[Synthespian]

In 1970s, Sony developed the Betamax tape. In 1984, the US Supreme Court passed the motion (albeit only 5-4) that the recorders did not infringe copyright, and that the recording of television content for personal (non-commercial) use represented fair-use of the technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Co...y_Studios,_Inc.

We now live in an age where the VCR has gone, and the world has moved to DVDs, Blu-Ray, and PVR recorders.
There are a number of devices on the market, but their usage and how they can be used seems to be conflicting as to your own personal "fair use". This has also been further engorged by the high availability of content over peer-to-peer networks and the ever increasing speeds available to internet users, as well as Youtube's low quality but large library of clips. You could watch almost all the Mock the Week "Scenes we'd like to see" recordings through this "service".
There are even commercial devices that purposefully connect to youtube, picassa and other similar content.

What's the point of a Blu-ray recorder if it's not to make a disc (tape) of your favourite programm/series, to watch it again or later at a time (in a place) more suitable to you?

I am curious as to other people's opinions on the issue of "archiving" and "fair usage recording", and where the TV industry (not just in the UK) can go. In no way is what I'm putting down in this post condoning what certain people may do with technology (most have already found a way anyway), but I do believe it is changing the way in which people look at things.

-----
First off, I should say I am completely in support of a company's right to copyright, and the idea of distributing illegal content over the internet is - I believe - fundamentally wrong. It is not right for the latest James Bond, Harry Potter or George Clooney film to be available over the internet as it is released in the cinemas. People have worked hard to make a movie and the experience is meant to be a specific one, in the theatre.
And here’s my qualifier ... with the ever increasing world of technology, that does not seem to hold up once something has been shown on television, and with reference to the Betamax legal case and general fair use policy. It’s one I'd like to discuss here.

Before I go into my post fully, please note the following products you either can buy or are required to buy (depending on your chosen service):

• SKY+ box
• V+ box
• Humax Freesat HD PVR (http://www.humaxdigital.com/uk/produ...foxsathdr.aspx)
• HD PVR (http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_hdpvr.html)
• Blu-ray Recorders (http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_G...485/index.html)
• Media Players - e.g. Popcorn Hour (http://www.popcornhour.com/onlinesto...option=catalog)
• Media Recorder (http://www.aria.co.uk/Products/Elect...roductId=35292)

and the there are many capture cards for your PC. Here's one that does what most of the others do combined.
Hauppage HVR400 - Freeview and Freesat care (http://www.hauppauge.co.uk/site/prod...a_hvr4000.html)

This all leading towards how visual entertainment is (I believe) moving to as a whole. An all encompassing one.
You can buy Blu-Ray players, HD media streamers, as well as items such as Sky+ HD, etc.
All this really is more towards the consumer’s desire of a "one-stop" HD shop for all your video and audio media that you as a person/household owns. No-one likes having five different devices underneath their TV, and the world would be a much simpler place if there was one (or maybe two).

However ... where does all of this fit into the world of "fair use"?
And what can we record?

If ... in the UK you are a Freesat user, then the Humax box or Hauppage Tv card would allow you to watch and record shows such as Fastforward (on Five), BBC's Life (in HD), BBC Proms, Top Gear on either the box or your computer. If you've used the former, you can still archive shows back to your PC and then watch them on the Media player later again in full HD on the TV or computer screen. If you're very IT savvy and live somewhere big enough, you'll have created a media network allowing you to view the same content on your bedroom television, or the one in the study, kitchen, or kids play-room - again in jaw-dropping HD. It may even be that the recording device is not in the same room as your purpose built "cinema room" and this is the only way to watch something on a really big screen. If you weren't as savvy, you could use a device such as the blu-ray recorder and copy the content to a disc, and play it on another player in your car or in that purpose built room.

Again ... what's the point of a Blu-ray recorder if it's not to make a disc (tape) of your favourite programme you watched, to watch it again or later at a time (in a place) more suitable to you?

Let's take two of those programmes mentioned: Top Gear and Fastforward.
These are provided by BBC and Five. In both cases you could do the above "fair use" recording and copying to disc from the devices discussed (if you use the Freesat / Freeview/PC option).
If both are in HD, then you would have ... an entire series of both shows on your computer in high quality that you can now play back to your hearts content for your own personal (fair) use. With 500gb of space on a freeview box (and probably more on a PC) you might not have to archive it off so quickly.
** again I do not condone anyone who is doing something ‘further’ **

I would like to now bring in Sky+ and Virgin+.
These are the two main subscription based services in UK, and in no way (mean to) offer the opportunity to record programmes in the same way the capture cards or Humax boxes all you to. In other words, you're given a tiny hard-drive (80gb is nothing in today's standards) and you must remove older recordings to get new ones (as well as Sky taking up half the capacity for their anytime service you probably didn't want).
And what about "fair use" archiving. There's a number of threads about people wanting to find the best way to take good copies of their recordings. They are asking/discussing because they want to keep what they've watched, or need to backup hard-disks (they do occasionally fail).

Why should Sky and Virgin be allowed to make it so difficult for you to make these archivings, and with actual HD content almost impossible?
Surely as a Sky subscriber, I should be entitled to make the same high-quality archiving copies as freesat customers. No?
If Beverly Hills Cop II is transmitted on BBC2 or Sky2, I shouldn't be restricted from making a recording when it's on the latter channel?
In any case ... I've paid a subscription to the latter which I would expect is passed on to the film company (in some form).

Shows such as Star Trek or The Simpsons on BBC2/CH4 have now moved onto Sky1 and Virgin1. If I use Freeview then I can make my tape of the show on Virgin1, but why can't I do that using a Virgin box? If they hadn't been bought by those companies I'd still be able to watch them on another service and record them.
As these companies have bought them, I've to (have to) subscribe to a service to watch them meaning I've paid to access content, so that gives me more rights to download it. And yet I’m not allowed to (really) take my content I’ve paid for off the box.
Surely they are stifling fair use by doing this?

If Flashforward had been shown on BBC HD, then using the former I've got the perfect copy on my recorder's hard-disk and I can make a "tape" of it to watch it later. I may even want to series link it and have a Flashforward marathon in HD. I cannot do that if I'm a Sky or Virgin customer.

But back to the nirvana and that horrible comment at the start of using peer-to-peer networks.
If I am Freesat customer, I can make a copy of my Flashforward recording on my computer. I can then move that recorded file to the media player and play later at my comfort. If I am a Sky customer, the only way I can enjoy such a recording (*pinch of salt here please* - if my HDD is full of other content which I've not yet watched) is by downloading it to watch at my convenience as I am not in on a Monday night - and I would suggest AFTER or during the UK transmission time - to then watch at my leisure later - again on my home media player. If I could have watched it via Sky (but for technical reasons could not) then especially as it was a free-to-air channel, am I wrong to have downloaded a copy of it onto my PC? (which given a small investment - that in NO WAY would have gone to the production company - I could have done the same)

This thread isn't simply about peer-to-peer downloading. Nor is it just about Sky and Virgin's policy on archiving, nor simply on the nirvana of a future home media setup. It's a combination of all of them and how that could shape our media consumption in the future.

I believe that youtube, peer-to-peer connections, and other such content is not going to go away.
I do feel that some of our media out there needs to be governed in a stronger way, but I also feel that the stranglehold that current subscription providers have is doing a disservice, and yet they have the money to crush any opposition that comes along.

I would really like to see:
===================
A device that serves a Blu-Ray player/recorder, HD media player/recorder with links to interface to Freesat, Freeview, Sky, Virgin in full quality, that you can transfer to a disc for archiving/backup as well as place on your home media network. We have an SD-interlinked media world, but now
A device that combines all the above devices in one.

Better still, such a new device running alongside service that allows you to watch exactly what you want to watch when you want to watch it. Netflix is one of these options, where programmes are streamable direct to your TV.
I am very much against the monopoly the UK subscription providers have with a total monopoly on our TV services. Many people will say you can move to Virgin from Sky, and vice versa, or now even to Freesat. The Sky <-> Virgin route is totally impractical because bar a few key specific sport/movie channels, their "entertainment packages" are made up of all the same channels. There's no real choice.
And Freesat does not yet have the channels to really compete and until they do that will keep people with the greater range of channels. Again, the monopoly between the big guns holds firm.

Combined with their absolute lock-down on their devices they do not provide the freedom of choice (storage) that is available.

But the world is evolving.

With the TV advertising format effectively dead (due to PVRs allowing people to fastforward through them) a new way of paying for content is going to be needed. And we need to have more choice in the market as well. Dave as a channel is a good idea, but endlessly showing the same series of Mock the Week, QI, Top Gear is just going to push more and more people towards another medium of getting the content they really want.

What we need is a service where people truly pay for what they want to watch and are not forced into repeats just because that’s the way the tv channel company wants to play it. If you want to watch Star Trek Voyager, then you want a service that plays from the first episode (and I guess with some chance to catch up) to the last episode. What you don’t want is for a channel to decide that ... at the end of season 5, they’ll stop transmission and move the show (starting again with season 1, episode 1) to their sister channel. Sure you can access it, but you’ve just spent the last few months watching all those episodes. What you want is the other half of the cliffhanger, and to finish the other episodes. You want choice. The technology can drive that choice, but that doesn’t suit the companies in play at the moment. They’ve effectively removed that choice.

And as for that HD digital nirvana?
Well ... HDMI (and HDCP) was designed to try and stop people making illegal copies of video content, but the truth is that people have already found a way around it.

These new HD PVR devices are simply the new Betamax devices that enable fair use recording/backup/archiving as well as providing people with a non-compliant usage – should they (wrongly) choose to go down that path. If they exist for systems like Freesat and Freeview, then they should be available for all.

It is simply double-standards (and anti-competitive) to allow it for one service but not allow it for another.

[Chris Frost]

I think the world of broadcasting is a far more complex place 25 years after the US Supreme Court's decision...not that it really has much bearing on UK fair use questions.

My view on UK "fair use" was that the recordings were allowed because they'd be watched at a more convenient time rather that being used to archive a show for posterity. As such I think that the subscription PVRs fulfil that requirement quite well.

[Synthespian]

Originally Posted by Chris Frost

I think the world of broadcasting is a far more complex place 25 years after the US Supreme Court's decision...not that it really has much bearing on UK fair use questions.

Don't disagree with that, but it was the start of "recording".

My view on UK "fair use" was that the recordings were allowed because they'd be watched at a more convenient time rather that being used to archive a show for posterity. As such I think that the subscription PVRs fulfil that requirement quite well.

Are you saying that everyone who buys a blu-ray recorder will be throwing their discs away?

And if you consider that a SKY+ box records 40 hours, it doesn't actually provide that much. That would NOT cover the live series I used here.

Fastforward + Top Gear.

Set those to series link, and not watch them all straight away and your box is FULL by just recording those two "single" series!

[Chris Frost]

Originally Posted by Synthespian

Are you saying that everyone who buys a blu-ray recorder will be throwing their discs away?

I was talking about my understanding of the term "fair use" WRT recordings of copyrighted material from TV broadcasts in whichever format they are delivered.

The principle is the same whether the recording medium is VHS, DVD, Blu-ray or some form of hard disc storage - The material itself is copyrighted. Therefore one wouldn't be allowed to possess a copy of that show/film etc without having paid for it directly.

Of course if this was strictly enforced then all recording devices would become illegal, and so that isn't a tenable position in real world applications - hence the development of "fair use". Record now....watch at a convenient time within a reasonable time frame. I don't think it was ever intended as a green light for archiving though.

Originally Posted by Synthespian

And if you consider that a SKY+ box records 40 hours, it doesn't actually provide that much. That would NOT cover the live series I used here.

Fastforward + Top Gear.

Set those to series link, and not watch them all straight away and your box is FULL by just recording those two "single" series!

I can see what you are saying but I think you're stretching the bounds of what could be considered "a reasonable time frame" to support your argument. Is it really necessary to record a whole series before watching the first episode?

[Synthespian]

I can see this becoming a personal conversation ... we're in a quieter area of the forum.

Yes ... I am questioning the legality of the devices, because the term "fair use" was never meant to mean save to a DVD or BD-R and never dispose of it. But then ... the world has changed since Betamax was invented.

I have to be honest in the comment regarding "stretching the period of time".

There is a series like Star Trek which is shown daily on Virgin1 / Bravo. 40 hours = 40 days.
If I have a job that takes me away for a week or two (and I've been away for a week twice in a row) then I'm not going to be able to watch an entire week in a weekend - the phrase ... "I've got a life as well".

So, straightaway I've just recorded 10 hours of material. My wife (in her loveliness :P) records Next Top Model, X-Factor and a few other shows. Our box is full rather quickly.

Oh ... wait ... like a number of other people on this board I might have put a bigger hard disk in that costs less than the RRP of the Sky box.

I am trying very hard not to "Sky Bash" but the truth is that we are talking about legal positions, but there's a few companies monopolising the state of the televisual world and without open conversation we've got no chance to change.

And there's one lovely point to make on your comment of "Therefore one wouldn't be allowed to possess a copy of that show/film etc without having paid for it directly."

... if I pay using Sky Box Office, I've paid a direct fixed amount, of which some should be going to the distributor ib so facto, I've paid directly. (I know that argument is flawed) and yet I'm only allowed to keep that recording for 24 hours. What's the legal difference?

[Chris Frost]

Originally Posted by Synthespian

Yes ... I am questioning the legality of the devices, because the term "fair use" was never meant to mean save to a DVD or BD-R and never dispose of it. But then ... the world has changed since Betamax was invented.

There was nothing stopping someone saving a bunch of tapes either; but it still goes against the the intent of fair use.

Originally Posted by Synthespian

I have to be honest in the comment regarding "stretching the period of time".

There is a series like Star Trek which is shown daily on Virgin1 / Bravo. 40 hours = 40 days.
If I have a job that takes me away for a week or two (and I've been away for a week twice in a row) then I'm not going to be able to watch an entire week in a weekend - the phrase ... "I've got a life as well".

Well there's always the option of purchasing the series on some pre-recorded format. You could then watch it at your leisure, probably in better quality, and without adverts.

Or you could consider dumping content from a Sky box to some recordable format if space is the issue. Or you could wait for the almost inevitable repeats...But what I think this is really about is having something for nothing.

Originally Posted by Synthespian

I am trying very hard not to "Sky Bash" but the truth is that we are talking about legal positions, but there's a few companies monopolising the state of the televisual world and without open conversation we've got no chance to change.

How do you see a forum conversation, or any mass discussion, changing Sky's position exactly?

Originally Posted by Synthespian

And there's one lovely point to make on your comment of "Therefore one wouldn't be allowed to possess a copy of that show/film etc without having paid for it directly."

... if I pay using Sky Box Office, I've paid a direct fixed amount, of which some should be going to the distributor ib so facto, I've paid directly. (I know that argument is flawed) and yet I'm only allowed to keep that recording for 24 hours. What's the legal difference?

You don't "own" anything. You've bought a ticket to view, that's all.

The mechanism of delivery is different to sitting in a movie theatre, and there are certain technical advantages, but in essence it's the same as buying a cinema ticket. Would you expect to walk out of a cinema with a DVD copy of the film you just watched?

[call100]

I am curious as to other people's opinions on the issue of "archiving" and "fair usage recording", and where the TV industry (not just in the UK) can go. In no way is what I'm putting down in this post condoning what certain people may do with technology (most have already found a way anyway), but I do believe it is changing the way in which people look at things.

I think you will find that no one cares about the ins and outs of 'archiving' and 'fair usage recording' They buy their equipment and do whatever they are able to do with it.
There is enough going on in the world without worrying about such trivia.

[Nigel Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Synthespian

Don't disagree with that, but it was the start of "recording".

Not at all, home VCR's were out years before Betamax, Philips had done them for years.

[Synthespian]

Originally Posted by Chris Frost

There was nothing stopping someone saving a bunch of tapes either; but it still goes against the the intent of fair use.

Fair enough, but then you must question the legality of the devices being sold by big-name electronics firms.

Well there's always the option of purchasing the series on some pre-recorded format. You could then watch it at your leisure, probably in better quality, and without adverts.

Sure, but that doesn't come out for quiet a while in today's world. you can purchase a single online, as it comes out. Then surely it can be the same for visual media.

Or you could consider dumping content from a Sky box to some recordable format if space is the issue.

But you can't make an HD version of that, so the quality on your big tv is no good. Heck, Sky try to make it impossible for you to do that.

Or you could wait for the almost inevitable repeats...

It would still fill the sky box hard-disk.

But what I think this is really about is having something for nothing.

not at all. Give me a good quality copy of the shows I want to watch to play on my media system, then I wouldn't be a sky subscriber, but I'll subscribe to that instead.

Again ... it can't be "something for nothing" when I could already make that recording on a BD-disc on the panasonic device. It - as you says - goes against "fair use" but as call100 said ... people don't give a rats arse about it and do it anyway.

I'm questioning:
* The legality of selling all these new (anti fair use) devices
* If it's not illegal for freesat, why's it not possible for Sky/Virgin (you've paid a licence fee and more)
* If the technology is moving HD & Digital, then people will want HD in their home, on demand, on tap. They'll pay for it, as opposed to the regulated TV we get now.
* The suppliers half recognise this with the devices coming out.


How do you see a forum conversation, or any mass discussion, changing Sky's position exactly?

You don't "own" anything. You've bought a ticket to view, that's all.

The mechanism of delivery is different to sitting in a movie theatre, and there are certain technical advantages, but in essence it's the same as buying a cinema ticket. Would you expect to walk out of a cinema with a DVD copy of the film you just watched?[/quote]

[solitaire]

I'm not sure about SKY or ITV but I know that the BBC licence (The bit of paper you have to buy every year), by virtue of a few guidelines and lords rulings, means you can keep any recorded show for 30 day's before you are breaking copyright laws (it's a grace period)

That's why shows are only available for 30 days on iPlayer and most of the "catch up services" on Five, Ch4 & ITV.

Think if a channel has a special agreement or licence from the copyright holder they can keep the show up for as long as required (i.e. each of the Sky Movies are available for 12 months by either transmission of their Sky download service. But you can only keep the recording for 30 days once you started to watch it!).

[Chris Frost]

Originally Posted by Synthespian

Fair enough, but then you must question the legality of the devices being sold by big-name electronics firms.

Not at all. It's not up to the hardware makers to police every instance of how their equipment is used....though that is changing now we are moving to an "all-digital content" world and the additional security measures available with HDCP in HDMI.



Re: Purchasing DVD box sets of shows

Originally Posted by Synthespian

Sure, but that doesn't come out for quiet a while in today's world. you can purchase a single online, as it comes out. Then surely it can be the same for visual media.

Purchasing shows in the same way a single is downloaded might well come in the future, but I think it's more likely that On-Demand services will be more popular.

Re: Archiving from Sky

Originally Posted by Synthespian

But you can't make an HD version of that, so the quality on your big tv is no good. Heck, Sky try to make it impossible for you to do that.

And understandably so, because for the first time in the domestic market there's a high quality all-digital signal being delivered in to thousands of peoples homes that would be perfect as a digital master for producing identical quality copies by the hundred if it wasn't protected.

As for analogue recordings in standard definition not looking good on bit TVs...it begs the question "Just how big is your TV?"

re: waiting for repeats

Originally Posted by Synthespian

It would still fill the sky box hard-disk.

I guess I'm just not that anal about saving TV series.

Originally Posted by Synthespian

Give me a good quality copy of the shows I want to watch to play on my media system, then I wouldn't be a sky subscriber, but I'll subscribe to that instead.

We've got more choice of what to watch, how, and when than ever before...but as the saying goes "You can't please all the people all the time"

Originally Posted by Synthespian

Again ... it can't be "something for nothing" when I could already make that recording on a BD-disc on the panasonic device.

My guess is that Freeview HD doesn't carry the same premium content that's on Virgin/Sky HD: i.e. pay per view movies and sports events etc - So at the moment there aren't the same restrictions on recording from Freeview HD so the lop holes haven't been closed.... but give it time.

Originally Posted by Synthespian

I'm questioning:
* (1) The legality of selling all these new (anti fair use) devices
* (2) If it's not illegal for freesat, why's it not possible for Sky/Virgin (you've paid a licence fee and more)
* (3) If the technology is moving HD & Digital, then people will want HD in their home, on demand, on tap. They'll pay for it, as opposed to the regulated TV we get now.
* (4) The suppliers half recognise this with the devices coming out.

1) I don't know why you consider them "anti fair use"? As far as I can see there is only one significant change: That is for the first time broadcasters now have the technology to apply the fair use guidelines more rigidly.

2) see 1 and also the "premium content / loop hole" reply

3) I think that for the vast majority of TV viewers the current solutions work just fine, but the market will evolve.

4) As 3, the market evolves.

[Synthespian]

As it happens I read a review of the new Panasonic blu-ray recorder last night, and have a bit more information.

Originally Posted by Chris Frost

Not at all. It's not up to the hardware makers to police every instance of how their equipment is used....though that is changing now we are moving to an "all-digital content" world and the additional security measures available with HDCP in HDMI.

Maybe not, but the Panasonic has only allowed HD content to be written to a blu-ray disc ONCE (forget the fact you could rip it and burn it again on a different device - possibly) . It suggest that they do consider it.
Oh but wait ... they allow ALL SD footage to be burnt and re-burnt. Yes your comment below about top quality digital streams & quality I agree this makes a difference, but they could still have applied the same principle. Does that make SD fair game now?

Re: Purchasing DVD box sets of shows

Purchasing shows in the same way a single is downloaded might well come in the future, but I think it's more likely that On-Demand services will be more popular.

For the suppliers and cable services, maybe. However, in the digital home of media centre PCs, car dvd players, et al, then on demand does not work. I think if the public could by it fully, they'd prefer that. I don't think many would buy an on-demand showing of Wall-E for the upcoming car journey (through wi-max) and need to pay for it again for the journey back. Yes, that's why we buy DVDs but that's again not where the technologies are going.

Re: Archiving from Sky

Originally Posted by Synthespian

But you can't make an HD version of that, so the quality on your big tv is no good. Heck, Sky try to make it impossible for you to do that.

Originally Posted by Chris

And understandably so, because for the first time in the domestic market there's a high quality all-digital signal being delivered in to thousands of peoples homes that would be perfect as a digital master for producing identical quality copies by the hundred if it wasn't protected.

But in your point above ... you think (maybe not yet) there'll be a demand for that. I think (if you look at the torrent world) that the market already exists, but the monopolies in place for broadcast are stifling that. e.g. Project Kangaroo.

As for analogue recordings in standard definition not looking good on bigTVs...it begs the question "Just how big is your TV?"

It's not 70" if you were thinking along those lines. the point wasn't a personal one, but not many HD subscribers (and I'm not one!) have TVs smaller than 32". And again the point is ... they pay for an HD service, that on Freesat (albeit the one time) they can make the recording in HD. but not on Sky, and yet they've paid more.

re: waiting for repeats

I guess I'm just not that anal about saving TV series.

Neither am I. It was a quantative comparison about the size of the HDD that Sky "allows". Most people record more than one or two shows, so the box is full from all of the films, series, kids shows!! and fills even faster.
If you use one of the Humax boxes - for example - you got almost 3x the size.
If you use a PC-card recorder, then you've got only the limit of your disk drive(s) size.
P.S. If we talk about repeats ... that's a WHOLE different conversation.

We've got more choice of what to watch, how, and when than ever before...but as the saying goes "You can't please all the people all the time"

Absolutely. But this conversation is not about choice in the market (which I think is a lot smaller than people make out - again a different conversation which I'm happy to revive on here) but about PVR technology, where technology is going, and the restrictions of some, availability of some, and what that means for the end user.

The torrent world is filled with HD content that people are very obviously already able to create. It gives NO money to the companys making the show. On the original point ... if I missed an episode, does it make it right for me to download the episode I missed? I'll keep it for 30mins after I have watched it maybe (as I may not be anal about keeping shows). However ... and let's go back to the Betamax/VHS part of this ... not many would delete it.
When the VCR came out and the blank (tape) media market started, it meant and MEANS that people had large libraries of recorded content from the TV. Whether right or wrong, a law got passed regarding fair use and then - let's suggest - abused by the general public, and the stricter policing of that was never enforced because it became, was and still is a globally, socially ACCEPTED scenario. What makes today's more digital and higher quality society any different? People want to watch something that they've liked again and again. And it's been accepted in society for the last 20-25 years.

As I said ... I wouldn't download a torrent of Indiana Jones 5 the day it hit the cinema, but I find it less unacceptable to consider downloading a torrent of a show I've already seen on a TV (and in Fast Forward - a Free-to-air) channel.

My guess is that Freeview HD doesn't carry the same premium content that's on Virgin/Sky HD: i.e. pay per view movies and sports events etc - So at the moment there aren't the same restrictions on recording from Freeview HD so the lop holes haven't been closed.... but give it time.

You'll find that Fastforward is considered Premium content, even tho it's on Five. And I'm sure the BBC would argue that their Life series in HD is quite premium, or their original purchase of Star Trek Next Generation was - at the time - quite premium content. Sure, they don't have the funds to compete with Sky/Virigin, that's why they teamed up with Virgin to create Dave, and the rest of the UKTV network. Oh wait ... Dave is on Freeview (in SD which is - according to some manufacturers - fair game to record ad nauseam - onto discs. And I don't believe Mock the Week is recorded or transmitted in HD. So there's no quality to lose, and I'd be able to do it as often as I like)
Film4 (films), E4 (Ugly Betty first showings), Virgin1 (star trek) are all on Freeview as well. So ... just because it's on Sky or Freeview doesn't make the general content any less Premium.
Sure ... Box Office might be on Sky, but then if you provide a similar priced service for permanent download ... people would take it.

[quote=Synthespian]I'm questioning:
* (1) The legality of selling all these new (anti fair use) devices
* (2) If it's not illegal for freesat, why's it not possible for Sky/Virgin (you've paid a licence fee and more)
* (3) If the technology is moving HD & Digital, then people will want HD in their home, on demand, on tap. They'll pay for it, as opposed to the regulated TV we get now.
* (4) The suppliers half recognise this with the devices coming out.]

Originally Posted by Chris

1) I don't know why you consider them "anti fair use"? As far as I can see there is only one significant change: That is for the first time broadcasters now have the technology to apply the fair use guidelines more rigidly.

2) see 1 and also the "premium content / loop hole" reply

3) I think that for the vast majority of TV viewers the current solutions work just fine, but the market will evolve.

4) As 3, the market evolves.

1. True, but see above, that socially it is now considered the reverse, I'd suggest.
2. see my loophole reply.
3. It will evolve, and I'm just benig part of that by having the conversation. I think the "rules" have changed (irrespective of loopholes, premium content, etc). That's how laws change. I think we should get a service that reflects that.
4. Indeed, and let's see what comes out.

P.S. Appreciate the conversation btw.