[ Main Chat ] INDEX PAGE
_____________________________________________________
From: Jonmark
Email:
Remote Name: 63.49.51.28
Date: 11-Aug-2002
Time: 02:59 PM
Hi Bill- Thanks for showing off. :)
Yes, you are right, Falwell vs. Flint was not a Copyright infringement case. It was, however, based on a parody and was an example of the Supreme Court’s support of the right to parody even in this extreme humiliating situation.
I knew it was a stretch, but I thought it had some application to our discussion regarding the right to change a copywritten work into something beyond the bounds of the original author’s moral ethics. (In this case it wasn’t an altered song, but a public persona.)
Just an thought. As usual, I’m probably wrong. :)
Meanwhile, back to the original question, I can’t imagine how infuriating it would be forced to remain associated with a work that was altered to represent a viewpoint you find disgusting.
However, considering I haven't had a major cut in 18 years, I think I'm safe.
All the best-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~