<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:50 AM, Nick Morrott <<a href="mailto:knowledgejunkie@gmail.com">knowledgejunkie@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>IANAL (and very tired, FWIW) but in the US, what is the current legal<br>status of the ripping/format-shifting of (perhaps copyrighted) TV<br>shows, CDs and DVDs for personal use? Doesn't playing commercial<br>
encrypted DVDs on Linux still contravene the DMCA we hear so much<br>about? What about transcoding your TV recordings to play on your Ipod?<br>These are discussed on the list, and the scripts and patches commited<br>to the software would seem to imply they are both actively supported<br>
and condoned.<br><br>On a scale of legality, wouldn't the downloading of unquestionably<br>legal material via BT/P2P rank /at least/ as high as those<br>aforementioned processes that are already integrated into the<br>
software, or just a library install away? Is it just a matter of<br>third-party perception that is currently stopping such discussion? If<br>this perception changes over time (especially as media companies<br>themselves start to embrace P2P technologies), could the leadership<br>
see a time when discussion would be permitted?</div></blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>Yes. What it boils down to is that BitTorrent is a loaded word that brings with it suspicion. To keep MythTV above suspicion and out of harm's way, the people that started the project have asked the subject not be included, integrated, or otherwise "a part" of MythTV. We may all hate it and disagree with the bad name that BitTorrent has in the public, but it is the state of affairs. I hope it changes, but until we start seeing industry sponsored (and I don't mean sites that offer "TV" via bittorrent of things I've never seen on my TV) BT distribution, it will probably remain so...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Kevin</div></div></div>