BBC Have Broken GetIPlayer

In article , news_11
@tynecomp.co.uk says...

On 02/11/2014 17:31, Yellow wrote:
It is easier just to install the customer firmware and then install the
software that just resets the HD flag as soon as the file has been
written to the hard drive.

That is currently only possible on the HDR-FOX T2 whereas Foxy can be
used on all the current Humax HD Freeview+ boxes.

Works on my box. :-)

On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 15:06:47 -0000, Yellow wrote:

The ideal for the artist is to get paid every time that their
performance is listened to, as that represents their real market value.

Yes, I know all the arguments. :-)

Shame we are not all paid like that - the person who made your shoes
could be paid by the step and the person who laid the railway track
could be paid every time a train crosses it but for some reason this
"logic" is only applied to "artists".

It need not be and it should not be.

I couldn't agree more. This is one of the most glaring anomalies of
the copyright system. I've been in the situation where I've been
working alongside others on the same project, knowing that we'll be
paid for our efforts in these profoundly different ways - they every
time the resultant programme is shown or sold, and I only once for the
time I spent on its creation.

I daresay those who benefit from the current system think that this
principle is part of the natural order of things and therefore a case
that doesn't even need arguing, but it's always baffled me that art
and engineering should be valued so differently.

Rod.

Jim Lesurf wrote:
I bought a few 'high resolution' downloads a while ago to hear what
they were like. (Mixed. Some good, some poor. No surprise.) When
buying I was told I now had the right to re-download them in future.
Thus protecting me against accidentally finding I'd deleted them or
lost them in a computer crash, etc.

Then the seller decided they would no longer sell those downloads. So
I can't get such a copy if I 'lose' the ones I have. I'll have a
'right' to play something I don't have. In this situation is it not
reasonable to make a safety copy purely as a guard again an accident?

I'm sure you will anyway. And I'm equally sure the seller wouldn't give
a monkey's even if it knew, just a long as you don't reproduce it and
either pass it on for free or sell it to someone else.

The point to bear in mind here is that copyright in the West is
primarily a *civil* law matter. Any case where someone is sued for
breaking copyright would consider what loss or damage the rights
owners suffer. If the answer is 'none' then they may be wasting their
time trying to intimidate people by going to court.

But it won't be 'none' as you know very well. Even though it may not be
easy to quantify exactly, it will exist and the court will evaluate as
best it can what it is. In practice, a court is likely to take the view
that the seller should be compensated on the basis of the normal market
price since that is what you have benefitted from. Charging you the
full cost puts both parties in the position they would have been in had
you purchased what you wanted legitimately. And that's what civil
courts try very reasonably to do.

But my question
is currently unanswered by any legal decision I'm aware of.

What question?

In the end civil law is what the courts decide it is.

Rubbish. It's what statute law says it is. All the courts can do is
interpret it if it needs interpreting, decide the case, and set the
levels of compensation.

One result is that company lawyers find it better to make
threats than give clear explanations. Convenient for their company
if people do *less* than is 'reasonable' because they have been
deterred by 'warnings'.

Why would you want to do something that is unreasonable?

That said, I don't like the modern feeling that all copies of
everything should be 'free' and no need to pay authors, musicians,
etc. I'm happy to pay for CDs, etc, on the basis that money goes to
the musicians, composeser, studio staff, etc. But I distinguish them
as the creators and active workers producing the product from the
lawyers and media companies who vampire off both creators and
audience.

The artists and producers don't have to use such companies or people,
and won't if they don't provide any commercial advantage to them. Nor
do you have to buy the results of their creativity unless you think the
price is acceptable. It's a free market. It's your choice.

I try to obey the law as
best I can, but I resent things like the 'nag screens' on DVDs and
think companies who treat they paying customers as naughty children
are inviting the behaviour they go on nagging about. Mistreating
people isn't a way to encourage them to sympathise with you.

It's your choice. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

On 02/11/2014 17:50, Yellow wrote:

And the BBC will not let me download a copy of the News Quiz, as a mp3,
to listen to in my car!

Actually they will. It's available as a podcast (in mp3) from this page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/fricomedy

Also available (most likely) using your favourite podcast program.

In article ,
says...

On 02/11/2014 17:50, Yellow wrote:

And the BBC will not let me download a copy of the News Quiz, as a mp3,
to listen to in my car!

Actually they will. It's available as a podcast (in mp3) from this page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/fricomedy

Also available (most likely) using your favourite podcast program.

They do not however podcast the Radio 4 Extra transmission of the
extended version of the show. :-(

Jim Lesurf wrote:

Indeed. One of my concerns is that the set will output lpcm spdif
stereo even when a broadcast, etc, is 'surround'. No interest in
grabbing *video* at this stage. If I'd wanted it, I'd have recorded
the ts stream by other means.

Well AFAIK s/pdif doesn't have the bandwidth to do 6ch PCM - so I guess
a downmix is all that's available if you choose PCM.

Again, my reading of the handbook(s) for the Panasonic set I have in
mind is that it will. If it doesn't I'll ask John Lewis to take it
back. I was just puzzled by what Bernard said. It seems crazy if
true, but then large commercial companies often do crazy things on
the basis that they are so big their mere customers will shut up and
put up with it.

Looking at the manual for the TV you mentioned in another thread, it
says that surround will be output as dolby digital even if the input is
AAC. This is likely because most surround receivers will take a dolby
bitstream, but few I guess will do AAC.

On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 15:06:47 -0000, Yellow wrote:

In article , lid
says...

On 02/11/14 01:13, Yellow wrote:
additional repeat fees that are payable each time a program or work they
perform in is repeated.

How is that a problem?

The ideal for the artist is to get paid every time that their
performance is listened to, as that represents their real market value.

Yes, I know all the arguments. :-)

Shame we are not all paid like that - the person who made your shoes
could be paid by the step and the person who laid the railway track
could be paid every time a train crosses it

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/using-o...ccess-charges/

but for some reason this
"logic" is only applied to "artists".

It need not be and it should not be.

And in real life, it is being obvious to almost all that it cannot be.


There are technical and PR problems in actually achieving that. To
get the best compromise, they enter into an agreement with the BBC that
says that the public may only access the contents for a limited time
after a broadcast and that they will be paid for each broadcast.

Copyright and performing rights law backs up this arrangement by
requiring the BBC to give explicit permission for the public to record
the material and making it illegal to defeat technical protection measures.

If you want to keep listening to a performance, each repeat of that
performance has a value to you. The artist wants to receive some of
that value, in monetary form. (Not to mention their agents, recording
companies, etc.)

The original business model for radio broadcasts was as advertisements
for the vinyl or polycarbonate versions, which were priced based on
their being repeatedly performed.

I don't particularly like some of the consequences, like the
privatisation of popular culture (if you sing the latest hit to your
friends, you are infringing the copyright or performing rights, but the
West is now an intellectual property based economy.

Incidentally, one of the things that annoys me is when adverts for DVDs
talk about owning copies. You don't own the copy. You only own the
medium. You can't play the DVD to your local social club without a
further licence, and you can't copy it for your friends.


They can be paid each time it is broadcast if that is the arrangement
the BBC has entered into with the artist, but that has nothing
whatsoever to do with how many times (or not) an individual listens to
their recording of that broadcast.

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 15:06:47 -0000, Yellow wrote:

In article , lid
says...

On 02/11/14 01:13, Yellow wrote:
additional repeat fees that are payable each time a program or work they
perform in is repeated.

How is that a problem?

The ideal for the artist is to get paid every time that their
performance is listened to, as that represents their real market value.

Yes, I know all the arguments. :-)

Shame we are not all paid like that - the person who made your shoes
could be paid by the step and the person who laid the railway track
could be paid every time a train crosses it

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/using-o...ccess-charges/

You are confusing how a company is paid with how the people who do that
actual work are remunerated for their efforts.

And as it happens, I some of my work is for Network Rail and last time I
checked my wage slip I was definitely paid an hourly rate, not on a
passengers per mile basis.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 15:06:47 -0000, Yellow wrote:

The ideal for the artist is to get paid every time that their
performance is listened to, as that represents their real market
value.

Yes, I know all the arguments. :-)

Shame we are not all paid like that - the person who made your shoes
could be paid by the step and the person who laid the railway track
could be paid every time a train crosses it but for some reason this
"logic" is only applied to "artists".

It need not be and it should not be.

I couldn't agree more. This is one of the most glaring anomalies of
the copyright system. I've been in the situation where I've been
working alongside others on the same project, knowing that we'll be
paid for our efforts in these profoundly different ways - they every
time the resultant programme is shown or sold, and I only once for the
time I spent on its creation.

I daresay those who benefit from the current system think that this
principle is part of the natural order of things and therefore a case
that doesn't even need arguing, but it's always baffled me that art
and engineering should be valued so differently.

It's the difference between doing something mechanical and mundane and
something new and creative that people enjoy. You're just a tool;
they're the artists.

In article , says...

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 2 Nov 2014 15:06:47 -0000, Yellow wrote:

The ideal for the artist is to get paid every time that their
performance is listened to, as that represents their real market
value.

Yes, I know all the arguments. :-)

Shame we are not all paid like that - the person who made your shoes
could be paid by the step and the person who laid the railway track
could be paid every time a train crosses it but for some reason this
"logic" is only applied to "artists".

It need not be and it should not be.

I couldn't agree more. This is one of the most glaring anomalies of
the copyright system. I've been in the situation where I've been
working alongside others on the same project, knowing that we'll be
paid for our efforts in these profoundly different ways - they every
time the resultant programme is shown or sold, and I only once for the
time I spent on its creation.

I daresay those who benefit from the current system think that this
principle is part of the natural order of things and therefore a case
that doesn't even need arguing, but it's always baffled me that art
and engineering should be valued so differently.

It's the difference between doing something mechanical and mundane and
something new and creative that people enjoy. You're just a tool;
they're the artists.

I rather think you are the one who is a tool.