Strawman argument, not germane to this case. And a rather hyperbolic, but empty argument.
Child pornography is against the law, same with snuff films. Its a valid law, and I agree it it.
This is about commercial films that are owned by studios and sold and distributed and shown by the studios that OWN the copyrights to them.
Focus, don’t try to create logical fallacies by bringing in non germane issues. That is really pathetic argumentation, you should know better.
Funny, you are for the law one minute and against it another, hypocritical.
“I agree it it”
Driven to ungrammatical distraction, I see.
So, you are for censorship? I thought you called me Taliban because I believe in censoring art in civil societies.
I believe that once a person buys an item, even if it is copyrighted, that person’s private property rights supersede the copyright law as long as it is not used for profit—copied and sold, although he could sell it at a garage sale. I think the person can alter it, burn it, destroy it and be within his rights, since freedom in our country means the ability to have private property and have the freedom to do with it what you desire.
We really become fascist when we decide what a person can do in the privacy of their own home which absolutely undermines the meaning of freedom. Copyrighted material has a right to profit and be compensated for, but no right to dictate how it is personally used....if they want to use it for toilet paper, sobeit.
“This is about commercial films that are owned by studios and sold and distributed and shown by the studios that OWN the copyrights to them.”
This isn’t the same movie being sold. It was edited. I think one should be allowed to do that.