Current US copyright law is irrelevant, as I was responding to a discussion where you were giving consequences to removing copyright protection, so I don't know why you bring up current US law at all.
I pointed out that it is perfectly possible to protect moral rights without restricting duplication, something which most countries already do.
Somehow it works, and the world hasn't ended, and there is no massive stream of works where people is butchering the credits, because people actually have respect for that.
I bring up US copyright law because while I understand US law at least somewhat, I don't understand what 'moral law' means. I've researched it, and it doesn't seem to be the same as what people here - including you - believe.
According to US law, if your work enters the public domain, then I can do almost whatever I want with it. I can chop it up into parts, rearrange the order, insert my own scenes, provide MST3K-like overlaps, and so on. What I can't do is imply that you have authorized or condoned the work. Hence the comment in Dastar that had Dastar left the attribution in the film then they might have been sued under the Lanham Act.
Please tell me if what Dastar did to the Fox film was butchering the credits or butchering the work, and if what they did was against the moral rights that you think ought to be used instead.
I pointed out that it is perfectly possible to protect moral rights without restricting duplication, something which most countries already do.
Somehow it works, and the world hasn't ended, and there is no massive stream of works where people is butchering the credits, because people actually have respect for that.