Why do people buy 2nd hand Sky boxes?

[Lucky13]

I've had a Sky+ HD box passed on to me and I was wondering why people
buy them on eBay?

If you want the + bit you need to subscribe.
If you want the HD bit you need to subscribe.
If you want Freesat then you need a Freesat box.
If you want free sat from Sky then you need to enjoy scrolling through
an EPG of things you can't watch.

I'm just wondering what their value is when Sky give you a free box
anyway for subscribing?

[David]

"Lucky13" <nospa...@nothanks.com> wrote in message
news:i4rp5j$u0s$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

To use if for the free programs.
Better boxes/EPG than Freesat ones maybe, more free programs particularly
radio than Freesat or Freeview.

Might want then for use in another room.
Might not be able to get terrestrial signals.

Might want it as a replacement subscription box.

Lots of good reasons.
Regards
David

[sincl...@yahoo.com]

You get BBC HD and ITV HD free

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, August 22nd, 2010 at 12:24:06h -0700, sincl...@yahoo.com wrote:

> You get BBC HD and ITV HD free

and Luxe HD TV.

[Lucky13]

Ah that certainly is an eye opener to me, I wasn't aware - thank you :)

I suppose they are going for less than a lot of the HD Freesat boxes as
well.

I still don't think I could ever justify buying one, the "upselling" EPG
from Sky would annoy me too much.

Thanks again for the info tho.

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, August 22nd, 2010 at 20:39:10h +0100, Lucky13 wrote:
>
> I suppose they are going for less than a lot of the HD Freesat boxes as
> well.

The thing is though, you could buy an FTA HD receiver and also receive
these HD stations for free as well as many others which are not on the
$ky EPG and so are deliberately non-user friendly to tune in via
$ky's Other Channels.

[wrights...@f2s.com]

I've recently discontinued the use of two Sky boxes with Sky Freesat
cards and started using genuine Freesat boxes. The relief is enormous.
To avoid hearing that woman tell me lies about 'saving enough
electricity to power Birmingham' every time I turn the box on is by
itself easily enough to justify the expense of the two new boxes. Then
there was the annoyance that if I accidentally landed on a pay channel
I had to press back up because the box would not move otherwise. Then
there was the terrible signal and quality meters. I use one box in the
motorhome, and lining the dish up using the Sky box was a nightmare.
Those meters just don't work, and they were forever locking up. With
the Humax I can line the dish up in seconds, and I don't really need
to turn on the direction finder meter thingy I have. Then there was
the fact that 'other channels' are deliberately awkward to use on the
Sky box. I know the Humax isn't perfect in that respect but it's
pretty good.

Bil

[Lucky13]

This is my major gripe and misunderstanding about why people want to buy
these boxes!

[Steve Thackery]

The "...+HD" bit is useless without a subscription, as far as I know.

But the Skybox itself is fine for watching "Freesat from Sky". You can get
the boxes almost for nothing, then pay out your £20 for the card, and you've
got a pretty good free satellite service for the one-off cost of the card
and the box. Some people would even give you an old box.

Nowadays the cost advantage over a low-cost Freesat box seems pretty
marginal, but a few years ago it was a good way to go. I bought two boxes,
with two cards, and coupled them up via a messy switching arrangement so I
could record from one (onto a DVD recorder) whilst watching the other.

SteveT

[John]

On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:08:56 +0100, Lucky13 <nospa...@nothanks.com>
wrote:

I got a standard sky box off eBay several years ago I believe when
Sky+ was just coming out. The reason is that the standard Sky boxes at
the time from Sky didn't have the optical output for the audio so I
got a Sony box off ebay.

At first I was just using it as a freesat box before the term freesat
really took off. I got one of those cards from I think it was the bbc
to watch the free channels.

I also have my own dish that I bought and can also turn it to tune
into some foreign channels if I can be bothered to. It's not ideal
through a Sky box but can still be done.

I subscribed a short while later to the Sky service.

I should really get Sky+ now. I probably will get it soon. Not sure
whether it is going to be easier to get a Sky+ box via Sky or off
ebay. If you do it yourself though you can get the best box for your
needs and its your property.

Usually when Sky brings out a new service such as HD it costs more to
subscribe to it until they then bring out the next thing. So what I
usually do is wait until it becomes free or part of the standard
scription with no additional costs. So now Sky HD is out I am thinking
of getting Sky+. When the next thing comes out which may be something
like Sky 3D I will then think of getting Sky HD and so on.

[Brian Mc]

J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.org> wrote:
: The thing is though, you could buy an FTA HD receiver and also receive

: these HD stations for free as well as many others which are not on the
: $ky EPG and so are deliberately non-user friendly to tune in via
: $ky's Other Channels.

That's just not true without a multi-satellite installation which very few
Sky (or even Freesat) viewers have! There is nothing to be had at 28.2E which
Sky boxes won't receive. Freesat STBs are pretty much as restricted as Sky
ones.

Even WITH a FTA receiver there isn't that much in English on any satellite.

[wrights...@f2s.com]

On Aug 23, 9:40 am, b...@somewhere.ac.uk (Brian Mc) wrote:
> J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.org> wrote:
>
> That's just not true without a multi-satellite installation which very few
> Sky (or even Freesat) viewers have! There is nothing to be had at 28.2E which
> Sky boxes won't receive. Freesat STBs are pretty much as restricted as Sky
> ones.

It's important to remember that access to non-Freesat channels is much
easier on some Freesat boxes than it is on a Sky box. I don't know if
this is still the case, but at one time a Sky box's 'other channels'
list would routinely disappear overnight if the box was left in
standby.

Bill

[Brian Mc]

wrights...@aol.com <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
: It's important to remember that access to non-Freesat channels is much

: easier on some Freesat boxes than it is on a Sky box.

But there is nothing much to be added on a Sky box - almost everything is
in the EPG!

: I don't know if this is still the case, but at one time a Sky box's

'other channels' : list would routinely disappear overnight if the box
was left in standby.

Never happened to me! The few "Other ITV regions" I have are still there!

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

I've heard pretty much everything and anything you can set has been known to
disappear from sky boxes overnight.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
n...@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

"Brian Mc" <b...@somewhere.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:i4tc61$t39$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

I thought the Feesat channels were all FTA. Perhaps you mean there isn't
that much extra available in English.

You can get a Freesat+ box that doesn't need a subscription. AFAIK Sky+
always needs a subscription.

[critcher]

"John" <secre...@in.com> wrote in message
news:hd7376digcbi89cl8...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:08:56 +0100, Lucky13 <nospa...@nothanks.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I've had a Sky+ HD box passed on to me and I was wondering why people
>>buy them on eBay?
>>

critcher said ...............................
for the hard drive, ide will be extinct before long and the drives are good
value if you can get a 160 or 250 gig sky+ for a few pounds. ide will be in
demand for a while.

[critcher]

"John" <secre...@in.com> wrote in message
news:hd7376digcbi89cl8...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:08:56 +0100, Lucky13 <nospa...@nothanks.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I've had a Sky+ HD box passed on to me and I was wondering why people
>>buy them on eBay?
>>

[J G Miller]

On Monday, August 23rd, 2010 at 19:44:42h +0100, Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

> I thought the Feesat channels were all FTA.

That is correct, although the Freesat people have had this bizarre
idea of extending the Freesat EPG to include subscription services.

But not all FTA stations (from Eurobird 1 / Astra 2)
are on the Freesat EPG.

> Perhaps you mean there isn't that much extra available in English.

Time to learn German then? ;)

[J G Miller]

Op Maandag, 23 augustus, 2010, 23:48:11u +0200, Martin van Nederlands schreef:
>
> or one of the languages used by French TV5 to subtitle their programmes.
> For some reason English isn't one of them.

What languages do they offer?

Strangely, France Vingt-Quatre is still available in English even
though Sarkozy threatened to pull the plug.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG> saying
something like:

>Strangely, France Vingt-Quatre is still available in English even
>though Sarkozy threatened to pull the plug.

Odd studio lighting in their newsroom - makes everyone look like manic
mannikins.

[J G Miller]

On Tuesday, August 24th, 2010 at 01:30:43h +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
>
> Odd studio lighting in their newsroom - makes everyone look like manic
> mannikins.

I could be imagining it, but is not that style of lighting
standard for Francophone stations?

[Clyde]

I bought an almost new Sky+ box off a boot sale for £10. I found that
the picture quality and signal seem better than my older Pace receiver,
which frequently dropped out (I have a very old LNB that was giving a
lower than normal signal quality reading, on the Sky+ this has improved)

Disappointed that I can't use the plus features without paying Sky (I
already have a Virgin Media subscription)

A week later I saw a stall on a boot sale trying to sell Plus boxes for
£25 each, I told him he was a rip off!

[Nick Le Lievre]

"Clyde" <mkdrummeyN...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lqJdo.69077$P75.30290@hurricane...

>
> A week later I saw a stall on a boot sale trying to sell Plus boxes for
> £25 each, I told him he was a rip off!

I just think you got an exceptionally good deal, £ 25 for a Sky + box is not
that bad IMO (certainly to someone that needs one). I have just bought a 2nd
hand Sky + HD box off of eBay for £ 64, its a Samsung Sky + HD 250gb model.
If I wanted one from Sky for free I would have to take out a 12 month
subscription to the HD starter pack or get a "free" box and pay £ 30 for
installation on a 12 month contract.

[joescu...@gmail.com]

you can use the internal hard drives inside of them for a computer

[Ian Field]

<joescu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0aabfcf0-0034-4bed...@googlegroups.com...

> you can use the internal hard drives inside of them for a computer

Slow access times - but good enough for archiving stuff.

[Woody]

<joescu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0aabfcf0-0034-4bed...@googlegroups.com...

> you can use the internal hard drives inside of them for a computer

...provided you get a big one (500Gb) instead of the standard 80Gb. VM
Tivo boxes have 500Gb or 1Tb drives.

People also get them - especially the smaller multi-room box - to use
when holidaying in caravans or motorhomes. They may not be Sky
customers but they are very effective as Freesat-from-Sky receivers.
If obtained from a nearby Cash Converters shop you will often get an
expired viewing card in it which will be correct for your region. For
less than £20 with cables, remote, and a warranty they are
significantly cheaper than Freesat boxes by the likes of Humax.



--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

[JNugent]

In addition (and AIUI), Sky are phasing out their Sky+ and Sky+HD
equipment and from a date in the relatively near future, will supply
only the Sky Q system. Sky Q has certain other difficulties for some of us.

[David Kennedy]

On 03/01/2018 11:28, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <fb2pb1...@mid.individual.net>,

> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> In addition (and AIUI), Sky are phasing out their Sky+ and Sky+HD
>> equipment and from a date in the relatively near future, will supply
>> only the Sky Q system. Sky Q has certain other difficulties for some of
>> us.
>

> I wonder if your difficulties are similar to mine?
>
> I've been looking at SkyQ and I have a lot of unanswered questions. Sky's
> website appears to obfuscate the facts somewhat and I can't get to the
> bottom of things.
>
> At first, Sky Q was quoted as being £12.50 per month even more money. As
> the buggers charge £10 for HD I thought they could go stuff, I wasn't
> going to pay it. Then a sky rep stopped me in a shopping mal and explained
> I could pay £200 and no monthly increase, more attractive to me but still
> not sure which model that refers to as there are two.
>
> Then there is the thorny subject of remote control and distribution. Sky Q
> has no modulator which is no great loss, the existing ones are crap
> anyway. More importantly there is no method of receiving remote control
> signals from a distant magic eye as there is with RF2 on older boxes and
> of course no power for the magic eye. You can I'm told, use optical
> repeaters to get a distant magic eye signal into a Sky Q box.
>
> If that were not enough, I'm told Sky have deliberately switched off
> support for existing HD remote controls within Sky Q. What a nasty thing
> to do. I don't understand the differences in the two Sky Q remotes and
> what the short comings are of the optical one. Can you buy these?
>
> Distribution isn't a problem for me as I can distribute HDMI 1080i via a
> digital modulator now installed.
>
> If someone has got a grasp of the costs of the two Sky Q boxes and their
> relative merits I would be very interested. Facts on the remote controls
> likewise.
>
> Can't understand why these facts are not easily found on Sky's website.
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob.
>
After reading this I can now understand why Disney are interested...

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

[Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd]

> Sky Q was quoted as being £12.50 per month

Effectively this is the second satellite box price and/or the old HD price. If
you are paying both, Sky Q is actually cheaper.

> Then there is the thorny subject of remote control and
> distribution. Sky Q has no modulator which is no great loss

You simply buy one or two Sky Q Mini wifi boxes for £50 (special offer price)
and get full Sky functionality using wifi for a second TV. And/or watch Sky Q
on a tablet or phone.

So no cables, no remote control issues, watch up to four separate programmes at
once.

The Sky Q Mini box actually has a mini jack with video/audio outputs which can
be used for a modulator, but SD only.

Angus

[David Kennedy]

On 03/01/2018 13:13, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <aN6dnSLRjfkZTtHH...@brightview.co.uk>,

> David Kennedy <davidk...@nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote:
>
>> After reading this I can now understand why Disney are interested...
>

> Would you care to explain that comment?
>
> Bob.
>
Disney = Mickey Mouse ?

[Brian Gaff]

Humph what about built in accessibility, no you have to use a smart phone it
appears, what a cop out for a major player.
I bet they make good door stops though.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd" <an...@magsys.co.uk> wrote in
message news:memo.20180103...@magsys.adsl.magsys.co.uk...

[lewhiggins]

On 03/01/2018 13:13, Bob Latham wrote:

>> After reading this I can now understand why Disney are interested...
>

> Would you care to explain that comment?

Disney have bought Sky.

--
Lew

[Bill Wright]

I thought there was extra subscription to pay per mini q box

Bill

[Andy Burns]

Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:

> You simply buy one or two Sky Q Mini wifi boxes

Is that actually buy (as in you own it) or a one of payment for them to
lend you one?

[sintv]

This is a very old thread

[JNugent]

On 03/01/2018 11:28, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <fb2pb1...@mid.individual.net>,
> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>

>> In addition (and AIUI), Sky are phasing out their Sky+ and Sky+HD
>> equipment and from a date in the relatively near future, will supply
>> only the Sky Q system. Sky Q has certain other difficulties for some of
>> us.
>

> I wonder if your difficulties are similar to mine?
>
> I've been looking at SkyQ and I have a lot of unanswered questions. Sky's
> website appears to obfuscate the facts somewhat and I can't get to the
> bottom of things.
>
> At first, Sky Q was quoted as being £12.50 per month even more money. As
> the buggers charge £10 for HD I thought they could go stuff, I wasn't
> going to pay it. Then a sky rep stopped me in a shopping mal and explained
> I could pay £200 and no monthly increase, more attractive to me but still
> not sure which model that refers to as there are two.
>

> Then there is the thorny subject of remote control and distribution. Sky Q

> has no modulator which is no great loss, the existing ones are crap
> anyway. More importantly there is no method of receiving remote control
> signals from a distant magic eye as there is with RF2 on older boxes and
> of course no power for the magic eye. You can I'm told, use optical
> repeaters to get a distant magic eye signal into a Sky Q box.
>
> If that were not enough, I'm told Sky have deliberately switched off
> support for existing HD remote controls within Sky Q. What a nasty thing
> to do. I don't understand the differences in the two Sky Q remotes and
> what the short comings are of the optical one. Can you buy these?
>
> Distribution isn't a problem for me as I can distribute HDMI 1080i via a
> digital modulator now installed.
>
> If someone has got a grasp of the costs of the two Sky Q boxes and their
> relative merits I would be very interested. Facts on the remote controls
> likewise.
>
> Can't understand why these facts are not easily found on Sky's website.

Those are not the problems I encountered.

The main difficulty is that the Q box has no analog output, meaning that
there is no way to copy out onto a DVD-R or even a VHS tape.

[Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd]

> I thought there was extra subscription to pay per mini q box

No extra subscription.

Angus

[Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd]

> > You simply buy one or two Sky Q Mini wifi boxes
>
> Is that actually buy (as in you own it) or a one of payment for
> them to lend you one?

Sorry, should have said rent/lent, Sky wants all Q boxes returned when you
cease service so they are not resold.

Angus

[Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd]

> The main difficulty is that the Q box has no analog output,
> meaning that there is no way to copy out onto a DVD-R or even a
> VHS tape.

The Sky Q Mini box does have analog output on a mini-jack.

Angus

[JNugent]

That is true.

It is meant for connection to the RGB input of a TV without an HDMI
connecting socket.

I bought the special connecting lead by mail order and then found that
if you connect from that jack to the analog input of a recorder, all you
get is an onscreen message saying that the programme material (even
downloaded material resident on the Q's HD) "cannot be recorded".

The SCART socket had been a feature of the Sky box (originally for very
obvious reasons) ever since the first non-digital ones became available.
With the advent of the Sky Q as the basic product (which it will be,
soon enough), the possibility of copying to tape or DVD-R has been made
immensely more difficult.

[Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd]

> You've obviously managed better then I to get some facts out of
> Sky, thanks.

Just a customer, looking at what I pay.

> There appears to be two main Sky Q boxes, one with 1TB and the
> other with 2TB and a different limit on Q mini boxes but I can
> only find one price of £12.50/month or one off £200. Why would
> anyone go for 1TB?

For new customers, the Sky Q 1TB box is available without the Sky Q
subscription, I believe it will become the standard box once stocks of older
boxes run out.

The 1TB and 2TB boxes have differing upgrade costs depending on what packages
you currently have, and how hard you negotiate with telesales. Effectively,
one-off prices are fluid and peanuts compared with the long term cost of a
thousand or more for the 18 month subscription.

> The question then is, does the mini support optical remote control.

No, I'd guess the number of customers using that in hundreds, not millions, not
worth supporting in future since wifi streaming has replaced coax cables for
multi-room.

Angus

[JNugent]

On 04/01/2018 16:12, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <memo.20180103...@magsys.adsl.magsys.co.uk>,

> Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd <an...@magsys.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Sky Q was quoted as being £12.50 per month
>
>> Effectively this is the second satellite box price and/or the old HD price.
>> If you are paying both, Sky Q is actually cheaper.
>

> You've obviously managed better then I to get some facts out of Sky, thanks.
>

> But there is still so much I don't know:

> There appears to be two main Sky Q boxes, one with 1TB and the other with 2TB
> and a different limit on Q mini boxes but I can only find one price of
> £12.50/month or one off £200. Why would anyone go for 1TB?
>

> Another thing that puzzles me is people talking about reverting from Q to Sky
> HD, why would you do that, what is the problem with Sky Q to make someone
> revert? Surely it can't be to stop the £12.50 if you've decided to go for Q
> at some point.

I gave one explanation for reversion (inability to get an analog signal
to a recorder). There may be others.

Sky has a specialist Reversion Team for this.Since Sky Q is actually
better than Sky+HD apart from the lack of analog outputs, it's hard to
see what any other reason might be.

>
>>> Then there is the thorny subject of remote control and distribution. Sky
>>> Q has no modulator which is no great loss
>
>> You simply buy one or two Sky Q Mini wifi boxes for £50 (special offer
>> price) and get full Sky functionality using wifi for a second TV. And/or
>> watch Sky Q on a tablet or phone.
>
>> So no cables, no remote control issues, watch up to four separate
>> programmes at once.
>
>> The Sky Q Mini box actually has a mini jack with video/audio outputs which
>> can be used for a modulator, but SD only.
>

> I can see that for many (most probably) that gives exactly what is required
> but not for us, we have 6 TVs in our house (don't ask) and you can't have
> enough Sky Q boxes for that lot, plus we don't watch different things at the
> same time, the same everywhere is fine for us. That's why we got the HDMI
> digital modulator. The appeal of Sky Q for us is just the ability to record 6
> things at once because there is so little good tv available and it is all on
> at the same time.

You could surely get six Sky Q mini-boxes?
>
> I suppose it may be a good idea to use one Q mini to drive the HDMI modulator
> which then leaves the main Q to drive the Lounge TV in 4K and leaving the
> mini in 1080i. The question then is, does the mini support optical remote
> control.
>
>
> Bob.
>

[JNugent]

On 04/01/2018 16:19, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <fb4vl8...@mid.individual.net>,

> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> The main difficulty is that the Q box has no analog output, meaning that
>> there is no way to copy out onto a DVD-R or even a VHS tape.
>

> There may be a way around that....
>
> Take one HDMI modulator and connect it to Sky box.
> Tune Freeview PVR into modulator.
> (I've tried it thus far and sky in HD, does display from my Humax PVR)
> Record from scart on Humax PVR (not tested).
> With custom software, you may be able to get the HD file out of the Humax.

I tried it too (using advice gained here and in sinilar places).

I bought an HDMI splitter (one line to the TV, the other to a unit which
converted HDMI to SD analog).

It worked well for a week. Then the signal got scrambled and was
unwatchable.

[JNugent]

On 05/01/2018 08:46, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <fb6nse...@mid.individual.net>,

> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 04/01/2018 08:57, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
>
>>>> The main difficulty is that the Q box has no analog output,
>>>> meaning that there is no way to copy out onto a DVD-R or even a
>>>> VHS tape.
>>>
>>> The Sky Q Mini box does have analog output on a mini-jack.
>
>> That is true.
>
>> It is meant for connection to the RGB input of a TV without an HDMI
>> connecting socket.
>
>> I bought the special connecting lead by mail order and then found that
>> if you connect from that jack to the analog input of a recorder, all you
>> get is an onscreen message saying that the programme material (even
>> downloaded material resident on the Q's HD) "cannot be recorded".
>

> Is this our old friend macrovision, I seem to recall it was called that.
> Not long back you could get scart leads with macrovision filters in them.
> I have one and recorded premium stuff from my Sky box for years with it
> that would not otherwise record. The recorder was a sony DVD/HD recorder.
>
> I think there is a good chance a macrovision filter might fix this for you.
>
> Bob.

Thanks. I'll investigate.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <56b58c...@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> writes

>In article <fb6nse...@mid.individual.net>,
> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> On 04/01/2018 08:57, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
>
>> >> The main difficulty is that the Q box has no analog output,
>> >> meaning that there is no way to copy out onto a DVD-R or even a
>> >> VHS tape.
>> >
>> > The Sky Q Mini box does have analog output on a mini-jack.
>
>> That is true.
>
>> It is meant for connection to the RGB input of a TV without an HDMI
>> connecting socket.
>
>> I bought the special connecting lead by mail order and then found that
>> if you connect from that jack to the analog input of a recorder, all you
>> get is an onscreen message saying that the programme material (even
>> downloaded material resident on the Q's HD) "cannot be recorded".
>

>Is this our old friend macrovision, I seem to recall it was called that.
>Not long back you could get scart leads with macrovision filters in them.
>I have one and recorded premium stuff from my Sky box for years with it
>that would not otherwise record. The recorder was a sony DVD/HD recorder.
>
>I think there is a good chance a macrovision filter might fix this for you.
>

I had a handful of commercial video tapes that, for convenience, I
decided I'd like to copy to DVD. Obviously, I tried using VCR scart out
to disk recorder scart in. Some copied OK, but some were copy protected
- and didn't.

I then tried RF out to RF in. The protected tapes also now copied OK -
and the quality was OK, [Note that I also compared the quality
difference between when the unprotected tapes were copied video-video
and RF-RF, and there was no real degradation with RF,]

AIUI, the Macrovision works by adding some high-amplitude pulses during
the video vertical blanking period, and this screws up the video AGC in
the recorder. Presumably, at RF, the recorder is more-tolerant of the
disturbance.
>

--
Ian

[Ian Field]

"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:wofsl1EP...@brattleho.plus.com...

Elektor magazine published a copy bit eliminator many years ago - but it was
a 2 parter and they got taken to court before the second part made it to
press.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 5 Jan 2018 19:08:56 -0000, "Ian Field"
<gangprobi...@virginmedia.com> wrote:

>>>I think there is a good chance a macrovision filter might fix this for
>>>you.
>>>
>> I had a handful of commercial video tapes that, for convenience, I decided
>> I'd like to copy to DVD. Obviously, I tried using VCR scart out to disk
>> recorder scart in. Some copied OK, but some were copy protected - and
>> didn't.
>
>Elektor magazine published a copy bit eliminator many years ago - but it was
>a 2 parter and they got taken to court before the second part made it to
>press.

I bought a Macrovision remover that was described as a "Video Signal
Stabiliser", or something similar. I suspect that the reason for this
was that they realised they'd be in trouble if they sold it for the
specific purpose of removing copy protection, but under this innocent
description it was OK.

When you consider that analogue copy protection systems of that era
such as Macrovision usually had the effect of making the video signal
non-standard in some way, then restoring it to proper technical
specifications is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, against which it
would be difficult to argue.

Rod.

[Norman Wells]

That doesn't get anyone doing so off the legal hook, however.

According to the Copyright Act 1988:

"296ZA Circumvention of technological measures

(1) This section applies where—

(a) effective technological measures have been applied to a copyright
work other than a computer program; and

(b) a person (B) does anything which circumvents those measures knowing,
or with reasonable grounds to know, that he is pursuing that objective"

and makes it actionable as a copyright infringement.

[Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd]

>> The appeal of Sky Q for us is just the ability to record 6 things
>> at once

>> You could surely get six Sky Q mini-boxes?
>

> Do you know that for a fact?

The Sky Q 2TB box supports two Sky Q Mini boxes and two tablets with Sky Q apps,
all watching different live channels while you record six channels. Or record
five channels while watching live TV on the main box.

Beware Sky is selective about which phones and tablets are supported for Sky Q,
Now TV and Sky Go. To ensure encrypted streams are not stolen, they refuse to
play on any devices Sky thinks are jail broken, and that includes some cheaper
devices including all of mine.

There are 12 tuners in total.

Angus

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 11:18:22 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>

I spent the best part of four decades in a line of work in which video
signals were maintained to within standard specifications, which
existed for a reason. Some of the equipment I worked with had the
primary function of ensuring that standards were maintained, with the
intention that any signal could be handled by any of our equipment and
transmitted to anybody's TV set. Signals that only worked on some TV
sets some of the time would not have been acceptable, and I've always
tried to adopt the same principles at home. If a recording won't play
properly because the manufacturer has done something to it that takes
it outside the technical specification for that kind of recording,
then I assume the right to correct it.

Rod.

[Norman Wells]

You might, the law doesn't.

[JNugent]

On 06/01/2018 12:49, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <fb78uq...@mid.individual.net>,

> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 04/01/2018 16:12, Bob Latham wrote:
>
>>> I can see that for many (most probably) that gives exactly what is
>>> required but not for us, we have 6 TVs in our house (don't ask) and you
>>> can't have enough Sky Q boxes for that lot, plus we don't watch different
>>> things at the same time, the same everywhere is fine for us. That's why
>>> we got the HDMI digital modulator. The appeal of Sky Q for us is just the
>>> ability to record 6 things at once because there is so little good tv
>>> available and it is all on at the same time.
>
>> You could surely get six Sky Q mini-boxes?
>

> Do you know that for a fact?

I have checked it:

<http://www.sky.com/shop/tv/sky-multiscreen/>

And it seems that with a 2Tb Sky box, you can have up to *four* Sky Q
mini boxes (at a one-off price of £99 each, though you never own them).

> I can't imagine ever wanting to Sky on more than 3 TVs at any one time and
> AIUI Sky Q can handle that part but what about any 3 of 6 streaming at a
> time, can it handle that?

Does Sky have a "streaming" model? Internet TV comes to the Sky box by
downloading to the box's HD, you bcan start to watch with near certainty
of perfect reproduction when it's buffered a few percent.

AIUI, it's things like Netflix and Amazon Prime which are streaming
services (as well as catch-up on Youview, and maybe on BT, Virgin, etc).

[JNugent]

On 06/01/2018 11:07, Roderick Stewart wrote:

This signal disruption happens in the digital domain.

[Max Demian]

On 06/01/2018 15:43, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Isn't the ability of some PAL VCRs to play NTSC tapes when connected
directly to a TV an example of "bending the standard"?

--
Max Demian

[Ian Field]

"Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:EOGdneM6D9PTiMzH...@brightview.co.uk...

With TVs it became common practice to use a single main chip that did all
the signal stuff. Eventually they started producing single chips that could
handle any standard - some TV setmakers didn't bother fitting all the
crystals & filters etc, but some did.

My DVD player seems to play anything regardless of where it came from.

[JNugent]

On 08/01/2018 06:36, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <fbcc99...@mid.individual.net>,

> Pre or post the analogue link?

There is no analogue link. The Sky box and TV are connected via a HDMI
cable. This is the central problem with the Sky Q model: no analogue outs.

[JNugent]

On 08/01/2018 06:34, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <fbcc7h...@mid.individual.net>,

> Sorry, I can see I have used the wrong terminology. When I said streaming,
> I meant streaming from the Sky Q main box not across the Internet. To me
> that is still a stream of data.
>
> Bob.

I can see what you mean. I can only answer from our own experience
during the month or so when we had Sky Q. We had the main box (with the
1Tb HD) and one mini-box, located almost immediately above the main box,
in the front bedroom. We got perfect streaming on the mini-box, no
hesitation or buffering issues. What that says about systems fitted with
the maximum of four mini-boxes, I cannot say.

[Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd]

> I can see what you mean. I can only answer from our own
> experience during the month or so when we had Sky Q. We had the
> main box (with the 1Tb HD) and one mini-box, located almost
> immediately above the main box, in the front bedroom. We got
> perfect streaming on the mini-box, no hesitation or buffering
> issues. What that says about systems fitted with the maximum of
> four mini-boxes, I cannot say.

Never seen a problem with streaming to my two Sky Q mini boxes.
One of them is connected to my LAN by ethernet cable since it's outside the
reliable range of Sky Q wifi.

In theory Sky will install a free booster if there are too many thick walls in
the way, and each Sky Q box acts as a booster for other boxes, but CAT5 cable
has reliable speed, if you can fit it, and it's a lot easier than satellite
coax.

Sky Q uses a private mesh 802.11ac wifi in the 5GHz band between boxes, but
there are no proper external antenna so range is not as good as proper router.


If you have Sky Q Broadband, there is a Sky Q Router I've not seen, and then
the wifi from the Q boxes becomes public.

Like all Sky boxes, particularly new models, Sky Q does lock up periodically
and needs a reboot, maybe every week or two if heavily used. But it's not
missed a recording yet in 18 months.

Angus

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <fbc9hl...@mid.individual.net>, Norman Wells

<h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> >> According to the Copyright Act 1988:
> >>
> >> "296ZA Circumvention of technological measures
> >>

> >> (1) This section applies where-

> >>
> >> (a) effective technological measures have been applied to a copyright
> >> work other than a computer program; and
> >>
> >> (b) a person (B) does anything which circumvents those measures
> >> knowing, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he is pursuing that
> >> objective"
> >>
> >> and makes it actionable as a copyright infringement.
> >

> > If a recording won't play properly because the manufacturer has done
> > something to it that takes it outside the technical specification for
> > that kind of recording, then I assume the right to correct it.

> You might, the law doesn't.

Not that clear. It isn't certain to be "circumventing copyright" to process
material you have *paid for* to view so as to enable you to do so.
A court would probably also want to know exactly what "damage" you have
done to the copyright owners. The standards exist to outline what material
should adhere to, else it might be judged 'not fit for purpose', or even a
con trick. So it would all depend on the details.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Graham.]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2018 15:50:13 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
coalesced the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful
comprehension...

It must surley be down to what your *intent* was when you use a piece
of equipment.

I'll give you a couple of examples from my experience.

30 years ago I was involved with hotel TV distribution systems, we
used to use 1U 19 inch rack-mounted timebase correctors between the
VHS playout machines and the modulators. The main reason for doing
this was because typically, at that time, a TV set would only have a
single dedicated channel position for VHS use, using a different
channel button would likely give you a picture with hopelessly bent
verticals or even a complete loss of sync.

The TBCs corrected that situation so we could distribute multiple VHS
sourced programmes into a hotchpotch of TVs.

The TBCs completely removed any Macrovision signal, not by design, but
simply by the principle upon which they worked.

For the second example we have to remind ourselves that to a large
extent, the success of Macrovision depended on the manufacturers of
domestic TVs VHS etc designing their equipment to honour the presence
of the Macrovision, and to pass it down the chain, and not to suppress
or circumvent it. Now if you want we can debate weather the
manufacturers broke any laws.

I had a Phillips VHS that was in this category, and would natively
strip off and regenerate the sync pulses along with the Macrovision
(Who me? Heaven forfend!)
However it was a great machine when used as the "B" in an A-B dub
when people brought me their damaged wedding videos etc and I could
make them a watchable copy. It had a pronominal dropout detector too.



--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Graham.]

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 14:38:59 +0000, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

coalesced the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful
comprehension...

I thought the thread had drifted beyond Sky Q
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[JNugent]

Fair enough, but the problem of "jammed" signals arose only in the
context of the lack of analog-out on the Q.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Wed, 10 Jan 2018 16:07:08 +0000, Graham. <graham...@mail.com>

I would say a manufacturer of equipment to handle broadcast video
signals would have no obligation to "honour" anything other than the
official broadcast technical standards. Technical standards are
usually agreed by an entire industry, sometimes imposed by an official
body, for the convenience of all. Systems like Macrovision are not
part of any such technical standards; they're proprietory systems
created to serve individual commercial interests. If one company
decides to invent is own non-standard way of doing something, then
other companies, quite possibly their competitors, the ones that *do*
keep to the industry standards, don't owe them anything.

The "intent" of these copyright systems was generally to make it
possible to view material but not copy it, and the method relied of
tolerance differences between the different types of equipment used
for these purposes. The signal would be made non-standard with the
intention that it would still be within tolerance for viewing
equipment but out of tolerance in some way for recording equipment.
Recording systems of the day were partly mechanical and viewing
equipment was all electronic, so this provided the difference in
tolerance ranges that could be exploited. Essentially the signals were
modified to conform to a new (unofficial) "standard" that depended on
the technology, rather than the normal arrangement which is the other
way around, where the technology is designed according to technical
standards. But if you depart from industry standards there are no
guarantees that all current equipment, and any future equipment, will
work correctly, which is the "intent" of having industry standards in
the first place.

Rod.

[Max Demian]

Hmm. There's too much kowtowing to commercial interests altogether,
disguised as legal attempts to prevent "copying".

First there was the idea that record manufacturers could incorporate a
high frequency tone that heterodynes with tape recorders' HF bias - that
didn't go anywhere - it can be filtered out or you can use DC bias (at
the expense of quality).

Then there were CDs which had errors which prevented you from copying
them on a computer - but also stopped you from /playing/ them on a computer.

Never mind the Sony root kit scandal.

Since then, there's the locking down of HD transmissions and other "DRM"
crap, and a DVD recorder I bought recently which has /no/ inputs to
record from VCR or LaserDisc.

How do commercial organisations get away with this? Do they have
compromising "negatives" of people in power?

It might be the "law", but who makes the "law"? No us plebs, that's for
sure.

--
Max Demian

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <lI2dnU9ZuYoG4crH...@brightview.co.uk>, Max
Demian

<max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> How do commercial organisations get away with this? Do they have
> compromising "negatives" of people in power?

Money. To pay politicians directly, employ them as 'consultants', or
'directors', or to use more 'subtle' (sic) means like 'free' advisors /
assistants / experts / research reports / 'institutes' whose
representitives pronounce on TV/radio, steering the adjenda / etc...

Read Private Eye ad naus if you want the gory details.

> It might be the "law", but who makes the "law"? No us plebs, that's for
> sure.

Indeed.

[Robin]

On 11/01/2018 15:02, Max Demian wrote:
>
> How do commercial organisations get away with this? Do they have
> compromising "negatives" of people in power?
>

I suggest you talk to some authors, musicians, actors and film makers
about your views on copyright.

In the meantime, I know of some people who believe that all property is
theft who I am confident would be happy to know the address of someone
with property who shares their views and wouldn't dream of running to
the capitalist lackey police ;)


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Roderick Stewart]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:02:47 +0000, Max Demian
<max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>First there was the idea that record manufacturers could incorporate a
>high frequency tone that heterodynes with tape recorders' HF bias - that
>didn't go anywhere - it can be filtered out or you can use DC bias (at
>the expense of quality).
>
>Then there were CDs which had errors which prevented you from copying
>them on a computer - but also stopped you from /playing/ them on a computer.
>
>Never mind the Sony root kit scandal.
>
>Since then, there's the locking down of HD transmissions and other "DRM"
>crap, and a DVD recorder I bought recently which has /no/ inputs to
>record from VCR or LaserDisc.

Modern digital scuppering systems like DRM, and region coding of DVDs
use meta-data that isn't part of the actual signal, because these
systems were designed from the start with this kind of extra control
in mind. Thwarting them is just a matter of altering or removing the
extra digital data, which can leave an absolutely perfect rendition of
the original signal.

It was more difficult (i.e. impossible) to impose extra control in the
case of analogue systems that hadn't been planned for it. Any
extraneous signal would either have to be within the passband of the
wanted signal, where it would be audible or visible, or outside the
passband where it could easily be removed by filtering. Even digital
systems like CD couldn't have any kind of extra control imposed if the
meta-data part of it hadn't been planned for this, so the scuppering
signal would have to go somewhere in the wanted signal, with all the
resultant unpredictability of a non-standard signal that would
interfere differently with different players.

Any kind of scuppering system using meta-data would have to depend on
some way of ensuring that all playback or receiving systems must obey
the extra signals. Legal decrees can't be made to work globally and
are unenforceable anyway given the numbers of pieces of equipment
involved, so it would have to be something inherent in the way the
equipment works. As long as it's physically possible to build
equipment that will ignore the meta-data and just play the wanted
signal, and there's no way in practice to stop people doing this,
people will do it, and anyone hoping to achieve world domination over
everyone's viewing and listening habits is on a hiding to nothing.

The people who waste everyone's time trying to achieve the impossible
with this kind of thing really ought to read some science fiction, as
ideas are often clarified therein long before they become practical
realities, then maybe they'd appreciate the fundamental flaw in the
very concept of what they're trying to achieve. In Isaac Asimov's
fictional worlds from the 1940s, for example, robots are prevented
from harming humans by means of three laws programmed into every
robot, but the flaw in this idea is glaringly obvious after about a
microsecond of logical thought. There's just no practical way of
ensuring that every robot is programmed with these laws and that
nobody ever simply alters the programming to omit the laws or
manufactures a robot without them. Back to square one. Again.

Rod.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <15rf5dpth94en99rr...@4ax.com>, Martin
<m...@address.invalid> wrote:

> Next you will condemn anti-heft devices on cars and burglar alarms. :-)

Which might be reasonable if they prevented the person who *bought* and
*owns* the car from using it, or from getting into their own home. :-)

[Chris Green]

Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/01/2018 15:02, Max Demian wrote:
> >
> > How do commercial organisations get away with this? Do they have
> > compromising "negatives" of people in power?
> >
>
> I suggest you talk to some authors, musicians, actors and film makers
> about your views on copyright.
>

Yes, but.... How much do those authors, musicians, actors and film
makers get when I buy a book, recording, go to a play etc. The
problem is that the 'intermediate' organisations tend to take most of
the money I pay. If I could buy (say) a book and know that most of
the money I pay goes to the author I'd be much happier.

--
Chris Green
·

[Indy Jess John]

On 12/01/2018 11:23, Chris Green wrote:
>
> If I could buy (say) a book and know that most of
> the money I pay goes to the author I'd be much happier.
>

The trouble with that comparison is that a book has to be typeset,
printed on paper and then bound and shipped to the retail point so that
you can buy it.

That will make a substantial amount of manpower, materials, maintenance
provision on the printing and binding machinery, and transport
overheads, additional to the effort the writer put into creating the
text that you read.

Jim

[Robin]

On 12/01/2018 11:23, Chris Green wrote:

> Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/01/2018 15:02, Max Demian wrote:
>>>
>>> How do commercial organisations get away with this? Do they have
>>> compromising "negatives" of people in power?
>>>
>>
>> I suggest you talk to some authors, musicians, actors and film makers
>> about your views on copyright.
>>
> Yes, but.... How much do those authors, musicians, actors and film
> makers get when I buy a book, recording, go to a play etc.

In general, more than they get when someone acquires a book etc from
someone who doesn't have the copyright holder's permission to produce it.

> The
> problem is that the 'intermediate' organisations tend to take most of
> the money I pay. If I could buy (say) a book and know that most of
> the money I pay goes to the author I'd be much happier.
>

Do you make a point of buying your clothes direct from the manufacturers
rather than from retailers? Your food from a farm shop/ farmers' market?

The internet has changed publishing somewhat. Witness eg Andy Weir's
success self-publishing "The Martian". But he only made serious money
from it because copyright laws meant he was paid when it was picked up
by Random House and then paid again when the film rights were sold.

Note there that copyright is not just about payment-per-copy to authors
etc, it's also about the upfront payment an author etc may get - often
when a book is commissioned. Without copyright that business model
doesn't work. So it'd be nice to know what would replace it if
copyright laws were abolished.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <7a4909ca-c895-1620...@hotmail.com>, Robin

<rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/01/2018 15:02, Max Demian wrote:
> >
> > How do commercial organisations get away with this? Do they have
> > compromising "negatives" of people in power?
> >

> I suggest you talk to some authors, musicians, actors and film makers
> about your views on copyright.

In my case that would mean giving myself a good talking to. :-)

Yes, despite having written more than one published book, and hundreds of
published magazine articles, I hold the views I have expressed about the
way large commercial organisations vampire on *authors*, musicians, etc,
just as they do on the public at large by extending 'copyrights' (plural)
beyond reasonable limits.

> In the meantime, I know of some people who believe that all property is
> theft who I am confident would be happy to know the address of someone
> with property who shares their views and wouldn't dream of running to
> the capitalist lackey police ;)

False dichotomy assumption detected. :-) To argue against the
over-applications or extensions of copyrights isn't the same as saying no
form of copyrights or IPR or ownership should exist. The questions are wrt
the scope and details of what copyrights/ownerships society finds sensible
and proportionate.

[Robin]

On 12/01/2018 11:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <7a4909ca-c895-1620...@hotmail.com>, Robin
> <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/01/2018 15:02, Max Demian wrote:
>>>
>>> How do commercial organisations get away with this? Do they have
>>> compromising "negatives" of people in power?
>>>
>
>> I suggest you talk to some authors, musicians, actors and film makers
>> about your views on copyright.
>
> In my case that would mean giving myself a good talking to. :-)
>
> Yes, despite having written more than one published book, and hundreds of
> published magazine articles, I hold the views I have expressed about the
> way large commercial organisations vampire on *authors*, musicians, etc,
> just as they do on the public at large by extending 'copyrights' (plural)
> beyond reasonable limits.

>> In the meantime, I know of some people who believe that all property is
>> theft who I am confident would be happy to know the address of someone
>> with property who shares their views and wouldn't dream of running to
>> the capitalist lackey police ;)
>
> False dichotomy assumption detected. :-) To argue against the
> over-applications or extensions of copyrights isn't the same as saying no
> form of copyrights or IPR or ownership should exist. The questions are wrt
> the scope and details of what copyrights/ownerships society finds sensible
> and proportionate.
>

I do apologise if I went over the top. It may have been a reaction to
your again holding out Private Eye as an impeccable source ;)

And if you argue mine was a false dichotomy it would be nice to have
something rather more concrete by way of proposals for a different
regime than the one you accuse of being in the sway of "vampires" and
imposing "unreasonable limits". Different that is from the one devised
over many years not just nationally but internationally. (Copyright in
the EU is governed by a number of Directives, so I assume your views on
politicians being in the pockets of commercial interests applies to the
Commission and MEPs too. And then there's the Berne Convention...)

[Max Demian]

On 12/01/2018 11:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> In article <7a4909ca-c895-1620...@hotmail.com>, Robin
> <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/01/2018 15:02, Max Demian wrote:
>>>
>>> How do commercial organisations get away with this? Do they have
>>> compromising "negatives" of people in power?

>> I suggest you talk to some authors, musicians, actors and film makers
>> about your views on copyright.
>
> In my case that would mean giving myself a good talking to. :-)
>
> Yes, despite having written more than one published book, and hundreds of
> published magazine articles, I hold the views I have expressed about the
> way large commercial organisations vampire on *authors*, musicians, etc,
> just as they do on the public at large by extending 'copyrights' (plural)
> beyond reasonable limits.

Most of the copyright dosh goes to people who are already doing nicely,
thank you. Already successful musicians and authors who get (public)
money every time a book is borrowed from a library (7.82p currently).

Also, I'm not clear why copyright should extend after the death of a
book author. (I think it's 70 years in the UK). If you are employed,
your salary stops when you die unless your employer provides a widow's
pension &c. It's up to authors to arrange pensions an/or life insurance
to provide for their dependents after the die (or lose their marbles).

--
Max Demian

[Chris Green]

Indy Jess John <jimw...@omitblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 12/01/2018 11:23, Chris Green wrote:
> >
> > If I could buy (say) a book and know that most of
> > the money I pay goes to the author I'd be much happier.
> >
> The trouble with that comparison is that a book has to be typeset,
> printed on paper and then bound and shipped to the retail point so that
> you can buy it.
>

Rarely nowadays, for me anyway, most of the books I read are
electronic and I read on a tablet or similar. No printing,
typesetting (though there is some formatting needed I agree), no
paper, no shipping.

... and they often have the cheek to charge *more* for an electronic
copy of a book.

--
Chris Green
·

[Chris Green]

Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

> On that basis you shouldn't have any qualms about robbing a bank :-)

Ay? I really don't follow.

Though I suppose you might just be telling me that banks are quite
good at diddling us out of our money by various close to immoral
means.

--
Chris Green
·

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <teimie-...@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <c...@isbd.net>
wrote:

> Yes, but.... How much do those authors, musicians, actors and film
> makers get when I buy a book, recording, go to a play etc. The problem
> is that the 'intermediate' organisations tend to take most of the money
> I pay. If I could buy (say) a book and know that most of the money I
> pay goes to the author I'd be much happier.

You can do this with author-published books.

I have no objection to the idea that an author or performer should get paid
via some suitable copyright arrangement. Nor with the principle that a
publisher/faciltator/retailer may take a cut for making a contribution to
the process of the dissemination of work, aiding the income of the author.

What I do object to is the way copyrights/IPR have been extended to suit
large corporations *not* authors or performers - and often works *against*
the advantage of the author or performer.

For example, works that are 'out of print' and the publisher refuses to
republish. Hence no-one can buy a fresh copy and the author gets no income
from such fresh sales. Made worse when, over the years, publishers vanish
and we end up with no-one knowing *who* owns the rights. So a work can't be
republished even if there are people eager to buy and even an author (or
family) who would then get income and reputation from such republication.

Similarly, musicians who see their recordings left 'in the vault', and come
to be forgotten. Or were got to sell all rights for a flat fee which turned
out not to reflect the sales because that was all the recording company
would offer and the musician was mislead.

So for me the questions are wrt scope and detail. Not the basic principle
of IPR.

[reply_to_...@not.invalid]

0% VAT on printed books, 20% VAT on electronic copy. That's one reason
why.

--
brightside S9

[Robin]

On 12/01/2018 14:41, Max Demian wrote:
> On 12/01/2018 11:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> In article <7a4909ca-c895-1620...@hotmail.com>, Robin
>> <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/01/2018 15:02, Max Demian wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How do commercial organisations get away with this? Do they have
>>>> compromising "negatives" of people in power?
>
>>> I suggest you talk to some authors, musicians, actors and film makers
>>> about your views on copyright.
>>
>> In my case that would mean giving myself a good talking to. :-)
>>
>> Yes, despite having written more than one published book, and hundreds of
>> published magazine articles, I hold the views I have expressed about the
>> way large commercial organisations vampire on *authors*, musicians, etc,
>> just as they do on the public at large by extending 'copyrights' (plural)
>> beyond reasonable limits.
>
> Most of the copyright dosh goes to people who are already doing nicely,
> thank you.

That seems to me much like saying that most of the money spent on
footballers goes to the ones who are already "doing nicely". Perfectly
true. And no surprise given they are only in the Premiership etc
because they are already considered to be good at what they do.

> Already successful musicians and authors who get (public)
> money every time a book is borrowed from a library (7.82p currently).

An interesting example given payments from the Public Lending Right are
capped: the maximum anyone may receive in a year is £6,600. ISTR seeing
an estimate once for the amount Catherine Cookson's estate "lost" as a
result of that cap. It was not a small amount!

> Also, I'm not clear why copyright should extend after the death of a
> book author. (I think it's 70 years in the UK). If you are employed,
> your salary stops when you die unless your employer provides a widow's
> pension &c. It's up to authors to arrange pensions an/or life insurance
> to provide for their dependents after the die (or lose their marbles).
>

Both employees and self-employed people are selling services and (unless
their contracts are exceptional) have no expectation of ownership of
what they (help to) produce. They are paid as they go along. Authors
etc are creating new products and (subject of course to contracts etc)
get nothing as they go along. Their reward is the final product which
they expect will be their property. I see little logic in saying that
it ceases to be their property on their death - so eg the length of time
which it would yield a return would be unpredictable: anywhere from a
day to in some cases 80 or more years later.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <bb010f60-6070-cc74...@hotmail.com>, Robin

<rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/01/2018 11:42, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > In article <7a4909ca-c895-1620...@hotmail.com>, Robin
> > <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> I do apologise if I went over the top. It may have been a reaction to
> your again holding out Private Eye as an impeccable source ;)

Well, I'd rate them well above most of the media. But that may tell you
more about the other media than it does PE! :-)

> And if you argue mine was a false dichotomy it would be nice to have
> something rather more concrete by way of proposals for a different
> regime than the one you accuse of being in the sway of "vampires" and
> imposing "unreasonable limits".

OK, here is a simple set of ideas as examples.

1) All forms of IPR could be harmonised to the same, short (by current
standards) term - e.g. 20 years for books, music, patents, etc. Note that
this is wrt the 'copy' rights rather than the full range of copyrights.
e.g. The write of the author or performer to be indentified as such (if
known) should remain indefiniately. And there can be no material changes
that alter the meaning without permission of said author/performer.

if you can't make a decent income that way after a few decades, then up to
you to get on with producing something which will make you a return. Ditto
for the publisher, hence...

2) A "fish or cut bait" requirement. i.e. if a work is left unpublished
for, say, 5 years, the author/performers should have the right to terminate
any publication agreement and find another publisher *if* their existing
one is incapable or refuses to reprint on terms equivalent to previously.

This would sweep away crazy differences like written material being
copyright for well over a century in some cases, long after the author and
his initial publisher may have gone, whereas something like a patent lapses
in a shorter time. Or the way an author's work may become unobtainium and
they can't earn any more money. This can be particularly important for
technical info which people can't get. That impedes progress and
development.

3) Actually *enforce* the basic requirement that a patent, to be legal, has
to specify *all* that is needed to replicate the 'invention'. (This
requirement exists in law, but it routinely flouted by keeping key details
as 'trade secrets'. Thus defeating the purpose of patents so far as society
is concerned.)

Patents were meant to offer a *short term* monopoly in exchange for a *full
disclosure* that *everyone could then use after that term. Way to feed
further development, etc rather than having it impeded with 'trade
secrets'. And when an author/performer produces something, it needs to
remain available for them to benefit.

> Different that is from the one devised over many years not just
> nationally but internationally.

Actually copyrights vary from country to country, sometimes in
contradictory ways. The EU and IPO are trying to 'harmonise' this... but
what they mean by that is 'screw upwards what companies can control'. Not
'make sense of the system for citizens or authors'.

> (Copyright in the EU is governed by a number of Directives, so I assume
> your views on politicians being in the pockets of commercial interests
> applies to the Commission and MEPs too. And then there's the Berne
> Convention...)

See also IPO and various other bodies with irons in the fire.

Yes, politicians are like lawers, as defined by Ambrose Bierce. 8-]

One of the uses of PE is to see who is paying who. :-)

I'm quite happy with the idea of copyright and IPR. But I want it to serve
those who create/produce and people in general. Not to become a weapon,
control system, bargaining chip, or capital for big business.

[Peter Duncanson]

Exactly. And even when an author's efforts are not invovlved it costs
money to manufacture, transport, etc, a notebook with completely blank
pages.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

[Robin]

On 12/01/2018 15:19, Jim Lesurf wrote:
<snip>>

> OK, here is a simple set of ideas as examples.

Thanks. That's a useful start.

> 1) All forms of IPR could be harmonised to the same, short (by current
> standards) term - e.g. 20 years for books, music, patents, etc. Note that
> this is wrt the 'copy' rights rather than the full range of copyrights.
> e.g. The write of the author or performer to be indentified as such (if
> known) should remain indefiniately. And there can be no material changes
> that alter the meaning without permission of said author/performer.

Widening the debate from copyright to patents adds a whole new can of
worms as you recognise. And then there's "trade secrets" which as
you'll know are usually not even part of the formal intellectual
property system.

> if you can't make a decent income that way after a few decades, then up to
> you to get on with producing something which will make you a return. Ditto
> for the publisher, hence...
>
> 2) A "fish or cut bait" requirement. i.e. if a work is left unpublished
> for, say, 5 years, the author/performers should have the right to terminate
> any publication agreement and find another publisher *if* their existing
> one is incapable or refuses to reprint on terms equivalent to previously.

I'm not aware of anything to stop authors etc writing that into their
contracts with publishers. If it's a practical problem for authors why
don't they do that?

> This would sweep away crazy differences like written material being
> copyright for well over a century in some cases, long after the author and
> his initial publisher may have gone, whereas something like a patent lapses
> in a shorter time. Or the way an author's work may become unobtainium and
> they can't earn any more money. This can be particularly important for
> technical info which people can't get. That impedes progress and
> development.

I take it you don't think much of the legislation in the Enterprise and
Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and the scheme introduced under it to
license works in the UK where the rights holder cannot be located; and
for libraries to digitise and display works where they cannot find the
rights holder.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/copyright-orphan-works

Of course you do need to know where to find a copy for this to help.
But ISTM that's not an issue with copyright as such.

> 3) Actually *enforce* the basic requirement that a patent, to be legal, has
> to specify *all* that is needed to replicate the 'invention'. (This
> requirement exists in law, but it routinely flouted by keeping key details
> as 'trade secrets'. Thus defeating the purpose of patents so far as society
> is concerned.)
>
> Patents were meant to offer a *short term* monopoly in exchange for a *full
> disclosure* that *everyone could then use after that term. Way to feed
> further development, etc rather than having it impeded with 'trade
> secrets'. And when an author/performer produces something, it needs to
> remain available for them to benefit.

FSVO of "short term. I only ever worked on anything to do with patents
briefly some 20 years ago but IIRC UK patents lasted 16 years from 1852
so the current (uo to 20 years?) figure is not so very different. And
the unwillingness to disclose "trade secrets" strikes me as largely the
result of the impracticability of enforcing sanctions for breaches
internationally.

But you'll get no argument from me about the need to reform the patent
system in many other respects.

>> Different that is from the one devised over many years not just
>> nationally but internationally.
>
> Actually copyrights vary from country to country, sometimes in
> contradictory ways. The EU and IPO are trying to 'harmonise' this... but
> what they mean by that is 'screw upwards what companies can control'. Not
> 'make sense of the system for citizens or authors'.
>
>> (Copyright in the EU is governed by a number of Directives, so I assume
>> your views on politicians being in the pockets of commercial interests
>> applies to the Commission and MEPs too. And then there's the Berne
>> Convention...)
>
> See also IPO and various other bodies with irons in the fire.
>
> Yes, politicians are like lawers, as defined by Ambrose Bierce. 8-]
>
> One of the uses of PE is to see who is paying who. :-)

You are free to think they publish nothing but the truth and have no
agenda of their own.

> I'm quite happy with the idea of copyright and IPR. But I want it to serve
> those who create/produce and people in general. Not to become a weapon,
> control system, bargaining chip, or capital for big business.
>

In my limited experience much of the pressure for change came from
"creative" individuals. But my experience was very, very limited.

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <92df57da-1b3a-2848...@hotmail.com>, Robin

<rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/01/2018 15:19, Jim Lesurf wrote: <snip>>
> > OK, here is a simple set of ideas as examples.

> >

> > 2) A "fish or cut bait" requirement. i.e. if a work is left
> > unpublished for, say, 5 years, the author/performers should have the
> > right to terminate any publication agreement and find another
> > publisher *if* their existing one is incapable or refuses to reprint
> > on terms equivalent to previously.

> I'm not aware of anything to stop authors etc writing that into their
> contracts with publishers. If it's a practical problem for authors why
> don't they do that?

There is nothing preventing the author from trying to do so. But they may
get a flat refusal. Then have to decide if they want to see if anyone else
will publish the work on that basis. Often authors and performers sign
because they worry that otherwise they won't 'get the gig'. Many many
simply want to be published and paid, without thinking about this until
later.

I've always tended to work on the basis of arranging something more
suitable (to me). But I haven't tried to write for a living, just as a part
time interest. So I haven't had to write to pay the rent. Others won't be
so lucky.

In general, when I've suggested to a magazine that I'm selling them
non-exclusive first publication rights (i.e. I'm free to re-use material
some time afterwards) they've agreed. Ironically, the only magazine which
refused this was a *Linux* magazine. The irony being that Linux is open
source. So when they refused, I put the item on the web instead. But of
course, a publisher can either accept or refuse, just as an author can. The
snag being that for some authors the money may be needed.

> I take it you don't think much of the legislation in the Enterprise and
> Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and the scheme introduced under it to license
> works in the UK where the rights holder cannot be located; and for
> libraries to digitise and display works where they cannot find the
> rights holder.

> https://www.gov.uk/guidance/copyright-orphan-works

I can't comment on that at present as I don't enough about it. I was just
responding to your invitation to give some examples of the kinds of things
where I have concerns.

> >
> > See also IPO and various other bodies with irons in the fire.
> >
> > Yes, politicians are like lawers, as defined by Ambrose Bierce. 8-]
> >
> > One of the uses of PE is to see who is paying who. :-)

> You are free to think they publish nothing but the truth and have no
> agenda of their own.

Yes, people are free to think such things... But I don't, however, think
what you assert. It would clearly be daft to assume any publication is 100%
always the 'truth'. Once again, your comment is based on a false dichotomy.
The reliability or 'truthfulness' of publications will vary. My experience
is that PE seems pretty good, particularly at exposing things when others
fail. But being better than most isn't the same as perfect.

[Chris Green]

Yes, I know that, but the production cost of an electronic book is
essentially nothing compared with that of a print book.

So if a print book does really cost (say) £6.99 I'd guess the cost of
the same book in an electronic edition would be a few pence, adding
20% to that doesn't get to more than £6.99.

--
Chris Green
·

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:08:57 +0000, reply_to_...@not.invalid
wrote:

>>... and they often have the cheek to charge *more* for an electronic
>>copy of a book.
>
>
>0% VAT on printed books, 20% VAT on electronic copy. That's one reason
>why.

Really? We actually have a policy that encourages the use of a
material resource, instead of something that occupies zero shelf space
and requires no packaging or fuel to deliver it? Why on earth would we
do anything as daft as that?

Electronic reading doesn't suit every kind of book, but for the vast
majority of casual reading I find it absolutely ideal. I note that on
Amazon, although Kindle copies of books are occasionally more
expensive than the dead tree versions, this is highly unusual. Prices
are often around two or three quid or lower, quite literally less than
the cost of the petrol to drive to the shops. I bet Amazon know the
true cost of things.

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 17:23:06 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
<no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

>> > 2) A "fish or cut bait" requirement. i.e. if a work is left
>> > unpublished for, say, 5 years, the author/performers should have the
>> > right to terminate any publication agreement and find another
>> > publisher *if* their existing one is incapable or refuses to reprint
>> > on terms equivalent to previously.
>
>> I'm not aware of anything to stop authors etc writing that into their
>> contracts with publishers. If it's a practical problem for authors why
>> don't they do that?
>
>There is nothing preventing the author from trying to do so. But they may
>get a flat refusal. Then have to decide if they want to see if anyone else
>will publish the work on that basis. Often authors and performers sign
>because they worry that otherwise they won't 'get the gig'. Many many
>simply want to be published and paid, without thinking about this until
>later.

There seems plenty of scope for the Law to make certain types of
contractual clauses illegal, the above being a good example. Generally
if anything is "optional", it's whoever has the money and/or power
that gets to exercise the option, which is exactly the kind of
imbalance that laws are supposed to even out.

Rod.

[Robin]

On 13/01/2018 10:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 15:08:57 +0000, reply_to_...@not.invalid
> wrote:
>
>>> ... and they often have the cheek to charge *more* for an electronic
>>> copy of a book.
>>
>>
>> 0% VAT on printed books, 20% VAT on electronic copy. That's one reason
>> why.
>
> Really? We actually have a policy that encourages the use of a
> material resource, instead of something that occupies zero shelf space
> and requires no packaging or fuel to deliver it? Why on earth would we
> do anything as daft as that?
>

FSVO of "we". VAT rules are almost wholly an EU matter. The Czech
government was blocking change to allow States to reduce the VAT rate on
ebooks. They only conceded last month.

[Robin]

On 12/01/2018 17:23, Jim Lesurf wrote:
<snip>

>> I'm not aware of anything to stop authors etc writing that into their
>> contracts with publishers. If it's a practical problem for authors why
>> don't they do that?
>
> There is nothing preventing the author from trying to do so. But they may
> get a flat refusal. Then have to decide if they want to see if anyone else
> will publish the work on that basis. Often authors and performers sign
> because they worry that otherwise they won't 'get the gig'. Many many
> simply want to be published and paid, without thinking about this until
> later.

Well of course they *may* get refused. But reversion rights were a bog
standard part of publishing agreements for many a year. I just checked
that they still are according to people who know much moire than me. Eg:

"It’s important to ensure that the author can get back the rights to
their book if the publisher either fails to stick to the terms of the
contract or lets the book go out of print. Historically, if the
publisher left a book out of print for 6–9 months after receiving a
written request to reprint it, rights would revert. However, ebook and
print-on-demand formats mean that standard ‘stock level’ reversion
clauses no longer provide adequate protection and new triggers for
reversion need to be agreed. This might be a rate of sale or revenue
threshold. It is well worth reclaiming rights to out-of-print books as
it may well be possible to re-license them later on."

https://www.writersandartists.co.uk/writers/advice/162/after-publication/rights-and-legal-advice/publishing-agreements


And the same is true of music where contracts can provide for rights to
reverse automatically if the agreement is not honoured - eg royalties
not handed over.

[Robin]

I am unclear what you are asking should be outlawed given authors and
publishers routinely agree contracts with provision for reversion. See
my reply to Jim.

Is it a ban on contract where a publisher gets the exclusive right to
publish and sell the work in certain forms, in certain territories, for
the term of copyright? Do you want eg to limit the term to a maximum of,
say, 5 years? If so, what do you think that is going to do to - among
other things - the amount publishers are willing to pay up front for the
rights, and the amount they are willing to spend promoting the book?

[Indy Jess John]

On 13/01/2018 10:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> Really? We actually have a policy that encourages the use of a
> material resource, instead of something that occupies zero shelf space
> and requires no packaging or fuel to deliver it? Why on earth would we
> do anything as daft as that?

It is probably a default from the way the legislation is written. If
the description is "printed material" or something similar because
newspapers are vat exempt, then an electronic version which is not
printed becomes liable to VAT as a default rather than as a specific
intention.

Jim

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <9d8dc215-4582-acda...@hotmail.com>, Robin

<rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/01/2018 17:23, Jim Lesurf wrote: <snip>


> >> I'm not aware of anything to stop authors etc writing that into their
> >> contracts with publishers. If it's a practical problem for authors
> >> why don't they do that?
> >
> > There is nothing preventing the author from trying to do so. But they
> > may get a flat refusal. Then have to decide if they want to see if
> > anyone else will publish the work on that basis. Often authors and
> > performers sign because they worry that otherwise they won't 'get the
> > gig'. Many many simply want to be published and paid, without thinking
> > about this until later.

> Well of course they *may* get refused. But reversion rights were a bog
> standard part of publishing agreements for many a year. I just checked
> that they still are according to people who know much moire than me. Eg:

The problem, again, is to ensure that is in the contract or enforcable by
some other means. And Magazines generally *don't* reprint articles, but may
reserve the rights to exclusively do so at some unknown future point.
Indeed, this may be more common now we have the web, e-publishing, etc,
because they hope for a future bonus from holding on to the rights. (That,
in essence, was what the Linux mag I referred to told me as an instance.)

So the distinction here is between what authors/performers should (seek to)
get agreed, and what the publisher is willing to offer. You can seek what
you like, but may be refused. And even when in the right, legally, taking a
magazine publisher to court isn't likely to encourage them to buy any
future work from you. So for many authors/performers reality isn't as easy
as it may seem.

For books (particularly fiction) they line of would-be-authors is miles
long. So book fiction publishers can be picky if they fancy because they'll
say they are taking a risk. You can ask, but refusal often offends. :-)

Successful fiction magazines have large slush piles, but are used to buying
first serial rights, so that is a different situation. As is writing
factual material for specialist magazines where the number of potential
writers is more limited.

> https://www.writersandartists.co.uk/writers/advice/162/after-publication/rights-and-legal-advice/publishing-agreements

Note, BTW how that heavily relies on the situation for a *book* and what
you should aim to get. In reality, YMMV, especially when writing magazine
articles of parts of publications. And if you write an item on growing
roses for a gardening mag you probably don't have the option of trying it
on a steam railway magazine if the gardening mag didn't offer the rights or
payment you wanted. 8-]

> And the same is true of music where contracts can provide for rights to
> reverse automatically if the agreement is not honoured - eg royalties
> not handed over.

That isn't the same as above because it would be a breach of contract.

[Peter Duncanson]

Don't forget that the price includes the publisher's profit and the
author's royalties as well as production and distribution costs.

[Robin]

On 13/01/2018 12:28, Jim Lesurf wrote:
<snip>

>
> For books (particularly fiction) they line of would-be-authors is miles
> long. So book fiction publishers can be picky if they fancy because they'll
> say they are taking a risk. You can ask, but refusal often offends. :-)

It's neither new nor surprising that there's a long queue of budding
authors. (Just as there are footballers, models, actors etc.) What is
relatively new is the extent to which authors have legal protection. As
reflected in the PA code of practice.

>
>> https://www.writersandartists.co.uk/writers/advice/162/after-publication/rights-and-legal-advice/publishing-agreements
>
> Note, BTW how that heavily relies on the situation for a *book* and what
> you should aim to get. In reality, YMMV, especially when writing magazine
> articles of parts of publications. And if you write an item on growing
> roses for a gardening mag you probably don't have the option of trying it
> on a steam railway magazine if the gardening mag didn't offer the rights or
> payment you wanted. 8-]

That result seems to me no different in kind from anyone in any area of
endeavour who specialises in a product for which there are very few
buyers. But if you think there's a serious market failure you could
lobby for a statutory regulator who sets the price - although I think
probably only after the transitional Brexit deal.

>> And the same is true of music where contracts can provide for rights to
>> reverse automatically if the agreement is not honoured - eg royalties
>> not handed over.
>
> That isn't the same as above because it would be a breach of contract.
>

A publishing agreement for written work is just as much a contract as
those for music, video etc.

[Roderick Stewart]

Maybe, though ultimately what matters to me is the cost to me, which
is usually less than a printed book, and it's a lot more convenient,
which makes it what I believe they call a "no-brainer".

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 11:10:06 +0000, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> 2) A "fish or cut bait" requirement. i.e. if a work is left
>>>>> unpublished for, say, 5 years, the author/performers should have the
>>>>> right to terminate any publication agreement and find another
>>>>> publisher *if* their existing one is incapable or refuses to reprint
>>>>> on terms equivalent to previously.
>>>
>>>> I'm not aware of anything to stop authors etc writing that into their
>>>> contracts with publishers. If it's a practical problem for authors why
>>>> don't they do that?
>>>
>>> There is nothing preventing the author from trying to do so. But they may
>>> get a flat refusal. Then have to decide if they want to see if anyone else
>>> will publish the work on that basis. Often authors and performers sign
>>> because they worry that otherwise they won't 'get the gig'. Many many
>>> simply want to be published and paid, without thinking about this until
>>> later.
>
>> There seems plenty of scope for the Law to make certain types of
>> contractual clauses illegal, the above being a good example. Generally
>> if anything is "optional", it's whoever has the money and/or power
>> that gets to exercise the option, which is exactly the kind of
>> imbalance that laws are supposed to even out.
>>
>
>I am unclear what you are asking should be outlawed given authors and
>publishers routinely agree contracts with provision for reversion. See
>my reply to Jim.

Essentially any kind of Faustian contract. As an example, I once
happened to appear in the background of one of those "behind the
scenes" extra sequences associated with a DVD production I worked on
(because they shot the material before asking anybody if they minded),
and we were all then asked to sign a release form or contract of some
sort because the publishers wouldn't proceed without this.

I wish I'd kept a copy because I can't recall the exact wording so
will have to paraphrase as best I can, but it included a clause that
effectively permitted them to publish images of me forever on any
media including any media yet to be invented. Eventually I signed
rather than hold up the production, realising I wasn't a prominent
part of the video anyway, but I was amazed it was legal to offer a
contract such as this. I was told it was "industry standard".

Not long previously, one of the actors had protested about pictures of
him that had been taken for a specific purpose subsequently being used
to advertise something to which he was ethically opposed, but he had
no power to prevent it because of some clause in whatever he had
signed to get the gig. I suppose it had been "optional" in the sense
that he would have had the "option" of refusing to sign until the
contract had been altered to his satisfaction, but as we all know the
reality of this would be nothing of the sort. The only way to save
people from the effects of iniquitous contract clauses like this would
be to make it illegal for companies to offer them in the first place.

Rod.

[Bill Wright]

Very interesting.

Bill

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <7cb0f41c-ceeb-1787...@hotmail.com>, Robin

<rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/01/2018 12:28, Jim Lesurf wrote: <snip>
> >
> > For books (particularly fiction) they line of would-be-authors is
> > miles long. So book fiction publishers can be picky if they fancy
> > because they'll say they are taking a risk. You can ask, but refusal
> > often offends. :-)

> It's neither new nor surprising that there's a long queue of budding
> authors. (Just as there are footballers, models, actors etc.) What is
> relatively new is the extent to which authors have legal protection. As
> reflected in the PA code of practice.

That plays a game with the phrase "have legal protection". The default
level provided by law hasn't really changed. The item you reference
indicates what authors should expect or ask for - not invariably what they
*must be offerred*, by law, for a contract to be legal.

> >
> >> https://www.writersandartists.co.uk/writers/advice/162/after-publication/rights-and-legal-advice/publishing-agreements
> >
> > Note, BTW how that heavily relies on the situation for a *book* and
> > what you should aim to get. In reality, YMMV, especially when writing
> > magazine articles of parts of publications. And if you write an item
> > on growing roses for a gardening mag you probably don't have the
> > option of trying it on a steam railway magazine if the gardening mag
> > didn't offer the rights or payment you wanted. 8-]

> That result seems to me no different in kind from anyone in any area of
> endeavour who specialises in a product for which there are very few
> buyers.

Agreed. Except that of, course, if I make and sell widgets, I can sell them
one at a time as I make them and find clients. However a publisher may
choose to stop selling copies leaving me with no alternative if they bought
all rights and I felt I had to accept that. Some people may feel that have
to accept such a deal, and do. To blame them is to blame the victim.

> But if you think there's a serious market failure you could
> lobby for a statutory regulator who sets the price - although I think
> probably only after the transitional Brexit deal.

A regulator would be an irrelevance unless the legal rules were changed
anyway.

> >> And the same is true of music where contracts can provide for rights
> >> to reverse automatically if the agreement is not honoured - eg
> >> royalties not handed over.
> >
> > That isn't the same as above because it would be a breach of contract.
> >

> A publishing agreement for written work is just as much a contract as
> those for music, video etc.

You still haven't noticed that a *breach* of contract is a different issue
to having a poor contract. That's a odd/puzzlng blind spot given some of
your comments implying your background in this area.