1. You don't have the freedom to edit someone else's work and re-sell
it for a profit. That is not how freedom works.2. Hollywood is not
forcing you to watch their films. If you don't like their content, you can
choose not to watch it.
NoNames wrote, "It is as if a baker or photographer included an
anti-homosexual sticker on every cake and photograph and then sued to prevent
homosexual couples from removing these stickers after the product was purchased.
"Interesting analogy. But you forgot a detail. This action
would be legal if the baker / photographer put these anti-homosexual stickers on
EVERY cake and photograph that he sold--which of course includes cakes and
photos sold to straight couples---and then sued to prevent every couple from
removing them after the purchase.
Mr. Aho wrote, "VidAngel's sale-buyback model was its best effort to
filter streaming movies within the law--under the fair use provisions of the
Copyright Act." Come on, now. You can't sell something you
don't own. If, on a given night, VidAngel was going to stream Movie X to
100 households, it would have to legally buy 100 copies of Movie X from the
studio, then charge each of those households $20 PLUS sales tax of $1.37. If
the 101st person asked for it, they would have had to turn them down. When
VidAngel "bought them back" the next day, they would have had to pay
$1.30 sales tax on the sale, and then remit $2.67 to the state of Utah for every
single sale and buy back. They didn't do that."One judge disagreed and that decision is under appeal."You're implying one out of many. At the first level, whether it's
criminal or civil or traffic court, there is only one judge. And "under
appeal" doesn't mean that you have much of a case; anybody with enough
money to pay for the filing fee can appeal any decision.
I can't help believe that there is some hypocrisy in patrons who want to
watch a movie that has been edited to remove sex, vulgarity, or violence. They
may take comfort that they have blocked the offensive material from entering
their homes or being viewed by their families, but, nevertheless, by watching or
buying an edited movie, they still have patronized those who created and
committed the sexual, vulgar, or violent scenes. True renunciation
of smut requires that one not patronize it or its creators, either in its
original or edited form.
It would be nice if there were some rogue studio that would authorize edited for
tv versions or edited for airline versions. Really, the expense of editing has
already been done. There seems to be a demand there as these other companies
feel they can make money at it. They should cut out the middle man and offer it
themselves and with their own preffered timing.Even if its a niche
market, what could be the harm? The curiousity isn't that there are some
artist or studios that don't think it is a good idea, but that why
doesn't there seem to be a few "artist" or studios that would let
their work be cleaned up etc and sold as such, for a profit of course.We see "unedited", "extended " or releases of the
"unrated" versions of movies and that apparently has some sort of
artistic merit that the studios seem to be ok with. They authorize
edited versions for TV or airlines. If they have already released edited
versions, what sort of high ground are they trying to protect, and why
doesn't a single studio partner with such a streaming service to pad their
balance sheet? What is the harm? There is so much content out there, give
people more choice and pay the artist for it.
This is not my area of expertise, but it seems to me that the concept of owning
a copyright on intellectual property is not just about controlling the content.
It is primarily about being entitled to the revenue streams associated with
intellectual property."Hollywood" movie makers (that's
a broad term) clearly allow filtering for airlines, but they receive the
revenues. In principle, their argument centers around their receiving the
revenues from any modifications made to their IP. In short, they are fighting to
protect IP "turf" on which these filtering companies have
"tresspassed".I don't see that as morally or legally
repugnant, and certainly not "anti-family"! It is what any creator of IP
can and should do, including the Church's Intellectual Reserve.
What I can't figure out is why Hollywood doesn't view me as a valuable
commodity and yet, my wallet is always open to a movie that appeals to all my
senses, doesn't offend my wit, my intellect, my spirit, and will entertain
me. Hollywood fails on most accounts and thus doesn't get my money.
Vidangel drew me in because I could cut out the political correctness, the
obscenity, vulgarity, and the waste of time on scenes and thoughts that are not
only offensive to smart, clever, and witty character and dialogue, but to
entertainment. On second thought, without Hollywood's approval or
disapproval, I have a life. Thus, here I sit, being able to have a life that
includes family, work, service, exercise, fun, and an actual conversation with
my neighbor that doesn't include the latest farce, sports hero, or
progressive fad. Maybe I am better off without Hollywood knowing I would spend
hundreds of dollars a year, if they knew how to make a descent movie.
@baho;"It really is nice to have comments on my op-ed--even when they
are antagonistic. Nice to see the thoughtful exercise of free speech."It doesn't matter what you think about the comments. It's the
law and the courts that keep your actions illegal.
It really is nice to have comments on my op-ed--even when they are antagonistic.
Nice to see the thoughtful exercise of free speech.I won't get
involved in any back-and-forth arguments, but will address one question that
came up several times:The bill language currently being considered
by Congress specifically disallows the business model the studios have found
objectionable. Filtering services (VidAngel, ClearPlay or others) would ride on
top of user subscriptions to Netflix, Amazon, etc. There would be no economic
harm to the studios or distributors. Of note, this more traditional
model was proposed to multiple studios prior to the lawsuit, but was not
accepted. VidAngel's sale-buyback model was its best effort to filter
streaming movies within the law--under the fair use provisions of the Copyright
Act. One judge disagreed and that decision is under appeal. However, the
proposed legislation and technological solution would make the business model
issue irrelevant.If Hollywood's problem really is the business
model, it should support the update of the FMA.
I personally really liked the vidangel service. I hope it can be saved.
@NoNamesAcceptedThis case is not even remotely related to baker,
photographers, and homosexuality. Take the time to read the
complaint. The case has zero to do with filtering.
If you don't like the content of a movie don't watch. Creative people
who make movies have a right to have their creations protected. Let the free
market address demand. (Isn't that the classic conservative approach?) And
as someone else has said, just produce your own family friendly content.
Don't whine because Hollywood won't listen to you.
[continued from above]I think the copyright holders have legal
precedent, but they seem dishonorable when they allow airlines to show cleaned
up editions of movies, but won’t release these same editions to the
general public with the rationale expressed in this comment:“U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch issued his decision Thursday,
ending a three-year court battle. In his 16-page ruling, Matsch said cutting
language, sex and violence causes ‘irreparable injury to the creative
artistic expression in the copyrighted movies’ and referred to the
businesses as ‘illegitimate.’”___Now back to
the present, read James Durston, “Inside the billion-dollar,
super-censored inflight movie industry,” CNN, August 25, 2014, for more
information on licensing arrangements for inflight movies.
@ Misty MountainI third the call from you and JoeBlow for more
information. Your comment regarding airlines is one of the dynamics of this
discussion. Ironically, 11 years ago I composed a letter to two
friends on this topic but I never got around to completing and sending it. The
letter has been sitting in my email Drafts folder ever since. Now it’s
coming to you straight from July 10, 2006! :-)___Amelia
Nielson-Stowell, “CleanFlicks plans to appeal ruling,” Deseret News,
July 9, 2006.I don’t think either side sounds very honorable.
I thought the quote below was striking with the attitude of entitlement that is
expressed, and the attitude of dependence on the watching of Hollywood
productions.“Daniel Thompson, owner of the four CleanFlicks
shops in Utah County. ‘I think it’s ridiculous that you can’t
watch a movie without seeing sex, nudity or extreme violence. I don’t
understand why they’re trying to keep that in there.’”[continued below]
Although my husband and I are empty nesters and movie buffs, we try to exercise
self-control about what we watch. Now and then, we see a movie advertised that
looks really good, but we skip it because of the R rating and the reasons given
for the R rating. Later by a year or more, we catch the movie when it's
been edited for TV. Rarely are we impressed. The comedy is still sophomoric, or
the drama is still relentlessly depressing. Also, the censorship is so obvious
as to call attention to language, either because a word is replaced by a silly
substitute or because it's easy to lip read what the character actually
said. Unfortunately, rough language and explicit discussions are pervasive in
our culture and mirrored in our visual media. We have to draw the line for
ourselves and our families and do our best to practice what we believe. It
would be great if we had more media creators who were both highly skilled and
determined to stay out of the gutter, but there have been some excellent movies
lately -- enough that a busy family that sees a movie together every week
shouldn't have time to worry about the other stuff.
Hollywood is a wasteland for the most part best avoided like a deep crevass on a
tall mountain trail not only for kids but adults as well. I think perhaps 10% of
the movies each year are fit to pay your $8 and popcorn for. The other 90%
reflect the godless valueless PC braindead trash that is the Holywood culture
today. Again better to read a book or get some excercise instead.
Protect Family Rights does itself no favors with this self-contradicting
fear-mongering.The author repeatedly references "rights"
under the existing Family Movie Act of 2005 that have been "all but
lost" due to the "predatory" and "decei[tful]" tactics of
Hollywood.If such "rights" are in fact granted under the
FMA, VidAngel can and should confidently proceed to trial, and appeal any
adverse decisions at the district court or appellate levels. So far, the courts
are not finding the "rights" that Mr. Aho repeatedly assures readers are
in the current FMA.But Mr. Aho does not appear to believe his own
spin about these "rights". He concedes as much by advocating an
"update the Family Movie Act to protect streamed movies."So
which is it?Is VidAngel in the right, and the courts thus far have
it wrong, as to what is permitted under the current FMA/Copyright Act?Or is VidAngel in the wrong under the current FMA/Copyright Act, but Congress
should amend the FMA to allow for VidAngel's business model and methods?By taking both positions, Protect Family Rights undermines its effort to
persuade readers as to its position.
@ImpartialAnd if there is a huge demand for cakes, photographers,
and reception centers for homosexual events, go start tour own business to cater
to them.Oh, but that is different, isnt it?When it is
your favored agenda, laws forcing people to cater to others are acceptable to
you. When it is a different agenda, you oppoae laws.Notably, nothing
in current law forces studios to cater to anyone. The law simply allows
consumers to remove content they dont like after the purchase or rent a movie,
habing paid the studio for their product. But the studios are doing everthing
possible to keep consumers from doing so.It js as if a baker or
photographer included an anti-homosexual sticker on every cake and photograph
and then sued to prevent homosexual couples from removing these stickers after
the product was purchased. "This is what we sell, most like it,
and if you don't you can go start your own business," would not mollify
you in the least on that case.Sometimes, hypocrisy reveals rank
bigotry. This is one such case.
Simple solution. If there's such a huge demand for "clean" movies-
make them. Round up all those, that want to alter other's work to suit
their sensibilities, and invest heavily in a production studio and crank out all
those family movies. There should be tons of people waiting in line, cash in
hand, to see/purchase them. Right? Or maybe there's not a global market
that feels the need to only view G rated movies?
Ever heard of Fabianism? Wolves in sheep clothes that move as slow as a
turtle. If they can't persuade you they will persuade your kid, and if not
them their kid. They have an agenda. It's not good. Keep the faith, know
and remember the first Commandment. The others are about behavior.
OK, so I read the article and wonder "whats the big deal? Why would the
studios care".Because it all seems pretty reasonable. So I did
some checking. I was surprised that the author, Bill Aho, left out a pretty
major piece.Here is an excerpt of what I found. "Disney, 20th Century Fox and Warner Bros. Entertainment, who went after
VidAngel not because of its filtering technology per se, but rather because of a
business model the studios posed as disrupting the home video market."In a nutshell, here is VidAngel's model. Sell the movie to the
consumer, say for $20, let them watch it with filtered content, and then sell it
back to VidAngel for $19.Why was this issue not mentioned in the
article?Shame on you Mr Aho. Your article was slanted to the point
"VidAngel repeatedly requested a license to stream content from the studios,
proposing various approaches and business models. The studios’ response:
not interested at any price."Some details, about these
"various approaches and business models", please. And some
documentation for that alleged "not interested at any price" response.
It does seem strange that airlines have no trouble getting filtered copies
streamed to their passengers, but that VidAngel was out of luck? And please explain "Because ClearPlay has no more new DVD players
available and can no longer filter new streamed movies, and with VidAngel
enjoined, the rights granted to families by the FMA are all but lost. "
Your local WalMart has four different brands of DVD players for sale. Did
somebody pass a law saying that ClearPlay isn't allowed to buy them and
modify them to accept your filtering services?You also said nothing
about the sale-buyback program of VidAngel, which the Court saw as an unlicensed
streaming service. You were a consultant to VidAngel. Did you agree with this