The new model is like a remote control with a mute and a skip button. You can
tell the remote beforehand what to skip or mute instead of manually pushing the
button. If the new model is illegal then the mute and skip button should be
The analogy about "painting a smile on the Mona Lisa" is a terrible one.
That is not what's happening. That analogy would be sort of fair if
VidAngel were to sell DVDs containing edited versions of the original.A better analogy is VidAngel standing outside of the museum, selling special
glasses that make it look like Mona Lisa has a smile, and then Da Vinci throws a
temper tantrum, accusing VidAngel of defacing his work.
@GlassyIf you decide to fast forward through parts of a movie you can do
that but when a business takes a licensed product and alters it for resale that
is illegal. Please stop trying to act like there is no difference.
What's with the "Mother may I" mentality of our society today? Why
would anyone think that Netflix or Amazon care how I watch the content I have
paid them for? -- or if I filter it to make it more acceptable to me? Why
would I be obligated to get their permission? Do I have to ask them before I
leave the room? If I streamed their content through my Roku device or through
my streaming-enabled DVD player, with my TV turned off (i.e., the ultimate
filter) would I really need their permission? Sheesh, people! I'll bet
some of you are still carrying around the hall pass your teacher gave you in the
first grade. Take a risk! Live dangerously! Use the mute button on your
remote, or the fast-forward even! --Or be really radical and subscribe to
VidAngel and let them do that for you!
“I understand that movies and television have gotten pretty scandalous but
I don't think it is right to set out to change content to suit your
preference.”You may not like it, nor the creators, but that's
the very right that is given by the FMA, to change content to suit your
preference, so long as it is not someone else's edited preference, and for
your home use only (not put into theatres public viewing, ect)“I
don't think the creators of the content will allow this to happen
either.”You may be right, because they are a stubborn bunch and not
only do they want to share their art, they want to share their smut along with
it, they do have motives and want to always push the envelope because
that's supposedly what artists in their opinion do (but really that's
just where the money is at) Lawsuits are all about the money anyways.
@Riverton CougarActually it is more like a company taking the painting and
painting a smile on it without permissions. then selling it for a profit.
It's odd that business based on the premise of morality would make thier
living in such a morally and legally grey area.
This reminds me of Utah's liquor laws and the Zion curtain. Some people
want to go to bars and pretend the alcohol isn't there. They want to watch
R-rated movies and pretend the profanity isn't there. Do you really get a
moral exception from pretending?
"You might as well paint a smile on the Mona Lisa because you don't
agree with the way her face looks."Obviously painting a smile on
the original Mona Lisa would be bad, but how about painting a smile on your copy
of the Mona Lisa?
I actually hope this works out for them this time. I was a day one critic of the
DVD ripping model, which I called out as clearly illegal. This, however, IMO, is
exactly what the FMA was designed to protect, though I'm unclear on any
conflicts they may have with terms of service, etc. More power to them for
trying the hard way.
Also, there may be other legal issues at play because basically they stream it
to the cloud, filter it there, and stream it back to your device. Does this
violate the DMCA or not? Kind of a grey area there. Also, who did they
actually talk to at Netflix and Amazon? It's very unclear how this is
going to turn out. In the meantime, there are other companies that are trying
to stay away from the grey area of the law, Clearplay and Play It My Way. for
instance :) ...
By requiring an authorized copy and prohibiting making a permanent copy, the
Family Movie Act was crafted to not need artists' endorsements to filter.
Thus in theory, filtering companies shouldn't need endorsements from
Netflix, et. al. Although streaming likely involves proprietary software that
may need to be 'hacked' to effectively filter which would require some
legal clearance. I believe the real problem is that the FMA envisioned
individuals in their homes making their own editing decisions. Filtering
companies make the editing decisions and their customers merely decides which of
the company's edits to use. That is in effect selling an edited movie
which is illegal. The only difference is the number of edited versions
filtering companies make possible. In other words, the FMA was not intended to
create a market for independent, post release movie editors.The reaction
of directors, writers and producers to Sony's recent statement about making
clean versions of their movies demonstrates the complexity of this issue
It'd be the equivalent of looking at the Mona Lisa with colored sunglasses
on, not painting a smile on her. Vidangel's filtering services do not
change the art for anyone but the person who chooses to view it that way. A
right as inherent in art as artistic integrity.
This type of technology is not going to be endorsed by any of the online
streaming services. To think that you can go in and alter content that
"artists" have painstakingly prepared is ridiculous. You might as well
paint a smile on the Mona Lisa because you don't agree with the way her
face looks. I understand that movies and television have gotten pretty
scandalous but I don't think it is right to set out to change content to
suit your preference. I don't think the creators of the content will allow
this to happen either.