[BenLurkin]

Hollywierd pumps out perverse dreck by the bushel and makes a fortune off of it.

Now some people with a modicum of taste cut unnecessary and prurient scenes and the pormasters of Hollywierd file suit.

If they are getting stiffed for the royalties then yes sue -- but if the royalties are being paid then this suit is just plain offensive.

They are saying, in effect, "We demand that we be allowed to poison your minds and the minds of your children -- if you wish to partake in the cinematic experience."

Disgusting.

[Strategerist]

This is such an obviously correct ruling it's hard to wrap my mind around the mindset of someone that thinks it isn't.

[I still care]

They are only going to hurt their bottom line by this. I record my movies off channels like TBS because they take out the offensive language. I would rather deal with the commercials rather than the F word every few lines.

If I could find "clean" versions I would buy much more.

It's amazing to me how many "family" films are filled with curses and nasty comments.

[RadioAstronomer]

I agree with the this ruling. If this practice was allowed to stand, who knows what would be next to be "scrubbed" from movies.

[albyjimc2]

I am going to have to agree with Hollywood on this one. I also agree with musicians who don't want their music downloaded for free. Just because the liberals in Hollywood have a lot of money does not mean they should not care that copyright laws are being violated. I agree that a lot of filth is put out by Hollywood, but it is their right t do so in this country.

To go as far as saying "poisoning the minds" is a bit harsh. We watch these movies if we choose to do so. We rent them, we buy them. If "minds are poisoned" we have no one to blame but ourselves. An artist doesn't paint a picture of a naked woman then let the museum put a black bar from her neck to her knees.

In my opinion this is not disgusting, this is the law. Even if it is broken with good intentions, it's still the law.

[fatima]

BenLurkin,Guess Hollywood wants us to watch it their way.I don't watch many movies.I do create what I want to .

[JoeSixPack1]

WOW,, you're kidding right??

If a film, book painting or whatever is too offensive,, DON'T BUY IT OR WATCH IT. Simple.

But if you take an artistic creation and butcher it to suit your world view, you have changed it. That is misrepresentaion, pure and simple.

So if I send this company a Michael Moore film and they completey conservatize it, so a pair of ninnies can watch it, is it still a Michael Moore film? Can it still be attributed to him? Can we still chastize him for making fiction, calling it reality, slandering the masses, and exposing those who agree with him? Or do we watch the sanitized copy and say, "oh, that Michael Moore, he's such a funny guy, I'd like to shake his hand", when in reality he a complete bullcrap artist and his continued creative style of films earns him social contempt as it should and winds up forcing him to forget any future attempt at film making. MM deserves our contempt, why sanitize his work and keep him safe from world scorn?

Communist governments do this.
They're wrong and this company is wrong and should be sued out of business.

If you want to be protected from the smut, don't watch the film or read the book or look at the painting.

[Junior]

The studios own the movies, not these third-party sanitizers. The owner gets to determine what happens to these movies. You can't just take someone else's work, screw around with it, and remarket it.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Hollywierd pumps out perverse dreck by the bushel and makes a fortune off of it.

No one is forcing you to force your kids to watch that "perverse dreck". If you're paying to watch that "perverse dreck", that's your fault and not Hollyweird's.

[OKIEDOC]

Directors can feel vindicated by the ruling, said Michael Apted, president of the Director's Guild of America.

"Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor," he said.


Comment:

Personally pardoner I do not much care for Hollywood writers, directors and studio heads.

It is obvious by the crummy movies they burden us with that they have little or no use for what I really like to watch.

Given a choice, I would rather rent a movie with out all the vulgarity, profanity, uncouthness, vileness, unwholesomeness and filthiness you uncouth foulmouthed uncivilized ignorant scumbag moron.

Dose this also mean that AMC can no longer mute the cuss words in certain movies.

Yep, these sphincter minded leftists Hollywood directors are so worried about the integrity of their films that maybe, just maybe they might try making a movie based on good direction and acting with out having to depend on sick perverted story lines and words to keep the audiences attention.

Integrity, these people would not know integrity unless Mr. Integrity was a lesbian or homosexual.

[stuck_in_new_orleans]

Now some people with a modicum of taste cut unnecessary and prurient scenes and the pormasters of Hollywierd file suit.

WRONG! you can do it all you want, but when you sell them for profit then thats where you will get in trouble with copyright issues. Its not hard to understand.

[Chickensoup]

But all airline films are cut so not to offend.

Some television movies are too.

This isn't about property rights, this is about shoving their values down our throats.

[Tribune7]

So does that mean Reader's Digest can no longer cut the lenghts of books? Are the networks forbidden from editing content for broadcast or cutting the length of movies to fit allotted time? Do these have to be spelled out in contracts now.

Another stupid decision by the courts.

[ShandaLear]

WOuld you favor sanitizing the Bible?

[Zeroisanumber]

They are saying, in effect, "We demand that we be allowed to poison your minds and the minds of your children -- if you wish to partake in the cinematic experience."

Payment has nothing to do with it. If you're that offended, then by all means don't watch. Don't expect an artist to let you hack at his work so that you don't have to feel offended.

It's folks like you who would rather pay $1200 for a curtain than "poison your mind" by looking at a topless statue of Lady Justice.

Get over yourselves.

[KeepUSfree]

No, these people are stealing. Nothing more, nothing less. In your irrational rant, you are justifing committing theft because you "don't like the morality of Hollywood".

Man, do I hate hypocrisy.

Tell "Cleanflix" or whoever to make their own damn films and market and distribute them if they don't like what is out there. Don't steal somebody elses work and "fix" it.

These people would snap the penis off of the statue of David because it offended them - then sell the emasculated reproductions - and you think they are noble!

[pollyannaish]

As much as I hate the garbage Hollywood pumps out, I actually agree with this ruling. The work is theirs and they should have control over it.

Our choice is whether or not we want to partake of it.

With the myriad entertainment options out there today, I believe that we actually have it better than many previous generations in our opportunities from which to choose.

[ARA]

don't rent the movies. Simple as that.