SOLGO URL changed?, page-48

"Would you be happy if you were a content provider charging for your content and found it was being provided free of charge to users by another Company?"

Clearly not!

And my point was that the way to make an argument is exactly as you have done by adding some detail to the claim as opposed to the nonsensical "walking a fine line" stuff.

"Should TCM 10 be in a contract with the Channel providers then they would be in breach of their contract."

Without knowing the detail of any such the contract or, indeed, if there is a contract between the parties that you refer to - it is difficult to comment.

"TV2U could also be implicated as they also are not protecting the content."

Again, it is difficult to comment here as we do not even know the terms of any contract between any of the parties that you have referred to so it is very difficult, if not impossible to offer anything other than speculation with respect to any commercial contract and further, whether TV@U have any liability whatsoever.

Thanks for your input and at least you provided something of substance that was capable of being discussed. "Walking a fine line" - is so vague - in my view - that it offers absolutely nothing of substance to the discussion.

What is currently being discussed here, whether it is known to participants or not, is the International Arbitration Act 1974 (which deals with matters of international trade and contracts) and without wanting to be too blunt - that Act makes no reference to - "walking a fine line".

Hope that helps.