[mythtv-users] editing theme ?
R. G. Newbury
newbury at mandamus.org
Mon Jan 24 17:04:36 UTC 2011
On 01/22/2011 10:36 PM, Chris Petersen wrote:
> On 1/22/11 12:32 PM, R. G. Newbury wrote:
>> Moreover, he is posting from a Finnish domain, and probably lives in
>> Finland. Are you an expert in the copyright laws of Finland?
> No, and honestly it doesn't matter. MythTV and this list are hosted and
> officially located in the US, and as such we abide by US law, stupid as
> it may often be.
> I don't remember if the rules have been posted for the mailing lists (if
> not, I suspect they will be soon), but the community's feelings on the
> subject have been strongly suggested before.
> Anyway, should kill this thread before people start taking any of this
> stuff personally.
As you know, I am fully aware of the rather weird legal position that
the myth list developers find themselves in. I have written strongly in
the past to protect that status and I will continue to do so.
Robert McNamara asserts that the OP was 'politely requested'. I have to
use a technical legal term to describe that: bullshit. The actual
request was anything but polite, and it was that which I object to.
"Please refrain from posting pictures of your illegal content on this
It is not "polite" to accuse someone of being a criminal. Adding
'Please' does not change that.
If the OP lived in Great Britain, because of the peculiarities of
British libel law, he could probably succeed in a defamation action
*even if his movie collection actually was recorded in breach of British
copyright law*. And the list + cats and dogs could be found liable for
You say it does not matter that the OP lives in Finland. But it does
matter when the response is disproportionate and incorrect.
The etiquette link sets out some considerations about posting on the
list. That includes prohibition of any 'discussion of any topics that
may be considered illegal...'. The OP did not *discuss* any such topic
and the only way the result of any assumed use of 'any such topic' was
revealed was through a link.
A polite response would have been to note that the list does not discuss
matters such as ripping or evading DRM, and that that proscription
extends to revealing evidence of any act, which would, if it had been
carried out in the USA, be evidence of a possible breach of US copyright
law *even if legal where it was actually carried out*. The polite
response might even point out that this seemingly odd position is the
result of a sincere sense of paranoia arising from the peculiarly foggy
legal situation the program developers find themselves in.
The response does not require an assertion that someone has committed an
I see that the OP has taken down the page which the second link pointed
to, so the 'evidence' is gone (as much as anything is 'gone' on the
web!, so your comment about the demise this thread is appropriate.
But before we go, I have the following to add:
Raymond: Please consider whether the language you are about to use in a
post, would be appropriate if said face to face. And imagine that your
mother is standing beside you when you do.
Robert: Would 8 screen inches do? I do 'have the right to make him feel
like a bad guy' when he goes well beyond 'enforcing list rules'. Please
put your testosterone back in your pants and act like a gentleman
instead of a bully.
R. Geoffrey Newbury
Barrister and Solicitor
Suite 106, 150 Lakeshore Road West
Mississauga, Ontario, L5H 3R2
newbury at mandamus.org
More information about the mythtv-users