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

["Ernest Miller" <ernest.miller(at)aya.yale.edu>]

UTITA?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org>
To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Skipping commercials is theft.


> Or at least a meeting of the minds....well maybe along the lines of of the
> UCC they want to create the UTC - Uniform Television Code. By turning on
> your TV you are agreeing to watch and memorize all commercials. You will
> learn to sing all jingles. Your bladder functions will be restrained at
> all times except during station identification (how often do they do that
> anymore?)....it will take an act of Congress to allow CHANNEL SURFING!
>
>
>
>
> Tom <tom@lemuria.org>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 05/13/2002 10:08 PM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
>
>
>         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>         cc:
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Skipping commercials is theft.
>
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 03:58:45PM -0700, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > 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 ...)
>
> doesn't a contract imply choice? the TV waves cross my room this
> moment, even though I don't even own a TV anymore. looks like my only
> choice is to turn on or off the TV (if I have one) and to select a
> program, but not receiving isn't even on the list.
>
> --
> http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
> pub  1024D/D88D35A6 2001-11-14 Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>
>      Key fingerprint = 276B B7BB E4D8 FCCE DB8F  F965 310B 811A D88D 35A6
>
>