On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 03:40:54PM -0500, Phil Bridges wrote: > > > > > > > I'm surprised that no one has yet commented on the mention of MythTV > > on the front page of the Arts seciton of today's (Sunday, Jan 30) New > > York Times > > (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/arts/television/30manl.html). > > > > It's quite unfortunate that the article is mainly about unauthorized > > distribution of TV shows over the net. Isaac is described accurately > > as being motivated by the shortcomings of his cable box, etc., but in > > the context of the article it comes off as if there's something > > quasi-legal about it. > > > > Wow! There are >100,000 MythTV users? > > It does tend to put a very negative light on Myth, though. Pretty > ridiculous, IMHO. >
Actually, John's a friend of mine so I did write him a note about that tone. But don't expect much. Reporters cover the interesting issues. Right now, with the grokster/morpheus case before the supreme court (we are morpheus' lawyers) filesharing is a big interest issue in the press. I actually don't think the story so much put Myth in a negative light as talked about it in a story that mostly put focus on illegal file trading so you imply an association. In fact, any time on this mailing list clearly shows that transferring shows to others is an extremely rare topic among myth users. Nor is it always illegal, either. But reporters don't get very upset about implying associations, I am afraid.
_______________________________________________ mythtv-users mailing list [email protected] http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
