Utah Movie Filtering Company 'VidAngel' in a Lawsuit with Hollywood

[accadacca]

On June 12, 2016, production companies such as Lucasfilm, 20th Century Fox, Disney, and Warner Bros. have filed suit against VidAngel citing unlicensed video streaming. VidAngel's defense is that members actually own a digital copy the film when they stream it for $20 and VidAngel will buy it back for $19 and have a right to filter content under the Family Home Movie Act of 2005. VidAngel has filed a counterclaim against the companies and the preliminary hearing was held on November 14, 2016. During this hearing, the judge made no immediate ruling. The next hearing is scheduled on December 16, 2016.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TZRTkRgAFc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBoB1A68eYo

https://www.vidangel.com

[tallsteve]

Call me prudish but, I actually really like VidAngel and we use it all the time, plus I was fortunate to have been cast in one of their commercials this past spring. Fun experience. Their streaming service has been stellar and I hope they win out.

[Iceaxe]

If found legal VidAngel's business model could be a disaster for the movie and music industry. Someone could buy up every movie DVD or music CD ever produced and stream them for one penny by saying they were selling the disc for $1 and buying it back for .99 cents. It should be an interesting case as technically it would be legal, but in reality it would be little more than thief of intellectual property.

[Sombeech]

If found legal VidAngel's business model could be a disaster for the movie and music industry. Someone could buy up every movie DVD or music CD ever produced and stream them for one penny by saying they were selling the disc for $1 and buying it back for .99 cents. It should be an interesting case as technically it would be legal, but in reality it would be little more than thief of intellectual property.


Isn't this a similar argument to what people said about radio music killing the music industry? The studios bought the album (except when they received it free for promotional use) and then "streamed" it out to the freebie hippie lazy radio listeners without paying.

I'm in full support of companies like VidAngel. Thanks to WikiLeaks, we know the secret contracts these huge monopolies have made, thus making it easy for them to block companies like VidAngel to proceed while obeying the law.

And every time I hear of a big movie or music studio whining about how much their revenues are going to take a hit because of these new technologies, and not because their content sucks, it just makes me want to download another torrent.

Who was it a few years ago that did something similar, except it wasn't streaming, it was taking the actual video media home that had already been edited? They had quite a battle too.

[devo_stevo]

Who was it a few years ago that did something similar, except it wasn't streaming, it was taking the actual video media home that had already been edited? They had quite a battle too.

There was Clean Flicks. I'm not sure that's the one you're talking about though as I never used them so I'm not sure how it worked.

[qedcook]

There was Clean Flicks.

Supposedly Clean Flicks shouldn't have lost the legal battle (but they did lose) because they didn't actually alter the disc in any way. The player just skipped ahead how every many seconds it was supposed to.

[devo_stevo]

That's right. I remember now. That was a brilliant idea, I thought at the time, but I never did get one or try it out.

I miss the old days when they would just show an awesome movie on the TV on Saturday afternoon that was all edited and cleaned up. You know, so that you could record it on your favorite VHS tape and watch it a million times. Like I did with Ghostbusters as a kid.

Those were good days.

[double moo]

As a kid my old man used to tell us we didn't watch R rated movies because we should support them with our money. If enough people didn't watch them they would stop making them. CleanFlicks, and now these guys, are not only suporting them, them have found a way to make a buck off the backs of them. Seems like you are just giving in while funding the industry you have moral differences with.

[rockgremlin]

As a kid my old man used to tell us we didn't watch R rated movies because we should support them with our money. If enough people didn't watch them they would stop making them. CleanFlicks, and now these guys, are not only suporting them, them have found a way to make a buck off the backs of them. Seems like you are just giving in while funding the industry you have moral differences with.

Very good point...one that most folks overlook.

[devo_stevo]

But, but, but I really wanted to see Deadpool.

That is a good point double moo. It's also the reason that I haven't used those services. Honestly, I don't care what you or anyone else watches, but every time that I watch an R rated movie, I walk away disappointed and feeling a bit like I was just abused for 2 hours. Well, maybe not every time. I think that some R rated movies should be seen. I remember my parents took us to Schindler's List because they thought it was an important part of history for us to be aware of. I agree, and there are others that fit in that same category. Also, The Matrix was awesome. The first one. But overall, they don't do it for me, so I don't want to watch something that has been cut to ribbons and might not make any sense just to fit in with the cool kids.

[uintafly]

If found legal VidAngel's business model could be a disaster for the movie and music industry. Someone could buy up every movie DVD or music CD ever produced and stream them for one penny by saying they were selling the disc for $1 and buying it back for .99 cents. It should be an interesting case as technically it would be legal, but in reality it would be little more than thief of intellectual property.

Yeah, it doesn't really sound like they are arguing about the editing part,but just the illegal streaming.

[double moo]

Personally Ihave no problems with R rated movies... other thna now a days they get an R too easily and my chances of seeing good titty shots are minimized. I also think that the clean flix and others are in fact bastardizing anothers art, or intelligent property, for their own gain. If you are not willing to sit through their movies, then make something better, or at least more to your tastes. There are a lot of LDS films put out that pretty much suck balls. They tend to spend their cellulose on copying gags from past movies others made - plagerize what you are too creatively inept to produce, Jesusify the rest into a formulaic snoozer that only the hardcore true believers can stomach. Sad really... I hope the do not prevail in court.

[rockgremlin]

Personally Ihave no problems with R rated movies... other thna now a days they get an R too easily and my chances of seeing good titty shots are minimized. I also think that the clean flix and others are in fact bastardizing anothers art, or intelligent property, for their own gain. If you are not willing to sit through their movies, then make something better, or at least more to your tastes. There are a lot of LDS films put out that pretty much suck balls. They tend to spend their cellulose on copying gags from past movies others made - plagerize what you are too creatively inept to produce, Jesusify the rest into a formulaic snoozer that only the hardcore true believers can stomach. Sad really... I hope the do not prevail in court.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I have a friend in the movie industry and he hates these clean flix places. Also agrees that it's bastardizing someone's art in the name of imposing their own morals and religious beliefs.

If you don't agree with rated R movies, don't watch them...instead of trying to doctor them up to make them compatible with your values.

Why not put some clothes on the statute of Michelangelo's David while we're at it?

[jman]

Couldn't have said it better myself. I have a friend in the movie industry and he hates these clean flix places. Also agrees that it's bastardizing someone's art in the name of imposing their own morals and religious beliefs.

If you don't agree with rated R movies, don't watch them...instead of trying to doctor them up to make them compatible with your values.

Why not put some clothes on the statute of Michelangelo's David while we're at it?

I dunno about that.

Parents know exactly what the Michelangelo statue is about and they know going into what to expect. Most people don't want to change that. As it is a public setting. Movies is a private setting. Big difference.

If parents want to edit out a swear word or something else, what's the big deal?

And sure they can bastardize all they want, that is their prerogative as a parent. No issue there.

Why not let your 10yr old boy and 8yr old girl go with you to the strip club to see the everything? Is their a difference between this and movies? Both are for entertainment purposes.

Sure, when they are 18, let them go crazy as they mature. That is their decision. But if I had a kids, I'm going to be controlling what comes in the house until the move out. And of course, kids will always find a way to watch and do things (cause I did). But that doesn't mean I won't try.

Besides, since Double Moo brought up religion - is the real issue here with a persons religious belief and not the red herring of "censorship" and parental discretion??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Iceaxe]

My vote is don't mess with some else's art... period!

My opionion and $6.95 will get you a low fat mocha latte at Starbucks.

[accadacca]

VidAngel has temporarily stopped streaming filtered movies.

VidAngel is requesting an emergency stay from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and, if successful, “the movies will likely be back up within two weeks.”

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865670178/VidAngel-has-temporarily-stopped-streaming-filtered-movies-Here7s-why.html

[accadacca]

Long arm of the law...

Federal appeals court rejects VidAngel’s request to let it filter movies

[devo_stevo]

Yeah, I don't see these guys winning this one. On the bright side, they just recently dumped a bunch of money into a headquarters building in Provo. So they do have that debt to deal with. FUN!

On one hand, I like what they are doing and on the other, I think that if the movie has to be filtered for you to feel ok about watching it, you should just not watch it. Let's be honest here, if you don't see every movie that comes along, you'll be just fine. The conversations about the latest movie at the water cooler don't last long and soon, everyone will forget that you're the only one in the office that didn't see that rated R movie. It'll be ok.

[Brian in SLC]

I know a few folks who enjoy the vidangel products.

Same ones who's kids play Halo 3 and Call of Duty.

I've never understood the need to censure a few f bombs and nekkid boobies but allowing the level of violence that kids see.

Watched my 9 y.o. nephew play video games. Whew. That's some cra cra shiz. Of course he destroyed me. Got him back when I took him skiing at Alta...

Hasn't the Oscars awarded best picture to a string of R rated movies? While, overall, PG and PG-13 rake in more money at the box office?

Interesting topic...I'm also in the "don't alter someone else's art" category, but, if you want to fast forward through the "Tit"-anic scene with a booby shot (oh, the horror!), no issue with that. Or, tell the kids to close their eyes...

[qedcook]

It shouldn't matter how someone "feels" about filtering movies. What matters is what the law says is allowed. What aspect of VidAngel's business is illegal? The question is whether buying and then immediately selling back a product is illegal. In the strictest interpretation of the law, the answer is no. But in the spirit of the law? I guess the courts will decide...

[Brian in SLC]

It shouldn't matter how someone "feels" about filtering movies. What matters is what the law says is allowed. What aspect of VidAngel's business is illegal? The question is whether buying and then immediately selling back a product is illegal. In the strictest interpretation of the law, the answer is no. But in the spirit of the law? I guess the courts will decide...

Aren't they really just streaming video without a license?

A person who "buys" the product never actually receives a physical copy, right?

I think they're trying to dive through a loophole that doesn't really exist, or, is undefined to the point of requiring a court to decide.

Actually, if it doesn't "feel" right, isn't that part of the "reasonable man" argument?

Honestly, I think its too bad a company can't work out a deal with studios to filter the content on the same level as choosing to view a foreign film with subtitles or dubbed. But, all parties would agree and licensing would get paid for.

Otherwise, you're really making money off of someone else's work product without their benefit. I think that's called theft.