On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:57, Mo McRoberts <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 15:49, Nick Reynolds-FM&T > <[email protected]> wrote: >> The BBC had a choice >> >> a) do nothing and run the risk of content not be available to licence fee >> payers >> >> b) do something which does achieve the desired effect and has a very small >> negative impact on a very small group of people if indeed it has any >> negative effect at all > > with respect, Nick, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no > technical understanding of the proposal. > > your choices above are simply factually incorrect, unless 'the desired > effect' is something other than that which has been publicly reported.
to follow up - apologies if this came across as unduly rude or brusque. I'm just very very tired of, having explained how this stuff works fairly unequivocally, sticking clearly to the facts, over and over again, to be met with the same thing every time. key points: the people who _upload_ content to filesharing networks are not inhibited by this in the slightest. the people who _download_ content to filesharing networks are not inhibited by this in the slightest (at least, not in that respect) - they may or may not have a FVHD receiver. the people minority types you refer to who want to use MythTV and the like may be inconvenienced, but Freesat suggests not fatally law-abiding consumers are inconvenienced, because the officially-branded boxes are crippled start-ups looking to build new devices are (potentially fatally) inconvenienced - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
