# Calls for providers to pay PVR royalties



## GarySargent (Oct 27, 2000)

Great - not!

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/article/ds28190.html

Don't see why it is any different to VCR's?!


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Me neither. http://www.oando.co.uk/ if you think we should call them on it


----------



## nathan (Feb 18, 2002)

AKA the "my business model is changing and rather than change to accommodate it I'll ask for government to legislate and tax it, giving me a no-effort income stream irrespective of the quality of output I produce" ploy.

Idiots.


----------



## Glesgie (Feb 3, 2003)

Whatever happened to the attempt to levy a fee on the sales of VCR tapes to
recompense the film studios for their "lost" revenue ?


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

Seeing how well it's worked in Sweden and Denmark, I can't imagine it happening any time soon, unless they introduce it as pan-European legislation. All that's happened there is people are importing their media from abroad, as a 30p-70p a disc levy just gets people buying their discs from abroad, and actually is encouraging piracy, as the tax is seen as an official licence to copy.


----------



## ndunlavey (Jun 4, 2002)

It does happen for recordable audio CDs though, doesn't it?


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

Yup, and see how well they sell compared to ordinary data ones


----------



## ndunlavey (Jun 4, 2002)

Indeed, but I know at least one person who has a "domestic" CD recorder (ie, a hifi unit rather than a 'puter) that will take only CD-ARs. OTOH, he genuinely believes that having paid the levy gives him a right to copy as much as he likes.


----------



## kitschcamp (May 18, 2001)

And that's the big problem with the levy idea - it instantly makes it "legal" in the public mind. Either you don't pay a levy and are breaking the law, or by paying a levy that goes to the people who make the music etc etc, you must be legal, surely?  You can't have a levy and be illegal - that's a bonkers solution.


----------



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

> The report argues that the introduction of PVRs into UK homes by Sky, cable providers and BT will, over the next ten years, "deprive both commissioning free to air broadcasters and producers of a fair share of the value generated by the re-use of their originated programming."


I don't see the connection between the PVR and the revenue. Do they think we're filling up our PVR's with enough content that we won't need to watch TV anymore?

The channels airing these shows (e.g. UK Gold) ensure that they're getting revenue from Sky and/or advertising. In turn Sky ensure they get enough revenue from their customers. I don't see a problem in the system, and certainly no problem that PVR's make worse.



> In order to combat this issue, the report goes on, "regulators should consider the introduction of a royalty scheme whereby platform owners would pay a small annual fee per PVR home to be split among rights owners in accordance with their share of new output on the main free to air commissioning channels."


I wonder if they know what a PVR is. If it's the thought that we're all skipping ads and driving down ad-rates then there's ways around that (sponsored shows, product placement, and anti-ad-skipping technology).


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

b166er said:


> In turn Sky ensure they get enough revenue from their customers.


Don't foget that not only does Sky get subs from customers but revenue from ads on the Sky channels, too. I read somewhere that they could quite easily afford to go ad-free. If they did that, I'm sure subs would rocket!!


----------



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

Here's how I'd implement anti ad-skipping technology:

if ( fast_forward_button_pressed && this_section_seen_already == true )
fast_forward();
else
return; //ignore fast forward attempt, user hasn't seen this part yet

That puts you in exactly the same state, while watching the show from your Now Playing list, as if you were watching it live. Sure you can pause it, you can rewind, you can go back 7 seconds or you can stop watching it all together, but you can't fast forward past the ads.

Simple! Effective! Cheap!

Playing back a recording offers you no more extra abilities than if you were watching it live.

Only when you're watching it for the 2nd, 3rd and subsequent times are you allowed to fast forward.


----------



## tweety (Feb 28, 2005)

But of course the PVR would not then be doing what it was advertised or bought for...

TP


----------



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

tweety said:


> But of course the PVR would not then be doing what it was advertised or bought for...TP


Might not be what it was bought for, but the ads that I recall (the american ones from 2000/2001) they never mentioned being able to skip ads.


----------



## blindlemon (May 12, 2002)

b166er said:


> [...]you can rewind, you can go back 7 seconds or you can stop watching it all together, but you can't fast forward past the ads.


I don't like the sound of that 

One of the great (unsung) joys of a TiVo, IMHO, is the ability to watch shows like Jools Holland, TOTP etc. in fast-forward mode, only slowing down to normal speed when you see something that looks worth spending time on.


----------



## b166er (Oct 24, 2003)

blindlemon said:


> I don't like the sound of that


Neither do I , I'm Tempted to delete the message in case it gives someone the idea of doing it 



blindlemon said:


> One of the great (unsung) joys of a TiVo, IMHO, is the ability to watch shows like Jools Holland, TOTP etc. in fast-forward mode, only slowing down to normal speed when you see something that looks worth spending time on.


Can't imagine using a TiVo without that ability.


----------



## Nebulous (Nov 28, 2005)

b166er said:


> , but you can't fast forward past the ads.


I think I'll slit my wrists now and avoid the rush


----------



## =CM= (Feb 22, 2005)

If someone implemented that sad anti ad skip code(which might need a large array to store "already seen"!) I'd play all the programmes overnight to an audience of 0, so that the ads could be skipped on the "2nd" (= real) play the following day.

It's bad enough that studios can lock fwd for DVDs.


----------



## wonderboy (May 27, 2003)

Yep that' sone reason I personally hate and DON'T buy DVD's - I think it's ridiculous that I can't FF those stupid warnings like I can with a VHS.

I am in the minority I suppose.


----------



## ndunlavey (Jun 4, 2002)

Why do you suppose that? I imagine that most people would prefer to skip over the propaganda and advertising.


----------



## mike0151 (Dec 13, 2001)

I get utterly p133ed off at anything that restricts my use of anything for which I've paid hard cash.


----------



## ndunlavey (Jun 4, 2002)

I don't see anyone here disagreeing.


----------



## johala_reewi (Oct 30, 2002)

In a similar vein, DJs who play MP3s and downloaded tunes at a disco now need a 'licence' but for some reason, they don't need one if they are playing records or CDs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4609378.stm


----------



## ndunlavey (Jun 4, 2002)

The "some reason" being that the license for use that the fee for the download buys them is for personal use only.


----------



## BlueRanger (Dec 21, 2002)

But isn't the "fee" paid when buying a CD for a personal use only license too?

Why is a special license needed for public performance of a digital copy, when the same performance of the original CD/LP/Cassette etc. is not?


----------



## GarySargent (Oct 27, 2000)

I wonder how many offices have a PPL license for telephone on-hold music. Says you need one!

In fact if you read the PPL site you need a license for any public broadcast, digital or not. This is just one of many licenses you can buy for digital recordings.


----------



## ndunlavey (Jun 4, 2002)

A neighbour who works for PPL has told me that PPL call up businesses that don't have licenses to see if they get music when they are on hold.


----------



## johala_reewi (Oct 30, 2002)

ndunlavey said:


> The "some reason" being that the license for use that the fee for the download buys them is for personal use only.


The crazy thing is that music on a CD is in a digital form but doesn't need a licence. If you then copy that music from the CD onto an MP3 player or similar, you suddenly need a licence to broadcast it. Madness.

Not only that, musical instrument shops have to pay for a licence to cover themselves for when aspiring musicians try out the instruments by playing their favourite riffs thus making a 'public performance'.

I also read recently that downloading guitar tabs off the internet and playing them is a breach of copyright.

heaven help you if you are caught whistling a catchy tune in public LOL


----------



## GarySargent (Oct 27, 2000)

CD does require a license to play in public - it is no different from digital MP3 copies. When you purchase a CD, you may not play it in a public area.

If you own a shop and play a CD then you need to obtain a license to do so.


----------



## Verne (Nov 21, 2000)

What about in your car with the window down? Do you need a license for that too?


----------



## Mark Bennett (Sep 17, 2001)

johala_reewi said:


> Not only that, musical instrument shops have to pay for a licence to cover themselves for when aspiring musicians try out the instruments by playing their favourite riffs thus making a 'public performance'.


Hence the sign "No Stairway"...


----------



## Malibyte (Jun 12, 2005)

And these studio morons wonder why piracy is so rampant.


----------



## ndunlavey (Jun 4, 2002)

Piracy is rampant because dishonest people see a chance to steal something with no come-back.


----------

