VidAngel's CEO explains how the company made its decision to develop its new service

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Kelly, San Diego, CA San Diego, CA
    June 19, 2017 10:16 p.m.

    Netflix promptly disavowed any agreement or cooperation with VidAngel. Turns out Netflix’s Terms of Use paragraph 6.f. states: “You [Netflix subscriber] also agree not to: circumvent, remove, alter . . . any of the content protections in the Netflix service; use any robot, spider, scraper or other automated means to access the Netflix service; . . . insert any code or product or manipulate the content of the Netflix service in any way.” Although I am not an engineer or programmer, this would seem to expressly prohibit all the functions involved in filtering.

    Netflix is not likely to bring suit since the Studios are already well into a suit that will bankrupt VidAngel. They are also not likely to not do anything. They are probably identifying specifically how VidAngel violates Terms of Use. Warn their customer base and then void the membership of anyone who continues using VidAngel services for violating Terms of Use. Without a Netflix account, the VidAngel service is worthless. Amazon and HBO are likely doing the same thing.

    Or I could be wrong.

  • tesuji Bountiful, UT
    June 19, 2017 7:42 p.m.

    VidAngel is heroic in my opinion. They keep trying to give us the service we want - clean entertainment. Let's hope the courts see reason.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    June 19, 2017 5:06 p.m.

    I know people who wouldn't see Titanic because of certain scenes. What a shame. Well now they can. That's great.

  • my_two_cents_worth university place, WA
    June 19, 2017 4:56 p.m.

    @dcinaz

    "It seems that you would maintain that if I sit with my kids to watch some PG13 movie, ready to skip and mute the parts that I think they should not be hearing or watching, then I must be breaking the law."

    Not at all. You bought the product for your personal use in your home. With the exception of illegally copying and distributing, you are pretty much free to do what you will with it. VidAngle is not doing that. They are taking another's intellectual property without the owners permission, charging you to modify that property without owners permission, and then not sharing any of their proceeds with the rightful property owner. That's called stealing.

  • Kelly, San Diego, CA San Diego, CA
    June 19, 2017 4:41 p.m.

    Does it seem odd to anyone else that streaming services who do business with the Studios would ‘endorse’ or in any way work with VidAngel, a company being sued by the Studios? Netflix was rather quick to go on record as having not authorized anything with VidAngel.
    The latest court hearing did not go well for VidAngel. They are facing fines of $2.500 to $25,000 for each movie copied to its server. They also face potential fines of $200 to $150,000 for each copyright violation. That is just a start of potential penalties should they lose their case. So VidAngel is just trying to change the subject and generate income by announcing a streaming service that more or less uses Clearplay’s business model albeit with their own technology. They may have finally found a legal way to filter although it seems the hole of penalties and fines they will eventually face may be too deep.

  • SWP Provo, UT
    June 19, 2017 2:59 p.m.

    @Impartial7

    Actually...this is a lot different. The studios' main beef is that Vidangel was streaming movies it didn't have the right to stream. You can legally filter movies that you own or are streamed to you legally. From the Family Movie Act:

    "...by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture, during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology."

    Since Netflix and Amazon can legally stream these shows, it should be legal for an individual to use the filter services provided by Vidangel. Clearplay was sued for this same type of service, which brought about the Family Movie Act.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 19, 2017 2:48 p.m.

    I'll disagree with you Impartial7. It seems that you would maintain that if I sit with my kids to watch some PG13 movie, ready to skip and mute the parts that I think they should not be hearing or watching, then I must be breaking the law.

    =====

    If you were charging your kids to do this service, you would be.

    If you wrote your own program for personal use...you wouldn't be

  • M Hes ROY, UT
    June 19, 2017 2:48 p.m.

    I have registered but can't get the new service to work. Not sure if I'm doing something wrong or perhaps the conversion to the new service is not complete????

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 19, 2017 2:42 p.m.

    @ChrisB

    You do realize that major networks edit movies to then play them on broadcast TV all the time don't you?

    ====

    Yes, with written authorization from the publisher/owner. I can guarantee you KSL cannot show Terminator 2 edited without approval.

  • IAlaw Malvern, IA
    June 19, 2017 2:39 p.m.

    @ Impartial7:

    VidAngel isn't "changing a copyrighted product." It's really no different than if I hired a VidAngel employee to sit in my family room and hold the remote, muting and fastforwarding according to my preferences.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    June 19, 2017 2:16 p.m.

    impartial,

    You do realize that major networks edit movies to then play them on broadcast TV all the time don't you?

    Your comment suggests you didnt know this. Consider yourself informed.

  • Justin M Sacramento, CA
    June 19, 2017 2:01 p.m.

    if only the world had the collective discipline to not throw dollars at products they clearly don't want. If that could happen, and people could abstain from those products, things would change in a hurry. After all, look at what happened with the NC-17 rating... it was the financial kiss of death to get that rating, because people wouldn't attend them.

    Film's are getting so expensive that SEVERAL movie/investor groups are having to participate because they're unwilling to take the risk of financing a film on their own. (If you don't believe me, look at the number of companies mentioned in the pre-credits)

    Money talks, people....

  • dcinaz Gilbert, AZ
    June 19, 2017 1:43 p.m.

    I'll disagree with you Impartial7. It seems that you would maintain that if I sit with my kids to watch some PG13 movie, ready to skip and mute the parts that I think they should not be hearing or watching, then I must be breaking the law. Many recent PG13 movies are clearly aimed at a juvenile audience, but the directors feel obligated to add something edgy lest the general public think it a family movie and stay away. Vidangel clearly stated--"let directors film what they want, and let viewers watch what they want." You are still free to watch the original version, but Vidangel gives me the choice to view how I want with my family. The movie is a licensed copy, and no permanently changed version has been produced per the Family Home Movie Act. Studios get more money because I viewed a movie I would not have viewed before, and I get to enjoy a movie without the unnecessary stuff. It's a "win-win" situation.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    June 19, 2017 11:45 a.m.

    Just another lawsuit in the making. When are these guys going to figure out you can't change a copyrighted product to fit your own prudishness? Want to offer your customers "clean" movies? Start your own production company.