[Strategerist]

What are you talking about?! They aren't cheating the studios out of any profits - for each film they scrub and sell, they buy a copy of the original and destroy it.

Ok, so someone buys 1000 copies of the Passion of the Christ, adds in scenes of Christ uttering profanities and having sex, sells them, but destroys the originals.

Fine with you I presume.

[poindexters brother]

It is not being represented or sold as the original. I am knowingly buying "the original" along with editing services being performed on my copy.

[NinoFan]

Ok, so someone buys 1000 copies of the Passion of the Christ, adds in scenes of Christ uttering profanities and having sex, sells them, but destroys the originals. Fine with you I presume.

I see nothing wrong with that. If our current law prohibits that (and we'll see how the higher courts rule), then it should be changed. I should be free to edit any movie I buy in any way I like and to resell that copy. [Not change it and then make mass copies of that copy mind you (aka, a form of pirating). For each video I resold I'd have to buy an original from the studio and physically alter it. That seems like the proper balance to me.] These people, likewise, are buying movies from the companies, editing them, and then selling them. You can still buy Studio ____'s version of the movie from the studio itself. None of this diminishes the studio's profits, in fact, it may increase them.

[killjoy]

Ok, so someone buys 1000 copies of the Passion of the Christ, adds in scenes of Christ uttering profanities and having sex, sells them, but destroys the originals.

As long as whoever created the modified copies legally purchased the 1000 originals, I don't see a problem. It might actually make the Passion of the Christ watchable.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Ok, so someone buys 1000 copies of the Passion of the Christ, adds in scenes of Christ uttering profanities and having sex, sells them, but destroys the originals.

There is a movie somewhat along that vein, it's called Jesus Christ Superstar.

[Tribune7]

You know, the funny thing is, I suspect a whole lot of people who are objecting to CleanFilms wouldn't object to what you describe. They might even get a government grant.

Anyway, cutting scenes is a lot different than adding them. It's done in theater quite a bit. You often don't get the full Shakespeare.

[Paulus Invictus]

But they are not adding scenes. They subtract the porn. Big difference.

[RightWingAtheist]

During the 50s through the seventies, it was routine for exploitation producers to buy foreign films which would normally go straight to art houses, and "spice" them up with added scenes of sex and/or violence, without consent of the original filmmakers. They even did this to at least one Ingmar Bergman film