloads).

However, now that we can download and share content which cost literally 10's of billions to make, in days for nothing more than the cost of electricity, those copyright holders are understandably feeling agrrieved.

I.e. what used to be ignored because it was too small to care about has grown into a vast problem of gargantuan proportions. Hence my apparently contradictory attitude to past vs. present practice.

[Incidently this has been lead by music downloads which people tend to view as "OK" on the grounds the Major record companies are major companies and by definition "bad", and the cost of recording has fallen to such a low level, who needs the Majors anyway?

Leaving aside the arguments as to why this is wrong, the cost of TV production is measured in hundreds of thousands to millions per hour, the cost of film millions to 10's of millions per hour. If producers are deprived of income on the same scale as music companies have suffered (and getting worse), then the standard of TV production and Film production will fall and we will all suffer]


----------



## Simon George (Oct 21, 2003)

Sorry Mine and Pete77 crossed in the post, I did not mean to repeat what pete77 said


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Simon George said:


> Sorry Mine and Pete77 crossed in the post, I did not mean to repeat what pete77 said


I don't think we completely overlapped though.

Ultimately though the biggest victim of this scam could be the consumer because if film-makers and musicians are paid next to nothing then no one will bother to go on producing in particular high spec films and probably high quality music too (more scope for debate there with musician being artists rather than businessmen but even they need to eat) and so there will be no new movies to watch and no new music to listen to.

So contrary to what people believe this is not a free lunch, even though the most successful musicians and actors and film and media complany business people all undoubtedly earn more money than is either necessary or good for them.

What is needed is for all the downloading to be legalised and paid for and the price charged per film or music track to be very modest. Then the whole thing can be legal and hopefully everybody also reasonably happy.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

blindlemon said:


> Sorry, I was only talking about downloading like for like. I was not aware that Heroes isn't shown in HD on Sky.


1. Technically, it's not on Sky (ie a Sky-owned channel) it's on the Sci-Fi channel.
2. Sci-Fi UK can't even broadcast in W/S never mind HD


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

kitschcamp said:


> Devils advocate... The channel in the UK who is showing them does potentially lose out - if _enough _people do it. If as a result the viewing figures are _substantially _lower they will get lower revenue in advertising. But that would take a heck of a lot of people to have an impact.


True, but by that argument we're stealing by using our TiVos as we reduce the viewing figures who see the ads too - IIRC a US TV executive tried to claim that few years back!


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Due to Bit Torrent Sky viewer figures will fall when they broadcast that program and so their advertising revenues will fall, ergo they will lose money directly due to TCM and other's Bit Torrenting activity.


Then you, Pete, are equally guilty because you are depriving TV companies of advertising revenue by using your TiVo to skip the ads. Advertisers pay according to how many people see their ads, not how many watch the editorial part of the show.



> TCM's argument is like me saying I can drive my car safely at 125mph at 2am on the local high spec dual carriageway because I know no Bobbies hang out on that darkened stretch of country road at that time of day.


No, it's not. Your speeding example is to do with the likelihood of being caught, which is no part of my argument



> But it doesn't make it legal does it. And there will be 1,000 letter of the law merchants and anti car NIMBY's out there to tell me I should not be doing it........
> 
> Not of course that I ever would.


Bet you've driven at 80 on a motorway though, which is just as illegal.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> Then you, Pete, are equally guilty because you are depriving TV companies of advertising revenue by using your TiVo to skip the ads. Advertisers pay according to how many people see their ads, not how many watch the editorial part of the show.


Actually, they pay for the advertising whether anyone watches it or not  LOL! I get your point, of course, but then they only _average_ the figures anyway.

Most of my shopping is done via a supermarket that advertises and by buying products that advertise anyway, so they're not missing out on my not watching the ads.

Which is about as good an argument as those who says they're not depriving anyone of revenue by downloading TV shows


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Simon George said:


> It is a fascinating debate going on now.
> 
> However, so that people are in no doubt.
> 
> Downloading without permission is illegal.


You are completely correct and if you read my posts you will find I acknowledge that.

However things can be against the letter of the law without being morally wrong. When I drove to London last weekend I did not rigidly stick to 70mph on the motorway. Illegal? Unquestionably. Bothered? No.

In the case of TV downloading - and I do make a distinction between TV and DVD for CD rips - the law has yet to catch up with reality.

It took a while for it to catch up with video recorders and it was some years before taping TV for your own use was made to be legal. This is another similar case.

So by the letter of the law you are correct, but my conscience is clear.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

cwaring said:


> I would assume that the answer to this would be some form of DRM but, of course, people are against DRM for _exactly_ that reason; ie it makes it difficult for them to (illegally) copy and re-distribute anything. There is no other reason to be against DRM.


There most certainly is! The tracks I've downloaded from iTunes have DRM on them. This means they will play on an iPod but not on a Zen. That's nothing to do with preventing piracy and everything to do with wanting to lock users in to brands of hardware.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> I don't agree as films etc have a time related value and this is why DVDs of old films are far cheaper than the latest blockbuster.


And as I said, I'm talking about TV only.

My twisted logic on films is that I only download films which I've bought on DVD, and then only ones which are not available on Bluray or HD DVD, so I coould not have bought them.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Simon George said:


> That comes under fair use rules
> 
> However if I got my mates round, put it on the big screen, and charged them a fee, then yes that absolutely would be illegal!
> 
> ...


It's not under "fair use" - that's a provision to allow the use of parts of a copyright work for various purposes such as review. (I do work in a creative industry so we do do a lot of copyright law work!).

Time shifting is legal under this clause of the Copyright Act:


> The making in domestic premises for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any right conferred by Part 2 in relation to a performance or recording included in the broadcast.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> I wonder how he would feel if people in other countries started downloading and printing copies of his magazines in those countries because they didn't want to wait a week for the magazine to arrive by post using a legitimate subscription.


I have been very clear that if download deprives the artist/author/filmmaker of revenue then you should not do it and I don't do it.

If they had a subscription and wanted to torrent a copy to get it earlier, then I have no issue with that at all. I have my money, they have their magazine, everyone happy.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Just as you haven't paid for (for example) a legal, retail copy of "Heroes" in HD. You have, as Simon previously mentioned, paid to watch and SD version when Sci-Fi UK schedule it. (Use of certain PVRs not-withstanding )


Hopefully it will be in HD on the BBC Real Soon Now.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Ultimately though the biggest victim of this scam could be the consumer because if film-makers and musicians are paid next to nothing then no one will bother to go on producing in particular high spec films and probably high quality music too (more scope for debate there with musician being artists rather than businessmen but even they need to eat) and so there will be no new movies to watch and no new music to listen to.


Has anyone been arguing that downloading CDs and DVDs is OK or legal? I didn't notice that post if they did.

I think you must be a politician Pete, as answering a different question to the one posed (one you have an answer to) is a very politician thing to do!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> True, but by that argument we're stealing by using our TiVos as we reduce the viewing figures who see the ads too - IIRC a US TV executive tried to claim that few years back!


Yes but we only use a high tech alternative to going and making a cup of tea in the commercial break as has always been allowed.

You not only want to avoid the adverts but also to illegally view a version of the program that you don't have the permission of the company that produced that version of it to view in that format at that time.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I think you must be a politician Pete, as answering a different question to the one posed (one you have an answer to) is a very politician thing to do!


I have indeed been a politician in a minor way in a local capacity, even though I am presently resting from that career due to the capriciousness of the local electorate. Also one of my close relatives was a politician in a rather more major way.

It is because I have this political way of thinking that I find the thinking of those you who eschew this approach to discussion to be very difficult to comprehend.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Yes but we only use a high tech alternative to going and making a cup of tea in the commercial break as has always been allowed.
> 
> You not only want to avoid the adverts but also to illegally view a version of the program that you don't have the permission of the company that produced that version of it to view in that format at that time.


It's only the high tech equivalent of going to Heathrow, flying for five hours and watching it on TV as has always been allowed.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> It's only the high tech equivalent of going to Heathrow, flying for five hours and watching it on TV as has always been allowed.


Yes but that alternative costs loads of dosh which the masses can't afford so doesn't present a serious threat to owners of the program rights.

I think probably only a few more fanatical members of this forum would ever consider flying to New York every weekend just so they could see the latest edition of Heroes in HD.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I have been very clear that if download deprives the artist/author/filmmaker of revenue then you should not do it and I don't do it.
> 
> If they had a subscription and wanted to torrent a copy to get it earlier, then I have no issue with that at all. I have my money, they have their magazine, everyone happy.


Yes but the problem is that the vast mass of torrenters do not share your scruples and thus the technology as a whole is posing a serious threat to the revenues of the artists/authors/film-makers.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> And as I said, I'm talking about TV only.
> 
> My twisted logic on films is that I only download films which I've bought on DVD, and then only ones which are not available on Bluray or HD DVD, so I coould not have bought them.


So you own the DVD already and then torrent the HD version? 

With my poor visual appreciation facilities there just would be no benefit to that kind of thing as once I've seen a program I never want to watch it again however uplifted the visual content may allegedly be.

My enjoyment all comes from the plot.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> so doesn't present a serious threat to owners of the program rights.


Which is where I came in. As I pay my license fee and my Sky sub, what I do isn't any threat to the owners of the programme's rights either. They still get my money, routed via Sky and the BBC.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> So you own the DVD already and then torrent the HD version?
> 
> With my poor visual appreciation facilities there just would be no benefit to that kind of thing as once I've seen a program I never want to watch it again however uplifted the visual content may allegedly be.
> 
> My enjoyment all comes from the plot.


There speaks a man who doesn't have HD. You keep telling yourself that Pete. 

Is there really no film which would bear watching twice in your view then?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Yes but the problem is that the vast mass of torrenters do not share your scruples and thus the technology as a whole is posing a serious threat to the revenues of the artists/authors/film-makers.


I'm not speaking for them, I was explaining my position. I completely agree about the downloading of copyright material in order to avoid paying for it.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> Then you, Pete, are equally guilty because you are depriving TV companies of advertising revenue by using your TiVo to skip the ads. Advertisers pay according to how many people see their ads, not how many watch the editorial part of the show.


I don't know how those tv audience companies work and how they do the viewer hours measurement.

But surely with an old analaogue telly then if the viewer goes and makes a cup of tea then they don't know about it (unless they test you on the adverts later which I believe big advertisters do with random samples of the public on the high street) and with digital viewers they would have to plumb their device to your digibox which would make it look as though you were viewing tv extremely aggressively 24 hours a day and watching all the advert breaks if you had a Tivo. 

The best thing would be not to show them the Tivo when they attached the measuring device to your Digibox then get it out and install it once they had gone. Now that would leave them feeling really confused about your viewing habits.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> There speaks a man who doesn't have HD. You keep telling yourself that Pete.
> 
> Is there really no film which would bear watching twice in your view then?


Blade Runner perhaps and one or two of the same kind of genre.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I completely agree about the downloading of copyright material in order to avoid paying for it.


Surely you mean you completely disagree with it.

But it strikes me even you are currently depriving film makers of the sale to you of the Blu-Ray or HD-DVD version of a film you already own on DVD and would have otherwise bought again in one of those two formats?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> I don't know how those tv audience companies work and how they do the viewer hours measurement.
> 
> But surely with an old analaogue telly then if the viewer goes and makes a cup of tea then they don't know about it (unless they test you on the adverts later which I believe big advertisters do with random samples of the public on the high street) and with digital viewers they would have to plumb their device to your digibox which would make it look as though you were viewing tv extremely aggressively 24 hours a day and watching all the advert breaks if you had a Tivo.
> 
> The best thing would be not to show them the Tivo when they attached the measuring device to your Digibox then get it out and install it once they had gone. Now that would leave them feeling really confused about your viewing habits.


I think its done with some kind of box which picks up IR in the room so detects channel changes. It's not connected to any of your STBs.

If you nip out to make a cup of tea you press a button on this measuring box's remote so it knows you're not there. Each family member has their own button so it knows who's watching.

If you watch something on video I think you use the remote to somehow say what show it is you're watching.

Sound like a nightmare to me - I hope they pay them well!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

TCM2007 said:


> I think its done with some kind of box which picks up IR in the room so detects channel changes. It's not connected to any of your STBs.


Tivo's second IR wand would be perfect for sending the signals out to fool their device then.

[quoteIf you nip out to make a cup of tea you press a button on this measuring box's remote so it knows you're not there. Each family member has their own button so it knows who's watching.

If you watch something on video I think you use the remote to somehow say what show it is you're watching.

Sound like a nightmare to me - I hope they pay them well![/QUOTE]

Clearly it all relies on the honesty of the participants then. I bet most people they use make it look as though they are watching more tv than they actually do so as to stay part of their audience panel.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Interesting looking at the ratings how widespread torrenting now is. Everyone is talking about Heroes, yet the ratings from SciFi it show twice as many people watched "Anne Maurice Interior Rivalry" on Five this week... Odd, eh?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Pete77 said:


> Clearly it all relies on the honesty of the participants then. I bet most people they use make it look as though they are watching more tv than they actually do so as to stay part of their audience panel.


The panel is selected to have people of all levels of TV watching - otherwise it would be pointless


----------



## iankb (Oct 9, 2000)

cwaring said:


> ... people are against DRM ... it makes it difficult for them to (illegally) copy and re-distribute anything. There is no other reason to be against DRM.


There is a very valid reason to be against DRM with music files, _*if*_ they can only be downloaded in a proprietary format (e.g. AAC) that limits their use to proprietary hardware (e.g. an iPod). Even Apple now realise that the lost sales through DRM probably outweigh the potential losses through illegal downloads.


----------



## Simon George (Oct 21, 2003)

TCM2007 - I am interested in your distinction between DVD and TV ripping

What is the difference?


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

iankb said:


> There is a very valid reason to be against DRM with music files, _*if*_ they can only be downloaded in a proprietary format (e.g. AAC) that limits their use to proprietary hardware (e.g. an iPod). Even Apple now realise that the lost sales through DRM probably outweigh the potential losses through illegal downloads.


I only own ONE song with DRM on it.

I bought it from iTunes, burnt it to CD then ripped it to MP3 so I can play it on anything.

Very glad I did because since changing my PC it now says "This computer is not authorised to play it".... worse still, when I updated my iPod it REMOVED IT from the iPod because the PC wasnt authorised.

Had I purchased hundreds or thousands of songs from iTunes I would be mightily peed off to say the least.

All Anti-Piracy measures fail miserably to protect against piracy. OK, so it may prevent you making a digital copy of a CD (unless you know how) but all you have to do is connect a normal CD player to the line in of your PC and you can record the analogue output and create a digital version from scratch ... then duplicate to your hearts content and flog them at car boot sales.

The people buying them *may* realise that they have a less than perfect copy but then its their own fault for paying 2 or 3 quid for somethig that should be around the 10 pound mark.

At the same time, people who legitimately puchase GENUINE products have to put up with DRM crap that only hinders playback.

I am currently ripping my BOUGHT DVDs and burning copies for two reasons.

1. the kids have destroyed a couple of disks so I would rather they destroyed something worth 25p than £15

2. It takes all manner of farting about to watch the film you have bought.

F.A.C.T warnings that you cant skip though, trailers that you have to jump over, subtitles that you have to turn off, and in the case of Toy Story 2, selecting ENGLISH for playback because the default is Danish.

At least with a bought video tape you could zero the tape counter when the movie started so that you rewound it to the correct place ready for playback next time.

I fully agree with the comments about affordable legitimate downloads but the problem I have is that most of what I want as MP3s isnt available for download.

My music collection (several thousand vinyl singles) spans 1955-1991 and whilst a lot of the bigger hits have appeared on CD and I have bought them, many of the more obscure tracks pre mid 80s were only ever on analogue masters and have never been digitised so thay wont be available on CD and therefore also will not be available for download unless someone had transcribed their vinyl to MP3 which obvioulsy would not be a legitimate download.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

I have to say, well said


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Simon George said:


> TCM2007 - I am interested in your distinction between DVD and TV ripping
> 
> What is the difference?


To download a DVD rather than pay £15 for it is clearly depriving someone of revenue and is in my book clearly wrong.

To download a TV show _so long as you do not deprive anyone of revenue_ is not.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

cwaring said:


> I have to say, well said


You've 180'd then Carl? A minute ago you couldn't see why anyone would have a problem with DRM?


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Yeah, I knew someone would spot that.  I should have explained!

I don't have a problem with copying something you have bought and paid for*; be it on CD or DVD, which is why I said I agreed with katman's post wrt MP3s. However, I still stand by my other comments which refer to things that you don't own outright.

* Personal use only, I mean. Backup copy of DVD, rip CD to MP3 player. I don't mean to copy to sell on Ebay for example 

If you see what I mean


----------



## Andy Leitch (Apr 30, 2005)

iankb said:


> There is a very valid reason to be against DRM with music files,


And movie files too. 
I've just had to download The Matrix Trilogy, the new HD-DVD boxset...all 71Gb of it, as the discs won't play on my non-HDCP compliant HTPC. :down:


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

TCM2007 said:


> True, but by that argument we're stealing by using our TiVos as we reduce the viewing figures who see the ads too - IIRC a US TV executive tried to claim that few years back!


Indeed, I remember being amazed at the ludicrous stretch being made. I never claimed it was a convincing argument, just it's the argument basically used.

Let's face it, the current model doesn't work very well - advertising supported TV is in decline, subscription (either true subscription or licence fee) based for either TV or internet is the only sustainable model, and trying to restrict TV by international borders is failing abysmally.


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

Pete77 said:


> and probably high quality music too (more scope for debate there with musician being artists rather than businessmen but even they need to eat) and so there will be no new movies to watch and no new music to listen to


I'd argue with the high quality music - most music I've bought over the last couple of years has been from independent artists as it's been of far higher quality than the majority of pap offered by the major and minor record labels.


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

katman said:


> 2. It takes all manner of farting about to watch the film you have bought.
> 
> F.A.C.T warnings that you cant skip though, trailers that you have to jump over, subtitles that you have to turn off, and in the case of Toy Story 2, selecting ENGLISH for playback because the default is Danish.


Must admit this drives me nuts. We sat down a couple of days ago to watch Blade Runner, and had to watch "copying is theft" and it wouldn't skip. Why annoy the people who are buying the damn stuff? People who copy it are going to edit out that rubbish anyway! And then there were *6* pages of languages to skip through to get to English!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

kitschcamp said:


> Must admit this drives me nuts. We sat down a couple of days ago to watch Blade Runner, and had to watch "copying is theft" and it wouldn't skip. Why annoy the people who are buying the damn stuff? People who copy it are going to edit out that rubbish anyway! And then there were *6* pages of languages to skip through to get to English!


I'm glad I don't pay specially to be annoyed and only watch films that I have recorded for free off non subscription channels with my Tivo.


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

but... that's illegal and deprives the copyright owners of revenue...


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

kitschcamp said:


> Must admit this drives me nuts. We sat down a couple of days ago to watch Blade Runner, and had to watch "copying is theft" and it wouldn't skip. Why annoy the people who are buying the damn stuff? *People who copy it are going to edit out that rubbish anyway!* And then there were *6* pages of languages to skip through to get to English!


Actually the above statement ISNT true.

someone gave my daughter a hookey copy of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for Christmas a couple of years ago.

I knew it was hookey for the following reasons.

1. Poor print quality on the sleeve

2. poor print quality on the disc itself.

3. *The FBI warning at the begining of the disc indicating it was ripped from a region 1 disc yet it was playing on our Region 2 only player !!!!!*


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

kitschcamp said:


> but... that's illegal and deprives the copyright owners of revenue...


No it has been established that recording and timeshifting live programs you have the right to view live for your own later viewing is not illegal. As in Tivo and Sky+.


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

pete77 said:


> Yes but the problem is that the vast mass of torrenters do not share your scruples and thus the technology as a whole is posing a serious threat to the revenues of the artists/authors/film-makers.


A small but important distinction in my mind is the technology enables it, but it's the users and rights holders who are responsible for it. 
Forcing the technology companies to implement 'fixes' for some peoples' dishonest behaviour or protect unreasonable rights restrictions is what irritates legitimate users and puts them into the mindset of not respecting the copyright holders e.g. DRM that prevents legitimately downloaded music from playing on any device or FACT warnings that can't be skipped on standard players.

If people consider the terms of distribution to be fair then they are be less likely to consider the options for illegally obtaining the same thing - in this case a timely HD broadcast would mean no reason to download a torrent. Another example if high street DVDs were matched price for price with car boot ones then no one would bother with hooky copies - with no revenue the piracy 'problem' evaporates. You will also notice there was a lot of hoohar recently about EMI & iTunes (?) making non DRM legitimate downloads available for purchase at a slightly higher price - even the record industry recognises the need to innovate to maintain it's revenue base and that it may have over stated the case that every consumer is a thief in waiting.

The kids downloading music thing is a red herring. Kids rarely have enough money to buy all the media they want but they do have plenty of time and nouse. 'When I were a lad' it was extremely common practice to record the Top 40 on Sunday and share the tapes around. We didn't have the money to buy one single, let alone the lot. There is an argument that that deprived all the artists in the chart of at least one copy of their work - there is a counter argument that it was legitimate timeshifting. The point is that there was no money available to be spent so there was no actual loss in revenue - on the other hand the additional exposure meant we would scrape up our pocket money for our favourites but without the tapes we probably wouldn't have known the songs well enough to consider buying them.

As a related diversion - I buy a lot of music, all on CD to be ripped immediately. I buy all my music from www.cdwow.com and www.play.com as I think the standard UK high street price is unreasonable.

IMHO The actual harm in illegal distribution occurs when someone obtains an illegal copy of a work when they would actually have paid the retail price for the same item with the revenue going to the legitimate rights holder. The rest is static in the debate.


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

Pete77 said:


> No it has been established that recording and timeshifting live programs you have the right to view live for your own later viewing is not illegal. As in Tivo and Sky+.


So you never keep a program ever?


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

AMc said:


> The kids downloading music thing is a red herring. Kids rarely have enough money to buy all the media they want but they do have plenty of time and nouse. 'When I were a lad' it was extremely common practice to record the Top 40 on Sunday and share the tapes around. We didn't have the money to buy one single, let alone the lot. There is an argument that that deprived all the artists in the chart of at least one copy of their work - there is a counter argument that it was legitimate timeshifting. The point is that there was no money available to be spent so there was no actual loss in revenue - on the other hand the additional exposure meant we would scrape up our pocket money for our favourites but without the tapes we probably wouldn't have known the songs well enough to consider buying them.


Katman thinks of the Peter Kay sketch about recording the top 40 on a Sunday evening and trying to hit the pause button before the DJ spoke. Been there, done that 

Having said that, there is a BIG difference with the current younger generation.

I started DJing when I was 12 at Youth Club (unpaid) and as you rightly say I didnt have the money to buy records. My pocket money was enough to buy 2 singles per month if I cycled the 9 miles into Great Yarmouth, or one single per month if I caught the bus. As a result, my record collection for 1972 - 1976 consisted of records that were a hit in December (Christmas presents) or around Easter (birthday in April) or June - September (luggage boy at Pontins).

I used to record the Top 40 every sunday on a Reel to Reel tape recorder and edit the tape splicing bits of leader in between the songs so that I had all the current hits but other youth club members also used to bring in their singles as well.

As soon as I left school and had a job I then bought the entire top 40 and kept it topped up by buying the 5 or 6 new entries that there were each week.

Current technology has changed all that. Kids are downloading PERFECT copies of song not 95% of a song recorded of the radio so they therefore have no need to buy the genuine product.

I know of a couple of people currently DJing in this area who dont buy any CDs. One is downloading everything from Limewire and similar sites, the other works at a radio station and makes copies there. *That is out and out THEFT.*



> As a related diversion - I buy a lot of music, all on CD to be ripped immediately. I buy all my music from www.cdwow.com and www.play.com as I think the standard UK high street price is unreasonable.


I have bought from CDWow and also HMV as their prices are definately better than the high street, plus the high street has a VERY poor selection as almost all shops now sell the mainstream Top 40 which has killed off specialist record shops (I suppose I should call them Music Shops or CD shops but I spent far too long working with Records LOL )

I am now buying very little music as most of what I like is pre 1990 and often only appears on compilations. Most compilations I look at I already have 18 or 19 of the 20 tracks on there so I refuse to pay > £7 for a single song 



> IMHO The actual harm in illegal distribution occurs when someone obtains an illegal copy of a work when they would actually have paid the retail price for the same item with the revenue going to the legitimate rights holder.


Debateable. Some friends of mine "pooled" their MP3 collections for "backup purposes" which resulted in a archive of over 30,000 tracks. Far more than anyone could realistically listen too or keep track of. I would suggest that the "theft" actually occurs when you listen to a track as that is when the performer is deprived of their income.

On the subject of the performer being paid, and related to when I was DJing, another wierd beast is the PRS (Performing Rights Society) and PPL (Phonographic Performances Ltd) which insists on any venue or shop playing music to have a licence for public performance. The licence fee is based on the size of audience and opening hours. In the case of a radio station is is based on the number of people falling into the demographic for the broadcast area.

My gripe with it was *how do they know WHO to give the money too ???*

We were not required to complete a playlist and the music we were playing didnt fall into the mainstream of what was being played on the radio. Radio stations have to supply accurate playlists so the correct people would receive their dues but I can pretty much guarantee that the performers of what we were playing only received the money from record sales.


----------



## Simon George (Oct 21, 2003)

TCM2007 said:


> To download a DVD rather than pay £15 for it is clearly depriving someone of revenue and is in my book clearly wrong.
> 
> To download a TV show _so long as you do not deprive anyone of revenue_ is not.


You could have bought the DVD of the show (if it exists) so there is one form of deprivation, by reducing demand for the show, ones not currently on DVD will never be available on DVD, - a further form of deprivation to the rest of us who want to own a show legally but do not have a satellite sub.

But that is by-the-by. Since you do all a lot of copyright law work you know that your agrument is wrong legally, and since you work in the creative industries, then you OUGHT to know the argument is wrong economically. If you are unsure go to your accounts department and let them explain it to you.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

kitschcamp said:


> So you never keep a program ever?


I keep lots of them for ages till I get round to viewing them but only ever tend to watch them once. Keeping a program to watch it once eventually is generally considered legitimate and no specific time period has ever been established. However by the use of technology the BBC wish to establish a formal maximum time period going forward.


----------



## Simon George (Oct 21, 2003)

Pete77 said:


> I keep lots of them for ages till I get round to viewing them but only ever tend to watch them once. Keeping a program to watch it once eventually is generally considered legitimate and no specific time period has ever been established. However by the use of technology the BBC wish to establish a formal maximum time period going forward.


Actually I understand the reason for the 7 day rule is two fold

1) Limitations on storage of programmes indefinitely (thats a LOT of data)
2) For some shows, the BBC only has limited rights to those shows and therefore cannot offer them indefinitely.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Simon George said:


> 1) Limitations on storage of programmes indefinitely (thats a LOT of data)


No problem I have 603 hours of recording capacity.



> 2) For some shows, the BBC only has limited rights to those shows and therefore cannot offer them indefinitely.


They are going to cover this for tv by imposing a maximum time period (28 days or something) in which you can watch the program that you manage to download within the 7 day window.

Its a bit like the Sky Astra rights thing with the BBC and ITV now being broadcast in the clear. Basically as long as the BBC and ITV use a reduced satellite footprint that makes it impossible for normal size satellite dishes to work outside the UK then they are absolved of legal responsibilty for those prepared to erect 2metre or 3 metre dishes to get the programs.


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

Simon George said:


> Actually I understand the reason for the 7 day rule is two fold
> 
> 1) Limitations on storage of programmes indefinitely (thats a LOT of data)
> 2) For some shows, the BBC only has limited rights to those shows and therefore cannot offer them indefinitely.


I would imagine the former to be the reason behind 7 days.

They could easily implement different dates for different content based on their licenced rights.

The one thing that really annoys me about Tivo and SKY+ (and video tape in a previous era) is watching something you have recorded 3 or 4 days ago and you catch a trailer for something on in "two days" only to realise it has already gone 

* Am I in danger of getting on topic by mentioning Tivo and SKY+ in this reply ?*


----------



## Simon George (Oct 21, 2003)

Pete77 said:


> No problem I have 603 hours of recording capacity.
> 
> .


No - I meant the limitations of the BBC's servers!


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

Simon George said:


> No - I meant the limitations of the BBC's servers!


I should have thought that available bandwidth and not available hard drive space was their major constraint.

Having said that if you have a larger program archive available to download from then more people will be downloading more stuff so more total bandwidth will always be in use.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Strange. _I_ understood that perfectly. Wonder why Pete didn't?


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

Off topic, but has anyone noticed TopUp TV has removed the option of subscribing without buying their anytime box from the website?

www.topup.tv

Every option makes you buy their DVR box.


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

katman said:


> RE: PRS My gripe with it was how do they know WHO to give the money too ???


And there in lies the inequity of the current revenue model. The majority of the money is distributed to the highest selling artists with the rest being trickled out based on airplay from radio playlists. So a big club hit may not see any real revenue unless it gets picked up on the radio too.

The TV ratings system works in a similar way http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-21235,00.html. A tiny number of homes are given the equipment to record who is in the room and what is being watched. This 1500 or so have an incredible impact on the revenue distribution and advertising values. It's possible that they represent an accurate cross section but they can't provide a completely accurate picture of what is being watched - let alone torrented or timeshifted.

When the revolution comes  ... your media producer/owner will get paid when their content is purchased and/or viewed. Finally you'll get paid for what is watched or heard, not what is part of the self forfilling cycle of what is 'popular'.

There was an interesting article on www.thregister.co.uk citing some research into how much a flat rate levy on broadband would cost to fund the current media production. It worked out that if the US alone were to do this something like $10 a month on broadband costs would replace the entire revenue of the music, TV and film industries. Add a mechanism that reports playback so you can divide the money between the owners and the whole issue of digital piracy goes away - you need broadband to do it, broadband includes a tax to cover digital distribution and a royalty distribution mechanism. There is no need to hack the royalty playback mechanism as you aren't paying to play. Shame I can't find it now.

On the note about pooling MP3s. At one office we decided it was silly to each waste local storage on our iTunes libraries so we built a low power PC with a big drive. 5 of us loaded our music onto it and shared it over the network. I actually bought more CDs as a result of being able to try out stuff I wouldn't normally have done, as did the others in the pool. The option was there to copy off the network and take stuff home for free, but in practice none of us did.

You can steal a CD from a shop - it doesn't mean that anyone picking up a CD in a shop is a thief. If the record shops treated their customers like the film and music labels treat their customers you would be strip searched on your way out of HMV and would have to put up with an endless loop of "Stealing is wrong" blaring over the speakers. It's interesting to note that despite the supposed losses of revenue in film and TV HMV etc. still seem to be doing OK.


----------



## katman (Jun 4, 2002)

AMc said:


> There was an interesting article on www.thregister.co.uk citing some research into how much a flat rate levy on broadband would cost to fund the current media production. *It worked out that if the US alone were to do this something like $10 a month on broadband costs would replace the entire revenue of the music, TV and film industries.*


If I have interpreted the above paragraph correctly, is that saying that $10 per home would fund all TV et all.

If that is true then that could mean Advert Free TV as the programming costs would be covered. * for £60 per year .... BRING IT ON !!!*

Sadly I cant see that happening as every home in the UK already pays £135.50 per year just for the BBC so how could £60 fund everything ????

Having said that, given the standard of programming on a lot of the commercial channels, £60 probably well exceeds their current budgets anyway !!!!


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

mikerr said:


> Off topic, but has anyone noticed TopUp TV has removed the option of subscribing without buying their anytime box from the website?
> 
> www.topup.tv
> 
> Every option makes you buy their DVR box.


Yeah. It's been like that for quite some time. I only noticed a couple of months ago while I was updating my VM web site.



AMc said:


> The TV ratings system works in a similar way http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-21235,00.html. A tiny number of homes are given the equipment to record who is in the room and what is being watched. This 1500 or so have an incredible impact on the revenue distribution and advertising values.


According to the intro page on BARB's own site (www.barb.co.uk) the figures are in fact *5,100 homes* and *11,500 viewers* so slightly more than the 1,500 quoted by that article. Looks like someone has numeric dyslexia 

More on how it works here: http://www.barb.co.uk/about.cfm?report=qanda&flag=about


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

It seems this is the stuff they were referencing or at least the general ideas are similar - all you can eat music for £3-5 a month.
http://www.gerdleonhard.net/2006/01/flat_fee_music_.html

And this was the page I remembered (not bad as it was Sept 2004) The whole article is really interesting.

At the bottom it says 


www.TheRegister.co.uk said:


> Let's go through the options. Anyone not on the Internet isn't doing a lot of file sharing. So why should they pay, either? A broadband tax on US users of around $5 a month would compensate both the recording and movie industries 20 per cent of 2000 revenues. Since CD sales are going up, and the link between p2p sharing and is contentious at best that would be a fair figure.


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/23/orlowski_interactive_keynote/page6.html
So 'only' 20% from the US alone not the full monty of all their worldwide revenues, but then we're not arguing they stop selling CDs, DVDs, TV licences, cinema tickets etc. Just that they look at the connected planet as an opportunity.


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

cwaring said:


> 5,100 homes and 11,500 viewers so slightly more than the 1,500 quoted by that article


 They also admit there are +24 million households and they don't take any account of nondomestic viewing or 0.02125% by my reckoning. As market research goes it's not the weakest model I've seen but there is still a fair amount to be desired IMHO.


----------



## Pete77 (Aug 1, 2006)

AMc said:


> They also admit there are +24 million households and they don't take any account of nondomestic viewing or 0.02125% by my reckoning. As market research goes it's not the weakest model I've seen but there is still a fair amount to be desired IMHO.


I expect they will argue that if they had a sample of 50,000 the costs would be much greater but the result would be almost identical within 1% or so.

Remember most people watch Eastenders, Big Brother, Coronation Street and Football for large amounts of the time, even though I personally watch none of the above.


----------



## terryeden (Nov 2, 2002)

katman said:


> If I have interpreted the above paragraph correctly, is that saying that $10 per home would fund all TV et all.
> 
> If that is true then that could mean Advert Free TV as the programming costs would be covered. * for £60 per year .... BRING IT ON !!!*


According to the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6675061.stm


> TV advertising spend declined 4.7% from 2005 levels to £4.59bn


So, £4,590,000,000. Divided by the population of the UK (60,000,000)

Gives £76.50.

Now, if we assume that this "tax" would be paid by household, like the TV licence...
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=1162
~25,000,000 households.

This would cost 
£183.60.

So, basically, would you be happy doubling the licence fee to get all non-subscription channels without adverts?

Me - yes. Maybe I'm too cash rich and time poor.

Terry
*Figures are rough - don't nit-pick the decimal points!


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

terryeden said:


> *Figures are rough - don't nit-pick the decimal points!


Bah! Take all the fun out of it why don't you!


----------



## AMc (Mar 22, 2002)

Well you'd have to factor in subscriptions and pay per view too if you were going all out to replace the revenue mechanism. The idea with that stuff I linked to is that new digital distribution would be 'all you can eat' (avoiding the piracy, copy protection cat and mouse) and existing mechanisms (physical media, advert supported broadcasting) would continue in place as long as there was a market.

If you look at the prices you got to £15 a month - I would happily pay that better value than my Telewest or OnDigital subscriptions ever were.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

kitschcamp said:


> Must admit this drives me nuts. We sat down a couple of days ago to watch Blade Runner, and had to watch "copying is theft" and it wouldn't skip. Why annoy the people who are buying the damn stuff? People who copy it are going to edit out that rubbish anyway! And then there were *6* pages of languages to skip through to get to English!


If you watch DVDs on a HTPC, AnyDVD cuts out all that rubbish and just takes you either to the menu or just plays the film when you put the disk in. Worth it just for that, never mind the region-free thing.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Simon George said:


> You could have bought the DVD of the show (if it exists) so there is one form of deprivation, by reducing demand for the show, ones not currently on DVD will never be available on DVD, - a further form of deprivation to the rest of us who want to own a show legally but do not have a satellite sub.
> 
> But that is by-the-by. Since you do all a lot of copyright law work you know that your agrument is wrong legally, and since you work in the creative industries, then you OUGHT to know the argument is wrong economically. If you are unsure go to your accounts department and let them explain it to you.


The DVD argument makes no sense. If I watched a show on Sky I would not need to buy a DVD of that show, but you wouldn't argue that I'd deprived the copyright owner of revenue by not doing so, or made it less likely to come out on DVD.

I accept that my argument has no legal force, never claimed it did.

I do not accept that I'm wrong economically. I have yet to see a coherent argument made here for how paying to watch a show from Sky but choosing to in fact watch it via a different method denies any revenue to anyone in the creative chain.

I make again the comparison again to music.

If I pre-order a UK CD from Amazon for an album which comes out later in the UK than the US, and while I'm awaiting for the CD to arrive download an MP3 and listen to that, I do not feel I'm doing anything morally wrong. Legally wrong yes, morally wrong no.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

davisa said:


> There is the huge issue of interoperability (if that's the word I'm looking for) of media. For example, I recently bought a couple of music albums from iTunes, which of course come in AAC DRM format. I wanted to listen to the tracks on my car CD/MP3 player, which can play both AAC and MP3, but of course not DRM AAC. I found myself in the ridiculous situation of having to download an 'illegal' MP3 version for the car.


A little Googling will lead you to an app which strips the DRM and leaves you with an unprotected AAC file. But don't tell the law-by-the-letter crew.


----------



## DeadKenny (Nov 9, 2002)

Tivo_noob said:


> And $KY is still rubbish, they are fighting a losing corner and they know it


If Sky is rubbish, why do so many of us have TiVo's hooked up to Sky?

If you mean the content is rubbish, what alternatives? Freeview... fine if you just want a handful of channels, though it's the same rubbish that's on Sky. VM(aka NTL)... same old rubbish as Sky but minus the better rubbish.

If you mean Sky+ is rubbish, then yes I'd agree to some extent though it still has key features TiVo doesn't. The better picture quality for one thing is something I find more important now I have a 40" telly that shows the flaws of TiVo. That said though I'm more interested in SkyHD and TiVo can't compete there.



TCM2007 said:


> CoreAVC.


Very good codecs apparently. Still can't get 1080p HD to play at a stable rate on my PCs though .



Simon George said:


> All you are buying is the right to watch a programme when it is transmitted, or if you have a Sky + box, whenever you want to from the Sky+ HDD (itself a difficult area). You are buying nothing else. Sky itself will have bought the rights to the show, and will have sometimes severe limitations on it. I.e. typically it will have the right to transmit the programme X number of times over Y years and no more. Clearly it has a commercial interest in maximising its audience as well as its subscriptions. I assure you it does not consider it as OK for someone to download a show so long as the downloader has paid their Sky subs.


Indeed. This applies also to their Sky Anytime on PC. You still have to pay for the downloads despite having a sub. Sounds unfair, but I asked them about it and their response is as you say, all to do with their licence restrictions on individual shows which they claim prevents them from freely distributing via apps like Anytime.

I'm not so sure though if it were to be shown that Sky Anytime is a private broadcast facility and part of the subscription, but then I can see some small print in the contracts that demand extra money for off-air downloads.



Simon George said:


> Yes you are right it is a US concept, however in practice and by practice the UK recognises the (more or less) same principles. Though I understand the EU is trying to bring in an EU fair use law


Sadly, the music and movie industry would rather block any such attempts. That said, the BPI did announce last year that they are okay with people making copies of CDs (hmm, but why then do we still have copy protection on CDs, even from artists who are against such measures, such as Moby as I discovered on a recent purchase?  ).



TCM2007 said:


> My twisted logic on films is that I only download films which I've bought on DVD, and then only ones which are not available on Bluray or HD DVD, so I coould not have bought them.


I never download anything I've got on DVD, generally because I have the DVD and if I wanted another format I could rip it and convert.

However I do download stuff that isn't available on DVD. It's mostly old TV shows. Still not legal though, but I feel at least it's not so morally bad. That's the opinion also taken by a certain UK torrent site that indexes UK shows not commercially available.

I will admit to a curiosity over HD downloads now I have an HD telly, but I stick to TV shows (very little is on HD-DVD/Blu-Ray anyway). If I'm happy enough with it and content builds on SkyHD I'll get SkyHD and save my bandwidth.

Talking of bandwidth though. I do think there's scope for a tax on bandwidth to cover the industry. This kind of happened with standalone recordable CD machines, where the Audio CD-Rs that worked on them were inflated in price supposedly to compensate the music industry. Apparently audio tapes had a similar tax.



TCM2007 said:


> To download a DVD rather than pay £15 for it is clearly depriving someone of revenue and is in my book clearly wrong.


Ah, that old chestnut. That's the argument the industry uses to publish their grossly exaggerated and baseless claims about losses due to piracy.

The fundamental flaw here is the assumption that the pirate would have bought the DVD if they hadn't had the download option.

Personally I don't believe any BS about losses in terms of money they never had or could be certain of getting in the first place.



iankb said:


> There is a very valid reason to be against DRM with music files, _*if*_ they can only be downloaded in a proprietary format (e.g. AAC) that limits their use to proprietary hardware (e.g. an iPod). Even Apple now realise that the lost sales through DRM probably outweigh the potential losses through illegal downloads.


Indeed.

My primary argument against DRM music though isn't the DRM so much but the fact that "legitimate" downloads are such shockingly poor quality encodings!

I prefer to buy a physical CD, which is often between £5 and £8 now even in the UK, and rip it myself using techniques that are known to produce perfect rips (unlike many of the illegal downloads). I archive the CDs in lossless Flac format and then just convert to whatever I want when I want or stream Flac direct to my Squeezebox into my Hi-Fi. The CDs can then go in the loft.


----------



## Automan (Oct 29, 2000)

I did try reading this thread again but it sort of drifts 

Anyway I was wondering if they are dropping the fee to prevent punters moving to the new FreeSat HD product due out next year?

If this product is launched and it has PVR/DVR functions quite a few Sky customers may opt for a free soloution rather than paying Sky $$$

Automan.


----------



## 6022tivo (Oct 29, 2002)

A freesat with tivo SW would be nice wouldn't it, sponsored by the occasional banner ad rather than £10 PCM


----------

