The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a constititional challelge to our copyright laws.

Our Congress has extended copyright 11 times in the past 40 years, to the point that works from the 1930's will not come into the public domain for almmost a century. Compare the US Constitution that states "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," Congress should grant copyright only for "limited times." It is argued that extensions give the entertainment companies "a perpetual term on the installment plan."

Arguably the effect is to lock away our common cultural heritage -- the heritage that Disney and Shakespeare each drew upon -- and also bar the freedom that writers and musicians and filmmakers must have to interpret, reinterpret, adapt, borrow, sample, mock, imitate, parody, criticize -- the very lifeblood of the creative process.

Comments solicited. The full article can be found in the Chicago Tribune of October 9.

For some reason the Chicago Times article wouldn't come up for me right now. I'll have to check it out later.

Along similar lines though is the fight against the "colorization" of black and white films and, far worse yet, the editing and reissuing of films to suit the tastes of a more prudish market. This new service is, of course, a huge hit in the states but everyone in the film industry is blowing major blood vessles over this issue. I'm in total agreement with them.

As a case in point, you can now buy a version of the film "Titantic" where Gwyneth Paltrow (a name which trips lightly off the tongue and then falls disjointedly on its face, but that's a different matter entirely) is wearing a corset while posing for Leonardo Di-Whatzhisname's painting instead of being briefly topless as she was in the original. "Saving Private Ryan" is also now available with a bloodless begining sanitized for the sqeamish. The arguement, of course, is that the people who created the original works have the right to have their work maintained as they put it together and that anything else is nothing short of artistic rape.

Fortunately, I have a solution! This editing process obviously would work both ways so why not fight back and "improve" movies that the conservative, book-burning, film-altering, right wing zealots hold most dear. Just picture it:

How many G-rated movies might be "improved" with the addition of a little skin? Can you picture George C. Scott in the opening sequence of "Patton" standing at attention (no pun intended) before that huge American flag totally in the nude except for his helmet? Or a topless Julie Andrews making her famous umbrella descent in "Mary Poppins"? Or a few dozen naked Munchkins, maybe?

Or how about Charlton Heston as Moses, in full robes as Cecil B. DeMille intended, but with an obvious erection. It would bring new meaning to the screenplay's stage direction "Moses holds out his staff and the Red Sea parts"!!

Yes, yes, I know. Two wrongs don't make a right but I would love to see these morons writhe at the sight of their own altered favorites. Plus, too, I have to admit that even fully clothed I've always thought that Mary Poppins was hot!

[This message was edited by C J Strolin on Mon Oct 14th, 2002 at 16:12.]

About an hour after I originally wrote the above, I realized that one portion of my posting could possibly be taken in a way miles away from anything I would ever suggest. Hence the edit.

Without going into detail, if anyone read the original posting and was appalled by what might have seemed to be an example of humor of the most offensive sort, I do sincerely apologize.

Seeing as how I am still listed as a "Junior Member" (which, now that my mind is on such things, seems like an unprovoked insult to my manhood but I'll overlook it for the moment) I realize that most of you are not as well acquainted with me as many of you seem to be with each other. My spelling can sometimes be creative and I do love puns but I'm not the person that a misreading of that now deleted exerpt might suggest.

Again, if I've unintentionally pissed anybody off, Sorry, Sorry, Sorry, my forehead scrapes the floor. (Of course, if I pissed you off intentionally, you probably deserved it but that's another matter entirely.)

Well darlin, C J, as you can see, you are now a full "Member". And I did not see what you originally wrote, but I love the edit!

Julie Andrews huh?

Last week the film 'The Dam Busters' was shown on TV. It was shown with about fifteen minutes of cuts to remove all named references to Wing Commander Gibson's dog.

The dog was named 'Nigger'. This wasn't an invention of the film makers but a historical fact and the same word was used as a code word during the raid itself - also omitted in this screening.

I accept that the word is considered offensive regardless of the context but how do people feel about this revisionist approach to history.

si hoc legere scis nimium eruditiones habes

Read all about my travels around the world here.