I agree with the this ruling. If this practice was allowed to stand, who knows what would be next to be "scrubbed" from movies.
Except that you would have the choice to buy a clean version or the original. This ruling states only the original is allowed. No one is getting cheated from profits.
This, because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression, from the article is a load of hooey!
Put it in perspective. Look at what happened when they started stickering music. All it did was create more demand for the 'adult' versions. The censored versions just sat on the shelf... except maybe in Utah. Let Hollywood create two versions of every movie. The full unedited directors cut and the Mormom (dum dum dum dum) version. I know which one I will buy.
Ah, I see.
So, let’s say I purchase a run-down house and pay the owner fair market value. After closing, I decide to renovate the house. However, the old owner doesn’t like my taste in architecture, so gets to veto my renovation.
Sounds like you are advocating harsh restrictions on a property owners right to make alterations to their property. Am I mistaken?
The article does not explain it well, but I think what this outfit does is buy a DVD, then re-sell it as a sanitized version, so there is no net royalty loss for the hollywood freaks.
I see it differently. If the scrubbers start taking out material their customers want left in, their customers will leave. If a given individual doesn't like the cuts made - or wishes to see the original Hollywood version, they still have that option.
With this being outlawed, that means that no customers who are interested in the story minus the garbage (as they define it) must forgo the story as well - or accept the crapola.
I agree with it too, but more because I believe in property rights than anything else.
Probably religious references.