Found something out tonight which makes me say don't bother backing up your HD to your pc in case of HDR failure.

A while ago my original HDR suffered psu failure, so I got another under warranty. I kept the 1Tb HD I used in the original. After obtaining an External Hard Drive enclosure yesterday, I decided to connect my large drive back to my new HDR with the SATA mod.

Everything works fine. However, it refuses to play back any HD files from the 1TB stating the signal is scrambled. The only possible explanation for this is copy protection - the file was created using 1 HDR and is now being played back on another.

This also probably means those people backing up HD recordings to their pc in case of Hard Drive or general HDR failure are wasting their time as it looks as if HD files saved by 1 HDR onto a hard drive cannot be played back in another even if from a hard drive that is the system hard drive. So if you need a replacement drive due to failure, or Humax have to give you a new box under warranty following hardware failure, you're stuffed.

A good example of how copy protection ruins legitimate users enjoyment / usage.

White-Knight,

Yes, this is known, and I've posted a few times in the "USB HDD Archive" type threads that the encryption key is specific to each HDR, so you can only play back freesat mode recorded BBC HD on that HDR.

As the BBC has relaxed the copy-once facility for the Panasonic Freesat DVD/BR recorders (although these do not play back on ALL players), I would have expected that BBC/Humax would relax their copy once, at some time, to include playback on any HDR, but that is pure speculation.

Backups of an HDD that then dies, and replaced within the same HDR, should still work.

Rgds.


Les.

Hi Les,

I note what you say.

How utterly stupid is it though when you can't back up programmes to protect against equipment failure?

Its time they did away with digital rights management altogether. It doesn't stop piracy anyway - the Blu Ray encryption that was supposed to be unbreakable was broken within a couple of months of release. All digital rights management does is spoil the use and enjoyment of media by legitimate users whilst still allowing pirates to sell their wares.

I stopped buying my MP3's from vendors such as Itunes and Napster a while ago as I got sick of digital rights dictating what I could do, how I could play them, stopping me from making in-car copies, losing them if you uninstall their programme or fail to pay subscriptions etc etc . Now I only use rights free vendors and I'm much better for it. Unfortunately that isn't an option with tv.

White-Knight,

I have to be careful how I phrase this and I know there is very little I can say, except I will say that you have my complete sympathy. I have been in some heated debates recently about the Freeview HD platform as well and I have often campaigned with a viewpoint you would be proud of; but the argument falls against instructions sent down from LA lawyers...

How behind these studio people are.

Bob

Hi White-Knight,

I feel for you on your archived progs, what can I say

@off-topic slightly.

I have 2 daughters and tried to steer them to rights free vendors when they bought their MP3 players. One heeded my advice, and one went with iTunes.

One is now happy and can use these around her home on Personal devices; the other is limited with her collection.

Guess who is happy they took Dad's advice ........?

Rgds.


Les.

Thanks for the reply Bob. I'll phrase it like that because I can appreciate the difficult position you're in and don't want to imply your sympathising.

I know its not Humax's fault, but a Freesat / tv industry problem but a box problem such as mine just goes to how ridiculous it all is.

I could support digital rights management if it genuinely stopped copying but it doesn't. The pirates are usually well funded computer experts who are well able to break the codes which means that piracy still goes on whilst the legitimate users suffer. That will never change. Its time they went back to the older method of targeting distributors and producers and thus taking the pirates out of business directly.

Not very, given it's not legal in the UK to archive programming at all?

Phazer

Not that I would encourage such actions, but I am still amazed that no one seems to have taken the time to crack the content encryption. But I suppose it isn't a trivial thing and the device only has so many users so far compared to other mass consumer devices.

Bob

Like recording them to a VHS tape? Oh please.

Even if it is illegal, that doesn't make it fair or right. I don't mind paying for something, but some corporations are just plain arrogant and greedy and want to impose ridiculous conditions. You may as well write them a blank cheque.

If this had been done I'd have a Humax box now. I'm entirely with White-Knight on this. It (sometimes severely) inconveniences legitimate users and does nothing to stop organised criminal activity. The only ones left happy are the Hollywood lawyers, whilst the industry can officially congratulate itself on securing its property whilst lying awake at night worrying about how ridiculous such a claim is.

Look, I'm all for due return for an investment, but alienating your customer base isn't the way to get it. My own bugbear is I'd like to be able transfer recordings to other storage for later viewing, so that running out of native hard disk space wouldn't be an issue. What's so awful about that? But White-Knight's experience has shown where that ends up.

And US citizens don't have to put up with these restrictions. Why do we? Only because of threats that the content will be cut off. (Nothing to do with copyright law.) If UK and other broadcasters decided to decline their offer I wonder how long the US content providers would stick to their guns.

There has to be a better way.

I don't know anything about Copyright law but I was always under the impression that the European Union ruled a few years ago that it was legal to make back up copies for personal use or copy music for in car use.


I think Bob it simply isn't worth it as there's no money in it (which just shows why its ridiculous having the protection inthe 1st place on tv). After all, why crack Tv encryption when you've already cracked Blu Ray and can make Blu Ray copies with full HD sound and picture straight from a shop bought disc? For the pirates, the ability to knock out full quality discs straight from an original is far more attractive these days I think than copying from tv. The days of shaky hand held cam dvd's / blu rays straight from tv or the cinema are well behind us. Like everyone I know someone who has bought dodgy discs from the internet or street touts and the picture these days on blu Ray copies is often Blu Ray quality. I can't see the sense therefore for the pirates in making copies to sell from tv when tv is lower quality and on FTA tv at least, the films are shown so long after release when most of the demand for discs has already gone.

I wouldn't have thought the incentive to remove the restrictions would be money, for the reasons White-Knight says, but rather would come from disgruntled normal users unhappy with the micropolicing of their use of content they have legitimately acquired. Unfortunately I don't have the expertise so I'm staying away from freesat.

To go back to the archiving point, it seems archiving is not legal but timeshifting is. The difference has afaik never been clarified and will never be tested. Once again, this has nothing to do with copyright law but content providers trying to act as if it did.

Most people haven't got a clue about this yet of course, because HD is still a tiny part of broadcast TV, and most of it is with Sky, where people are used to a closed system. Wait till HD reaches a larger audience who are used to more freedom, and we'll see how indifferent people are then.

Why did iTunes move away from DRM again?

Tbh nothing stays on my HDDs long enough to need backing up. Most things are watched within a couple of days of being recorded and promptly deleted. Anything that languishes any longer than that isn't worth keeping anyway

Then again I only record stuff because I don't watch live TV. I haven't seen anything that merits keeping 'for posterity' for a long time. Being a Sky subscriber means ample opportunity to catch a repeat if I want to anyway

White-Knight,

Those who know better than I tell me: consumers have the legal right to move material around for the purpose of time shifting their viewing, however the long term storage of broadcast material is prohibited by the law.

The view of fair time shifting is considered to be about 7-10 days but I have no facts to back any of that up.

(I am not endorsing this position, just stating the facts as I am informed).

Bob

Thanks Bob, polite and informative as ever, a credit to the Humax name. Now if you can just get your team of firmware writers a couple of crates of redbull....

Yes, thanks Bob_Cat. The obvious question is 'considered by whom', but that's one for interested parties to research. And you gave the best description of this attitude: 'behind'.

I guess most people break the law then.

Personally I can't see what the problem is. The only reason why you're going to stick with a TV broadcast version is because you were never going to buy that film anyway.

I watch most of my films recorded from tv again and again (not saying for how long )but none of them would I ever buy as a DVD or Blu Ray because although they're watcheable, non of them appeal to me to the point of purchase. By contrast, Terminator 2 was on TV the other week. I had the DVD already, I went out and bought the Blu Ray because I wanted it. The fact I could have stuck to the TV version didn't stop me because I wanted the DTS HD sound and the greater quality picture from Blu Ray. Even HD broadcast on TV can't match the real disc due to encoding restrictions over the air.

The time-shifting exception to copyright law (which is what makes using PVRs and VCRs ok) is outlined on the IPO web site:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-o...-timeshift.htm

The actual bit of law is Section 70 of the 1988 Copyright Act; it doesn't mention a specific time frame for keeping recordings, of for time-shifting, and I'm not aware of any case that has clarified that. So, any time frames people do quote on various forums (and I've seen many asserted) are likely to be just guesses.

Really? Wow. I can't think of many films or programmes I want to watch a second time. There's a few that I might be driven to re-watch if I was chronically bored but 'again and again'?

Aside from the boredom factor there's so much new stuff to watch that I don't have time for repeats

Hi - I see above that Savvy reckons copy once has been waived for the Panny PVR/blu-ray.

Is this correct? I understood that it would make one Blu-ray copy, and even that would not play on another machine. Is that right or not?

That's why people buy DVD's I think because some thing's so good they want to see it again. After a while you forget parts and films becomes watcheable again when nothing is on.

What I tend to do is keep films on my box that I like enough to watch but not enough to spend money purchasing. The ones I really like, I purchase on DVD (now Blu Ray) as I want the quality they provide.

Heh, perhaps it's just me then. I buy very few DVDs. I did many years ago but soon realised that I was watching them once and never again.

I understand your comment about forgetting parts but tbh the odd bit here and there wouldn't interest me. I won't forget the basic story and that's the problem. Once I know that I rarely see any point in going through it all again

There are some compatibility problems with bluray discs from the Panny in other makes of bluray player but they play OK in other Panasonic players. This makes the restriction on the hdr to play back of HD only on the stb it was recorded on very unfair. One rule for Panasonic and another for Humax, hardly a freesat level playing field.

Thanks for the pointer and summary Nigel. (I know we've discussed these things before.) But surely this doesn't make VCRs OK since, gasp, you could keep something on a tape for years and watch it again and again without running out of space or being hardware locked? The horror!

So really we have a vague law that's lacking in credibility and is probably unenforceable. But the other thing is that White-Knight, whose habit of retaining videos for longer than the putative maximum period, is also the one who buys quite a lot of DVDs/Blu Rays, while the law-abiding Andrue doesn't buy many. Which person would the industry rather have? It seems to me that paranoia leads 'the studios' to miss the bigger picture, and perhaps even sales opportunities.