Because they are charging fees for it and therefore profit from the original work. If they did it for free then the studios would not have a case.
That doesn't wash either. Wal-Mart makes a profit by selling copies of the videos. Blockbuster makes a profit by renting them. Why shouldn't these businesses profit from the service of editing individual copies for content?
"Because they are charging fees for it and therefore profit from the original work. If they did it for free then the studios would not have a case."
You can legally pay someone to change something you OWN.. there is no violation of copyright law for paying or being paid to edit an original work that you own... you violate copyright law when you try to sell or resell.. not for charging for a service provided.
This judge is a bafoon.
Rental places definately have copyright issues.. but to say someone who edits a DVD of their own and for their own personal private use is violating copyright law is idiocy.