Killer Joe happened to be a popular stageplay, so there is an audience for it. The fact that stores won't sell NC-17 movies is a bigger censorship issue and I praise the (very good) director for not buckling to market pressure.
I can understand why a producer would be upset by that since the producer's job is to watch the bottom line, but blaming the director for the movie's failure, esp. since the director apparently has final say, is a crappy thing to do.
I don't know why I'm bothering to reply to your trolly comment but...
You completely fail to understand the difference between defending Megaupload and being appalled at the abhorrent and careless actions used by the government to take them down. Even if it was Adolf Hitler selling infants into sex slavery, it wouldn't justify the government's actions. The ends do not justify the means, and it has absolutely nothing to do with supporting piracy, so please shut up about it.
And I'm a copyright moderate. The basis of the law is incentive for artists, and it works because it prevents companies like Warner Brothers from simply taking my ideas and making a big movie without credit or compensation. But the law has become unreasonable and needs serious revision in a way that doesn't entirely benefit big companies like Warner Brothers. They haven't been willing to give up control, but people have taken it from them anyway.
Most creative acts are not done to make money, but simply to be creative. Once people try to make a business out of creativity, we run into problems.
The big problem with current copyright law is it treats everyone's creative act like it has business potential, making people think everything created has monetary value, and that everything created retains monetary value for over a century. This is completely wrong.
With an opt-in system (and searchable database) people who feel their works have value can pay to protect it, and everyone else can just be free to create. I'd have a lot more sympathy then when people cry infringement.
Only a court of law can determine that something is infringing. A private company cannot arbitrarily make that decision. It should be presumed that whomever uploads content has the rights to do so unless challenged by the copyright holder in a court of law. I don't care if you think it's obvious or not - that's how the law works and that's why you have to go after the uploader, not the business hosting the content.
All they're looking for is the power to say "take that website offline" and hopefully do it before any actual court ruling is made about infringing content. Once they have that power, they will abuse it to no end to make sure the only thing online are websites that meet their approval, and that power will extend way beyond the music industry. Lots of businesses will be asking to take down anything they haven't made a deal with.