Unbelievable judge. Like the studios need another $10k between them.
They're just trying to prevent innovation.
I don't get it. If you don't want "bosoms, blood and bad
words" (Moderator, these are in the photo that the DesNews is showing, not
my words), then watch something else. There are so many options to be
entertained than to try to do an end around the copyright holders. Just find
something else to amuse you. It's not that complicated.
"VidAngel is simply providing an unauthorized dollar-a-day VOD rental
service."In other words, VidAngel is stealing intellectual
property and re-selling it.Got it!
I think a lot of commentators are confused. You seem to think your version of
morality trumps the law. Do you not belive in the 12th Article of Faith?"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and
magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."It
doesn't make exceptions. VidAngel is breaking the law. Yes, studios make
"cleaned up" versions for airlines, schools & libraries. Vid Angel
did not purchase those to stream. Because they didn't want to pay the
legally required fees. So, are you ignoring the 12th AoF to support a company
that's breaking the law? No matter how righteous you believe the cause?
@ERB: "Hollywood would make more money if they would allow companies like
Vidangel to continue what they do."VidAngel could do what
they're doing if they were honest and paid the proper fees for the
appropriate license as their competitors do. The problem isn't
the censoring. The problem is a business model that is not legal. In
the name of, you know, righteousness and stuff.
@Diligent Dave: "Tell me... how any of these studios are being
harmed?"2 ways.First, studios convert their
copyrights into revenue by granting permission to 3rd parties to copy, modify,
or stream their movies in exchange for a licensing fee. VidAngel does not pay
for this permission. Thus studios lose revenue each time a consumer opts to
stream a movie from VidAngel instead of paying more to watch the same movie from
a licensed distributor. Second, the licensing agreements between
studios and distributors like Netflix or Amazon likely require studios take
legal action against unauthorized streaming services. Intellectual property
licenses often require the IP owner to prevent infringement because the licensee
is harmed if an unlicensed competitor is allowed to charge below-market-prices
for the same content. If studios fail to file these lawsuits, they could well
be in breach of contracts with these major distributors. If so, they could lose
millions of $ in revenue or face significant penalties or damages.Filtering, VidAngel, or demand for clean movies are distractions, to what is
simply a rational business decision.
I imagine that if I were to start streaming Soldiers and Saints or the Cokeville
Miracle without the proper copyright permission I would get in trouble too.VidAngel needs to play by the rules - plain and simple.To
many folks out there demanding that the rules only apply to others and not
themselves. Or, they attempt to make rules that exclude others. How sick.
For those demanding 'something must be done'... in the interest of
personal freedom, I recommend...Shutting of the
TV/CABLE/BD/DVD/Internet. In the 50s and 60s my family did not watch TV, since
even in those times, they thought TV was a negative influence.Modern
parents who object to material, should to the same, rather than look to
'big brother government'. There is a certain irony of such a demand of
government, that it should solve problems that could be better solved by the
individual, from groups that demand there be 'less government'.As for the Internet. The Amish have a solution for any needful access...
a computer which has virtually no graphics capability, and has heavy filtering
for what ever the user may desire to eliminate objectionable material, while
still using the Internet for business or other acceptable activities.
@Diligent Dave"Isn't it rather true that if the position
these studios are advocating, prevails, it will be those who want to watch the
movies, but sans the filth, sleaze or violence, will be immorally imposed upon
by the studios?"No it is not true. The studios winning will not
immorally impose anything on people who don't want to see or hear
"filth" as you interpret it. Rather they can choose not to watch the
movie, and the studios won't get their money. That is how our free speech,
capitalist society works.Those who do not like it, should try living
in Iran or N. Korea.
Hollywood would make more money if they would allow companies like Vidangel to
continue what they do. I've never used Vidangel, but I'm sick of
liberal judges pushing their agenda. Even the Supreme Courts liberal justices
have an agenda. What's the problem of someone wanting nudity and swearing
taken out of the movies they otherwise would not watch.
I support VidAngel 1,000%. People have always been able to use media they have
purchased as they wish. They have been able to leave parts of stories out when
they read to their children. They have been able to fast forward through parts
of recorded visual media they do not wish to see. They have been able to fast
forward or mute parts of recorded audio material they do not wish to hear. As a
matter of fact, song artists change the wording to songs they wish to have
played over the radio, despite it changing "their vision". Because
persons who purchase recorded media or books do indeed have the right to use the
media and censor as they wish, there is nothing wrong with hiring someone to
accomplish the censorship for them.
My bet is that VidAngel customers get far faster filtering response than I do
with this publisher. (And that's good). Because it often takes this paper
between many hours to several days before they filter my comments (which contain
no profanities or vulgarities ever), than I'm guessing it would or does for
VidAngel's clientele.All of my nine children (six of whom are
married), have sung the praises of VidAngel's services. I wasn't even
aware they did the filtering until my children mentioned it. I'm sure they
would watch many more movies with the VidAngel service than they would without
it. Hence, I suppose that Hollywood would make more money.Also, I
know with one of my daughters that she likes VidAngel's services, because
she can filter things that cause her children, otherwise, to have nightmares.
So, it is not just better for my grandchildren morally, but emotionally, too.
And, that helps my adult children to sleep easier too, not having to wake up as
much in the middle of the night to console a child having nightmares because of
a movie they watched (even animated movies cause this, I found out)!
Its too bad for vid angle that the movie people want to invoke some morality
against them. Just don't watch the trash coming out of hollywood, your
life will be better and maybe just maybe they'll get the message that we
want to see something without being offended.
There's a very easy way to handle this. The studios already produce
"airplane" copies of their movies which eliminate the bad language and
explicit sexual/violent actions. The studios should just sell copies of the
"airplane" version side-by-side with the theater-release. Let the
public decide which version they want to watch. I'd take a guess that the
sales of videos would drastically increase if people had an "airplane"
version they could buy -- that would give them an option of buying an
acceptable version of the movie instead of just putting them in the position
where their only option was refusing to buy the version with the objectionable
language and actions.
I watch movies and TV programs that have content I will enjoy. There
are many, many popular movies I never see because I am not interested, or
because something in the story is offensive to me in some way. Yeah... that last part. If some portion offends me in some way, I don't
watch it, be it the overall story or a subplot or portrayal of some character or
idea or specific language. My life goes on, even if I miss
something. The "moral" people want it both ways - to claim
some imaginary better-than-thou high ground *and* to watch the latest Hollywood
spectacular with the cool kids. And this is all about filtering
certain words and certain intimate scenes - none of the "moral people"
seem to care about scenes of extreme violence - in fact, the extreme violence is
often the point of big hit movies they want to watch. I suggest the
"Leave it to Beaver" and "My Mother the Car" box sets be the
extent of your viewing - not an offense in sight.
@Lamman - Nampa, IDre: "Something has to be done to protect our
children from filth. "Turn off your television then and
don't watch it. Simple as that.
Kalindra replied to I don't know who—Because we are
confident that Congress intended for movie filtering to be legal without
permission from Hollywood,...It's not filtering without
permission that's the problem - it's the streaming without permission
that's the problem. Then, sghobbs said, in part— Now,
VidAngel has brought up a countersuit that seems to have some legit grievances,
alleging that the studios left them no choice because they colluded to prevent
VidAngel from receiving legal licenses to stream. That's a valid
point...mbd1978 said in reply to RJohnson-- incorrect. VidAngel does
not alter any content. It marks places where specific types of content exists
and allows the user to set their video to skip or mute it. Understanding how
something works goes a long way in crtiticism of that thing.The
supposed righteous indignation of legalists here who celebrate closing
VidAngel's filtering service, sounds to me similar to Laman &
Lemuel's defense of the people of Jerusalem (see 1 Nephi 17:22). Porn,
violence & lewdness—no big deal I can discern among the legalists on
this board! But illegality? OK.
Something has to be done to protect our children from filth. One does not
arbitrarily decide to just start watching hard core porn. It starts with a
couple bad words and suggestive intimacy. The content that is filtered is
essentially meant to plant seeds of future addiction that devastates marriage
personal life. It is diabolical in nature.
This is absolutely ridiculous! All we want is to watch movies, free from all
the disgusting profanity, sexual content, and graphic violence that we might be
offended by. Hollywood clearly doesn't care about morals and simply wants
to make money however they want.
It is nothing new that some folks take advantage, illegally, to get money from
religious people or others with moral views that make them easy pickings.
Fortunately there are laws and judges who see this as the fraud it is. Not all
laws are moral; not all morals are legal. Live with it.
A fascinating interplay of entities - Artists, law, corporations, small
business, morality, immorality, free choice... etc. Stay tuned. This one will
continue to play out til the fat lady sings.
"Freedom of Speech" does not solely belong to the 'speaker',
but the listener has his or her own freedom of hearing. and freedom of not
hearing what he or she chooses what not to hear.Tell me honestly,
and in plain speech vernacular, not legal speak, how any of these studios are
being harmed? What great wrong is being imposed upon them? Is it that they want
their movies to always be aired with full profanities to get total effect, or
something? Aren't they receiving money for the movies that VidAngel
reconveys (whether selling or renting) to customers? And, isn't it a fact
that the customers, and not VidAngel, are choosing what words they don't
want to hear, or scenes they may not want to watch?How does this, in
any commercial way harm the studios? Are the writers paid any less? The
actors?Isn't it rather true that if the position these studios
are advocating, prevails, it will be those who want to watch the movies, but
sans the filth, sleaze or violence, will be immorally imposed upon by the
studios? Can't a consumer filter out what they want? And won't these
studios probably get more customers & revenue via VidAngel?
Just to be clear, the plaintiff's (i.e. studios') complaint has
nothing to do with filtering. It's about the unauthorized streaming of the
content.VidAngel sells a physical DVD to customers, then customers
stream a digital copy of the film from VidAngel's web servers, which they
can freely edit (fancy remote style). However, sale/purchase of a DVD does not
grant permission to stream said movie. There's a mountain of case law that
has reinforced this over and over. The Family Copyright Act that VidAngel keeps
invoking specifically says that the act only protects the filtering of
authorized copies, so if the copy is not authorized in the first place, then the
Family Movie Act does not apply.Now, VidAngel has brought up a
countersuit that seems to have some legit grievances, alleging that the studios
left them no choice because they colluded to prevent VidAngel from receiving
legal licenses to stream. That's a valid point, and I'm eager to see
the outcome. But I don't think there's any question at this point that
VidAngel broke copyright law. The countersuit is just leverage to negotiate a
@RJohnson-- incorrect. VidAngel does not alter any content. It marks places
where specific types of content exists and allows the user to set their video to
skip or mute it. Understanding how something works goes a long way in
crtiticism of that thing.
@BYUalum "Cleanliness is fined!"Theft of
another's intellectual property is cleanliness???@mbd1978"VidAngel hasn't stolen anything anymore than Redbox
has."In fact, they have. Redbox pays royalties AND does not
alter content. VidAngel alters copyrighted material without the permission of
the copyright owner: steals another's intellectual property.@Sanefan"I remember songs edited by radio stations"Um, the radio stations didn't edit, the artist/record label
did--making two versions of a song: the unedited album version and the FCC
compliant radio version.
""Because we are confident that Congress intended for movie filtering to
be legal without permission from Hollywood,...""It's
not the filtering without permission that's the problem - it's the
streaming without permission that's the problem. (ClearPlay
manages to stream and filter movies from these studios just fine - because the
paid the proper fees to stream the movies!)
@sanefan" remember songs edited by radio stations that dismissed
vulgar or lewd lyrics"the radio stations didn't edit those
songs. The studios produce clean versions of those songs and provide them to
the radio stations in order to get air time. Vidangel's
actions and the radio station example you described have nothing in common and
have no relevance to liberals nor conservatives.
@Sanefan. Music artist has ownership of their music. They can choose whether or
not they want to their music to play on public radio. Since the FCC does not
allow certain content on public radio the artist can CHOOSE whether they want to
conform to these standards or not but the artist controls their work. @mbd1978. Perhaps you do not understand licensing agreements. Redbox has a
licensing agreement with movie studios and distributors. Redbox does not pay $20
for a copy of a movie. Depending on the agreement they either split with the
studios or pay way more than retail for the movie. You know there
was a reason that millions of video rentals didn't open up back in the day.
If all it took was to pay retail for a movie then everybody would of being
opening up a video rental store. In the case of streaming please explain how
vidangel makes money if they buy a movie at retail for $20 and they buy it back
Uh, wrong, very wrong my liberal friends. This has gone on since I was a teen
and that is a ver long time ago. I remember songs edited by radio stations that
dismissed vulgar or lewd lyrics. Of course, as a 13 year old, immature young
person, I protested such action. Wink wink! Where does freedom of speech,not
allow them to allow freedom of speech. You libs amaze me, truly.
VidAngel hasn't stolen anything anymore than Redbox has. They paid for all
of their movies, resold them, and in many cases bought them back. No theft and
no crime, and nothing but a bunch of self-righteous movie moguls who want
objectionable content to be more difficult to skip. That's it.
VidAngel is breaking the law plain and simple. As much as we may want
filtering, and I do, this has nothing to do with that. This has to do with them
stealing. They are going to lose, and it is embarrassing to watch them fight.
Cleanliness is NOT being fined, theft is.
To those saying that "filtering is illegal" and that companies have a
right to protect their creative works, you need to do your homework. What
VidAngel does amounts to a fancy remote that presses the mute button and fast
forward button for a viewer, rather than a viewer having to push it manually.
Nothing more, and nothing less, and it is 100% legal. The corporations are
suing because they don't like the legality of it, and they are currently
winning because they're bigger and richer. That's all there is to it.
I sure hope they win in the end. Vid Angel is a good thing. Hollywood not so
Good for the judge. This company has absolutely no right to modify somebody
else's creative or artistic work to conform to its own narrow world view.
Cleanliness is fined! How ridiculous!!
People and corporations have a legal right to protect their product. VidAngel
should have known this going into business and they have no one to blame but
"As we know, full compliance meant VidAngel had to shut down its business
entirely because we didn't have the necessary time.""Yeah- because VidAngel was running an illegal business. Regardless of their
"morals" and those of their customers, it was , and is illegal.
They're lucky that Disney & other studios aren't suing for the
past profits that VidAngel made.