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

RE: censoring films

Stepping in where angels fear to tread, I think that the Chuck-Rick
discussion comes down to whom the owner is.  The approach of music and
video producers seems to be that they retain ownership and grant only a
use license.  This being the case, a "purchaser" is no more free to "cut
up, burn" etc. any more than a renter is.

I would love to have the purchaser have ownership and 'first sale' rights
but many "sellers" see that as a bygone era..

kent mulliner
K. Mulliner, Collection Development Coordinator
Ohio University Libraries, PHONE:  740-593-2707
Athens, OH 45701-2978, USA, FAX:    740-593-2708

p.s., I'd have to support the American Forkers who pioneered this foolish
neo-bowdlerization movement as homeys in any case.

At 03:12 PM 8/9/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> > After all the rhetoric, I think Rick's reaction means the right and the
> > left and the great middle (whatever that means)  have a great deal to lose
> > with laws that make changing, filtering, using content for and in your own
> > way and for your own purposes, legitimate reaons, impossible, illegal and
> > punishable under criminal and civil law.
>I think you're confusing a legal question with a moral one.  I interpreted
>your posting as a moral condemnation of those who would "censor films" by
>physically editing copies that they own.  There is certainly no legal
>issue here -- owners of videos or DVDs are free to cut up, burn, throw
>away or otherwise abuse their copies in just about any way they wish.  If
>we're saying that it's morally wrong to edit them (even though it's legal)
>then we should say so outright and then try to square that attitude with
>one that objects automatically to any attempt to restrict consumers'
>ability to make unauthorized copies (which is often, though not always,
>illegal).  It seems to me like maybe we're only defending consumers'
>rights when it's politically convenient to do so.
>Rick Anderson