I will try... my family doesn't rent movies because of the junk placed in it, but I would rent movies if the objectionable material was removed.. if the movie producers are getting paid, and the public given a choise to rent clean or dirty versions (and as far as I can tell both of these conditions are met)... I can't see where this hurts the movie producers in any way, as a matter of fact, the only thing that might be hurt would be those whos sole objective is to push smut in your face.
Other minor issues would be if the movies that these clean renters put out are more easily copied than regular disks. I have yet to find a disk I can't copy but perhaps for some others, the cleaned versions would be easier to copy.
The only good side I can find in this scenario, is perhaps the smut movies would be slightly less distributed and thus the producers of them would receive less money... I will stick with that hope and smugly laugh that these producers have now cut their own throats.
You're looking at it complete wrong. A copyright holder has the sole right to alter the material. A good example would be Ann Coulter's books.
Should I be able to sell edited copies of her books that take out the insults as long as I pay her royalties? No, of course not. Ann or or her publisher holds a copyright and that copyright gives them all the power over the work. I can't alter her works without her permission or the permission of whoever she's sold that authority to.
There is no reason at all why this should apply differently to movies. None at all. You might not like the language or nudity in a movie, but you can't alter it without the permission of whoever owns the copyright.