<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Simon Hobson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:linux@thehobsons.co.uk">linux@thehobsons.co.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Michael T. Dean wrote:<br>
<br>
>Discussing hardware based CAM/CI solutions on this list is perfectly<br>
>fine--it's basically equivalent to the (newly-available-in-the-US)<br>
>CableCARD-based systems available for use with MythTV that are getting a<br>
>lot of recent discussion. It's software-based CAM that's a forbidden topic.<br>
<br>
That looks like a big change of attitude to me. I can recall several<br>
examples of people asking for help *legally* (and within the ToS of<br>
their provider) using CAMs getting well and truly told where to go. I<br>
understand the reasons, US based servers & developers, DMCA, etc, etc<br>
- and a desire to avoid any possibility of being accused of breaking<br>
the DMCA.<br>
<br>
I think your mention of CableCard is a good clue - suddenly it's OK<br>
now there's a legal US option !<br><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, nothing has changed. No MythTV developer has ever requested anyone take their question elsewhere when dealing with hardware CAM/CI solutions.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Robert </div></div>