3 ms·
Exactly. They're running a business. If they think they can get higher viewership by modifying the original, whether by recutting or censoring, that's their cho
by lern_too_spel 3y ago
Exactly. They're running a business. If they think they can get higher viewership by modifying the original, whether by recutting or censoring, that's their choice. If I want to watch the original or the edited version, that's my choice. In this case, as TFA points out, it appears there was an accident in which edit was put on the service.
The pearl clutching in the comments here is ridiculous. It's as if these monkey-fighting commenters have never seen a Monday to Friday TV edit.
- bentley 3y agoIt’s not the edits that I mind. It’s that they’re made by the rightsholder, who has exclusive control over non‐physical copies, and likely will apply the change to future physical releases. Say what you will about the sensibilities of the Bowlders, but they didn’t have control over anyone’s access to the original unedited Shakespeare. Ditto for VidAngel, and so on.
- domador 3y agoExcept you often DON'T get the choice to watch the original. It's simply unavailable, so you'd better like the pureed pablum they're letting you consume.
- lern_too_spel 3y agoYou also usually don't get the choice to watch an edited version if you prefer it. That's life. Sometimes what you want is not easy to obtain.