[Strategerist]

Yes, but the original movie is still there at the major rental outlets. So, if they are paid for their copy, how are they harmed? Further, I think that language is edited in movies shown on US airlines. How is that allowed under this ruling?

Wow, people are remarkably dense on this thread.

The airline and TV edits are done with permission of the copyright holders.

This stuff by the companies in this suit was completely unauthorized.

Comprende?

[Binghamton_native]

You know absolutely for a fact that CleanFilms did not have an agreement with the copyright holders? Since I am a member of CleanFilms, I will be waiting to see what they have to say.

[Binghamton_native]

Also, when you post, you might try a little more humility, and a little less arrogance.

[FreedomCalls]

Wow, people are remarkably dense on this thread. The airline and TV edits are done with permission of the copyright holders. This stuff by the companies in this suit was completely unauthorized. Comprende?

The versions sold by these companies have the exact same cuts as the TV and airline versions. Those are "approved" already. Comprende?

[Ruth A.]

The airline and TV edits are done with permission of the copyright holders.

So much for infringing upon their artistic expression. If it is fine for the airlines, then why should they mind selling an edited version to the common folk?

The fact is that artistic expression and freedom of speech are handy fig leaves for those who consider themselves more intelligent or creative than the rest of us.

Perhaps they are afraid of seeing that sanitized films would actually sell to a larger market; then they would have to follow the market rather than forever "pushing the envelope."