[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: Jeremy Erwin <jerwin(at)ponymail.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:05:19 -0500
- In-reply-to: <255195E927D0B74AB08F4DCB07181B901E5588@exchsj1.onetouch.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 12:18 PM, Richard Hartman wrote:
> Interesting. The summary says outright that the courts
> do not recognize "moral rights" per se but should nonetheless
> attempt to accomodate them if they can find justification
> to do so in the actual legalities (in this case, the _legal_
> violation was a breach of contract).
Hmm. This case speaks of prior injunctions. Does anyone know what
happened to the case after this decision?
This opinion, BTW, resurfaced some years back in one of Microsoft's
briefs attacking the proposed rights of OEMs to alter the Windows
This article http://www.rbs2.com/moral.htm contains a number of post
Gilliam decisions (and ones outside the second circuit) that disparage
Citations (and hyperlinks) welcome.