[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: <[email protected]> <3CD05B94.20695.4BFA47@localhost>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
From: <[email protected]>
> 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