With respect to you Mo presumably this person who wrote this comment on the Media Guardian story doesn't understand it either:
"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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 15 June 2010 16:15 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:57, Mo McRoberts <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FM&T > <[email protected]> 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/[email protected]/ - 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/[email protected]/
