The end statement should be that ITV and BBC are trying to swim in crowded waters. Also to follow the analogy, id rather Fish where theirs more TV to catch. (I.E. BBC can only offer BBC)

I quote from a copy of an extremely authoritative document openly circulating the internet written by leading copyright counsel, Hamlins, addressed to Zattoo:

"the contents of your remarks referred to on the Paid Content website are legally inaccurate"…..

…." Zattoo which by its very nature and the way it is set up is authorising primary infringement pursuant to Section 16(2) CDPA 1988 and, further, is unlawfully facilitating secondary infringement within the United Kingdom"

Not only is Zattoo illegal, the quality is second rate

Don't be so dismissive Jean, only one of the people concerned have dignified this with a response. The only egostical response in this whole matter has been your posting.

Talk about struggling to justify your specious correlation between a service that is clearly unlawful (the sale of copyrighted material in Finland) and one that you admit was never subject to any finding of fact in any court of law – which, by your own later admission, equates to a presumption of innocence

Responding to a concern by withdrawing a service is a perfectly appropriate and totally responsible action for any person to take, it is called "protecting your position" in law. It does not equate to any finding of impropriety, or any admission of such.

Neither does it justify your fallacious presumption that TVCatchup must be dodgy by asserting that they were “shut down under legal pressure”. You have witnessed this legal pressure at first hand, you have evidence to support your assertions, you have entered into dialogue with both parties and diligently researched matters before publishing what amounts to an attack on the good name of an innocent party?

As you stated in your previous post, "That kind of talk can lead one to difficulty", from which I presume you were referring to the prospect of libel action. It’s a shame you didn’t think of that before publishing such drivel.

Having only now acknowledged that TVCatchup is operating within the law, and having stated that “Everyone’s legal unless shown otherwise”, perhaps it’s now high time you retracted your previous assertions of alleged impropriety? Just an idea, but it may be preferable to your having to defend a potential libel suit?

No, Robert, I have no vested interest in anything other than the upholding of reasonable journalistic standards, and that is because I am a journalist myself. I hope for your sake that you hold adequate indemnity insurance in respect of reckless libel.

** "You said: “Twelve months after British web-based TV PVR TVCatchup shut down under legal pressure” and link to another of your articles: “TVCatchup Shuts Down Under Broadcaster Pressure” in which you went on to state: “We told you it was a lawsuit waiting to happen”."**

– None of that is inaccurate as I never reported a lawsuit was filed. Neither did I report it was illegal, either before it relaunched or after.

Let me refer you to TVCatchup's own statement at the time it shut down: “In recent days, TVCatchup has become aware of the Broadcaster’s (BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Five) increasing concerns over the free personal recording functionality that this website offers. On 15th February, our hosting was terminated without warning and we presume this was at the request of such Broadcasters. Given that this will no doubt happen again, TVCatchup has therefore voluntarily suspended its services whilst the concerns of the Broadcasters are addressed.”

Now it's relaunched offering free-to-air channels via the copyright provisions. Brilliant. I'm happy for everyone concerned. But there's obviously a parallel between the TVCatchup PVR feature that was forced to close and the Finnish PVR.

I'm not sure who some of the people in this thread really are, but it looks like a case of rival services arguing amongst themselves. All's fair in love and business, I suppose.

You said: "Twelve months after British web-based TV PVR TVCatchup shut down under legal pressure" and link to another of your articles: "TVCatchup Shuts Down Under Broadcaster Pressure" in which you went on to state: "We told you it was a lawsuit waiting to happen".

What legal pressure? What lawsuit? Have you ever seen any evidence of any lawsuit naming TVCatchup with your own eyes? Have you even bothered to try to contact the owners of TVCatchup who, incidentally, have been based in the UK for over a year?

You are of course (now) correct in stating that "Everyone’s legal unless shown otherwise". It is a great shame that you don't reflect that in your reporting and instead try to fabricate tenuous connections between unrelated issues to senationalise what passes for journalism.