RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

Um ... guys?   

This was in the _satire_ section ?


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!



> -----Original Message-----
> From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 3:29 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing
> 
> 
> SOmehow I can't get to enthusiastic about it....the works are 
> not in the public 
> domain so they are still copyrighted. While Humphrey Bogart 
> is dead, the actors 
> and actresses in SpiderMan, as well as Cliff Robertson are 
> not and they did not 
> perform sexual intercourse before a camera. In California, I 
> believe it is 
> deformation of character to state that someone has in 
> infectious disease or is 
> unchaste (..blast it I couldn't find my copy of the 
> California code...Jim T. is 
> this so?). A digital morph of someone having sex, where they 
> did not, would 
> constitute deformation of character I think....and far worse 
> than mere spoken 
> or written language. In fact, in California punitive damages 
> are awarded for 
> fraud, oppression or malice. A digital morph would be fraud 
> apriori and the 
> only question would be if it was done with malice..certainly 
> it would be done 
> with extreme recklessness
> 
> 
> On 21 Sep 2002 at 10:17, Joshua Stratton wrote:
> 
> Date sent:      	Sat, 21 Sep 2002 10:17:14 -0400 (EDT)
> From:           	Joshua Stratton <cpt@gryphon.auspice.net>
> To:             	dvd-discuss <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
> Subject:        	[dvd-discuss] DVD Editing
> Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 
> > Sorry if this has shown up before -- my mail's been going 
> up and down 
> > lately.
> > 
> > Anyway, we all recall the practice of editing DVDs to 
> remove objectionable
> > content being mentioned here before.
> > 
> > So it's kind of sad that we diddn't anticipate editing DVDs to add
> > objectionable content. Assuming that these guys follow 
> through, it might 
> > actually hold up as a parody. Maybe.
> > 
> > There's more on this here: 
> > http://salon.com/people/satire/2002/09/20/filthy/index.html
> > 
> > Who could possibly turn down this example:
> > > In 'Casablanca,' sure, he can leave her on the tarmac. 
> But if you want, 
> > > you can follow them both onto the plane and watch them 
> rock that sucker 
> > > till the tires blow."
> > 
> 
>