That's a strawman argument. We aren't talking about a liberal gutting Ann Coulter's book. We're talking about removing profanity and / or nudity from a film so maybe younger people can watch it. Big difference, and you know it's a big difference. The example of how the director has a hand in the TV / airline version? What's the difference? That's EXACTLY what they do.......remove "vulgarities" from the film for more ready public consumption. I remove the word "s**t", he removes the word "s**t". Big deal. Tempest in a teapot.
No......it's very hypocritical.
We aren't talking about a liberal gutting Ann Coulter's book. We're talking about removing profanity and / or nudity from a film so maybe younger people can watch it. Big difference, and you know it's a big difference.Maybe to you it's a big difference. But that's a subjective matter. The fact in both cases is that someone is altering a copyrighted work, then reselling it, without the permission of the person who owns the copyright.
The example of how the director has a hand in the TV / airline version? What's the difference?
The difference is the involvement and approval of the copyright holder. You can't seriously stand here and say that it's okay for someone to do one sort of alteration that you approve of to a copyrighted work, but it's not okay to do a different alteration that you don't like to the same work, or to another work.