From an "intellectual property" point of view, the sanitizers are technically legitimate. The original copy is purchased and delivered to the customer, so the original producer is not being cheated of any royalties. But I'm glad the judge ruled the way he did, the whole idea of making intellectual or artistic material a commodity is distasteful to me, other than the author should be paid for his work, or whoever he chooses to sell the rights to. The artist/author is trying to make a point, and his work should be respected, no matter how dreadful it is. The sanitized version may communicate something totally different from what the author intended. The only way this is acceptable is if the author authorizes the purchaser of the work to do as he sees fit with it.

Doing this for cultural or religious reasons is bad enough, but it doesn't stop there. I watch a lot of old movies on TV, and I am appalled to see whole scenes speeded up, or deleted altogether, so that they can fit in more commercials. Often it is done so clumsily that the plot is altered beyond recognition. Another one of my pet peeves is the overlaying of commercial messages, voice-overs and graphics or split-screens on top of the material; and the acceleration, micro-sizing or elimination of credits, which is a direct blow to the artists' and technicians' livelihoods.

These people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.