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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 24 Jan 2003 at 16:33, John Zulauf wrote:

Date sent:      	Fri, 24 Jan 2003 16:33:27 -0700
From:           	"John Zulauf" <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

> > >> On Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 08:59  AM, Arnold G. Reinhold wrote:
> > >>> Consider, for examples, "Topsy Turvey" a film about Gilbert and
> > >>> Sullivan with a gratuitous crotch shot,
> 
> Topsy Turvey is however a perfect example of were Bowdlerization creates
> a far broader more generally usable work.  My children greatly enjoy
> Gilbert and Sulivan operetta, yet the gratuitous brothel scene scotched
> them seeing an otherwise interesting view of these two interesting and
> creative men's lives.  Even at the high school level, the full front
> shot would raise significant community concerns.  Educationally, none of
> the males would retain much for the next fifteen minutes (seconds?)
> anyway.  While any Bowdlerization should be clearly labeled (if for no
> other reason than to not cause grief in the home when the middle
> schooler recommends the film for family night based on the altered
> version), this seems a perfect example of where "age appropriate"
> content selection and then guidance (which is a continuing parental
> obligation) could be broadened with a simple cleanware edit.  

Actually, What's the difference between the G version for TV, The PG version 
for daytime cable and the other for the password protected channel that they do 
now and clean flicks? So what if the technology has changed that now the DVD 
allows a playlist? Is it really any different than the TV studio editor that 
decides to whack out an extra 2 minutes of the film because they got somebody 
dying to have the time? (in the 70s we watched Star Trek in syndication. As it 
got more popular, the TV station tended to "trim" the episodes)

Oh...the moral rights thing....well why don't the directors consider the G-cut, 
the PG cut and then their R or NC-17 cut and be done with it! They can put it 
all on one DVD and let the viewer decide which they prefer or which they don't 
want to watch. Why don't they realize that 1. It WILL happen. 2. Their moral 
rights don't exist. 3. If they want control. They can have it. Just do it and 
not let someone else do the editing <derivative rights? Crap on that. I bought 
the stupid disk. What's on it is mine. I can take copyrighted works and make 
collages out of them if I want. > 4. I'd like to ask these genius directors 
"OK. So you can tell the story rated R....are you good enough to tell pretty 
much the same story rated PG? (And note that there are some stories that cannot 
be told PG because the topic is ONLY for adults...not that I've ever seen Last 
Tango in Paris but Clockwork Orange comes to mind...which is where parenting )


> 
> The same is certainly true of other content where a single violent act
> of profanity moves the work out of the umbra of "age appropriate".  
> 
> Jeremy Erwin wrote:
> > Perhaps you're not as familiar with Leigh's other works-- they are
> > typically quite "gritty," and Leigh's other films are typically rated
> > "15-18" by the bbfc. 
> 
> Whether or not that single offensive (in the eye of the beholder) is in
> the mainstream of the authors other work is irrelevant.  Only the
> assertion of "moral rights. In this post modern world where nothing is
> held sacred, how anything could claim the right to censor a derivative
> work on some moral "natural law" is beyond me.  The only natural law
> involved seems to be the "cynic's golden rule" -- e.g. "who has the
> gold, rules."  I preferred the original non-cynical form by far, but the
> content cartel clearly doesn't.
> 

I appreciate the irony.  I don't have a right to my own property and to use it as I wish.
The only rights are those which are intangible - copyright

.> .002
> 
> PS 
> 
> Most of he moral absolutes I hold have 2,000+ years of tradition,
> vetting, and occasional actual practice. "Copyright" isn't found in the
> same millennium as any of them. 
> 
> Copyright "moral rights" -- feh!
>