4 ms·
That's just the financial side of things. They'd still be tampering with the original piece of content, which most likely isn't what the artist would've wanted.
by BjoernKW 7y ago
That's just the financial side of things. They'd still be tampering with the original piece of content, which most likely isn't what the artist would've wanted.
Then there's the question of if it's really ethical to want to consume content that at least partially is against your moral values. I completely concur with parents' desire to protect their children. However, if it's about adults finding content morally objectionable the actual ethical choice is to simply not watch that content.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jhanschoo 7y agoI disagree with the parent comment (see my reply), but this isn't correct either. > That's just the financial side of things. They'd still be tampering with the original piece of content, which most likely isn't what the artist would've wanted. It's culturally important that people are allowed to transform creative works in ways that the author/artist didn't intend or want. Hence parody is allowed. If I were to redact parts of a book I bought in a store and resell that book, it would be legal. It can also even be ethical. The problem with CleanFlicks is that they made their own DVD copy to contain copied, edited video of the original film. It's a copy, and hence infringes copyright.