Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Speaking Freely

89 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Matthew Poole,

    I did mention that their sales reps were lying to people to get them to sign up.

    Yeah, that's the risk with door-knockers. I used to work for a moderately-large (top five, at the time) telco/ISP, and they had exactly the same problem with their commission-only sales reps. They outright lied to get people to "sign up for information", which was actually a signature on a contract for service. And unlike your Sky experience, which was easily caught when you were called to sort out when the installer should come over, these contracts gave us authority (which was followed through) to switch them from their current tolls provider to us as well as signing up for the ISP service.

    Moral: never, ever "sign up for information" if it involves putting down a signature. And get the rep to write your details rather than doing it yourself, because it makes forged signatures much easier to spot.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    Oh, and something else that's semi-related to this, and to discussions about copyright, anyone else think it's a complete nonsense that TV networks can get copyright in their programme listings and then stop anyone else from recreating them?
    Not just talking about the layouts of the listing in printed guides, but the actual information of channel, time, and the name of the show. That's copyright in facts, and that's, supposedly, wrong!

    That's one of the big impediments to stuff like TiVo coming here, since the creators cannot make their own EPGs because it's a breach of copyright.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • tussock,

    Matthew; such is the process of monopolies, legal or otherwise.

    I have a digital signal processor, most folk do these days. It's got cheaply extendable storage of various types, plenty of processing grunt, and IO channels to handle whatever you want to throw at it for the cost of a cable or two to connect various things. There's cheap expansions available for an arbitrary number of signal generators as they're needed. It even came with very sharp HD viewing screen.

    And then you give someone a monopoly on something, and all of a sudden you've got to buy a few special "certified" boxes at a grossly inflated price and reduced performance to do all the same stuff you could be doing with everyday hardware, and pay them again for a list of what you might be allowed to view on it at any particular time.

    Since Nov 2006 • 611 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    it's a complete nonsense that TV networks can get copyright in their programme listings and then stop anyone else from recreating them

    Seems completely inconsistent with not being able to copyright things like forms or bus timetables. Any comment from our legal brethren?

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Tomorrowpeople,

    Freeview rocks.

    Got a satellite tuner in January this year when the old telly blew up (literally).
    Was sick of fuzzy pictures and was in now way about to fork out money to Sky just so I could watch something on TV2 clearly.

    TV6 and 7 are great - we watch these most of the time now.
    TVNZ News at 8 is great as is Russell's show etc.

    I must say Sonia Voigt on TVNZ News at 8 in the weekends is worth the cash of the Freeview box alone :)

    So we can't get Prime... well stuff them - if they want to go with Sky so we plebs can't watch them on Freeview so be it.
    Shame really - they have good programmes but have decided to hook up with the whoremongers of pay TV they can sod off.

    Likewise Alt TV, Traingle etc.
    I find it ironic that the 'little indie' TV channels can only be accessed via some kind of Sky device - which means you have to pay for it.
    Kind of cuts out their potential audience if you ask me.
    Now they have to compete with 500 other channels on the Sky network when they could be available free to everyone.

    I mean MTV anybody - who the hell actaully watches it?
    Every time I see the Sunday Star Times celeb pages and they have an 'MTV VJ' photographed it's like "who???!!!".
    No one watches that stuff.
    Make it freeview and maybe they will.


    I've always disliked Sky and pay TV in general.
    Yeah, I'm one of those people who resents having to pay to watch TV.

    Just watch Sky TV shares tank in the next year when people start canceling their subscriptions - pay TV is a luxury.

    The Craps tables at the B… • Since Nov 2006 • 188 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    Seems completely inconsistent with not being able to copyright things like forms or bus timetables. Any comment from our legal brethren?

    That's not entirely accurate. You can copyright layouts, but you cannot (generally) copyright factual information.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • FletcherB,

    Tomorrowpeople...

    Prime hasnt "decided to to with" Sky..... Prime IS Sky. Prime was owned by Australia's Channel 9 network, but Sky bought it to fulfill some of the "must be shown delayed free to air" contracts with some of the sports they have bought... (instead of selling/giving the free/delay content to TVNZ/TV3)

    And it's still available free on UHF analog (In Auckland).

    As Russell keeps saying.... if Sky wants to continue to use Prime as it's free-to-air delivery mechanism, it will be forced to go with Freeview when the analog signals are phased out....

    They may well choose to switch over earlier than that, but it's a matter of Sky choosing to, and while I dont like their choice, I can see why they think delaying will give them commercial advantage. (ie. They think knobling Freeview will be good for Sky uptake).

    Presumably, once Freeview uptake is higher... they will change over, as they will be losing more potential Prime advertising viewers than they are gaining Sky subscribers?

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 893 posts Report Reply

  • FletcherB,

    P.S. I got my $250 Freeview HD decoder today. Cant wait to get home and plug it in.

    I decided in the end to go with the UHF-HD option even though its for an old telly that will probably look no better than the cheaper non-HD satellite-decoder... because It will mean as non-freeview equipped HD LCD TV's become yesterdays product, I'll be able to take advantage of deep discounts :) Alternatively, If I delay upgrading so long that Freeview equipped LCD's are all that's available, I can still use it on the bedroom TV with bunny-ears thats nowhere near the satellite dish connector in the lounge.

    West Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 893 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    you cannot (generally) copyright factual information.

    I guess the real issue then is how information about what is on television does not count as a fact.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    I guess the real issue then is how information about what is on television does not count as a fact.

    I think the legal community's view (at least for those who disagree with the situation) is that a court misapplied the "sweat of the brow" test. The simple summary of "sweat of the brow" in such cases is that any compilation involving facts (such as a database, encyclopaedia, telephone book, etc) can be copyrighted because another person could go out and do the work to produce their own work of the same type. You're not allowed to rip off Telecom's White Pages to produce your own telephone directory, but there's nothing to stop you going out and knocking on doors to gather the information yourself.

    The way that that's been applied to a TV schedule is that the programmes don't just miraculously organise themselves into timeslots. It takes work, and that work, it seems, gives rise to a copyrightable product. I understand the reasoning, but that doesn't mean it's actually sensible. Maybe it made sense in the days when the only way to know what was on TV was to look in the paper, but now that we've got EPGs and the like it just gives an unjust monopoly power that stifles competition and innovation.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    I couldn't think, of the top of my head, why the TV stations wouldn't make them publicly available? Surely the more places their listings appear in good formats, the more people will watch tv?

    Or do they make money off selling their listings?

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole,

    Or do they make money off selling their listings?

    Bingo. Because they have copyright, they can make money off allowing publishers access to the timetables and show summaries. I think the summaries are actually supplied by the show creators, too, so they're not even the work of the TV stations.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Raymond A Francis,

    On the other hand when you are going for market penitration surely more money is to be made by encouraging people to watch your product
    Sky timetables are everywhere, where are TVNZ 6-7 freeview

    45' South • Since Nov 2006 • 578 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha,

    Raymond, it just seems like more of the same stupid dinosaur behavioiur that we've seen from large chuunks of the music industry.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19745 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.