[Central Scrutiniser]

If a director wants to sell a neutered version of his work, then its OK, but its his decision, its his property.

Its funny how everyone here is for property rights when the government takes land, but no one is outraged that this company went in and stole property from the film directors?

[durasell]

I'm not sure if all director owns the copyright or not. It's probably different for each project.

Directors sell neutered versions of their work all the time under the "director's cut" rubic. But these films tend to be extreme, such as Natural Born Killers, etc.

Figure a borderline movie for a lot of people -- Chicago --in which there is one graphic implied sex scene at the beginning would be the ideal candidate.

Also, the director would have more control over the way in which the "offending" material was cut.

[durasell]

I'm sorry, I meant to say, directors sell neutered versions of their projects all the time and then a full length "director's cut." I didn't mean to imply the director's cut was neutered.

[JoeSixPack1]

but no one is outraged


I AM!

[FreedomCalls]

Its funny how everyone here is for property rights when the government takes land, but no one is outraged that this company went in and stole property from the film directors?

What was stolen? For every edited version sold the companies purchased a retail DVD. Are you telling me that if I draw a Hitler mustache on my copy of Hillary Clinton's book I am somehow "stealing" from her because I didn't get permission?