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

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

The idea of a contract is not being raised, but the broadcasters (including
Kellner's Turner) who are suing ReplayTV are using similar argments to
Kellner's "skipping commercials is theft" argument.  Seriously.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kroll, Dave" <Dave_Kroll@cargilldow.com>
To: <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 1:06 PM
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
> >
> >