RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 23 Sep 2002 at 9:49, Richard Hartman wrote:

From:           	Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	"'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-
discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing
Date sent:      	Mon, 23 Sep 2002 09:49:55 -0700
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> Um ... guys?   
> 
> This was in the _satire_ section ?

So is "virtual reality"......satire isn't effective unless it's either total 
fantasy or there's quite a bit of truth in it....(and you got me...I was jet 
lag/lead 'ed that I missed the satire...)...

> 
> 
> -- 
> -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."
> > > 
> > 
> >