[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
- From: "John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:33:27 -0700
- References: <53AD0120-2FEE-11D7-8AD4-003065F24232@ponymail.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
> >> On Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 08:59 AM, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
> >>> Consider, for examples, "Topsy Turvey" a film about Gilbert and
> >>> Sullivan with a gratuitous crotch shot,
Topsy Turvey is however a perfect example of were Bowdlerization creates
a far broader more generally usable work. My children greatly enjoy
Gilbert and Sulivan operetta, yet the gratuitous brothel scene scotched
them seeing an otherwise interesting view of these two interesting and
creative men's lives. Even at the high school level, the full front
shot would raise significant community concerns. Educationally, none of
the males would retain much for the next fifteen minutes (seconds?)
anyway. While any Bowdlerization should be clearly labeled (if for no
other reason than to not cause grief in the home when the middle
schooler recommends the film for family night based on the altered
version), this seems a perfect example of where "age appropriate"
content selection and then guidance (which is a continuing parental
obligation) could be broadened with a simple cleanware edit.
The same is certainly true of other content where a single violent act
of profanity moves the work out of the umbra of "age appropriate".
Jeremy Erwin wrote:
> Perhaps you're not as familiar with Leigh's other works-- they are
> typically quite "gritty," and Leigh's other films are typically rated
> "15-18" by the bbfc.
Whether or not that single offensive (in the eye of the beholder) is in
the mainstream of the authors other work is irrelevant. Only the
assertion of "moral rights. In this post modern world where nothing is
held sacred, how anything could claim the right to censor a derivative
work on some moral "natural law" is beyond me. The only natural law
involved seems to be the "cynic's golden rule" -- e.g. "who has the
gold, rules." I preferred the original non-cynical form by far, but the
content cartel clearly doesn't.
Most of he moral absolutes I hold have 2,000+ years of tradition,
vetting, and occasional actual practice. "Copyright" isn't found in the
same millennium as any of them.
Copyright "moral rights" -- feh!