[MineralMan]

"As long as each original is paid for in full, there should be no distinction for using a master to make sanitized copies for resell and destroying each original.

"

The trouble comes from the third party making and using an edited copy of the movie to make copies for customers, then charging them for the service. His edited master copy is illegal on its face, under current laws.

Copyright controls the process of making copies. That's what it controls. The commercial bowdlerizer's copy of the edited movie is simply illegal.

[Hendrix]

I think a judge could have easily found that as long as the creator of the DVD is paid in full and no additional DVDs are being sold to cheat the creator out of his money, then the process of using a master DVD like the one in the case is not against the law because there are no monetary damages to the creator and because the buyer could have taken his purchased DVD to the same company to sanitize it, despite the fact that it would be expensive to do so. The fact is the creator is not damaged by this process because, again, this can be done by the buyer and the creator did in fact get paid in full. That is what makes this case wrong IMO--there are no damages. The creator cannot claim that his artistic is damaged because the buyer can do that anyway.