"A student note, "Moral Rights: Well-Intentioned Protection and its Unintended Consequences", analyzes the concept and focuses serious criticism on the right of integrity.
See Also advances the debate in Professor Robert C. Byrd’s "Response to Ms Mills’ Note, Of Geese, Ribbons, and Creative Destruction: Moral Rights and its Consequences". Professor Bird applauds Ms Mills’s reasoned criticisms and additions to the academic debate. However, Professor Bird concludes by recognizing the “artistic doomsday rhetoric” that has been levied against moral rights and argues in favor of a measured approach to the issue. Ms Mills’s Note and Professor Bird’s Response are available at http://www.texaslrev.com/issues/vol/90/issue/2/mills (Response available on the right-hand side of the page)".In this age of real-time online debate, blogs and webinars, it is mystifying that so many traditional academic law journals have taken so long to appreciate the potential for interactive debate and that readers and contributors have been so slow to demand it. Even the Texas Law Review's small nod towards genuine debate and spontaneous response must be welcomed.