VidAngel denied emergency stay in 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Taterhead West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 6, 2017 2:01 p.m.

    Congress doesn't have time to deal with this sort of nonsense... we have a wall to pay for and build!
    (but we'll get Mexico to pay for it)....

  • Jonathan Eddy Payson, UT
    Jan. 5, 2017 10:27 p.m.

    Surprise, surprise that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would rule the way they did. As always, the " evil corporations defend at all costs" 9th Circuit Court remains good for nothing.

  • mulrich Columbia, SC
    Jan. 5, 2017 9:09 p.m.

    Not a surprising outcome and seems like the right one according to the law. I hope the result of this is vidangel and the movie studios working out a rental licensing agreement similar to amazon/iTunes but with filtering.

  • 1Reader Sunnyvale, CA
    Jan. 5, 2017 8:40 p.m.

    True, streaming rights may be separate--but they are actually far cheaper than a traditional individual license.

    So why not just pay for that? Because the studios won't allow their content to be cleaned up or controlled by their viewership in any way. It comes down to studios protecting their smut.

    The courts have failed the people yet again (and again) here.

  • UtahBlueDevil Lehi Ut & Durham, NC
    Jan. 5, 2017 7:28 p.m.

    "VidAngel's filtering of content has nothing to do with the claims against it and does not excuse its illegal activities.”

    Unfortunately I completely agree with this statement. I whole heartedly support and agree with what VidAngel was trying to do, but the buy the dvd - stream it - then sell it back was a poorly envisioned attempt to get around copy right law.

    As the statement says - this has nothing to do with streaming edited content, and has everything with the business model and licensing rights. Pay for the rights like the other streaming services do, and you'll have no problem. The distributors are concerned really with one thing only, protecting their assets, and making as much off of them as they can. Help them do that and there will be no issues about "content".

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 5, 2017 5:26 p.m.

    @ trouble: "Sometimes the simplest solution is the one most easily overlooked."

    This solution has not been overlooked - VidAngel has chosen not to pursue this option because they feel it is too expensive - in order to make a profit they would have to charge rates similar to rates charged by every other streaming service, and then they would have to compete fairly.

    I find it hard to accept claims of "morality" from a company that so clearly violates moral standards.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Jan. 5, 2017 3:19 p.m.

    @Trouble

    "I own the streaming rights to all the dvds I've purchased."

    ======

    I highly doubt it. What you more than likely own is a license to view said content from a certain provider (like Vudu). The streaming rights are retained by the Studios, and they allow other services to stream this content for a fee.

    If you have redeemed these "streamed" versions, good luck trying to give that to someone else, short of giving them your account. Even then, you are not selling them the rights, rather your license (and that may even be illegal)

  • Anonymous User ARLINGTON, VA
    Jan. 5, 2017 3:00 p.m.

    If Netflix or Amazon prime video offered a filter add-on feature for $2 more per month or so, I would sign up if the functionality was in line with what VidAngel offers. Likewise, if Amazon video offered an ability to upgrade a purchased video for $2 to a filtered version, I might do so for movies that I wanted to be able to filter. So it seems like the solution is convincing the relevant parties that there is an additional untapped market where people would be willing to pay a premium for more content control.

    What about a hardware solution? Could VidAngel come up with a device like a Roku, Amazon Firestick or Chromecast device that taps into additional streaming services, but then gives the user the ability to filter on the back end?

  • carman Wasatch Front, UT
    Jan. 5, 2017 2:17 p.m.

    There is strong demand for entertainment that is not laced with profanity, vulgarity, indecency, etc. The problem in Hollywood is the propensity to pack movies full of content that many don't find appealing. Hollywood studios and content owners should work out a licencing agreement with the likes of VidAngel, or offer a similar service themselves. I know my family would consume more content if we had more choice about how to consume it.

  • Trouble South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 5, 2017 2:10 p.m.

    I own the streaming rights to all the dvds I've purchased. They were bargained for and paid for at fair market value. I can sell my dvds, along with the streaming rights, to VidAngel or any other third party and the buyer can legally stream filtered or unfiltered original disks. Or Vidangel can simply purchase dvds with the streaming rights attached. Problem solved.

    Sometimes the simplest solution is the one most easily overlooked.

  • UtahTroutStalker draper, UT
    Jan. 5, 2017 1:04 p.m.

    Maybe VidAngel should license its technical know how to HBO, Showtime, Netflix, etc...

    Then perhaps customers with those services would have an option to choose filtered or unfiltered.

    Their current model is incongruent with our current copyright laws.

  • Anonymous User ARLINGTON, VA
    Jan. 5, 2017 12:56 p.m.

    Would it be great to have more readily available filtering options on streamed content? Yes. But what VidAngel is doing is illegally ripping the content from purchased discs, circumventing DRM rights to do so, and then streaming that content over the internet. And, even if it "buys" a disc for each customer that "owns" the movie, it is using a single master digital file to stream that content to its customers. VidAngel is trying to claim this is a moral fight about filtering, but it's really a fight about streaming rights. There is nothing that says that content providers have to let VidAngel stream their content, and the battle for content is a major commercial battle being fought among Amazon, Hulu, Netflix and others. ClearPlay has found a way to LEGALLY filter streamed content by integrating their filtering platform with Google Play. Sure, Clearplay's model is expensive, but at least it is legal and honest, and I can't say the same for VidAngel. Just because VidAngel WANTS the law to be a certain way doesn't mean that the law IS that way. Rather, if changes need to be made, legislation is needed.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Jan. 5, 2017 12:27 p.m.

    As much as vidangel wants to make this about editing a movie, it's about streaming unauthorized content. Content owners get paid a lot of money, or make a lot of money by streaming themselves. HBO gets 15 bucks a months from thousands of people for their exclusive content. Netflix is paying 300 million plus a year to get exclusive access to any new release of Disney movies. Why should VidAngel be allowed to circumvent this and stream without paying rights fee's to the studios and content owners?