[mythtv-users] editing theme ?

[R. G. Newbury]

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.
>
> -Chris

Chris,

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
mailing list."

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 
that post.

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 
illegal act.

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

         o905-271-9600 f905-271-1638
           newbury at mandamus.org