RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 23 Sep 2002 at 11:21, 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 11:21:04 -0700
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> It would certainly be harder to edit in material 
> that is not on the DVD than it would be to create
> an alternate playlist ignoring material that actaully
> is there.
> 
> The only thing I can think of that might fall into
> this category is the DVDs that come with "deleted
> scenes".  As long as those are on the same DVD as
> the movie itself (instead of on a second, "bonus
> material" DVD) then you could create a playlist that
> re-inserted those scenes into the movie.
> 
> Beyond that, there isn't much you could do w/o 
> actually burning NEW DVDs w/ your material-to-be-included
> and that would clearly be a violation of copyright since 
> you would have to burn the base movie on it as well.
> 
> I _suppose_ you could come up w/ work-arounds such
> as storing your material on a second disc and creating
> a special movie player that worked with a playlist that
> read from two DVD/CD drives ... if that approach was taken I 
> do not see that they could get you for violating anything
> since the original DVD would be a) required; and b) unaltered.

WHich also violates the sanctity of the artist's moral right over the 
exhibition of his works in some countries...personally I wish people, lawmakers 
included, would understand the difference between legal and moral. While legal, 
and it should remain legal, I would not consider it moral since it alters the 
work beyond anything that the creator envisioned. Yet once in the public domain 
the work is grist for anyone's mill and should be. The battle against that sort 
of misuse should be fought by the critics in writing and the public by ignoring 
it.

> 
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joshua Stratton [mailto:cpt@gryphon.auspice.net]
> > Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 10:30 AM
> > To: 'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'
> > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] DVD Editing
> > 
> > 
> > Fair enough. Nevertheless, an interesting issue that I don't 
> > recall we'd 
> > been looking at.
> > 
> > On Mon, 23 Sep 2002, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > 
> > > 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."
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> >