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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
Geez, why not take it up with the Quorum of the Seventy? Is there no justice
for those who are thinking right?
to: imsmarterthanyouYou 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?
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.
""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.