Graham Leggett wrote:
Thomas Schorpp wrote:

cause as i understood you, youre NOT the contents provider


Then you misunderstood me, as I clearly stated I AM the content provider. Please stop labouring the legal point, I have legal rights to decrypt this content, our lawyers say it to be so. Right now I am interested in technical details, rather than a theoretical legal discussion that does not apply in this case.

Regards,
Graham
--

fine then. wish you good luck for your projects.
sorry, i really didnt want to bother you ;)
ive taken that to the list, cause it could be interesting to my mentioned cases.


i cant help you technically, got no such hw, sorry.
others do, as i see.

y
tom






Reply via email to