"First, it's amusing that you presume that my FR user name has anything at all to do with my real name. Shall I refer to you as "Lord" or "Baltar"? :-)"
Well, since you hadn't mentioned your real name, I opted for what seemed logical. "Hey You" seemed a bit informal.
As for me, Lord will suffice.... :)
"If they offered the editing service to those who already own a legal copy of the movie, then destroyed the original copy so that only one exists, which the customer paid for, I don't see any theoretical copyright violation. One copy was paid for; one (edited) copy exists. It's only for the personal use of that customer, and not being made available for sale or use to anyone else.
I believe that would be a defensible business"
Again, as I said to HJ, IF these "companies" are doing this as a "Free of Charge" service, for personal-use-back-up, I might be inclined to agree. However we both know that these companies are charging a fee, for services without the advice and consent of the filmmakers, and in the process, violating copyrights protections that the filmmakers rightfully enjoy.
Now, if these companies want to approach the filmmakers for consent, and that consent is given, wonderful. In fact, there should be some agreement like that in place regardless.
Unless of course, these companies realize that the filmmakers will tell them to go pound sand, in which case, the companies shouldn't be editing/altering/or screwing around with the DVD in the first place.
You don't need a filmmakers consent to modify an owned copy of a movie for the owner and be paid for that work.. that isn't copyright infringement. If I own a movie, I can take it up to a video editing place tommorrow, tell them to edit it however I want and pay them for that work.. they have not violated ANY copyright law.