The Wall Street Journal tends to be fairly well informed about Apple's plans, with some commentators suggesting it is used by Apple as a channel for releasing information that it doesn't want to be seen as an official statement from the company.

The WSJ recently reported that the much-ballyhooed future 'Apple TV' is a set top box for use in conjunction with pay TV services, with content delivered via the Internet.

Pay TV operators in various countries - including Australia - already offer service over the Internet to devices such as game consoles and smart TVs, so the idea of an Apple TV with that capability isn't a stretch.

Key features of the device are said to include be a user interface that is a significant improvement on conventional set top boxes, integration with social media (eg Twitter), and the ability to stream content to iPhones and iPads.

However, the report states that Apple intends to include cloud-based DVR functionality.

That is, the recordings would be made and stored in one of Apple's data centres, not on the user's premises.

CONTINUED

Earlier this year, the Federal Court ruled that the Optus TV Now service (which allowed subscribers to record free-to-air TV programs in the company's data centre) was a breach of copyright, despite the provisions allowing people to record programs for their private or domestic use.

The court held that the recordings were being made jointly by the user and Optus, and that the involvement of the company meant the Copyright Act was being infringed.

Unless the High Court reverses that decision, or the current review of copyright law returns the situation to that which most people thought applied prior to the Federal Court ruling (that the Copyright Act was deliberately technologically neutral and therefore a DVR that stored recordings in a data centre was just as legal as one that stores the recordings in a lounge room), this aspect of the future Apple TV's functionality would not be allowed in Australia.

It is also uncertain whether it would be permissible for pay TV broadcasts.

While subscribers are entitled to record content in their own homes (as they do using the Foxtel iQ, for example), the pay TV operator may not hold the rights to make recordings at other locations, and therefore would not be able to assign them to Apple.

The WSJ article does note that US operators probably do not hold the rights necessary to authorise Apple to operate a cloud-based DVR service, and so there would be tension between Apple, operators, and content owners.