[GarySargent]

Great - not!

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

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

 

[cwaring]

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

 

[nathan]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[kitschcamp]

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

 

[ndunlavey]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

TP

 

[b166er]

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]

[...]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]

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

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]

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

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

 

[=CM=]

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]

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]

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