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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 22 Jan 2003 at 14:34, johnzu@ia.nsc.com wrote:

Date sent:      	Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:34:53 -0800 (PST)
From:           	johnzu@ia.nsc.com
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> > 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.

Or to allow you to jump back and reread a section after reading it? Or what 
about a TPM that requires you to read the whole DMCA before 
watching/reading/playing the work.

> 
> 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.

Agreed. The "F" word was quite appropriate watching "Apocalypse Now" in the 
Theatre and hearing "Fudge" on TV just made me laugh outloud. The problem with 
all this is that this whole notion of moral rights seems ludicrous when you 
look at a film that has R rated versions edited for the Theater vs Cable, PG 
versions for TV and Airline. Followed by the VHS release and the DVD..Then 
there is the Directors cut. The 20 year anniversary Director's cut with 
political correctness. A discussion on Moral rights from those people makes me 
want to check my wallet because I know they plan on perpetual copyright using 
the publics. NOTE these are all COMMERCIAL releases of derivative works. The 
notion that copyright controls ALL derivative works is the problem. It only 
should  control COMMERCIAL derivative works and by commercial I would contend 
that applies ONLY to lost revenues that are demonstratable (e.g., 1000 copies 
of bootleg ). In the case of the clean Flicks, I can't see that they have lost 
ANY commercial revenue even with the copies of the tape. IN the case of the DVD 
re-edits- that's incredibly laughable in view of the dozens of different 
versions they already release. Indeed, I would contend  that if I purchase a 
VHS tape that is NOT identical to the version shown in the theatres and has not 
been labeled as such then a fraud has been committed upon me (e.g., The 
Graduate as seen on TV was not the same edit as the one in the Theatre. The 
famous shot of Benjamin through Mr. Robinson's leg is missing)

. I realize that is a more common law interpretation but it is also the one the 
public understands without requiring a indepth course in "intellectual 
property" In what way is the clean flicks reduce the commercial revenues? NADA 
so there are no commercial damages. How do they commit a fraud upon the public? 
They don't. How do they violate the sanctity of "moral rights" that have 
already been violated (Steve Spielberg can whine all he wants but look what he 
did to ET)?

I don't see it.

> 
> 
> 
> 
>