[mythtv-users] Boxee/Hulu?

[Brian Wood]

On Monday 02 March 2009 06:29:30 Eric Sharkey wrote:

<deletia>

> The courts are not of one mind here either, but the direction over the
> past 100 years or so seems to be in the direction of forcing
> non-discriminatory policy on businesses whether they want it or not.
> From the civil rights movement to the Americans with Disabilities act,
> "we don't serve your kind here" is an increasingly frowned upon
> position to take.  I certainly don't want to equate Boxee with Rosa
> Parks in terms of the overall effect, but the spirit is the same from
> my point of view.

Your mention of the ADA is interesting, because I am aware of several people 
who connect their computers to large (over 50") screens due to visual 
impairments. Since screens this large are usually thought of as "TV sets" and 
not "computer monitors", this could be interpreted as violating HuLu's terms 
of service.

Clearly, rules that preclude the visually handicapped from consuming the 
content would probably be illegal, and I'd think that if something is legal 
for a handicapped person to do it would be legal for anyone else to do as 
well.

I think what happened is the Content Providers who insisted on the present 
rules did not consider all the consequences of the initial offering, in their 
pursuit of what seemed to be easy money. This resulted in a totally idiotic 
situation.

I notice there doesn't seem to be a problem with cbs.com. They have better 
stuff than HuLu anyway, IMHO.

Here's an interesting question: What if I watch HuLu on my TV set by using a 
commercial product that I paid for? Who is violating the terms? Me or the 
vendor of the product? I purchased the product and followed the included 
instructions, which resulted in HuLu on my TV set, am I breaking the law? 
Would the fact that I am using a purchased product be a viable defense?

-- 
beww
beww at beww.org