[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: Tom <tom(at)lemuria.org>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 07:08:54 +0200
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>; from [email protected] on Mon, May 13, 2002 at 03:58:45PM -0700
- References: <[email protected]>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 03:58:45PM -0700, Richard Hartman wrote:
> 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 ...)
doesn't a contract imply choice? the TV waves cross my room this
moment, even though I don't even own a TV anymore. looks like my only
choice is to turn on or off the TV (if I have one) and to select a
program, but not receiving isn't even on the list.
--
http://web.lemuria.org/pubkey.html
pub 1024D/D88D35A6 2001-11-14 Tom Vogt <[email protected]>
Key fingerprint = 276B B7BB E4D8 FCCE DB8F F965 310B 811A D88D 35A6