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

[Jeremy Erwin <jerwin(at)ponymail.com>]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 05:34  PM, johnzu@ia.nsc.com wrote:

>> 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.
>
Nah-- by the logic of the lawsuit, the moral rights are violated if 
someone rebinds the book for sale in the order 
1..(n/2),n,(n/2)+1...(n-1)
There's a small difference (albeit not yet enough to make it actionable 
under US Law).

>> 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.
I simply admire his cynicism.

Jeremy