[Hendrix]

What we are really talking about is a very small technical distinction that does not amount to a hill of beans. It is current law that I can buy a DVD and alter it for my own purposes. I can (or should be able to) buy a DVD and take it to someone who will alter if for me. Therefore, as a practical matter, there is no real distinction from allowing companies to do this service before I buy it, if the buyer wants to buy the DVD with the service already added to it.

All the scare tactics about someone putting something in a Bambi movie is ridiculous. However, if someone wants to add something to a Bambi movie and the buyer wants it put in, I don't see a problem with that.

At a very minimum, the law should allow a business to sanitize a DVD AFTER it has been purchased by a buyer, if the buyer pays the business for the service. I have not read one argument that has any merit for why that should not be allowed.

[MineralMan]

But that was not the case before this court, was it?

[Stone Mountain]

However, if someone wants to add something to a Bambi movie and the buyer wants it put in, I don't see a problem with that.

Really? This is part of the heart of copyright law. If you don't see a problem with this, I can see why you wouldn't have problems with outside sources "sanitizing" movies and distributing them.