Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights

[johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com]

> Those on the list observing the CleanFlicks phenomena-- wherein some 
> companies will cheerfully bowdlerize motion pictures-- will probably be 
> interested in this slate article.
>
> http://slate.msn.com/id/2077192/

Thanks for the useful links.  As I read the "moral right" argument I kept
thinking of my wife's tendency to read the last chapter of a book about
halfway through.  By the logic of the lawsuit, she is violating the moral
rights of the author as she is viewing the work in a way other than the
original vision of the author. If a TPM prevented reading chapters out 
of order on an eBook that would be a 1201 TPM.  Stupider and stupider.

Here's a link for those scratching their heads at bowdlerize

http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2001/12/12.html

> Jeremy (who still defends Altman's right to include eight BLEEPs in 
> Gosford Park) Erwin

Our internal mail server didn't deliver your mail due to the word
I replaced with BLEEP.  I defend Altman's right to do so, though
I see no reason to require everyone interested in the film to
listen to his choice of language.  The right he has is a right of
tolerance, and a right of freedom.  He doesn't have the moral right
to impose his views on the rest of us anymore than we have the
right to impose ours on him.