No it's not. "Cleaning" is an arbitrary decision made by the "cleaner". The real rub is where do you draw the line? What if all references to "speeding cars" (since cars kill) are erased? How about a particular word such as Christianity? The list is endless.
Actually each deletion is a very deliberate decision made by a firm so that their constumers will pay for both the original film and their service. My decision as a consumer to buy the "cleaned" version over the original is also a very deliberate decision.
The real rub is where do you draw the line?
As long as the studio gets their royalty, the consumer should be the one to draw that line and they should be allowed to draw it where ever they choose.
What if all references to "speeding cars" (since cars kill) are erased?
Why shouldn't I be allowed to buy a version without it?
How about a particular word such as Christianity?
If I was as thin skinned as the very small but very vocal minority of secularists here on this forum, I should be allowed to buy just such a service.
The list is endless.
And equally irrelevant. The only issue here is the left's effort to force all of their perverse values on anyone who wishes to buy any of their products. This is no different than GM telling me I can't remove the pin stripe from my Corvette.
Yes, but the original movie is still there at the major rental outlets. So, if they are paid for their copy, how are they harmed? Further, I think that language is edited in movies shown on US airlines. How is that allowed under this ruling?
Exactly, its the same as if someone published a book and someone decided to republish it but editing it and changing its words around.
Its copyright law and the creators of the film are the ones that own the rights to how it gets shown, open and shut case.
Then you would decide to buy or not buy the movie from the "cleaners". If you wanted the phrase "speeding cars" in the movie, you don't buy. How on earth can that be a problem?
What does it matter, as long as the original is still available and as long as the sanitized versions are marked thusly and paying royalties? Reader's Digest and classic literature are edited and I've never heard of any lawsuits concerning such.
Why would that bother you? If someone wants the original content it's not like they are being prevented from getting it.
The key is that there's nobody telling the studios, directors, writers, etc, what they can and can't put on film. This is a third party that's buying movies, then filtering out "the naughty parts" and selling it as a "cleansed" version of the movie, for "family friendly" viewing. The originals, complete with the "naughty bits" will continue to be available.
This is sort of like when a broadcast TV station shows a movie with some editing for content.
Mark
Or digitally removing all cigarettes from movies, or replacing guns with walkie-talkies WITHOUT the director's consent? This ruling limits attempts at left-wing censorship as well.