On 27/09/2021 18:10, John Hall wrote:
> In message <xn0n3dno6f1q65s01d@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
> <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> On 27/09/2021 in message <5972766ec1bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> Bob
>> Latham wrote:
>>
>>> In article <siqkbg$ia2$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>   MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just look on any extreme Right wing forum / website, they seem to
>>>> spend most of their time moaning about the BBC and the TV Licence.
>>>
>>> Interesting. I must live a very sheltered life because the most right
>>> wing thing I know of is UKIP. I'm told they went bad some years ago
>>> but right now they seem fine. Are they extreme Right wing or am I
>>> missing something?
>>
>> Perhaps you should ask Angela Rayner :-)

> I see among her claims is that Boris Johnson is racist. I wonder how she
> accounts for four of the most important Cabinet pasts now being filled
> by people with an Asian background.

I think they're the wrong kind of wogs.

--
Max Demian

"JNugent" <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:ircatbFec68U1@mid.individual.net...
> On 26/09/2021 10:09 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> On 26/09/2021 in message <DF+oBmEXfNUhFwvD@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk> John
>> Hall wrote:
>>
>>> In message <xn0n3cnkie5xgtc019@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
>>> <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>>
>>>> I was pointed to a TV adaptation of Asimov's Foundation series on Apple
>>>> TV and it started me thinking about how to watch a broader range of TV
>>>> without paying the BBC tax or Sky tax.
>>>>
>>>> Is there a Usenet group or Forum of some sort dedicated to how to do
>>>> this legally? I'm after avoidance not evasion to use HMRC terminology!
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Presumably you also wouldn't want to pay the Apple TV+ tax? Otherwise I
>>> believe you could watch it on your PC.
>>>
>>> I think I'll wait for the reviews and, if they are decent, buy the DVD
>>> box set(s) when they come out.
>>
>> I'm happy to pay for what I use Apple, Netflix, whatever - as I said I'm
>> not trying to evade payment but I haven't watched live TV for so long I
>> can't remember what I last watched. I do use Sky on demand and box sets
>> so would need a substitute for that.
>
> An Amazon Firestick can provide you with Amazon Prime, Netflix, AppleTV
> and your Sky box-sets (via Now TV), or any combination thereof. This
> without anyone being able to accuse you of receiving material via
> terrestrial or satellite broadcast.
>
> Of course, the above would all have to be paid for via subscriptions, but
> there are plenty of free streaming services

ones that show anything worth watching?

I don't think so

> (of mainly archive material) as well as Youtube, which is a lot better
> than it used to be.

but much of what you can watch on YouTube is copyright infringing

that YouTube somehow manage to "get away with it" doesn't make it otherwise

"Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0n3dxadfes42x01g@news.individual.net...
> On 27/09/2021 in message <ms43lgd3a6fvcnhot164gs8jlgjnja33nj@4ax.com>
> Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>>I don't know about any forums, but there's a Youtube contributor
>>called "chillijoncarne" (perhaps his school nickname?) who routinely
>>explains all this and reassures people who have been frightened by
>>receiving the BBC's threatening letters or perhaps a doorstep visit
>>from one of their enforcement goons.
>
> Many thanks Roderick, that is very helpful.
>
> I think I will set a target of Freesat, Freeview and a streaming box then
> I can drop my £57 Sky subscription and just suck up the BBC tax.

I only have Freeview and have so much TV to watch that I just can't keep up

Of course, I have to eschew water-cooler discussions about whatever is the
latest Netflix fav of the month (not that I have a water cooler to stand
around having discussions about anything) . But with a very few exceptions,
none of those shows appeal to me anyway, so I still wouldn't be watching.
Though there is a list of classic films that I would like to watch at
leisure, rather than having to wait 15 years until they appear randomly on a
FV channel.

But apart from that I certainly don't need to spend money with Sky for a
marginal increase in my viewing options

On 05/10/2021 17:10, tim... wrote:
> "JNugent" <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:ircatbFec68U1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 26/09/2021 10:09 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 26/09/2021 in message <DF+oBmEXfNUhFwvD@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk> John
>>> Hall wrote:
>>>> In message <xn0n3cnkie5xgtc019@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
>>>> <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>>>
>>>>> I was pointed to a TV adaptation of Asimov's Foundation series on
>>>>> Apple TV and it started me thinking about how to watch a broader
>>>>> range of TV without paying the BBC tax or Sky tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a Usenet group or Forum of some sort dedicated to how to
>>>>> do this legally? I'm after avoidance not evasion to use HMRC
>>>>> terminology!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Presumably you also wouldn't want to pay the Apple TV+ tax?
>>>> Otherwise I believe you could watch it on your PC.
>>>>
>>>> I think I'll wait for the reviews and, if they are decent, buy the
>>>> DVD box set(s) when they come out.
>>>
>>> I'm happy to pay for what I use Apple, Netflix, whatever - as I said
>>> I'm not trying to evade payment but I haven't watched live TV for so
>>> long I can't remember what I last watched. I do use Sky on demand and
>>> box sets so would need a substitute for that.
>>
>> An Amazon Firestick can provide you with Amazon Prime, Netflix,
>> AppleTV and your Sky box-sets (via Now TV), or any combination
>> thereof. This without anyone being able to accuse you of receiving
>> material via terrestrial or satellite broadcast.
>>
>> Of course, the above would all have to be paid for via subscriptions,
>> but there are plenty of free streaming services
>
> ones that show anything worth watching?
>
> I don't think so
>
>> (of mainly archive material) as well as Youtube, which is a lot better
>> than it used to be.
>
> but much of what you can watch on YouTube is copyright infringing
>
> that YouTube somehow manage to "get away with it" doesn't make it otherwise

Advertising revenue from copyright material goes to the copyright
holder, not the YouTube account holder (unless they are the same, of
course).

--
Max Demian

On 05/10/2021 05:10 pm, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "JNugent" <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:ircatbFec68U1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 26/09/2021 10:09 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>> On 26/09/2021 in message <DF+oBmEXfNUhFwvD@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk> John
>>> Hall wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <xn0n3cnkie5xgtc019@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
>>>> <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>>>
>>>>> I was pointed to a TV adaptation of Asimov's Foundation series on
>>>>> Apple TV and it started me thinking about how to watch a broader
>>>>> range of TV without paying the BBC tax or Sky tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a Usenet group or Forum of some sort dedicated to how to
>>>>> do this legally? I'm after avoidance not evasion to use HMRC
>>>>> terminology!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Presumably you also wouldn't want to pay the Apple TV+ tax?
>>>> Otherwise I believe you could watch it on your PC.
>>>>
>>>> I think I'll wait for the reviews and, if they are decent, buy the
>>>> DVD box set(s) when they come out.
>>>
>>> I'm happy to pay for what I use Apple, Netflix, whatever - as I said
>>> I'm not trying to evade payment but I haven't watched live TV for so
>>> long I can't remember what I last watched. I do use Sky on demand and
>>> box sets so would need a substitute for that.
>>
>> An Amazon Firestick can provide you with Amazon Prime, Netflix,
>> AppleTV and your Sky box-sets (via Now TV), or any combination
>> thereof. This without anyone being able to accuse you of receiving
>> material via terrestrial or satellite broadcast.
>>
>> Of course, the above would all have to be paid for via subscriptions,
>> but there are plenty of free streaming services
>
> ones that show anything worth watching?
>
> I don't think so

That's always going to be a value-judgment.

>> (of mainly archive material) as well as Youtube, which is a lot better
>> than it used to be.

> but much of what you can watch on YouTube is copyright infringing

> that YouTube somehow manage to "get away with it" doesn't make it otherwise

There is much non-infringing original material on YT.

"tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sjhtdn$21v$1@dont-email.me...
> but much of what you can watch on YouTube is copyright infringing
>
> that YouTube somehow manage to "get away with it" doesn't make it
> otherwise

My feeling is that the best way to stop people infringing copyright is to
make that copyrighted material (eg old TV programmes from the archives)
available for purchase, at a sensible non-rip-off price paying royalties to
the performers, rather than locking it up in archive vaults never to be seen
again. That just encourages bootleg copies and hence no royalties.

On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 17:20:43 +0100
"tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:xn0n3dxadfes42x01g@news.individual.net...
> > On 27/09/2021 in message
> > <ms43lgd3a6fvcnhot164gs8jlgjnja33nj@4ax.com> Roderick Stewart wrote:
> >
> >>I don't know about any forums, but there's a Youtube contributor
> >>called "chillijoncarne" (perhaps his school nickname?) who routinely
> >>explains all this and reassures people who have been frightened by
> >>receiving the BBC's threatening letters or perhaps a doorstep visit
> >>from one of their enforcement goons.
> >
> > Many thanks Roderick, that is very helpful.
> >
> > I think I will set a target of Freesat, Freeview and a streaming
> > box then I can drop my £57 Sky subscription and just suck up the
> > BBC tax.
>
> I only have Freeview and have so much TV to watch that I just can't
> keep up
>
> Of course, I have to eschew water-cooler discussions about whatever
> is the latest Netflix fav of the month (not that I have a water
> cooler to stand around having discussions about anything) . But with
> a very few exceptions, none of those shows appeal to me anyway, so I
> still wouldn't be watching. Though there is a list of classic films
> that I would like to watch at leisure, rather than having to wait 15
> years until they appear randomly on a FV channel.
>
> But apart from that I certainly don't need to spend money with Sky
> for a marginal increase in my viewing options
>
>
>

Hear, hear!
--
Davey.

On 05/10/2021 17:20, tim... wrote:
> I only have Freeview and have so much TV to watch that I just can't keep up

Ditto and it is only Freeview Lite here. I do have a BT Youview box but
tend most of the time to watch BBC and only old BBC programmes on
Youview! I can't remember the last time I watched STV or CH4, must be a
few weeks.

I had a look to see what Netfix had a few years ago though it is
difficult with streaming services. I did not see much to interest me, I
cannot stand the American or American style "soap operas" even if many
are very glossy and some people rave about them.

On 06/10/2021 in message <sjjjrm$pvv$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:

>I had a look to see what Netfix had a few years ago though it is difficult
>with streaming services.

That's an issue for me with my Roku box, I feel I need to know what I want
to watch to be able to find it, bit like a dictionary, if you don't know
how to spell a word you ain't gonna find it in a dictionary.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
I've been through the desert on a horse with no name.
It was a right bugger to get him back when he ran off.

"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:sjhugp$1912$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 05/10/2021 17:10, tim... wrote:
>> "JNugent" <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>> news:ircatbFec68U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 26/09/2021 10:09 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>> On 26/09/2021 in message <DF+oBmEXfNUhFwvD@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk> John
>>>> Hall wrote:
>>>>> In message <xn0n3cnkie5xgtc019@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
>>>>> <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was pointed to a TV adaptation of Asimov's Foundation series on
>>>>>> Apple TV and it started me thinking about how to watch a broader
>>>>>> range of TV without paying the BBC tax or Sky tax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a Usenet group or Forum of some sort dedicated to how to do
>>>>>> this legally? I'm after avoidance not evasion to use HMRC
>>>>>> terminology!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Presumably you also wouldn't want to pay the Apple TV+ tax? Otherwise
>>>>> I believe you could watch it on your PC.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I'll wait for the reviews and, if they are decent, buy the DVD
>>>>> box set(s) when they come out.
>>>>
>>>> I'm happy to pay for what I use Apple, Netflix, whatever - as I said
>>>> I'm not trying to evade payment but I haven't watched live TV for so
>>>> long I can't remember what I last watched. I do use Sky on demand and
>>>> box sets so would need a substitute for that.
>>>
>>> An Amazon Firestick can provide you with Amazon Prime, Netflix, AppleTV
>>> and your Sky box-sets (via Now TV), or any combination thereof. This
>>> without anyone being able to accuse you of receiving material via
>>> terrestrial or satellite broadcast.
>>>
>>> Of course, the above would all have to be paid for via subscriptions,
>>> but there are plenty of free streaming services
>>
>> ones that show anything worth watching?
>>
>> I don't think so
>>
>>> (of mainly archive material) as well as Youtube, which is a lot better
>>> than it used to be.
>>
>> but much of what you can watch on YouTube is copyright infringing
>>
>> that YouTube somehow manage to "get away with it" doesn't make it
>> otherwise
>
> Advertising revenue from copyright material goes to the copyright holder,
> not the YouTube account holder (unless they are the same, of course).

Really?

How does that work then

If Joe Soap records from his "box" onto external media, the UKTV-Gold
broadcast of OFAH, strips out the broadcast adverts and then posts it onto
YT, with the "Gold" DOG still in vision, [1] how does anybody know to give
the BBC the revenue?

And even if they did, why should the BBC be compelled to accept the
contractual paltry returns that YT probably pay compared with the "real"
resale value of this program, because Joe Soap posted it?

[1] Yes there really are such postings on YT.

"JNugent" <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:is3q1aFtpg5U9@mid.individual.net...
> On 05/10/2021 05:10 pm, tim... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "JNugent" <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>> news:ircatbFec68U1@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 26/09/2021 10:09 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>> On 26/09/2021 in message <DF+oBmEXfNUhFwvD@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk> John
>>>> Hall wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <xn0n3cnkie5xgtc019@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
>>>>> <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was pointed to a TV adaptation of Asimov's Foundation series on
>>>>>> Apple TV and it started me thinking about how to watch a broader
>>>>>> range of TV without paying the BBC tax or Sky tax.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there a Usenet group or Forum of some sort dedicated to how to do
>>>>>> this legally? I'm after avoidance not evasion to use HMRC
>>>>>> terminology!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Presumably you also wouldn't want to pay the Apple TV+ tax? Otherwise
>>>>> I believe you could watch it on your PC.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I'll wait for the reviews and, if they are decent, buy the DVD
>>>>> box set(s) when they come out.
>>>>
>>>> I'm happy to pay for what I use Apple, Netflix, whatever - as I said
>>>> I'm not trying to evade payment but I haven't watched live TV for so
>>>> long I can't remember what I last watched. I do use Sky on demand and
>>>> box sets so would need a substitute for that.
>>>
>>> An Amazon Firestick can provide you with Amazon Prime, Netflix, AppleTV
>>> and your Sky box-sets (via Now TV), or any combination thereof. This
>>> without anyone being able to accuse you of receiving material via
>>> terrestrial or satellite broadcast.
>>>
>>> Of course, the above would all have to be paid for via subscriptions,
>>> but there are plenty of free streaming services
>>
>> ones that show anything worth watching?
>>
>> I don't think so
>
> That's always going to be a value-judgment.
>
>>> (of mainly archive material) as well as Youtube, which is a lot better
>>> than it used to be.
>
>> but much of what you can watch on YouTube is copyright infringing
>
>> that YouTube somehow manage to "get away with it" doesn't make it
>> otherwise
>
> There is much non-infringing original material on YT.

only because the forest of crap is so large

In article <sjidrj$v8c$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sjhtdn$21v$1@dont-email.me...
> > but much of what you can watch on YouTube is copyright infringing
> >
> > that YouTube somehow manage to "get away with it" doesn't make it
> > otherwise

> My feeling is that the best way to stop people infringing copyright is
> to make that copyrighted material (eg old TV programmes from the
> archives) available for purchase, at a sensible non-rip-off price
> paying royalties to the performers, rather than locking it up in
> archive vaults never to be seen again. That just encourages bootleg
> copies and hence no royalties.

I'd agree. Media owners/companies should be faced with a "Use it or lose
it" deadline for making old material re-available. There are many old
programmes, etc, which seem to never get rebroadcast but which would be of
interest.

e.g. IIRC Channel 4 did a set of docu-dramas on 'Station X' some decades
ago when some info had become public, interviewing some ex-staff. It hasn't
appeared again on TV and I've never seen any commercial DVDs. Yet some of
it - in very poor copies presumably from home VHS - was on yt.

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

On 06/10/2021 10:45, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> I'd agree. Media owners/companies should be faced with a "Use it or lose
> it" deadline for making old material re-available. There are many old
> programmes, etc, which seem to never get rebroadcast but which would be of
> interes

I take it you would be prepared to pay the full cost of restoration and
preparing for release.

It might mean there is less chance of compilation DVDs of old episodes
being released.

On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 00:17:44 +0100, Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 17:20:43 +0100
>"tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jeff Gaines" <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:xn0n3dxadfes42x01g@news.individual.net...
>> > On 27/09/2021 in message
>> > <ms43lgd3a6fvcnhot164gs8jlgjnja33nj@4ax.com> Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> >
>> >>I don't know about any forums, but there's a Youtube contributor
>> >>called "chillijoncarne" (perhaps his school nickname?) who routinely
>> >>explains all this and reassures people who have been frightened by
>> >>receiving the BBC's threatening letters or perhaps a doorstep visit
>> >>from one of their enforcement goons.
>> >
>> > Many thanks Roderick, that is very helpful.
>> >
>> > I think I will set a target of Freesat, Freeview and a streaming
>> > box then I can drop my £57 Sky subscription and just suck up the
>> > BBC tax.
>>
>> I only have Freeview and have so much TV to watch that I just can't
>> keep up
>>
>> Of course, I have to eschew water-cooler discussions about whatever
>> is the latest Netflix fav of the month (not that I have a water
>> cooler to stand around having discussions about anything) . But with
>> a very few exceptions, none of those shows appeal to me anyway, so I
>> still wouldn't be watching. Though there is a list of classic films
>> that I would like to watch at leisure, rather than having to wait 15
>> years until they appear randomly on a FV channel.
>>
>> But apart from that I certainly don't need to spend money with Sky
>> for a marginal increase in my viewing options
>>
>>
>>
>
>Hear, hear!

Hear Hear here too!
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On 06/10/2021 10:45 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <sjidrj$v8c$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "tim..." <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:sjhtdn$21v$1@dont-email.me...
>>> but much of what you can watch on YouTube is copyright infringing
>>>
>>> that YouTube somehow manage to "get away with it" doesn't make it
>>> otherwise
>
>> My feeling is that the best way to stop people infringing copyright is
>> to make that copyrighted material (eg old TV programmes from the
>> archives) available for purchase, at a sensible non-rip-off price
>> paying royalties to the performers, rather than locking it up in
>> archive vaults never to be seen again. That just encourages bootleg
>> copies and hence no royalties.
>
> I'd agree. Media owners/companies should be faced with a "Use it or lose
> it" deadline for making old material re-available. There are many old
> programmes, etc, which seem to never get rebroadcast but which would be of
> interest.

Anyone interested in broadcasting or acquiring a copy of it would still
need to persuade the rights owner to make it available from their archive.

How would that be achieved?

> e.g. IIRC Channel 4 did a set of docu-dramas on 'Station X' some decades
> ago when some info had become public, interviewing some ex-staff. It hasn't
> appeared again on TV and I've never seen any commercial DVDs. Yet some of
> it - in very poor copies presumably from home VHS - was on yt.
>
> Jim
>

On 07/10/2021 08:01 am, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "JNugent" <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:is3q1aFtpg5U9@mid.individual.net...
>> On 05/10/2021 05:10 pm, tim... wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "JNugent" <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>> news:ircatbFec68U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 26/09/2021 10:09 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>> On 26/09/2021 in message <DF+oBmEXfNUhFwvD@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>
>>>>> John Hall wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In message <xn0n3cnkie5xgtc019@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
>>>>>> <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was pointed to a TV adaptation of Asimov's Foundation series on
>>>>>>> Apple TV and it started me thinking about how to watch a broader
>>>>>>> range of TV without paying the BBC tax or Sky tax.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there a Usenet group or Forum of some sort dedicated to how to
>>>>>>> do this legally? I'm after avoidance not evasion to use HMRC
>>>>>>> terminology!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Presumably you also wouldn't want to pay the Apple TV+ tax?
>>>>>> Otherwise I believe you could watch it on your PC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I'll wait for the reviews and, if they are decent, buy the
>>>>>> DVD box set(s) when they come out.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm happy to pay for what I use Apple, Netflix, whatever - as I
>>>>> said I'm not trying to evade payment but I haven't watched live TV
>>>>> for so long I can't remember what I last watched. I do use Sky on
>>>>> demand and box sets so would need a substitute for that.
>>>>
>>>> An Amazon Firestick can provide you with Amazon Prime, Netflix,
>>>> AppleTV and your Sky box-sets (via Now TV), or any combination
>>>> thereof. This without anyone being able to accuse you of receiving
>>>> material via terrestrial or satellite broadcast.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, the above would all have to be paid for via
>>>> subscriptions, but there are plenty of free streaming services
>>>
>>> ones that show anything worth watching?
>>>
>>> I don't think so
>>
>> That's always going to be a value-judgment.

I should have added: ITV Hub, All4 and My5.

All free (no BBC tax) if streamed via Youview or Fire Stick.

>>>> (of mainly archive material) as well as Youtube, which is a lot
>>>> better than it used to be.
>
>>> but much of what you can watch on YouTube is copyright infringing
>
>>> that YouTube somehow manage to "get away with it" doesn't make it
>>> otherwise
>
>> There is much non-infringing original material on YT.
>
> only because the forest of crap is so large

In article <isb3njFbn4sU4@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > I'd agree. Media owners/companies should be faced with a "Use it or
> > lose it" deadline for making old material re-available. There are many
> > old programmes, etc, which seem to never get rebroadcast but which
> > would be of interest.

> Anyone interested in broadcasting or acquiring a copy of it would still
> need to persuade the rights owner to make it available from their
> archive.

> How would that be achieved?

By legal requirement. Not 'persuasion'. In effect, it shortens their
copyright period if they fail to make and sell copies for longer than a
given set time. The law would presumably - as now - specify various details
to exclude some game-playing like selling one copy to the office cat as a
way to 'republish'.

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

On 09/10/2021 10:38 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> JNugent <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:

[in response to:]

>>> I'd agree. Media owners/companies should be faced with a "Use it or
>>> lose it" deadline for making old material re-available. There are many
>>> old programmes, etc, which seem to never get rebroadcast but which
>>> would be of interest.

[and:]
>> Anyone interested in broadcasting or acquiring a copy of it would still
>> need to persuade the rights owner to make it available from their
>> archive.
>
>> How would that be achieved?
>
> By legal requirement. Not 'persuasion'. In effect, it shortens their
> copyright period if they fail to make and sell copies for longer than a
> given set time. The law would presumably - as now - specify various details
> to exclude some game-playing like selling one copy to the office cat as a
> way to 'republish'.

Likely to be enough of a priority for government (even if persuaded that
it would be desirable), would you say?

"Jim Lesurf" <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5978a41f02noise@audiomisc.co.uk...
> In article <isb3njFbn4sU4@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> > I'd agree. Media owners/companies should be faced with a "Use it or
>> > lose it" deadline for making old material re-available. There are many
>> > old programmes, etc, which seem to never get rebroadcast but which
>> > would be of interest.
>
>> Anyone interested in broadcasting or acquiring a copy of it would still
>> need to persuade the rights owner to make it available from their
>> archive.
>
>> How would that be achieved?
>
> By legal requirement. Not 'persuasion'. In effect, it shortens their
> copyright period if they fail to make and sell copies for longer than a
> given set time. The law would presumably - as now - specify various
> details
> to exclude some game-playing like selling one copy to the office cat as a
> way to 'republish'.

Also, even if not everyone pays a royalty charge for the re-showing of the
programme, and it is left to honesty, *any* royalty return, how ever small,
is better than the present situation where a locked-in-the-archives
programme generates *no* royalties at all. It need not always involve the
master tape being retrieved, digitised, mastered as VOB files and duplicated
onto DVD. It could even allow for the legal release on Youtube of an amateur
copy that someone has on VHS, which does not incur any cost by the
broadcaster.

I like the idea of that "use it or lose it" concept. I see copyright as a
tit-for-tat: you get royalties for n years in exchange for committing to
make and sell copies available to anyone who wants them for that period -
have once published something, you cannot then "unpublish" it by not
releasing any more copies. After the initial print run(s) or the initial
showings on TV, it could revert to a lower-budget solution such as selling
the text as a TXT file or the programme as a downloadable MPG.

I'd also like to see copyright dated from date of first publication, not
from date of death, so all works (whether written at the beginning or end of
an author's life) have the same copyright period. At present, works written
early in an author's life get a longer copyright period (75 years after
death plus several decade of his life) whereas works written later in his
life get a shorter period (75 years after death plus the last few years of
his life).

In article <sjnb2f$mu1$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 06/10/2021 10:45, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > I'd agree. Media owners/companies should be faced with a "Use it or
> > lose it" deadline for making old material re-available. There are many
> > old programmes, etc, which seem to never get rebroadcast but which
> > would be of interes

> I take it you would be prepared to pay the full cost of restoration and
> preparing for release.

Depends what you mean. If the orginal company still had a 'monopoly' on
access to source material and could charge whatever sum they fancied, no.

But if others had to be allowed access to do it, and then sell it, then
perhaps yes. No different really to allowing a change of publishers or when
material goes out of copyright now - except for the insanely long delay
before it can happen.

And the costs then could be spread across the number bought, allowing a
potential profit if they can see a fair number. i.e. much like when the
original IPR owner releases a later version now. The main effect is that
they would no longer be able to keep it vaulted, denying access, and losing
possible income and reputation for those who wrote/performed/etc in the
first place.

> It might mean there is less chance of compilation DVDs of old episodes
> being released.

Actually, it would mean competing versions could be released, on DVD or by
other means, as people preferred. And if the original rights-holders
released a version people could buy then that could let them avoid the
'early' loss of copyright. We'd need the law to specify some requiements to
avoid one copy being issued and hidded or asking insane prices. Matter of
arranging details - as is usual for copyright now.

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

On 09/10/2021 10:34, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> Actually, it would mean competing versions could be released, on DVD or by
> other means, as people preferred. And if the original rights-holders
> released a version people could buy then that could let them avoid the
> 'early' loss of copyright. We'd need the law to specify some requiements to
> avoid one copy being issued and hidded or asking insane prices. Matter of
> arranging details - as is usual for copyright now.

So you want to effectively nationalise recorded TV programmes?

I can see an argument to nationalise essential service but I hardly
think an episode of some old soap opera is an essential service. Though
it is probably the nerds who watch old Science Fiction who will want old
episodes.

Who is going to pay, there are likely to be very few wanting many of
these old programmes so unlikely to cover the costs but if it is going
to be a legal requirement to make them available they will have to see
at very high costs and will want payment in advance,

On 09/10/2021 10:34, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <sjnb2f$mu1$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 06/10/2021 10:45, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> I'd agree. Media owners/companies should be faced with a "Use it or
>>> lose it" deadline for making old material re-available. There are many
>>> old programmes, etc, which seem to never get rebroadcast but which
>>> would be of interes
>
>> I take it you would be prepared to pay the full cost of restoration and
>> preparing for release.
>
> Depends what you mean. If the orginal company still had a 'monopoly' on
> access to source material and could charge whatever sum they fancied, no.
>
> But if others had to be allowed access to do it, and then sell it, then
> perhaps yes. No different really to allowing a change of publishers or when
> material goes out of copyright now - except for the insanely long delay
> before it can happen.
>
> And the costs then could be spread across the number bought, allowing a
> potential profit if they can see a fair number. i.e. much like when the
> original IPR owner releases a later version now. The main effect is that
> they would no longer be able to keep it vaulted, denying access, and losing
> possible income and reputation for those who wrote/performed/etc in the
> first place.
>
>> It might mean there is less chance of compilation DVDs of old episodes
>> being released.
>
> Actually, it would mean competing versions could be released, on DVD or by
> other means, as people preferred. And if the original rights-holders
> released a version people could buy then that could let them avoid the
> 'early' loss of copyright. We'd need the law to specify some requiements to
> avoid one copy being issued and hidded or asking insane prices. Matter of
> arranging details - as is usual for copyright now.
>

I'd be interested to know how you would envisage the law to give effect
to all this dealing with the rights of others - e.g. actors - to
royalties and other secondary fees.

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

On 11/10/2021 13:50, Robin wrote:
> I'd be interested to know how you would envisage the law to give effect
> to all this dealing with the rights of others - e.g. actors - to
> royalties and other secondary fees.

I get the feeling they are hoping they can do this and somehow get out
of rights payments.

From what you read, a major problem of using old material is tracking
down all the people who have a right to be paid. The people wanting
access are going to have pay for that as well as any other payments
because I can't see why the rest of us should pay.

On 11/10/2021 15:45, MB wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 13:50, Robin wrote:
>> I'd be interested to know how you would envisage the law to give effect
>> to all this dealing with the rights of others - e.g. actors - to
>> royalties and other secondary fees.
>
> I get the feeling they are hoping they can do this and somehow get out
> of rights payments.
>
> From what you read, a major problem of using old material is tracking
> down all the people who have a right to be paid.  The people wanting
> access are going to have pay for that as well as any other payments
> because I can't see why the rest of us should pay.
>
>

Indeed. And those rights are protected by the ECHR (Article 1 of the
1st Protocol) so not so simple as just a bit of statutory confiscation.
Hence my interest in the proposed solution.

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

In article <isg6p0FargjU3@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
<jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > By legal requirement. Not 'persuasion'. In effect, it shortens their
> > copyright period if they fail to make and sell copies for longer than
> > a given set time. The law would presumably - as now - specify various
> > details to exclude some game-playing like selling one copy to the
> > office cat as a way to 'republish'.

> Likely to be enough of a priority for government (even if persuaded that
> it would be desirable), would you say?

Sadly, no. The people who fund the Tories would hate it. But maybe 'right
to repair' is higher up the queue.

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