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

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

To: <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Skipping commercials is theft.
From: "Lars Gaarden" <larsg(at)eurorights.org>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 15:34:46 +0200
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0205011955420.2074-100000@qwe3.math.cmu.edu> <3CD05B94.20695.4BFA47@localhost>
Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu

From: <microlenz@earthlink.net>

> A Clockwork Orange - 21st Century Style
> 
> OTOH...consider your Fee for Pee...if there is the twinkie defense then SURELY 
> there must be the "Bud made me do it" defense against non performance of the 
> contract....OK maybe a better phrase would be "Call of Nature" defense...I mean 
> there's already the "Act of God"

Landmark cases in copyright law:

1984 - Betamax, ruling that "time shifting" is fair use.
200x - Incontinent Consumers vs MPAA, ruling that 'call of nature' is a force
majeure.

-- 
LarsG

References:
- [dvd-discuss] Skipping commercials is theft.
  - From: Scott A Crosby <crosby@qwes.math.cmu.edu>
- Re: [dvd-discuss] Skipping commercials is theft.
  - From: microlenz@earthlink.net

Prev by Date: [dvd-discuss] A blast from the past....
Next by Date: [dvd-discuss] Skipping commercials is theft.
Previous by thread: Re: [dvd-discuss] Skipping commercials is theft.
Next by thread: Re: [dvd-discuss] Skipping commercials is theft.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread