Nor does it contradict anything I said either! -----Original Message----- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 21:06 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management
On 15-Jun-2010, at 20:58, Nick Reynolds-FM&T wrote: > With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment > on the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either: !?!?! with some caveats, that doesn't actually contradict what I've said! > > "nwhitfield > 14 Jun 2010, 7:04PM > My understanding is that most (if not all) of the equipment already on > sale includes the necessary stuff to work with this, so isn't going to > be affected - essentially the kit can understand an EPG whether it's > broadcast using the Huffman codes or not. Now they will be using them, > but end users aren't going to see any difference in that regard. > > It's also clearly stated in the various documents relating to this > that it's not going to affect - at all - the ability of people to > record what they want to, on recorders with built in tuners (ie FreeviewHD+ boxes). > > In fact, the guidelines say the 'copy never' signal should not be > used, everything should be at least 'copy once' and if it's already > been broadcaster somewhere (like the US) in HD without protection, > then even 'copy once' shouldn't be used in the UK. > > Realistically, this change isn't going to affect many people at all. > Most people will record to their hard disk recorders, they'll be able > to watch as many times at they like, and then they'll delete stuff to > make space. If they did want to make a copy for posterity (ignoring > the fact that the law doesn't actually say you can), they will still be able to. > > How many people out there have actually taken their DVD recorder and > made multiple copies of a programme they've recorded? > > Yes, some open source software may be affected, but even that's not a > certainty; MythTV copes just fine with Freesat, which uses the same > technology. Other open source systems manage well with the odd dash of > proprietary stuff in there, like the drivers for some graphics cards." > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk > [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts > Sent: 15 June 2010 16:15 > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:57, Mo McRoberts <m...@nevali.net> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FM&T >> <nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk> wrote: >>> The BBC had a choice >>> >>> a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to >>> licence > >>> fee payers >>> >>> b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very >>> small negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it >>> has any negative effect at all >> >> with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no >> technical understanding of the proposal. >> >> your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the >> desired > >> effect' is something other than that which has been publicly reported. > > to follow up - apologies if this came across as unduly rude or brusque. > I'm just very very tired of, having explained how this stuff works > fairly unequivocally, sticking clearly to the facts, over and over > again, to be met with the same thing every time. > > key points: > > the people who _upload_ content to filesharing networks are not > inhibited by this in the slightest. > the people who _download_ content to filesharing networks are not > inhibited by this in the slightest (at least, not in that respect) - > they may or may not have a FVHD receiver. > the people minority types you refer to who want to use MythTV and the > like may be inconvenienced, but Freesat suggests not fatally > law-abiding consumers are inconvenienced, because the > officially-branded boxes are crippled start-ups looking to build new > devices are (potentially > fatally) inconvenienced > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, > please visit > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, > please visit > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
