[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'" <dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu>
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Skipping commercials is theft.
- From: Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 15:58:45 -0700
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
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
186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Schulien [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 9:49 AM
> To: email@example.com
> 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