Thoughts from other comments:1. A law allowing filtering services
already exists. It's called the family movie act. It is pretty clear, and
really doesn't need clarification. It says that filtering is legal,
including on digital formats, as long as you don't brake other copyright
laws. Vidangel wants it changed to justify their braking of other laws.2.
Filtering is not the same as altering a work. filtering, when done according
to the law, is the same thing as putting a sticky note over the objectionable
parts of a painting. the painting was not altered. just obstructed from view.
it is essentially fast-forwarding the parts you don't like.3. Not
all filtering companies have been sued out of existence. Only the ones that
were breaking other copyright laws. Clearplay is still in business and new
companies are cropping up like Play It My Way. These companies do it right,
allowing Disney to get their full due.4. Cloud based filtering is also on
iffy legal grounds, because it would have to be streamed to the cloud and
streamed back from the cloud, making it being streamed through a "third
party" that was not licensed to stream.
Liquidation of assets being....?All the customer data of VidAngel?
Yay, I can't wait for Hollywood to see I once
supported a company's illegal activity in pursuit of wanting to watch clean
films. And I can't wait to get on mailing lists of all
kinds.Oh well, it's all in my wife's name. She wanted the
service. I am of the slant that I just don't see the film period. But
then again, I don't watch much of anything anyway. Most of what is made is
@Weston Jurney - "I don't recall the exact numbers, but
approximately:- two-thirds of all movie releases are rated
"R"- two-thirds of Hollywood profits are made on movies
rated "PG," or "PG-13."Someone in the industry
isn't very good at filling in the dots."Since the current
ratings system came to be, about 57% of movies are rated R. Not sure how
that's changed recently. But from 1995-present, 48% of box office has gone
to PG-13 movies, and 27% to R-rated movies. I'm not sure where your numbers
are from, but this is for grosses, not "profits." The two are not the
same thing.Horror movies make huge profits on low budgets, and many
are rated R. It's not about the total; it's about the type of movie.
Some movies need to be rated R or their target audience will see the product as
sanitized. You need not agree, but just making everything palatable to the
Elder's Quorum President isn't a solution.
Joke’s on Hollywood. As if VidAngel has millions. They’ll file for
bankruptcy and liquidate their assets. There are multiple protections for
businesses that file if they set up their corporation correctly. Then they can
reorganize and open up again just like Kmart and continue to let people rent
their filters from them - which isn’t illegal.
I wish this David vs Goliath situation was different because I believe most
people love a filtering option like VA (me included). I personally
think they should offer an app or cloud-based service that targets the device
that the content is consumed on vs trying to modify the content and then serve
it directly.Why not stream the content to the cloud in real time,
apply filters and then serve the content back through an Apple TV or Roku App?
Then VA becomes a pass through and owns nothing.What about
cloud-based filtering from another country direct to an app?There
has to be a better way, no?
@Bigger Bubba wrote,"I thought this article was about VidAngel.
Yet we have comments from Washington telling us that it is wrong for a Christian
baker to refuse to make a gay wedding cake."Please read it
again. Do note that I was pointing out the irony of someone objecting to
having to pick a different movie but not seeing a problem in telling someone to
pick a different baker---I made no judgment on whether this latter behavior was
"wrong" or not. And also note that there is no such thing as a "gay
wedding cake". There are wedding cakes served at receptions following
weddings of straight people and there are wedding cakes served at receptions
following weddings of gay people. The product is the same; the difference is
the people who are being served or told to go elsewhere.But yes, the
"buying and selling back" was a sham, because no tangible video
recording ever changed hands. And further, claiming that you were selling and
then buying back an item meant that you and the buyer each owed sales tax to the
state of Utah on every transaction.
I'll never get why the morality police feel they should be free to change a
copyrighted work at will to placate their delicate sensibilities. It
doesn't matter what you feel about Hollywood, or sex, or violence, or
naughty words. You didn't create the work, therefore you can't alter
its content and sell copies without the consent of the holder of the copyright.
It isn't complicated. There are plenty of clean movies to watch if you
It's ironic to me that the plaintiff set up to benefit from this case is
Disney all while folks lamenting on this thread about how this is an indictment
on the values of Hollywood are likely the same folks DEVOTED to Disney, its
films, parks, shows and products. Methinks the "values" of these
performative moralizers is inconsistent and in question. Finally,
making art that has content you don't like isn't the same as forcing
you to watch it. You aren't entitled to watch every movie free of the
content you don't want in it. You may view or reject movies of your own
free will and accord based on what you want to do.
I don't recall the exact numbers, but approximately:-
two-thirds of all movie releases are rated "R"- two-thirds
of Hollywood profits are made on movies rated "PG," or
"PG-13."Someone in the industry isn't very good at
filling in the dots.
H8Red said, "Why do they insist that we watch or listen to stuff we
don't want?"As others have pointed out, nobody is forcing
you do anything. You don't like the movie, don't watch it. It's
a very simple concept.
Again, this case was not about filtering. There are other companies who offering
filtering services, using officially licensed content, who are not being sued
(VidAngel itself now included). VidAngel is being sued for ripping and streaming
movies without permission. From the article: "VidAngel was
found to have infringed on copyright protections twice — first by
"ripping" or bypassing security protections of commercially produced
DVD/Blu-ray videos, and then again when it made copies for streaming the content
to VidAngel customers."Streaming services pay substantial
licensing fees to provide content to customers. VidAngel circumvented this by
buying physical copies of movies, creating digital versions of these movies,
"selling" the movies to their customers with streaming rights, and
allowing the customers to sell back the movie (which they never actually
possessed)–effectively creating their own rental service without a
licensing agreement. This is against the law and why the company lost in court.
What they did is no different than opening a movie theater without paying
the copyright owner, which is also illegal.
I have followed this case off and on; and it is 100% clear the VidAngel has
routinely violated copyright laws and infringed in the rights of the studios.BUT! It is sad that is the case. Every single time any sort of
business pops up to fill a specific market (in home viewing of movies that are
cleaned up for family values, whether purchase, rent, or streaming); the studios
litigate those companies into non-existence. Even when those companies were
clearly not violating copyright laws at all and simply following "fair
use" and "first sale" under copyright laws.Hollywood
routinely licenses cleaned up movies for TV broadcast or special viewing venues
such as onboard entertainment with the airlines. But, they refuse to allow any
sort of such licensing for in-home viewing.There is a big market
that VidAngel (and a dozen other such small businesses have tried to fill); but
every single time; Hollywood smacks them down with lawsuits.If
Hollywood would have granted licensing to VidAngel as they first requested,
there would have been no infringement. But, once denied, VidAngel did try to
find loopholes in the laws; and were doing very dubious things which were
Wow. I thought this article was about VidAngel. Yet we have comments from
Washington telling us that it is wrong for a Christian baker to refuse to make a
gay wedding cake. And we have comments from California telling us that Utah
County is the business fraud capitol of the United States. I guess some people
can leave Utah, but they can't leave Utah behind.As for
VidAngel, I like it. I currently use it, but I think it is going down. Their
prior business model of "buying and selling back" videos for $1 seemed
like slight of hand tomfoolery. Too bad they never started out with the current
business model they are using.
A California Judge appointed by Barack Obama ruling in favor of Hollywood and
the movie industry against people wishing to watch movies without garbage. Is
this at ALL surprising to anyone? The thing I don't understand
is that the movie itself is not altered in any way shape or form, it's the
presentation of the movie that is shown or not shown or heard of not heard by
the decision of the viewer who has PAID!!! for the streaming access to the
unaltered movie, just like anyone else, and has chosen to skip parts of it. You rent/purchase the movie from Amazon or Netflix and then choose what
you want or don't want. THEY ARE GETTING THEIR MONEY, WHAT IS THEIR
PROBLEM? Why do they insist that we watch or listen to stuff we
don't want? Isn't ti better for them if I rent/purchase a movie and
what it how I want as opposed to not renting/purchasing at all? Makes no
The same people who have no problem telling gay people to just find another
bakery to make their wedding cake don't like that advice when they are told
to just find a different movie to watch.
I question the desire by some to have the government mandate that a private
business show clean versions of their product. What part of the
constitution would that fall under? Protecting the general welfare, that's
mentioned in the "preamble"? How would that work for certain
bakers or florists that don't want to have their wares being forced to
promote activities or behavior that violates their religious beliefs?
I have used and like VidAngel. However, this case is actually not about
filtering or censorship. Its about the fact that VidAngel's previous
business model included ripping DVD's and illegally streaming them to
customers. I believe this is a violation of the law.VidAngel's
current model of filtering LEGAL streaming services (I believe) is within the
law and such a practice will be upheld. The only problem is I dont know if
VidAngel can stay afloat while paying the penalties of their previous business
model. It's a shame they didn't start with the latter model to begin
Utah County/rural Utah folks have specific moral demands in almost
everything...... which is a tiny minority on this planet. I find it as no
surprise that it is the fraud capital of the USA, always has been.
"VidAngel" is just another lawless Utah County business that got exposed
is all. Nobody is surprised in the least.
Unless we stop patronizing movies and the movie industry with bad movies they
will continue to make them. I have Clear Play and love it. I did
not use Vid Angel but some of my kids families did and loved it. I do not see
an issue with paying for a movie and then watching only the portions of it that
I want to see. But I guess the Movie industry does not see that there are other
people that like to see things that offend others. I do not think anyone is
telling them to stop making these movies but to let us view what parts we want.
Again any industry will make and or produce anything that will sell
and make them money. That is why the movie, porn and drug industry thrives so
much. Along with fast food, alcohol, Tobacco, magazines, soda, candy, smart
phones, online shopping, etc. The good comes with the bad. Again if we do not
like it then we need to stop supporting it. How society's
values have changed in the past 50 years. Some for the better but most for the
Seems like Disney should buy VidAngel and make the tech available on all Disney
properties. Talk about a coup, financially!
@ute alumni - Salt Lake City, UTJune 11, 2019 7:04 a.m.Walt
can’t be happy. Hollywood is so stupid. They continue to ignore and
actively disrespect those that like movies without filth.Shaun no one
would force you to watch a cleaned up version. It works both ways.But
moral lacking Hollywood doesn’t care.Pathetic. Libs love their
way, one way, or nothing."Then Utah conservatives should make
those movies if there's such a demand. They'd make billions, right? Or
does that take a capital investment and a risk to recoup that investment. This
isn't a case of moral values. This is a case of Utah conservatives breaking
the law, repeatedly, to make a buck.
At the end of the day, Disney and the other major companies aren't really
against filtering or "preserving" the artist's work, they want the
monopoly on filtering services, and you can expect them to release their own
soon after this whole VidAngel thing is done.
Back Talk - Federal Way, WAVery disappointing case. "I wish we could get a federal law that specifically allows "filtering
services" on owned copies of these movies or force the movie companys to
provide these services."Another Republican wanting bigger
government to intrude on private enterprises.Biscuit - , 00"Too bad movies are so foul that a business has to clean them up. I for
one can't stand the sex and swearing in movies, it distracts from flow of
the show."So, if you object, why do you go see the movies?
Hypocrite?Swanfam - Sandy, UT"If airlines can edit films,
without concern about artistic sensibilities, then the public should also have
the right to alter duly purchased films." They pay for the
rights and get studio approval.ERB - Eagle Mountain, UT"When a movie has sex scenes or swearing, my first thought is the writers
didn’t have enough talent to make the story interesting without the sex or
swearing. Lack of talent=lots of swearing or skimpy clothing."You watch the untalented story line writing because??? Maybe you
shouldn't go to movies with bad writing, nudity and whatever else you
disagree with...but then, there is the nudity. Right?
I've been a pro musician and commercial photographer since the late 1970s
and have had my works pirated many times by thieves like VidAngel. What is great
about the USA, is the copyright laws are iron clad. The many times my artist
works were stolen, I never had to sue anyone!!!!! The culprits hired any
attorney that told them to "settle while it is less expensive".......and
EVERY DARN TIME they did, and to my ever-so handsome benefit. Ya can't
pirate an artist folks! It is against the law!!!!!!Now, reading all
these uninformed folks commenting here is expected. If they think stuff is
"foul".......okay then.......don't watch it or listen to it. Go
watch Bugs Bunny on Nickelodeon!
If you don't like the content of movies being made and think there is a
market for "cleaner" movies start a company that makes your kind of
movies and let the marketplace decide if that is a viable option.
I to am very disappointed, I am so tired of going to or watching a movie, that
has words and scenes that are so offensive, and they detract from the story
they do not add to it. so if it is time for me to not watch movies any more,
I will be okay with that,,, a movie today, that is PG 13, 5 years ago would
have been rated R... we all have a choice of what we put into our homes, and
into our minds....choose well..
Interesting comments.......First, no one is forced to watch anything
made by Hollywood. If you don't like the sex scenes, swearing, etc, you
don't have to watch it. They have a rating system, G, PG, PG13, etc. that
tells any given viewer what they are about to see or hear in the movie. At that
point, it is your choice not watch or not watch.Just because Vid
Angel doesn't agree with the way Hollywood makes movies, it has no legal
right to break the law to make a movie more for family viewing. That is what G
movies are for.Vid Angel could have licensed the movies from the
producers and made this entire thing a legal entity. To me, it looks like the
greed of Vid Angel was the reason they were sued. Vid Angel wanted free content
that they could turn around and charge 100% profit to the end user. If you were all honest with yourselfs.......If you made a movie and Vid Angel
used it to profit, you would expect compensation too.
Disney is really quite creepy
As much as I hate the foul content in movies, it does seem like Vid Angel went
forward with their business a bit recklessly. A little legal research ahead of
time would have told them that they were sticking their foot into a legal
quagmire before they ever started. Perhaps they knew but felt like they would
win out in the end. Just seems like a risky venture to start up a company that
is riding the fringe of law from the beginning.
Well if we learned anything over the past two years it is that artist should
have control over their work.If you don’t like the art the
best thing to do is start making art that doesn’t offend people and
hopefully make money.
The most liberal American broadcast TV network, PBS, regularly "filters"
their programming to make their offerings PG. Many of these shows are British
TV shows that contain nudity and swearing in their original form. This is also
the case with many of the international series shown on Megahertz, which are
also altered to be family friendly, and still are preceded by a parental
warning. This is done with permission of the owners of the work. To blame the
"Libs" for opposing Vidangel's socialist practice of taking movies
without license is sheer nonsense. ute alumni are silly to think otherwise.
Vidangel had a great concept, but their tampering with and reissuing
copyrighted material was wrong. It is obvious that the entertainment industry
cannot (thankfully) go back to the years of over zealous censorship, (that
killed shows like "The Smothers Brothers for their views) and were left
producing movies like Shirley Temple and "The Good Ship Lollipop", but
movie makers swung too far in the other direction, especially after they
realized that "sex sells". Perhaps the movie industry should
offer their own legal, albeit watered down version of these movies where some
scenes could be a bit worrisome to some people. Obviously there is a market for
it, and not just in Utah, either.
“The national movies companys simply need to be stopped from forcing their
"values" of foul language and nudity etc on everyone.”No one was forced. Your choice to watch or not.
When a movie has sex scenes or swearing, my first thought is the writers
didn’t have enough talent to make the story interesting without the sex or
swearing. Lack of talent=lots of swearing or skimpy clothing.
This case isn’t about filtering, it’s about illegally distributing
movies. There are other services that license content from the major studios and
legally filter to provide to customers. VidAngel tried to argue this was about
filtering but those arguments were dismissed because this isn’t about
filtering. I like that the company wants to provide cleaner versions of
shows and movies but they need to do so legally. Plus, I’ve realized most
of the things I want to watch filtered really aren’t worth watching. There
is so much quality content out there I don’t need to rely on filtering to
find good stuff.
Hollywood has become a cesspool. Disney under its Touchstone label is trampling
all that Walt stood for in entertainment. If airlines can edit films, without
concern about artistic sensibilities, then the public should also have the right
to alter duly purchased films. It only increases studio's profits.
Wish VidAngel good luck. Too bad movies are so foul that a business has to
clean them up. I for one can't stand the sex and swearing in movies, it
distracts from flow of the show. Hollywood seems to have the morals of a stray
dog and thinks this is what everybody wants in entertainment.
VidAngel had a good concept and interested customers that the big studios were
ignoring. Too bad.
Very disappointing case. I wish we could get a federal law that
specifically allows "filtering services" on owned copies of these movies
or force the movie companys to provide these services. Requiring an
"airplane" version to rent would also help.The national
movies companys simply need to be stopped from forcing their "values"
of foul language and nudity etc on everyone.