[mythtv-users] OT Any interest in HDMI --> IP TV x264 encoder boxes?

[Simon Hobson]

Another Sillyname <anothersname at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but making statements
> suggesting embargoed at import without supportable facts is
> irresponsible.

They aren't unsupportable - it's a fact that all customs authorities around the world to intercept anything they believe is being imported illegally. Sometimes it's a bit more expensive than a £75 video converter :
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/2013-08-15-040000/illegally-imported-and-unsafe-land-rover-defender

The background to this one ...
In the US, there are very strict safety and emissions rules for road vehicles - but they don't apply to vehicles over 25 years old. Thus there is a thriving market for 25+ year old Land Rovers (and other vehicles) - Land Rover pulled out of North America for some time as it wasn't practical to make the Defender meet those regs.
Under *UK* rules, it's possible to take an old vehicle like a Land Rover, replace a lot of parts, and still keep the original identity. In practical terms, you can take a newer model, rebuild it on a brand new chassis, keep one or two components from the older one, and put the older identity onto it - in effect, you have a "new" Land Rover that's legally 25+ years old. That's what's happened here, it's clearly a lot newer than the B reg suggests, and it may well have been legal in the UK - it might not, a lot of people don't do it properly, and my guess is that someone just swapped plates on this one without doing everything needed for it to be legal.
The "unsafe" bit in the report is simply that it doesn't (as the newer vehicle they've decided it really is) meet US regulations - not that it's "unsafe" as in "got things wrong with it".

There are a number of outfits buying old and "newer" Land Rovers, doing the work to make the newer one meet UK rules for having the older identity, and then selling them to the US market - one like that might have been sold for anything from $50k to $100k ! The clever bit is that they make the buyer come to the UK and conduct the transaction over here - before taking the vehicle back as a personal import. Thus if US customs take a dislike, the buyer has no comeback against the seller (who only warrants that it meets UK law) !

US Customs put out that video "pour discouragement les autres". Best of all, if they won't let it in, they also won't let it be taken away (ie sent back to the UK) again either - they won't allow an "illegal" vehicle to be exported elsewhere, or stripped for parts.

> ... in future please don't make implied threats such as
> members email addresses are going to be captured and the copyright
> swat teams are likely to be kicking in their front doors, it's
> unbecoming.

There was no such threat. But if you think the sort of people behind the DMCA and the outrageous punishments that have been handed down in it's execution would not look at mailing lists for evidence, then you really haven't been following reality for some time. These are the people who will claim that sharing a CD (for example) cost them several thousand $ per track and have successfully got court judgements forcing people to pay that sort of compensation.

Yes, the DMCA is a farce, it's unjust, but it's the law in the US and it's not likely to change as long as they have the best laws money can buy.


But, there's a more serious threat **TO THE MYTH TV COMMUNITY**. If the mailing list can be shown to be "supporting infringement" then all it takes is one DMCA takedown notice and it'll go offline. The notice can be bogus, but the hosting outfit will take down the list and ask questions later - because if they fail to take it down it can cost them money and the MythTV community aren't likely to shake them down for a fraction of that. Whoever issues the takedown notice is effectively free of any punishment for issuing a false one - even though it is supposed to be a criminal offence ! There are plenty of stories of "the industry" issuing large numbers of notices in an automated manner (also supposed to be illegal) because there's no cost and no comeback on them for doing so.
The people falsely accused then have to put the time and effort (and money) into proving the notice is bogus.

*THAT* is why all talk of circumventing DMCA is not permitted here. Even though some subjects clearly are treading a very very thin line.