Four hundred some-odd posts and Freepers don't agree. Fine.
I agree that these companies are violating copyright. I'm a lawyer I can't deny that.
But I think Hollywood is cutting off its nose to spite its face. The people who purchase these products are not all of a sudden going to start watching the Hollywood version--they simply won't buy it at all. So instead of getting paid for the version that is purchased for edit, the movie studios won't make a dime off of that consumer.
The industry should embrace this concept and issue family friendly versions of movies, labeled as such, for this market. Even the cutest family movie often has questionable language and/or cringe-inducing sexual reference or innuendo.
They need to get off their high horse and realize that if money truly is their bottom line, they'd make a bundle removing the nasty stuff from an otherwise wholesome and entertaining movie. But of course, some would posit that offering such content is not about the money, but for a far more nefarious purpose. Whatever!
In general terms I understand that copyright law prevents persons from expropriating the products of others to claim as their own, but what is it about copyright law that precludes a vendor from removing offensive content so long as the producer is paid the same as for unedited content?