i fell face down, didn't help my brain out...

Should directors have moral rights in their works? That is the topic of the paper I'm working on right now. There's a basic tension in this question about who "owns" a particular movie. For example, do I own my DVD copy of Tarantino's Pulp Fiction? Well I sure paid $20 for it. But does that mean I can alter, perhaps edit the work, for my own enjoyment? What if I bought a device that automatically muted the sound whenever a bad word was used? What if that same device knew to skip the really violent scenes?

I am of course referring to the ClearPlay case that is brewing right now. The ClearPlay software essentially turns all rated R- and PG-13 movies into PG-rated movies by skipping over the violence and nudity, and muting the bad words. So the software doesn't actually alter the DVD, because one could still see the original version of the DVD by not using the ClearPlay software. ClearPlay argues that it's more like an automatic remote control, whereby the MUTE and FAST-FORWARD buttons are used (automatically) in appropriate places throughout a particular movie.

The directors, of course, are livid. Why? Because the audience is watching something that they never intended to make (i.e., a PG-rated version of Pulp Fiction--can you imagine??), and yet the directors' names (and reputations) are already and at all times attached to the movie itself. Interesting dilemma.