[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

Actually, I wasn't arguing with Arnold's point as much as expressing my wonderment that anyone would want to see a film that has been so heavily edited. I have always considered "Friday the 13th" series to be obscene (as one promo I remember "Thirteen of the most grisly murders..." = reveling in the mutilation of the human body). So why watch it even heavily edited?

But That's a good point What is the harm here? Or ....what are the LEGAL damages here? Monetarily, there are none since they are compensated for the work and also the scope is so small as to be insignificant.

As for Moral rights? Copyright is not about moral rights but legal ones. Primarily those rights are economic in nature....The copyright owners expect *US* to pay for their court time to recover $0.00 damages?

Joshua Stratton <cpt@gryphon.auspice.net>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

01/23/2003 12:23 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

        To:        dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights

Meh. I have a copy of the Matrix. It's a good movie, but there are times
when I feel like skipping over the crappy sci-fi parts, and just watching
the fight scenes. (human batteries, my entropic butt)

Similarly I hate advertisements with the burning passion of a thousand
suns. (a kilosol) This doesn't necessarily stop me from looking at
ad-studded content, e.g. a newspaper, but I do try to avoid the ads and
would welcome someone editing them out for me so that I need not be
cautious about my reading. I have rather aggressive filters on my computer
that do precisely that; more than merely stopping banners or pop-ups, I
mean I really try to get rid of EVERYTHING ad-like or otherwise
bothersome. I've recreated several sites altogether to this effect.

Read "The Princess Bride" sometime. It constantly alleges to be an edited
version of an older book, with only the good parts left in, and the boring
parts taken out. If people are willing to spend their time doing this for
their personal enjoyment, why should we stop them?

It isn't harming anyone, despite what the moral rightists, thin-skinned as
they are to suffer injury in the opinion that a small number of people
might have of their work, may claim.

On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Michael A Rolenz wrote:

> It's true that much of the sex, violence, language, or nudity is
> gratuitious etc (YYYY) and can be eliminated without reducing the content.
> Also, I've seen several films where the gore has been eliminated on TV
> which actually made them better films than when I saw them in the theatre.
>  In many instances YYYY cannot (e.g., imagine a nonviolent "Terminator"
> [which is nothing but a killing machine]) butAt some point, one has to ask
> the question that "If YYYY offends you, then WHY do you want to watch a
> movie about YYYY that has all the YYYY deleted? Maybe you should just not
> even bother?"
> "Arnold G. Reinhold" <reinhold@world.std.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 01/23/2003 05:59 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
>         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>         cc:
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] clean flicks and moral rights
> At 12:49 AM -0500 1/23/03, Jeremy Erwin wrote:
> >...
> >
> >Could Gosford Park be released as a clean version? Yes, with minimal
> >effect on the story-- eight "f**ks, as cheerfully pointed out on the
> >accompanying commentary tracks .. Will such a clean edit be done?
> >Probably not, as the Mormons would doubtless find fault with the
> >suggestion of incest, homosexuality, heterosexuality, etc... and
> >find ways to wipe out actual content.
> It's not just people with strong religious views who are potential
> buyers for cleaned up films. Parents are a big market. Hollywood
> plays a really sick game with ratings.  Many, if not most, PG-13
> films are filled with sexual content and crude humor, while R movies
> have serious themes along with an occasional f-word  and 542
> milliseconds of exposed nipple or crotch. Sans the gratuitous stuff
> thrown in to get the magic rating, many R movies are more wholesome
> for teens and even preteens than most PG-13 movies.
> Consider, for examples, "Topsy Turvey" a film about Gilbert and
> Sullivan with a gratuitous crotch shot, or "Men of Honor" an
> inspiring film about the US Navy's first black diver, with a
> particularly graphic use of the f-word (lots of n-words too but they
> are central to the story).
> >
> >I suppose, that the alternative-- market confusion caused by a
> >proliferation of "clean" versions is by far the worse scenario. I
> >just hope that they won't be used in an educational setting.
> >
> >(My high school English textbook included a copy of Julius Caeser,
> >minus, peculiarly, a good part of Act 1, Scene 3. A classroom is no
> >place for Bowdler.)
> >
> Clear warning labels are the way to deal with market confusion.  And
> even Mr. Valenti will agree that Shakespeare is in the public domain.
> Garry Trudeau dealt with the moral-rights-in-movies argument quite
> well in a strip published on December 28, 1986 (doonesbury.com has a
> search engine!):
> http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.cfm?uc_full_date=19861
> 228&uc_daction=X
> Arnold Reinhold