[TChris]

Because by doing it en masse, as a business venture, they are way beyond the "fair use" coverage in copyright law. If they had partnered with the studios to do this, they would have been fine, but they went ahead even after permission was denied.

So, I return to my original question: Why is the combination of two ostensibly legal activities under one roof illegal? Selling legal copies of movies is legal. Editing a legal copy of a movie for the owner of that legal copy is, presumably, a legal service. Why do they get twisted up in knots when both are done together by the same company?

[Borges]

Why is the combination of two ostensibly legal activities under one roof illegal?

George Carlin on prostitution: 'Selling is Legal. Sex is legal. Why isn't selling sex legal'?

[linda_22003]

It all comes back to permissions - it may seem like a nicety, but it really does matter. You can chop up a film, and the studios aren't going to notice or come after the TChris household; you're small potatoes. But a business based on doing this is going to get noticed.

[Hendrix]

The bottom line is that if it is illegal to scrub movies, we should change the law to make it legal. I bet it would be very easy to get the public to back a change to the law that would allow companies to edit out bad language and scenes from movies. How many people do you know that would be against it? Republicans should jump on this ruling with new law and watch the democrats try to block it (and paint the democrats as anti-family, homo loving, ant-religion, which is hurting the deomcrats now). This is the perfect opportunity for republicans to further paint the democrats as anti-family.

[FreedomOfExpression]

So, I return to my original question: Why is the combination of two ostensibly legal activities under one roof illegal? Selling legal copies of movies is legal. Editing a legal copy of a movie for the owner of that legal copy is, presumably, a legal service. Why do they get twisted up in knots when both are done together by the same company?

The article states that the companies were RENTING OUT the movies, not selling them. That may be one reason for this ruling. Your argument makes perfect sense to me. However, I am not a highly paid copyright lawyer.