VidAngel request for injunction review rejected

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • St George Guy Washington, UT
    Aug. 6, 2017 1:08 a.m.

    Your remote control is destroying others artwork! It alters it from the original so it should be illegal. Let's sue the maker of the remote control. I mean who do those remote control makers think they are? They think they are so righteous and can give people a technology to skip something. The directors obviously know better than you what you should watch. If you start a movie and it has 12 year old humor about body parts too bad. You have to watch every second. It's art! If you start a movie and it is pushing Mormon ideals on you too bad. You can't skip. It's art! The audacity of some people trying to use technology to watch only what they want to watch.

  • Not another naysayer Lehi, UT
    Aug. 4, 2017 9:22 a.m.

    There are a lot of critical responses here by people that have no grasp of what the issues are. That it destroys the work of art is ludicrous as the work is still intact. This is not what the merits of the case are based.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Aug. 3, 2017 5:40 p.m.

    There is a solution for vidangel and that is to produce their own content and distribute it on their platform. If the market thinks it is sound then they will make millions. If not then that proves there isn't a viable market for the audince they cater to.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 3, 2017 5:08 p.m.

    selling special glasses that make certain artwork look more palatable to the viewer.

    ====

    if you don't like the artwork, don't participate. That's how you send Hollywood your message.

  • Utah Girl Chronicles Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 3, 2017 4:26 p.m.

    @IAlaw

    "...selling special glasses that make certain artwork look more palatable to the viewer."

    It's people who think they have the right to alter creative content who are unpalatable.

  • IAlaw ,
    Aug. 3, 2017 3:10 p.m.

    I see some really bad comparisons being thrown around. VidAngel isn't ruining anything. The original "artwork" still exists unaltered. What VidAngel is doing is no different than standing on the sidewalk in front of an art museum, selling special glasses that make certain artwork look more palatable to the viewer.

  • Fitz Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 3, 2017 2:28 p.m.

    Dear Vidangel, it was a good try to help some that like movies but, only when the say a G rating. So Vidangel tried to take PG and R rates and move them to G ratings. It hasn't worked under legal cases. So, give it up, you can't and won't win.

  • at long last. . . Kirksville , MO
    Aug. 3, 2017 2:21 p.m.

    Geez, why not take it up with the Quorum of the Seventy? Is there no justice for those who are thinking right?

  • CBPapa Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 3, 2017 2:01 p.m.

    to: imsmarterthanyou

    You comparison is apples and oranges in my opinion. Vidangel isn't 'destroying' anyones 'works of art'. Temporarily modifying it for the viewers pleasure...maybe, but destroying it? Nope.
    If someone wants to watch the unedited version, they still can. Nothing was done permanently to their 'work of art'.

    Who's smarter than whom?

  • imsmarterthanyou Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 3, 2017 1:14 p.m.

    Ok, VidAngel has no case. It could be said they are destroying someone else's artwork. What they are doing is no different than the catholic church destroying/altering all kinds of ancient art because they saw it as pornographic. Many of history's masterpieces have been damaged or even destroyed in the name of censorship. I see no difference here.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Aug. 3, 2017 11:27 a.m.

    ""Judge Birotte's denial of VidAngel's motion today was based purely on procedural grounds and not on the merits of our case," Harmon said"

    Which tells us that VidAngel and their attorney's are out of their league at this level.