[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



But this argument shows the whole problem with calling things "intellectual 
property" vs real property vs personal property. Sticking the term property 
after intellectual gives the term "intellectual property" attributes that it 
does NOT have by analogy. As patent, as copyright, as trademark, these things 
are well defined (or rather WERE until the last 25yrs) but now with the 
extensions of coverages, times, they are not. Intellectual Property Scholars 
have managed to create a conflicting, confusing, contradictory mess that is 
unintelligible to anyone but themselves.


On 14 May 2002 at 15:05, Richard Hartman wrote:

From:           	Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	"'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-
discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Skipping commercials is theft.
Date sent:      	Tue, 14 May 2002 15:05:15 -0700
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> That's why I brought up eminent domain.  From what I understand,
> if there is public land (say a beach) that can only be reached
> by traipsing across private property, and the private property
> does nothing to prevent this for some time (a worn trail would
> be evidence of this) then he can't all of a sudden one day say
> "ok, no walking through this land to get to the beach".  As I
> said, it sound similar to estoppel applied to physical property.
> The key here is that there is no "meeting of the minds".  The
> implied contract (if there is one) is created by the lack of
> action by the property owner over a long period of time.  
> 
> 
> So ... if I've always let your ads roam through my retinal
> nerves to my brain, I can no longer decide all of a sudden
> to prevent that by using a device that would automatically
> remove the ads from my recording ...
> 
> I don't like it much, but I can see that sort of base for 
> an argument on their side.  Can anybody knock it down? (please?)
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kroll, Dave [mailto:Dave_Kroll@cargilldow.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 10:07 AM
> > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'
> > Subject: FW: [dvd-discuss] Skipping commercials is theft.
> > 
> > 
> > Brrr.  Up until now I thought this claim didn't pass the "laugh out of
> > court" test, but now I get shivers at the thought that there 
> > could be an
> > arguable question.  
> > Isn't one of the requirements of a contract a "meeting of the 
> > minds", that
> > both parties agreeing that the contract and terms exist?  Or 
> > would this be a
> > Unilateral contract, where the act of watching activates it?
> > Even if it is, wouldn't an implied contract require that one 
> > party expects
> > to be paid (Done) and the other party expects to pay?  This isn't like
> > opening a bottle of soda in a store and expecting to pay for 
> > it; for fifty
> > or so years, broadcast television has been "free". 
> >  
> > David Kroll
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Richard Hartman [mailto:hartman@onetouch.com] 
> > Sent:	Monday, May 13, 2002 5:59 PM
> > To:	'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'
> > 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
> > > 
> > > 
> >