Slashdot Mirror
Top Ten New Copyright Crimes
jeffy124 writes "In response to the Turner CEO's PVR ad-skips are theft comments, Yale's LawMeme has posted a short list of other new forms of theft and crime that will soon appear in our daily lives."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Max Headroom, the classic (late 80ies/early 90ies) show, saw it all coming: As far as I remember in the world of Network 23 it was illegal to switch off your TV. Every citizen had the right and duty to watch TV. Back then I thought this to be too grotesque, but now....
..." or sth. like that. Frightening, truly frightening.
If I remember correctly the show started with the title "A not too distant future
Line 9: Argument of type SIGNATURE expected.
Twenty Minutes into the Future. And they got the 'TV you can't switch off' idea from 1984.
"Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"
Now, IANAL, but, for a contract to exist, there must be several things:
0) Offer and Acceptance. Well, DUHH!, though many forget that without acceptance there is no contract. On the other hand, once there is acceptance, the contract is binding on both parties.
1) Consideration. Someone must give something.
2) Performance. Something must be done: property given, access granted, etc.
3) Duration. Contracts have to be met in a specified time. You have to tell when the contract is over, rather than just "pending". This is more important with leases and licenses than with sales, but even here, a "time to perform" (i.e. transfer the property) forms part of the contract.
4) And this is most important, A meeting of minds. All parties must have understood the contract and agreed to it.
Now, (4) is generally established by a signature, or other form of agreement. Contracts can be verbal, or symbolic: agreements don't have to be in writing, and I can buy a candy bar without ever saying a word, just taking the candy bar, and offering the right amout of money. The cashier's presentation of a receipt or a handwave establishes the meeting of minds.
Of course, enforcing such contracts at law is iffy at best because of the difficulty of establishing that a meeting of minds took place. For many contracts to be enforcable at law, certain other conditions have to be met, i.e. be "in writing". So, the wise person will contract for anything of significance in writing.
Many jurisdictions explicitly disallow (by statute) enforcement of "frivolous" contracts. So, If I offer you $10 for your house, and you say, "Sure!", such a contract is not enforcable at law. Similarly, without consideration, there is no contract: if I offer you a candy bar (or something of minor value) for free, and you accept, I can still change my mind because the lack of consideration means there was no contract to begin with. This is why often consideration is "silly". Real estate contracts in Illinois generally provide for the transfer of title to immovables within the home (smoke detectors, appliances, etc.) for consideration of $10, which is never (in practice) demanded (the price of the house, of course, is adjusted accordingly). People in Quebec, Canada, will often demand $1 from new appartment tennants when vacating: the dollar is for any improvements that the tennant may have made that are impractical to remove: carpetting, window blinds, etc. This way, the new tennant owns the improvements and the landlord can not demand that the old tennant remove them (they're now the "problem" of the new tennant). (Oh, and you generally don't want to transfer ownership of your improvements to your landlord, without significant consideration, because then he can raise your rent for the improvements!)
You could've hired me.
If a business model is obsolete, it's time for the business to die, and for others to take its place. This is called progress. In this manner, the U.S. built the Ford Motor Company, while the British were attempting to recover from attempts to protect the carriage industry (they'd passed a law saying motorcars had to be preceded by a man on foot waving a flag). Which do you think created more jobs - Ford, or the carriage industry it replaced? Which do you think provided more benefit to the larger economy? And how long do you think the U.S. will maintain its economic and technological dominance, if it outlaws new technologies that threaten its entrenched interests?