Archiving

#1
Two Humax boxes
Old box: Youview Humax box from BT (I think DTR 2000).
New box: Humax FVP-5000T.

The old box became very slow. Sometimes taking several minutes to do anything. I went for the FVP-5000T as a replacement for what I thought was a failing box. I now use the new FVP-5000T for any new recordings and the old DTR 2000 for watching existing recordings. Usually I delete the watched recordings on the DTR 2000, however, I have a couple of recordings on the old disk which I would like to keep for ever.

Is there any way of archiving recordings from the DTR 2000 onto the new Humax or to a PC?

I noticed something else. As I deleted watched recordings from the DTR-2000, the delay before it did something, became less and less. Now with over 58% available space on the old machine there seems to be little noticable delay. As an ex IT professional I perceived that the problem with the old box looked like one of fragmented files on the hard disk.

In my IT days, if there was a delay in reading from a disk I would probably have identified fragmentation and have copied all the files from disk to archive onto a different disk. I would then have re-formatted the original disk and written the files back again. That usually cured the problem.

So I need to achieve archiving again, this time for resolving fragmentation. Can it be achieved easily?

In the event that the old hard disk fails completely, can the backup recording be played or will it be stopped by any protection mechanism?
 
OP
OP
M

Maphke

New Member
#3
No (to everything), I believe.
Thanks for the reply.
That's what I thought would be the case.
There is no legal way to keep your recordings other than on the original equipment you first recorded them on. As soon as this fails then your library disappears.
 

MontysEvilTwin

Well-Known Member
#7
The standard def. recordings are unencrypted. The high def. ones are encrypted. I wonder how the Humax YouView boxes generate the encryption key? If it is like the HDR-FOX it could be based on the MAC address and serial number.
 
#8
I wonder how the Humax YouView boxes generate the encryption key? If it is like the HDR-FOX it could be based on the MAC address and serial number.
Unfortunately, I don't have the box in question and can't test this.
Perhaps somebody with a lot of time on their hands could read through https://hummy.tv/forum/threads/offline-decryption-utility.8676/ and/or https://hummy.tv/forum/threads/windows-version-of-offline-decryption-hfodu.8770/ and try one of the utilities on those threads and see if the key works.
It could be like the HDR-2000T where the MAC+S/N don't seem to form the required key.
 
OP
OP
M

Maphke

New Member
#9
Several hours ago I started working through the links supplied above on encryption and decryption. Thanks for those but they're not for me.
It has taken me all that time to try to understand what they are about. To understand how to use them without rendering my Humax unusable is beyond me.
From my perspective I think that for all normal purposes I will assume the recordings to be lost if the equipment fails.

However, this brings up an important point. Should the manufacturers of equipment, like Humax, and the owners of the products, like the BBC, prevent users like you and me from carrying out proper information management and disaster recovery procedures? It is perfectly legal for us to keep backup copies of recordings for our own use. Why are we prevented from doing so?

If you were a company it would probably, effectively, be a legal requirement to have backup and companies without a disaster recovery plan don't exist for long after the impossible event actually happens.
 

Trev

The Dumb One
#10
If you were a company it would probably, effectively, be a legal requirement to have backup and companies without a disaster recovery plan don't exist for long after the impossible event actually happens.
The copyright holders probably do have all the implementation procedures that you suggest.
As far as the end viewer is concerned: "It's only telly";)
 

Black Hole

May contain traces of nut
#11
It is perfectly legal for us to keep backup copies of recordings for our own use.
It isn't. Transmitted content is copyright and always has been, but limited home recording is tolerated. Backing up purchased recordings for personal use by the purchaser is accepted as "fair use".

If you don't like what the YouView box does, you had the option of not buying it (or sending it back if purchased on-line). You wouldn't be able to prove it is not fit for purpose. We have no right to expect any feature the manufacturer has chosen not to provide.
 
#12
...From my perspective I think that for all normal purposes I will assume the recordings to be lost if the equipment fails.

However, this brings up an important point. Should the manufacturers of equipment, like Humax, and the owners of the products, like the BBC, prevent users like you and me from carrying out proper information management and disaster recovery procedures? It is perfectly legal for us to keep backup copies of recordings for our own use. Why are we prevented from doing so?...
As far as the broadcasters are concerned:
PVRs are for timeshifting, not for archiving, timeshifting allows you to view the saved programmes for a limited (but not legally specified) time, but a matter of 'weeks' seems to be their expectation.
The broadcasters provide catchup facility and online access to boxsets, but some sports and movies are only licenced for the broadcaster to show live, so these aren't put on the catchup service.
Failure of the PVR hardware isn't the broadcaster's responsibility or within their control.
Thanks to digital broadcasting and content protection we are now in both a better and worse position than 30 years ago when we could tape anything (almost) off air, that we could view on the TV, and keep it separate from the playback device, and play it in other compatible devices.
 
OP
OP
M

Maphke

New Member
#13
Content Protection using equipment and the programmes as broadcast, cannot begin to address the digital rights that exist on the recording. There are so many differing rights that exist. Artists, authors, publishers have different rights. I have a PPL/PRS licence which gives me rights to play a certain amount of music and/or videos at a dance school. Hotels and pubs also require licences to enable them to play music or videos.

The equipment maker and the broadcasters can know nothing about these rights. However, this does not stop them in trying to prevent me from making backup copies of the recordings. It is essential to me to have a backup copies of recordings and backup equipment for that matter, and it is perfectly legal for me to do so. Only in that way can the dance continue when the equipment fails.
 

Black Hole

May contain traces of nut
#14
Content Protection using equipment and the programmes as broadcast, cannot begin to address the digital rights that exist on the recording. There are so many differing rights that exist. Artists, authors, publishers have different rights. I have a PPL/PRS licence which gives me rights to play a certain amount of music and/or videos at a dance school. Hotels and pubs also require licences to enable them to play music or videos.

The equipment maker and the broadcasters can know nothing about these rights. However, this does not stop them in trying to prevent me from making backup copies of the recordings. It is essential to me to have a backup copies of recordings and backup equipment for that matter, and it is perfectly legal for me to do so. Only in that way can the dance continue when the equipment fails.
...which has nothing to do with your "rights" to back up off-air recordings. These do not come under the same category as copyright material you have paid to own.

Yes, I agree your paid-for music collection can be (ie you are physically able to, but that does not imply you have permission - see below) backed up to protect your commercial interests (although, to be frank, go back 30 years and you would have been using LPs with no back-up - wear it out and buy a new one, a much better business model for the publishers and artists). Do you feel comfortable under your PRS/PPL (now being replaced by a unified "TheMusicLicence") ripping a track from a YouTube video or some other streaming service and adding that to your library? You shouldn't, and exactly the same applies to off-air material. Read the terms of your licence - unless you have paid the additional premium for digital storage and reproduction, you are only supposed to be presenting material from the original medium.

Don't spout about rights to bypass copyright restrictions here, anybody making off-air (including Internet streaming) recordings at all is on shaky ground and always has been. The broadcasting industry tolerate it because there is little they can do to stop it and they don't make a fuss as long as it is for personal non-profit use that does not conflict with the commercial interests of the copyright holders. They will however make it difficult if they can, particularly for material at a higher resolution than normal StDef telly (which infringes the Blu-ray and UHD market). How do you think commercial-carrying broadcasters (funded by advertising) feel about people viewing all their content time-shifted so you can skip the adverts?

There are ways around the restrictions you have encountered, and those involve not using a DTR-2000 in the first place. Getting around the restrictions is what this forum is all about. You have been told you can recover any StDef recordings by direct access to the HDD, but the HiDef recordings are a lost cause.

Ever tried getting a recording out of a Sky box?

It is essential to me to have a backup copies of recordings and backup equipment for that matter, and it is perfectly legal for me to do so.
No it isn't. What you may perceive as essential does not imply it is a right you have. It comes under tolerated "fair use", not a legal right under copyright law and is only "fair use" in a personal non-commercial situation. In fact, if your business model relies on doing something that is not strictly legitimate, you are operating at an unfair advantage over competitors who do dot the i's and cross the t's. If you are so certain these are rights in law, show me the evidence.

Only in that way can the dance continue when the equipment fails.
That is in your own commercial interests, not a right you have to expect others to cooperate with.

When doing something commonly done and tolerated but not strictly legitimate in law, it's best to keep your head down. I know there are many little clubs and individuals only paying lip service to PRS/PPL, and some do not realise they have responsibilities at all. (Hell, I even know a solicitor who believes the ballroom practise group she runs does not require licensing... yes it does! Case law has set the precedent that private use not requiring a licence only applies to domestic premises - ie in the home. That means even a non-profit group playing music only for an invited audience behind closed doors down the local village hall - basically, any use of a ghetto-blaster outside the home - is supposed to be licensed.) I know that it is extremely common to conveniently disregard the "digital storage and reproduction" restrictions, and that because others do you all have to in a competitive market (otherwise there would be overheads that the less-diligent don't have). All the more reason not to make waves or claim you have rights when you don't.

I have not yet assessed what the position will be under the new TheMusicLicence.
 
Last edited:
#15
Transmitted content is copyright and always has been, but limited home recording is tolerated.
The BBC has often turned a blind-eye to this one in the past because they have managed to get back from the public archive material that they wiped years ago. If people hadn't disregarded copyright law, lots of radio material and (for example) early episodes of Dad's Army and Doctor Who would still be missing. Difficult to argue that these days.
Case law has set the precedent that private use not requiring a licence only applies to domestic premises - ie in the home.
I wish someone would tell that to the neighbours, either in the home or in the car, who "broadcast" loud music - illegal? Certainly not "private use".
 

Black Hole

May contain traces of nut
#16
The BBC has often turned a blind-eye to this one in the past because they have managed to get back from the public archive material that they wiped years ago. If people hadn't disregarded copyright law, lots of radio material and (for example) early episodes of Dad's Army and Doctor Who would still be missing. Difficult to argue that these days.
True, but irrelevant. "Nice to have" does not imply "right to have".

I wish someone would tell that to the neighbours, either in the home or in the car, who "broadcast" loud music - illegal? Certainly not "private use".
Readers need to distinguish between criminal law and civil law. There may be criminal illegality if the noise contravenes abatement laws. Otherwise, the copyright violations are a breach of civil law and the police won't be interested - it is up to the copyright holders (those whose legal rights have been infringed) to take action, and when there is nothing to be gained of course they won't. Hence licence violations are rife.

An anecdote: I co-rented a house with an alleyway that ran alongside, with a thermalite block wall as the boundary. Yobs pushed the wall over from my driveway, which then fell onto the neighbour's wall the other side of the alley. The neighbour expected my insurance to pay for his wall, and wouldn't have it that because third parties were responsible for the collapse of my wall, I was not responsible for the repair of his. This illustrates the poor level of understanding the general public have for the law, especially when they feel hard done by.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
M

Maphke

New Member
#17
Dear Black Hole do you work for GCHQ. I feel you must do so since you have details details of my licence with "PRS Formusic" . I request that you tell me how you got these details. I have to tell you your intelligence is false and also request that you amend the details you have of me immediately.

Under the terms of the licence see (https: www prsformusic com licences live-performances dj-mixes) (oops can't give you the link - but you can work it out for yourself) I have authority to make a number of copies per year. How can you know how many I've made and how many I'm allowed to make?

As for making the claim that that I am acting illegally you should be very careful. I was not suggesting that anyone circumvents the law and I take a dim view of anyone who suggest that I do.

As a point of interest the recordings I'm trying to recover are my copyright, since I made them of dance instruction. They were transferred to the cloud and downloaded to the Humax as a convenient way of showing them to others. Unfortunately the master copy and the cloud copy got destroyed by human error (mine) and the only copy is now on the Humax.
 
Top