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

["Kroll, Dave" <Dave_Kroll(at)cargilldow.com>]

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
> 
>