- This topic has 27 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The trend seems to be to make content playable around the house (SKYQ, etc) as opposed to copying.
Like JamesB, I would be very happy with a good DLNA server.
JamesB – 6 hours ago »
Quote:…this is not about cost, it is simply a decision taken by Freesat to not include the feature for reasons unknown.I’d say it’s pretty obvious why Freesat might not want their content copied.
As for cost, it’s always a factor.
Quote:As said before I am lucky enough to be able to copy from my two Freeview PVRs but the lack of this feature on the Freesat version does make it less attractive in my eyes.…but not to the point of losing the sale.
Given Freesat simply provide the EPG then why is it pretty obvious they wouldn’t want broadcasters SD recordings copied given you can copy the same programmes via Freeview – I don’t follow your logic.
I still maintain cost isn’t an issue especially as we don’t actually know there is a cost or if there is it could be tiny.
I purchased the Freesat box as it has access to channels the Freeview box didn’t and vice versa – that way I get the best overall mix.
REPASSAC – 6 hours ago »
The trend seems to be to make content playable around the house (SKYQ, etc) as opposed to copying.
Like JamesB, I would be very happy with a good DLNA server.
My Synology acts as a good DLNA server, the HDR 2000T is supposed to serve but I couldn’t recommend it. Our Panasonic HWT-120 serves very nicely to our Panasonic TV but can sometimes be a bit flaky with other kit – usually container issues.
Quote:Given Freesat simply provide the EPG then why is it pretty obvious they wouldn’t want broadcasters SD recordings copied given you can copy the same programmes via Freeview – I don’t follow your logic.
Freesat don’t “simply provide the EPG”. Freesat = BBC + ITV. ITV, especially, has good reason not to be enthusiastic about SD copying of its programmes, given that it has an extensive SD back catalogue which it relies on heavily, week in, week out, to fill the schedule.
Having control of the boxes potentially gives them control over copying. Whether they actually exercise that control, I have no idea, but it wouldn’t be surprising.
Quote:I purchased the Freesat box as it has access to channels the Freeview box didn’t and vice versa – that way I get the best overall mix.
Indeedy. Lack of the USB copying feature did not result in loss of the sale.
JamesB – 13 hours ago »
Quote:Given Freesat simply provide the EPG then why is it pretty obvious they wouldn’t want broadcasters SD recordings copied given you can copy the same programmes via Freeview – I don’t follow your logic.
Freesat don’t “simply provide the EPG”. Freesat = BBC + ITV. ITV, especially, has good reason not to be enthusiastic about SD copying of its programmes, given that it has an extensive SD back catalogue which it relies on heavily, week in, week out, to fill the schedule.
Having control of the boxes potentially gives them control over copying. Whether they actually exercise that control, I have no idea, but it wouldn’t be surprising.
Quote:I purchased the Freesat box as it has access to channels the Freeview box didn’t and vice versa – that way I get the best overall mix.
Indeedy. Lack of the USB copying feature did not result in loss of the sale.
Had I not already had Freeview plus then I would not have invested in Freesat – due to the lack of copying facility.
Now to break this circular response that you have embarked on. You say the big five terrestrial providers are not happy about SD copying which is one reason it might not be included with the Freesat spec. Why then is copying a part of most Freeview plus PVRs – there’s simply no logic to your replies.
I realise the Youview boxes are locked but I suspect that had more to do with the original concept around the box when Sugar and Co were still involved.
Quote:..there’s simply no logic to your replies.We certainly do seem to be talking at cross-purposes. Time to agree to disagree, I suspect.
Humax could of improved the functionality of the 1000s but I’m guessing they spent too much time, effort and money fixing the software issues it has been plagued with, I doubt they want to make them anymore complicated than they already are. [that’s just my opinion]
Reffub – 28 minutes ago »
Humax could of improved the functionality of the 1000s but I’m guessing they spent too much time, effort and money fixing the software issues it has been plagued with, I doubt they want to make them anymore complicated than they already are. [that’s just my opinion]
Yep, I agree, as per post #9 above. Could well be the case.
Reffub – 5 hours ago »
Humax could of improved the functionality of the 1000s but I’m guessing they spent too much time, effort and money fixing the software issues it has been plagued with, I doubt they want to make them anymore complicated than they already are. [that’s just my opinion]
Humax could no doubt have released the box with the same capability as the HDR FOX T2 freeview box or the Foxsat-HDR. Wihout the complication imposed by Freesat in the Freeview specification for Freetime (especially the imposition of a LUKS encrypted recording partition), there would be no complications. Originally it was thought that the new box would include a protected DLNA streaming software as featured in the HDR FOX T2, this allows streaming of even HD content, years before Sky Q latched onto the potential.
The Spec and User Interface is entirely down to Freesat.
While all the channels that appear on the Freesat epg are transmitted without encryption, and there are dozens of generic FTA pvr ready (recording to a external hard disk) or PVR models with internal hard disks, that record the content without any sort of restriction as to copying, it seems hard to understand who the restrictions are aimed at.
Anyone wanting to illegally pirate and distribute this content will be well aware of this. Satellite PVR ready FTA HD recorders can be bought for much less than a Freetime box.
You have to wonder why all the freetime technology is aimed at those of us who aren’t pirates, and merely want to save our recordings to a replacement box, should our box prematurely expire.
:
JamesB – 8 hours ago »
Quote:..there’s simply no logic to your replies.We certainly do seem to be talking at cross-purposes. Time to agree to disagree, I suspect.
Absolutely, though in reality there’s nothing to disagree about as you don’t really have the answer to my question.
grahamlthompson – 21 minutes ago »
Reffub – 5 hours ago »
Humax could of improved the functionality of the 1000s but I’m guessing they spent too much time, effort and money fixing the software issues it has been plagued with, I doubt they want to make them anymore complicated than they already are. [that’s just my opinion]
Humax could no doubt have released the box with the same capability as the HDR FOX T2 freeview box or the Foxsat-HDR. Wihout the complication imposed by Freesat in the Freeview specification for Freetime (especially the imposition of a LUKS encrypted recording partition), there would be no complications. Originally it was thought that the new box would include a protected DLNA streaming software as featured in the HDR FOX T2, this allows streaming of even HD content, years before Sky Q latched onto the potential.
The Spec and User Interface is entirely down to Freesat.
While all the channels that appear on the Freesat epg are transmitted without encryption, and there are dozens of generic FTA pvr ready (recording to a external hard disk) or PVR models with internal hard disks, that record the content without any sort of restriction as to copying, it seems hard to understand who the restrictions are aimed at.
Anyone wanting to illegally pirate and distribute this content will be well aware of this. Satellite PVR ready FTA HD recorders can be bought for much less than a Freetime box.
You have to wonder why all the freetime technology is aimed at those of us who aren’t pirates, and merely want to save our recordings to a replacement box, should our box prematurely expire.
:Thank goodness for a well presented well explained summary of the issues Graham. I was beginning to think it was only me that could see the illogical position taken by Freesat in relation to the copying issue i.e. Freeview by aerial you can copy, Freeview by satellite dish you can’t.
I think that whilst the world has moved on tech wise the television and film industry are still thrashing around trying to cling on to a failed business model. Even though they now provide streaming services the commercial operators do so through gritted teeth.
I suspect they look back with envy to the golden years when you had to watch output at a time of ‘their choosing’ not yours and they had audiences of over twenty million.
In many alternative universes <free time> was scraped and any 1000S type boxes that were sold were eventually replaced with brand new and vastly superior Humax Freesat satellite PVR’s. These new models had all the functions that their customers needed and proved to be extremely successful throughout the multiverse.
But in our verse far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of a Galaxy there is a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that some still think <free time> is a pretty neat idea.
Thanks to DA.
Reffub – 1 hour ago »
In many alternative universes <free time> was scraped and any 1000S type boxes that were sold were eventually replaced with brand new and vastly superior Humax Freesat satellite PVR’s. These new models had all the functions that their customers needed and proved to be extremely successful throughout the multiverse.
But in our verse far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of a Galaxy there is a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that some still think <free time> is a pretty neat idea.
Thanks to DA.
You know what! If I didn’t know better I’d say you were having a sarcastic pop at Freesat/freetime. 😆
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.