RE: [dvd-discuss] Skipping commercials is theft.

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

I consider watching ads as a gratuity not a commitment. Does one have a 
commitment to remember ads after watching them?




Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
05/13/2002 03:58 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Skipping commercials is theft.


Even though there is no formal contract, is it not possible
that there is an implied contract ... using concepts similar
to estoppel (I didn't stop you before, so I can't now -->
ads have always been a part of what I accepted before so 
I must continue to do so) or eminent domain (which seems
really to be a specific formulation of estoppel relating to 
physical property, I suppose ...)

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Schulien [mailto:jms@uic.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:49 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: [dvd-discuss] Skipping commercials is theft.
> 
> 
> > JK: Because of the ad skips.... It's theft. Your
> > contract with the network when you get the
> > show is you're going to watch the spots.
> > Otherwise you couldn't get the show on an
> > ad-supported basis. Any time you skip a
> > commercial or watch the button you're actually
> > stealing the programming.
> 
> Bovine Excrement.
> 
> The only contract between the network and The
> People is in the form of the FCC license.
> 
> Under the terms of the licensing contract, the People,
> as represented by the Government,  authorize the
> Network to utilize a portion of the electromagnetic
> spectrum for the purpose of television broadcasts.
> 
> In exchange, the Network agrees to provide certain
> public services, such as providing news broadcasts
> and educational programming.
> 
> That's the entire contract between his network and
> the People.  No part of this contract requires the
> People to sit through commercials if they don't want to.
> 
> Mr. Kellner should be reminded that if the existence
> and widespread adoption of PVRs make it no longer
> economically viable for his particular corporation to
> provide television service, he is perfectly free to
> relinquish his FCC broadcast license, and allow some
> other corporation or interest to attempt to profitably
> offer television broadcast programming under the
> same terms.
> 
> In any case, he should stop accusing the general
> public of some sort of "contract violation" for not
> sitting through commercials.  Not only does it have
> absolutely no basis in fact, but  it's just plain insulting.
> 
> - John M Schulien
>    jms@uic.edu
> 
>