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."

Comments

On justice:

[samoverton]

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest."

as Thrasymachus said,
"I declare justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger" - Republic 338c

Potty Breaks

[pheonix]

The best part of this whole article is this dweeb's take on the bathroom break. Any human that has gone this far down the greed path isn't doing his company any favors by spouting off and making the whole company sound like a crew of imbeciles...

I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom.

Some tolerance? SOME F-ING TOLERANCE? Sorry, that just struck me as funny.

Cable used to be commercial free

[peter hoffman]

I remember when cable TV (at least in my area) was commercial free. That was the main point of cable: free over-the-air TV needed commercials to pay for the programming but if you paid for cable then you had bought your way out of watching the commercials.

What we are faced with here (as always) is the golden rule: the one with the gold makes the rules. The only solution I see (and it's not 100%) is to systematically vote against the incumbant in every election.

Because elected officials who have served mutliple terms have more influence than newly elected officials, the voters represented by new officials get less representation than other voters. This situation is inherently unfair and should be challenged somehow.

Re:Cable used to be commercial free

[pheonix]

I saw we challenge the system by...

GOING TO THE BATHROOM AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE

We will bring their commercialist regime crashing down around their necks....

content is the hook not the product

[Bart van der Ouderaa]

I get the notion that he has it backwards:

[Ad skips are] theft. Your contract with the network when you get the show is you're going to watch the spots

Which is not true. There is content to hook people to watch the commercials. Broadcasters make money of the commercials so it's in their best interest to create the content needed to hook the the viewers to their station. Because they are in competition for viewers (who can choose which channel to watch and when) they better have good content (which also includes commercials!). At no time is there a contract between the viewer and the broadcaster for the broadcaster to deliver good content and the viewer to watch the commercials(like there is no contract between a viewer of a billboard and that billboard).

That some broadcasters choose to not use commercials but use a subscription system does not change this fact. The only thing a viewer does in this case is pay to be able to watch that channel.

For a Contract to exist I would have to have put a signature somewhere and there should be some place to view that contract.

Re:content is the hook not the product

[Llyr]

For a Contract to exist I would have to have put a signature somewhere and there should be some place to view that contract.

Sounds like shrinkwrap and click-through EULAs have made Kellner jealous, and he wants something equivalent for television broadcasts.

There's probably something hidden on a text feed channel that says something like "by receiving these broadcasts, you are agreeing to watch all advertisements, no matter how inane, annoying, or offensive; start singing their jingles in public, even if it makes your friends avoid you; buy their products regularly and in preference to all competitors, no matter how useless they are; etc. To disgree, you must destroy your television."

Re:content is the hook not the product

[renehollan]

While I generally agree that there is no contract to view commercials, I take exception to your statement, For a Contract to exist I would have to have put a signature somewhere and there should be some place to view that contract.

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!)

Max Headroom Future

[CyberQ]

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....

If I remember correctly the show started with the title "A not too distant future ..." or sth. like that. Frightening, truly frightening.

Uh-oh...

[DragonPup]

I switched channels to PBS(that government run commie network!)during a commercial, without making a donation. That's 3 strikes, so I guess I am going to jail for a long time :-(

-Henry