[mythtvnz] EPG problems

[Steve Hodge]

On 12/19/05, Gary Te Young <gary@athomedownunder.com> wrote:
> If you can provide an interface to the end user to where they
> are able to manipulate your card as if it were their local card, then are
> you responsible for their actions?

But you can make that same argument with a fileserver - "I just opened
the directory up, I'm not responsible for what people download", but
it's not likely to be legally convincing.

> If you are not responsible for their
> actions and how they are using your hardware, then wouldn't this get arou=
nd
> the C&D notice?

I don't know. So far, AFAIK, people have not been held responsible
when their compromised system has been used illegally (e.g. for a DOS
attack or as a spam server). OTOH, you're talking about same sort of
situation with the knowledge of the server operator. Ultimately the
person running the server is facilitating (what are claimed to be)
copyright violations - ultimately I can't see a court condoning that.

> >No, anyone allowing downloads of the data is getting a C&D.
> Thanks for filling in the bleeding obvious.

There is a significant difference between receiving a C&D letter for
"storing" the data and for "serving" the data. Excuse me for trying to
be accurate with terminology.

> > I doubt TVNZ or anyone else will draw a distinction between a server se=
rving
> >data from a file vs a server serving data directly for an alternative
> >hardware device like a DVB-S card. I can't see any legal difference
> >(IANAL though).
>
> There is a difference in the example I gave above, I just don't know if i=
s a
> big enough one.

I don't see the difference you're refering to. Could you elaborate, please?

> >It's the republishing that is supposedly illegal, AFAIK, not the
> >storing of the data.
> Yes, this is why icetv are around (www.icetv.com.au), they read the guide
> and give their own pr=E9cis.  Actually, I wonder if you could parse the g=
uide
> to replace enough words and phrases enough to get around the C&D too?

It's very much a grey area. In NZ (according to this article on the
issue: http://www.listener.co.nz/default,4797.sm), you can copyright a
collection of facts, and that the particular organisation of TV
listings may be sufficient to get that protection. So altering the
descriptions may not be enough - the organisation of the program names
may be enough to get people into trouble. Of course we won't know
until a court actually decides on a case.

Steve