Unable to view recordings from Sky-owned channels with no subscription

[muppetman11]

Why not enlighten us with your views on whether its right or wrong and why ? So far you've just said my analogy was wrong .

Enlighten? Hardly ...

I think in this case I can sort of see Sky's point. You could conceivably subscribe for a month and then, TiVo being what it is, record absolutely everything of interest, then unsubscribe and spend the next six months watching it.

It's borderline, really. In strict copyright terms I expect the letter of the law is on their side, but on the other hand the broadcasters have never in the last 30 years made any serious attempt to stop people home taping stuff and keeping it so it's an extreme position for Sky to be taking now.

I'm assuming the Tivo is lacking the archive-to-DVD function of other PVRs, otherwise this wouldn't be an issue?

[Digital Fanatic]

I think Sky are just looking for the rules on this to be the same as their own platform and as Chris says, someone with TiVo could affectively record shed loads in a month or two and have enough movies etc for many months viewings.

[bamav]

And so what's wrong with recording and watching later? Isn't that the very principal of PVR? What Sky are basically saying is "Record as much as you want, but watch it within a month (min term for subscribing to movies, for example). That's just not right morally or in principal!

The only argument I can see from Sky's point of view, is to simply try and make money and peave people off. There are no copyright, broadcast laws governing this anywhere. If there were, VM, BT, Freeview and FreeSat would all need to adhere to the same laws.

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by bamav

And so what's wrong with recording and watching later? Isn't that the very principal of PVR? What Sky are basically saying is "Record as much as you want, but watch it within a month (min term for subscribing to movies, for example). That's just not right morally or in principal!

The only argument I can see from Sky's point of view, is to simply try and make money and peave people off. There are no copyright, broadcast laws governing this anywhere. If there were, VM, BT, Freeview and FreeSat would all need to adhere to the same laws.

indeed, it's purely for financial reasons, but they (Sky) are a business

[bamav]

Agreed, but good business ethics are still utlisised by many large money making companies! Just because you want to please your shareholders, doesn't mean you should be upsetting the customers, without whom shareholders wouldn't exist. We all know customers will always exist with or without shareholders.

[Digital Fanatic]

Originally Posted by bamav

Agreed, but good business ethics are still utlisised by many large money making companies! Just because you want to please your shareholders, doesn't mean you should be upsetting the customers, without whom shareholders wouldn't exist. We all know customers will always exist with or without shareholders.

Very true.