recording from teleport

[gazaball]

hi all, quick question is it possible to record a film flex or a teleport replay via a DVD recorder. used to be able to do this on old front row but with the new teleport it seems impossible.????????????

[Stuart]

to CableForum.

If you are trying to record On demand films or PPV events, then they are possibly protected by Macrovision.

IIRC, on Front Row, very little stuff is actually protected by Macrovision. I say IIRC, as I use a Tivo, and Tivo can remove Macrovision protection from anything it records. It replaces the Macrovision protection when you play it back (so although Tivo can record Macrovision content, you can't archive the recording to another device).

[Buffalo2102]

Stuart is correct. The main difference between FilmFlex and Front Row is that only some movies on Front Row were protected. ALL movies on FilmFlex are protected.

Google 'macrovision eliminator' and look what the top result is.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...UK%7CcountryGB

[nicke261192]

can u record filmflex on mce?

[Stuart]

I haven't used MCE, but bearing in mind Microsoft's position on Copyright (they tend to want to protect everything), probably not without some sort of hack.

Also, having said that, the only Video Capture card I have used that could break Macrovision protection cost >£5,000 . However, that was Broadcast quality, and actually broke Macrovision as a by product of how it worked.

Mind you, you could try Chris' suggestion above. Should work.

[Buffalo2102]

Not wishing to be a prude but we're getting a bit close to promoting/encouraging piracy here aren't we?

[Graham M]

Hmmm is Dixons selling DVD/Video recorders promoting/encouraging piracy then?

Besides, relax, if the mods are happy with the line of conversation then there's no problem.

Originally Posted by Buffalo2102

Not wishing to be a prude but we're getting a bit close to promoting/encouraging piracy here aren't we?

Home recording of programmes you legally receive as a broadcast, for later personal use, is a long-established custom in the UK - so long established, that even though it is technically not covered by our copyright law, I believe it is essentially unchallengeable in court. Custom is as powerful as statute in English law.

Broadcasting Macrovision signals along with a broadcast may be an attempt to enforce the letter of the law but in my opinion that particular horse bolted many years ago and I don't think anybody could be successfully prosecuted for it. Copyright is copyright. You can't pick and choose what you want to enforce. The studios and broadcasters have been choosing not to enforce for the best part of 30 years now.

To complicate matters slightly, there is a European law that forbids sale of any kit whose design and purpose is to circumvent copyright. One of the broadcasters threatened Maplins a couple of years ago because they were selling Macrovision removers - even though, if you are a home cinema enthusiast, the primary reason you want a Macrovision remover is because Macrovision mucks up the picture on large displays, especially if there's a SCART splitter in your set-up. Maplin apparently backed down to avoid a costly court battle, not because they believed they were doing anything illegal.

In point of fact, I don't think Maplin were doing anything illegal. IMO, any attempt to prosecute someone using a Macrovision remover at home would fail on two points:

1. The copyright protecting a macrovision-protected broadcast is exactly the same as the copyright that protects a non-macrovision broadcast. If you want to prosecute one, you have to prosecute the lot. No court in the UK is going to be prepared to criminalise every man, woman and granny for taping a programme to watch later.

2. The European law that prompted Maplin to stop selling Macrovision removers was framed to prevent deliberate circumvention of copyright. Yet despite the above, the primary purpose of such a device is to improve picture quality, not to circuimvent copyright. So no go for a prosecution there either.

The defence rests, m'lud.

[Buffalo2102]

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with you. I was just a little surprised to see two senior forum members openly encouraging what is usually considered as piracy. There are other (lesser, obviously) forums that would have locked the thread at the mere mention of defeating macrovision.

I am aware of the video (and sometimes audio) problems that macrovision can cause even to legitimate viewers of live broadcasts.

Whilst I don't really disagree with your points in general, I can say that Filmflex, who run the Teleport service in question, are the people who have the contracts with the film studios and I am sure that it must be a condition of their contracts that all movies have macrovision applied. So they certainly haven't given up on macrovision, even if they have given up on enforcing the law behind it. My only fear about defeating macrovision would be that certain unscrupulous people could (and do) use it for purposes other than their own personal use. It's these people that drive up the prices and could potentially ruin what is an excellent and innovative service for the rest of us.

That's the only problem with general discussions like these on an open forum but then in this case the information is widely available elsewhere anyway.

Anyway, I'm rambling now so I'll get my coat.....

Originally Posted by Buffalo2102

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with you. I was just a little surprised to see two senior forum members openly encouraging what is usually considered as piracy. There are other (lesser, obviously) forums that would have locked the thread at the mere mention of defeating macrovision.

I am aware of the video (and sometimes audio) problems that macrovision can cause even to legitimate viewers of live broadcasts.

Whilst I don't really disagree with your points in general, I can say that Filmflex, who run the Teleport service in question, are the people who have the contracts with the film studios and I am sure that it must be a condition of their contracts that all movies have macrovision applied. So they certainly haven't given up on macrovision, even if they have given up on enforcing the law behind it. My only fear about defeating macrovision would be that certain unscrupulous people could (and do) use it for purposes other than their own personal use. It's these people that drive up the prices and could potentially ruin what is an excellent and innovative service for the rest of us.

That's the only problem with general discussions like these on an open forum but then in this case the information is widely available elsewhere anyway.

Anyway, I'm rambling now so I'll get my coat.....

As Zeph said, you could use the same argument for banning DVD recorders, or even camcorders, which are usually what's used for copying newly released films to put on pirate DVDs.

I think there is a big difference between discussing ways to record stuff you watch on the telly - which all of us have been doing for decades - and ways to download warez using BitTorrent. In the latter case, you are receiving something that has been illegally distributed. There is no convention or custom to allow that and we do routinely shut down threads that start down that avenue.

Don't get your coat ... it's more fun in here.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Buffalo2102

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with you. I was just a little surprised to see two senior forum members openly encouraging what is usually considered as piracy. There are other (lesser, obviously) forums that would have locked the thread at the mere mention of defeating macrovision.

I am aware of the video (and sometimes audio) problems that macrovision can cause even to legitimate viewers of live broadcasts.

AFAIK, the law actually does allow what it calls Time shifted recordings of programs to be kept for up to 28 days. If the OP was to keep the recording for more than that, or give it to someone else, then he would be breaking copyright.

Originally Posted by Stuart C

AFAIK, the law actually does allow what it calls Time shifted recordings of programs to be kept for up to 28 days. If the OP was to keep the recording for more than that, or give it to someone else, then he would be breaking copyright.

I believe there was a suggestion at the time the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act was being drafted that a formal 28-day limitation be written in. I don't think that ever got onto the statute book though.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Chris T

I believe there was a suggestion at the time the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act was being drafted that a formal 28-day limitation be written in. I don't think that ever got onto the statute book though.

Well, it would be impossible to enforce..

[Bob]

Whenever I have bought anything from FilmFlex, it tells me thats its copy protected. Granted that is on NTL, but ti will be the same for Telewest