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

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

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
> > 
> > 
>