[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: "Richard Hartman" <hartman(at)onetouch.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:38:29 -0800
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Thread-index: AcLDAVoHN4TR4v3KSoWpnzHR4W2Y1AFhMrpw
- Thread-topic: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ole Craig [mailto:email@example.com]
> Ah, but remember the disclaimer before you shout "Fraud" in
> your home theater...
> "This film has been altered from its original version. It has
> been formatted to fit this screen."
> Now, most of us tend to see those sentences as connected: that
> is, our minds tend to assume that the second sentence is the specific
> act generally referred to by the first sentence. We tend to rewrite
> the phrase as:
> "This film has been altered from its original version;
> specifically, it has been formatted to fit this screen."
Actually I've seen a couple of other sentances used
in addition. Frequently there is "it has been edited
to fit in the time alloted" (or something similar).
Sometimes (but rarely) there is even an "it has been
edited for objectionable content".
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!