Re: Re: Kelly v. Arriba Soft (new opinion from 9thCir.)

• Original Message ----- From: "Bryan Taylor" <bryan_w_taylor[_at_]yahoo.com> To: "CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property" <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 2:30 PM Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: Kelly v. Arriba Soft (new opinion from 9thCir.)

>
> > > Are vending machine operators able to sue people who buy candy for
theft?
> >
> > Oh what a DUMB example. Did they pay for it? Voluntarily? Then it is
> > hardly theft. Duh!
>
> I'm glad you agree it's obvious. Before you were arguing a machine
couldn't
> bind you to a contract. Here it does so for the vendor.

I'm through with this discussion, except to say that you really do need to read posts before commenting on them. First, I NEVER made the blanket statement that machines can't bind somebody to a contract. I did say, however, that it is NOT enough to show the machine's action. One must also show additional elements. Such as intent. It is clear that, when one puts money in a machine, they are showing an intent to purchase. And the machine has writing that offers cans for a certain amount. But if the machine screws up, and spews out a whole lot of cans, guess what? If the person takes them all without paying for them, he is STEALING! Get it yet? I doubt it.

-Bodi Received on Wed Aug 27 2003 - 00:40:43 GMT