The media is probably getting this wrong.
If the part was renting the DVD's without a comercial rental agreement then we never get to the editing portion of the debate.
There is also the difference between renting and buying.
If I BUY the dvd and then edit it, it is MY DVD and I have done this for my own PERSONAL use. Thus if I take MY DVD and I have a service edit out the stuff of MY DVD then I think that is fair use.
Now rentals are a different story because they are akin to a movie theater.
I think the MSM is reporting the legal issues here wrong. (as always for the incompetent legal media) Artsy fartsy is irrelevant, the issue is the money derived from edited versions and fair use doctrine.
Hopefully this will be appealed.
Having used these services, I agree.
I used to work for a company that did video duplication. The way it was explained to me was; if the material was copyrighted, we could not duplicate it without authorization from the copyright holder. Even if you make a copy and then hire someone to edit it, they would still be duplicating copyrighted material.