[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: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 22:27:34 -0500
- In-reply-to: <18818078.1043274866610.JavaMail.root@scippl1>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Wednesday, January 22, 2003, at 05:34 PM, email@example.com wrote:
>> Those on the list observing the CleanFlicks phenomena-- wherein some
>> companies will cheerfully bowdlerize motion pictures-- will probably
>> interested in this slate article.
> Thanks for the useful links. As I read the "moral right" argument I
> 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
> 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
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.